Policy and Program Studies Service

Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and 

School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE):

First-Year Findings 

2004

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DOC # 2004-01

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and 

School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE): 

First-Year Findings 

Prepared by:

SRI International:

Patrick M. Shields 

Camille Esch

Andrea Lash

Christine Padilla

Katrina Woodworth

Policy Studies Associates:

Katrina G. Laguarda

Nicholas Winter

For:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

2004
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED00CO0091 with 

SRI International. Collette Roney served as the contracting officer’s representative. The views expressed 

herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official 

endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of the Under Secretary

Eugene W. Hickok

Under Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Alan Ginsburg

Director

Program and Analytic Studies

David Goodwin

Director

March 2004

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service, Evaluation of Title I 

Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE): First-Year Findings, Washington, D.C., 

2004.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U. S. Department of Education

P. O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398; 

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in 

your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN); Those who use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833. 

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

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at 

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/tassie1/ and on the Policy and Program Studies Service Web site at 

http://www.ed.gov/ous/ppss/reports.html#title.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or 

computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 

(202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.
iii

Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................... vii

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................1

Background: Accountability Provisions of Title I ....................................................1

Overview of the Study ................................................................................................5

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

Characteristics of Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement 

under Title I in 2001-02 .............................................................................................9

How States and Districts Define Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Identify 

Schools for Improvement under Title I.....................................................................13

Alignment of Title I Accountability with Accountability Systems 

for All Schools..........................................................................................................18

Communication about Schools Identified for Improvement ....................................19

III. Support and Interventions for Low-Performing Schools and Title I 

Schools Identified for Improvement......................................................................23

District Support for School Planning and Data Use .................................................24

District Support for Professional Development .......................................................26

District Support for Resource Allocation .................................................................27

District Support for the Implementation of New Curricula......................................28

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

Special Grants...........................................................................................................29

Variation in Capacity to Provide Assistance by District Size...................................31

Public School Choice................................................................................................35

Corrective Actions and School Restructuring...........................................................38

IV. Conclusions ............................................................................................................43

References......................................................................................................................45
iv

Exhibits

Exhibit 1 Key Accountability Requirements for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 

and Identifying Schools for Improvement ......................................................3

Exhibit 2 Key Requirements for Assistance and Consequences for Schools 

and Districts Identified for Improvement, Corrective Action and 

Restructuring...................................................................................................5

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

Exhibit 4 Distributions of School Performance, for Maryland Schools

with Elementary Students.............................................................................16

Exhibit 5 Distributions of School Performance, for Louisiana Schools 

with Elementary Students.............................................................................16

Exhibit 6 Two Maryland Districts Provided Extensive Curricular Guidance ..............27

Exhibit 7 Washington State Targeted Identified Schools for the Adoption 

of New Reading Programs............................................................................27

Exhibit 8 Louisiana Provided Tools for Identified Schools to Use Data in 

Their Improvement Plans..............................................................................31

Exhibit 9 District Reports of Strategies Used to Provide Assistance to

Low-Performing Schools..............................................................................32

Exhibit 10 District Reports of Assistance Provided to Low-Performing 

Schools to Ensure Consistency of Curriculum and Instruction 

with State or District Standards ....................................................................33

Exhibit 11 Arizona Department of Education Provided Grants to “Most 

in Need” Schools...........................................................................................35

Exhibit 12 District Reports of Available Public School Choice Options.......................36

Exhibit 13 District Reports of Corrective Actions Taken with Schools 

Identified for Improvement under Title I......................................................39
v

Tables

Table 1 Schools Identified for Improvement and All Title I Schools,

by District Size and Grade Level Distributions............................................11

Table 2 Size and Poverty Distributions of Districts with at Least One 

School Identified for Improvement under Title I and All 

Districts That Receive Title I Funds.............................................................12

Table 3 Public Reporting of Disaggregated Data, Among Districts with 

a Subgroup Enrollment of 10 Percent or More, by District Size..................21

Table 4 District Rankings of School Improvement Strategies,

Among Districts with Low-Performing Schools ..........................................25

Table 5 Districts with Low-Performing Schools Reporting That Schools Had 

Access to Student Achievement Data, Disaggregated for Various 

Student Subpopulations ................................................................................26

Table 6 Reasons Schools Were Required to Adopt New Curricula, Among

Districts with Identified Schools That Reported Requiring Some or

All Schools to Adopt New Curricula............................................................29

Table 7 Strategies for Providing Assistance, as Reported by Administrators 

of Districts with Low-Performing Schools and Principals of 

Identified Schools .........................................................................................30

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

Table 9 District Reports of Challenges to Successful Implementation of 

Public School Choice, Among Districts with Schools Identified for 

Improvement under Title I............................................................................38

Table 10 District Reports of Assistance Provided to Schools in Corrective 

Action, Among Districts with Schools in Corrective Action .......................40
vi
vii

Executive Summary

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) frames a common goal for educators: to 

ensure that no child, regardless of background, is left behind by the nation’s education 

system. NCLB, the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA), strengthened accountability requirements for schools, districts and their 

states. 

This report examines the implementation of ESEA Title I accountability provisions 

in 2001-02, the first year of the three-year Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems 

and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE), and the final year in which ESEA as it 

existed prior to NCLB, was still in effect. The data reported here will serve as a baseline 

against which to track the implementation of NCLB. Subsequent TASSIE reports will 

focus on the implementation of NCLB in the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years. 

The ESEA, as reauthorized by the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of 

1994, required states to establish challenging standards, implement assessments that 

measure students’ performance against those standards and hold schools and school 

systems accountable for the achievement of all students. States were also required to 

define criteria for measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) in school performance for 

Title I schools and districts. Schools and districts that did not make AYP for two 

consecutive years were identified for improvement. This document focuses on Title I 

accountability provisions as they were implemented in 2001-02 for schools identified for 

improvement because of failure to may AYP in previous years. Specifically, it covers: 

1. Title I schools identified as in need of improvement, including how many 

there were, their characteristics, the process by which they were identified and 

how states and districts communicated with and about them.

2. Support and interventions for Title I schools identified as in need of 

improvement, including the types of support provided, efforts to offer school 

choice to students in identified schools and the corrective actions taken by 

districts in schools that did not make progress. 

Throughout, the document contrasts IASA with NCLB and comments on the 

implications of the findings for the implementation of NCLB. Evaluation methods 

included surveys of districts and Title I schools identified as in need of improvement in 

those districts, as well as case studies of a set of identified Title I schools in districts in 

five states.

Title I Schools and Districts in Need of Improvement

Numbers and Characteristics

In 2001-02, approximately 8,078 schools or 21 percent of all Title I schools 

nationwide had been identified for improvement under Title I based on previous 
viii

years’ assessment results. These identified schools were concentrated in a relatively 

small proportion (21 percent) of Title I districts. 

Schools in the nation’s very largest districts were more likely to be identified 

for improvement, compared with schools in other districts. An estimated 37 percent 

of schools in very large districts (those with enrollments over 37,740) were identified for 

improvement, twice the identification rate of 17 percent in small and medium districts. 

However, because there are relatively few very large districts and many more 

small and medium Title I districts in the nation, the largest numbers of schools 

identified for improvement were located in small and medium districts. Districts 

with enrollments below 10,449 contained 52 percent of all identified schools, and 

districts with enrollments under 3,504 contained nearly a third (32 percent) of identified 

schools. Almost two-thirds of the districts with a school identified for improvement 

under Title I were small, while very large districts represented just 3 percent of the total 

number of districts with identified schools. 

Districts with identified schools were more likely to be in the highest-poverty 

category than were Title I districts in general. Forty-four percent of all districts with 

identified schools were in the highest-poverty category (i.e., districts with poverty rates 

above 22 percent), compared with 26 percent of all Title I districts. 

How States and Districts Defined Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and 

Identified Schools for Improvement Under Title I

How states and districts defined AYP under Title I of IASA affected the number 

and types of schools identified for improvement. IASA required states to set targets for 

school performance. These targets could be absolute or relative, summarized across 

subjects and aggregated for all students at a school. NCLB, in contrast, contains more 

specific criteria for AYP, including an end point of all students achieving proficiency by 

2013-14 and accountability for the achievement of key subgroups of students. Both 

IASA and NCLB, however, place final responsibility for the details of AYP definitions in 

the hands of state and local policymakers. 

Under IASA, AYP definitions varied widely from state to state. States assessed 

AYP in different ways. Thirty-three states relied entirely on relative-growth models 

where schools made AYP if their assessment scores meet a target based on specific 

improvement compared with their past performance and often their distance from state 

performance goals. Twelve more combined some form of relative-growth model with 

requirements that schools meet an absolute performance target as well (Council of Chief 

State School Officers 2002). States also differed in the measures they adopted to assess 

school performance. 

Great variation also existed in the identification rates of schools across states. 

The difference among states in their AYP definitions was one factor, along with the 

rigor of assessments and the actual performance level of students, that accounted 

for this variation. For example, in 2000-01, based on previous years’ assessment 

results, six states reported identifying 1 percent or fewer of their Title I schools (Florida 

and Wyoming identified no schools), 10 states identified between 10 percent and 20 
ix

percent of their schools, and three states identified more than 30 percent of their schools 

(Michigan, Hawaii and Georgia) (U.S. Department of Education 2002). 

Under IASA, the majority of states relied primarily on relative-growth models 

to define AYP, sometimes causing relatively high-performing schools to be identified 

for improvement while other, lower-performing schools were not identified. Under 

NCLB, absolute measures of performance are much more important in determining AYP. 

NCLB requires that states adopt a status model for determining AYP, in which 

benchmarks are the same for all schools statewide; measures of growth (as provided for 

under the legislation’s “safe harbor” provision) will apply only if schools do not meet 

these absolute benchmarks. As states comply with this requirement, less overlap in 

performance may occur between identified and non-identified schools. 

The implementation of district identification systems, required under both 

IASA and NCLB, was proceeding slowly in 2001-02. In spring 2002, two-thirds of 

districts reported that their state had begun to review the progress of districts under a 

definition of AYP developed for the districts by the state. Of these districts, 15 percent 

reported that they were identified for improvement under Title I. 

Alignment of Title I Accountability with Accountability Systems for All 

Schools 

IASA called on states to have a single—or “unitary”—accountability system in 

which Title I students are held to the same high standards for achievement as their nonTitle I peers. Yet states without statewide assessment systems were allowed to have 

Title I-only accountability systems. NCLB requires that states use the same 

accountability system (including assessment instruments and goals for AYP) for all 

schools, Title I and non-Title I. 

In 2001-02, most states did not have unitary accountability systems that 

applied the same criteria for identification for improvement to both Title I and nonTitle I schools. 

Communication about Schools Identified for Improvement

Under IASA, states and districts were required to inform schools of their status and 

to issue individual school profiles. NCLB strengthens the reporting provisions by 

specifying that states and districts must issue “report cards” with state assessment results 

and lists of schools identified for improvement. NCLB also requires that data on student 

subgroups and the Title I improvement status of a school be reported.

Under IASA, there was a lack of clarity about the particulars of how and 

which schools are identified for improvement. Forty-one percent of principals of

schools identified for improvement in 2001-02 reported that they had not been identified 

or did not know if they had been identified for improvement. Even among principals 

who agreed with their districts or states that they were identified for improvement, almost 

a third reported some uncertainty about the criteria they would need to meet to exit 

improvement status. As AYP definitions become more standard within and across states 
x

under NCLB, state education agencies and districts may find it easier to communicate 

with schools about specific expectations for performance. 

In 2001-02, report cards were prepared and actively disseminated in almost all 

districts. In addition, public reporting of achievement data for student subgroups was 

relatively common: between one-half and two-thirds of districts that enrolled significant 

proportions of minority students, limited-English-proficient (LEP) students and students 

with disabilities reported that data were already being disaggregated for these groups, as 

well as by gender, in public reporting on schools. (Disaggregation by economically 

disadvantaged status was slightly less common, being reported by 45 percent of districts 

that enroll significant numbers of economically disadvantaged students.) State and 

district reporting often included information on state assessment results (in 97 percent of 

districts), and comparisons with other schools and districts in the state (in 81 percent of 

districts). However, reporting on the Title I school improvement status, as is now 

required under NCLB, was done much less frequently. In 2001-02, 46 percent of districts 

reported that their state reported this information, about a third reported that the district 

itself reported it, and about a third reported that schools did. 

Support and Interventions for Title I Schools Identified for Improvement

Under both IASA and NCLB, Title I identified schools must develop school plans, 

are eligible for assistance and face increasingly strong consequences the longer they do 

not make AYP. NCLB adds a much greater emphasis on parental choice by providing 

options for parents to move their children to schools not identified as in need of 

improvement and to choose supplemental educational services for their children. NCLB 

also provides more specific guidance regarding schools in corrective action and those 

subject to restructuring, requiring districts to implement one of the steps outlined in the 

legislation. 

In 2001-02, districts were actively seeking to support schools identified for 

improvement, most commonly through approaches such as school planning, use of 

student achievement data to plan and monitor progress and professional 

development for teachers. 

• Ninety-five percent of districts with low-performing schools assigned staff 

to work with schools to analyze student achievement data to identify the 

specific academic problems that caused the school to be identified. 

• Eighty-four percent assigned staff to work with schools to identify researchbased improvement strategies. 

• Half of districts with low-performing schools reported assisting these 

schools by placing a “major focus” on increasing the quality and quantity of 

professional development. 

• Seventy percent of these districts reported assigning staff to work with 

schools to analyze and revise the school’s budget so that school resources 

were effectively allocated for the activities that were most likely to increase 

student performance. 
xi

• Similarly, 69 percent of districts with low-performing schools reported 

assigning staff to work with schools to review staffing plans. 

• Almost 65 percent of districts with low-performing schools required some 

or all of their schools to adopt new reading and language arts curricula in the 

last three years; more than 50 percent required the adoption of new math 

curricula. 

However, few identified schools were receiving resource-intensive support, 

such as coaches or distinguished educators. Fewer than half of all identified schools 

reported receiving assistance from school support teams or additional staff assigned to 

provide professional development or coach the principal. Overall, larger districts with 

low-performing schools were more likely than smaller districts to report the provision of 

resource-intensive support, including school support teams, special grants, full-time staff 

developers and mentors for principals. Similarly, larger districts were more likely than 

smaller districts to provide more resource-intensive types of support for curriculum 

alignment. Most districts, regardless of size, do appear to have the capacity to pursue 

less-resource-intensive strategies, such as helping schools develop school plans, 

providing support for professional development and resource reallocation or requiring 

schools to adopt new curricula.

District policy regarding support and assistance did not always distinguish between 

schools identified for improvement under Title I and other low-performing schools—or 

even all schools. 

School Choice 

Nationwide, 41 percent of all Title I districts (an estimated 4,521) reported 

offering some sort of public school choice option during the 2001-02 school year. 

For Title I under IASA, Congress added requirements in 1999 and 2000 that school 

choice be offered to students in certain Title I schools. A little more than half (54 

percent) of districts (approximately 1,217) with identified Title I schools offered public 

school choice during the 2001-02 school year. However, these choice options did not 

necessarily meet the criteria now specified under NCLB that parents be notified of choice 

options before the start of the school year and that transferring students be provided with 

transportation to nonidentified schools. 

Under IASA, few districts provided parents of students in identified schools with 

the choice to transfer to alternative public schools with transportation provided in 2001-

02. Only 7 percent of all Title I districts and 12 percent of districts with schools 

identified for improvement offered transfers to an alternate public school within the 

district, with transportation provided. 

In making choice options available to parents, districts with identified Title I 

schools often faced structural challenges: lack of space in alternate schools, lack of 

transportation to alternate schools and the lack of alternate schools within the 

district. The new federal requirements for Title I choice under NCLB, unlike the earlier 

IASA policies, do not exempt districts facing these obstacles from the requirement to 

offer choice.
xii

Corrective Actions and School Restructuring 

Districts, allowed to define corrective actions locally under IASA, were much 

more likely to take actions with identified schools that might be characterized as 

assistance rather than as sanctions in 2001-02. Districts were required to take 

corrective actions with schools during their third year in improvement status. Districts 

most frequently took three corrective actions: requiring the implementation of a new 

research-based curriculum (49 percent), extending the school day or year (39 percent) 

and appointing an outside expert to advise the school (32 percent). These are among the 

corrective actions in NCLB that districts must select from for schools that continue to not 

make AYP. Larger districts were more likely than smaller districts to report that 

corrective-action status schools receive greater monitoring and oversight, more intensive 

support from technical assistance providers and larger school improvement grants than 

other schools identified for improvement.

Overall, only 2 percent of districts with identified schools imposed any one 

action associated with restructuring under NCLB, and fewer than 5 percent of 

districts that were required to take corrective actions with identified Title I schools 

did so. In both cases, these more severe actions were taken only in districts where 

the accountability system had been in place at least three years. 

Under IASA, districts were not required to take corrective actions if their states did 

not yet have an assessment system approved under Title I, and only 21 states had these 

final assessment systems in place as of October 2002. Unlike IASA, NCLB requires 

districts to impose corrective actions no matter what the Title I approval status of their 

state’s assessment and accountability systems. Moreover, NCLB additionally requires 

that districts begin to plan for “restructuring” actions (e.g., replacing the principal and 

staff) in schools that do not make AYP for three years after being identified for 

improvement. As a result, these stronger consequences may occur more commonly under 

NCLB. 

Conclusions

Findings from the first year (2001-02) of the Evaluation of Title I Accountability 

Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE) suggest that states, districts, and 

schools are well positioned to meet many of the challenges of implementing rigorous 

accountability systems for NCLB but will need to make substantial changes to meet 

certain provisions of the law. Specifically, in terms of progress, the evaluation found:

• Nearly all states and districts had standards that applied to all students, had or 

were developing assessment systems aligned with those standards and had 

processes in place for identifying low-performing schools. 

• Most states and districts had mechanisms—such as school report cards—for 

informing parents and the public about the achievement of students in individual 

schools. 

• In most places, publicly reported data were already being disaggregated by 

student subpopulations, although not by all subgroups required under NCLB. 
xiii

• Most districts were actively seeking to support schools identified for 

improvement, especially through school planning, the use of assessment data for 

decision-making, and teacher professional development.

• Many states and districts already were providing some school choice options to 

parents, often through districtwide open enrollment policies. 

At the same time, in other areas, states and districts have a long way to go to meet 

both the letter and the spirit of NCLB. For instance, in 2001-02:

• Many states continued to operate accountability systems that applied different 

standards to Title I schools.

• The criteria used to identify schools for improvement under Title I varied 

widely from state to state, and some states relied heavily on measures of growth 

in student achievement to assess school performance. 

• Few states had fully implemented practices for identifying low-performing 

districts under Title I.

• School staffs in particular were often confused about the specifics of the 

identification process and of how and whether their school was identified for 

improvement. 

• Few schools were receiving resource-intensive support, such as coaches or 

distinguished educators. 

• Many district efforts to support low-performing schools made little distinction 

between schools identified under Title I and other low-performing schools. 

• Most districts did not have experience implementing the corrective action 

strategies for schools outlined in NCLB.

• State and district efforts to provide parental choice often would not meet the 

requirements in NCLB. 

The Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts 

(TASSIE) will continue to track state, district and school implementation of the Title I 

accountability requirements in the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years. Findings reported 

here profile the status of implementation just prior to NCLB compared to the 

expectations NCLB sets for Title I accountability. Future reports will further describe the 

changes in state, district and school practice that occur under NCLB. 
xiv
1

I Introduction

Local practitioners and state policymakers are focused on implementing the No 

Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (P.L. 107-110), which in 2001 reauthorized the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). At the same time, federal policymakers are working to help educators meet both the letter and the spirit of the law: to 

ensure that no child, regardless of background, is left behind by the nation’s education 

system. 

This document reports the key findings from the first year of the Evaluation of 

Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE), which 

examines districts’ and schools’ implementation of Title I of ESEA’s accountability 

provisions. The data reported here were collected during the 2001-02 school year and 

serve as a baseline against which to track the implementation of NCLB. The 2001-02 

school year was the last year in which the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA—entitled the 

Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) (P.L. 103-382)—was still in effect. 

NCLB provisions began to take effect in the 2002-03 school year. Subsequent 

TASSIE reports will focus on the implementation of NCLB in the 2002-03 and 2003-04 

school years. This document focuses on key issues that have implications for the 

implementation of NCLB: the process by which schools receiving Title I funds are 

identified as being in need of improvement, which schools are identified, how districts 

support identified schools and what interventions are taken with identified schools.

Background: Accountability Provisions of Title I

The Improving America’s Schools Act (1994) introduced a standards-based 

accountability system into the Title I program. IASA required states to establish 

challenging standards, implement assessments that measure students’ performance 

against those standards and hold schools and school systems accountable for the 

achievement of all students. IASA also required states to define criteria for measuring 

adequate yearly progress (AYP) in school performance for Title I schools and districts. 

Schools and districts that did not make AYP for two consecutive years were identified for 

improvement. These schools were required to develop school improvement plans and 

were to be provided with technical assistance. Schools that continued to not make AYP 

for more than two consecutive years became subject to a series of more serious 

“corrective actions.” 

The implementation of the IASA legislation and of the broader standards-based 

reform movement has been far-reaching: nearly all states have adopted standards, created 

assessment systems aligned with these standards and implemented accountability 

measures for school performance. Yet, progress toward meeting both the letter and spirit 

of IASA was mixed. Periodic shifts in assessment measures limited the number of states 

that could track student performance over a number of years (Manise, Blank and Dardine 

2001). As states struggled to meet federal expectations, they settled on quite different 
2

definitions of what it means for a school to make AYP. Partially as a result of these 

differences, the proportions of schools identified for improvement varied from a few 

percent in certain states to more than 70 percent in others (U.S. Department of Education 

2001). States have also struggled to coordinate and align their own accountability 

provisions with those called for in IASA. In many states, schools found themselves 

subject to both state and federal systems of accountability—one for the state and one for 

Title I (O’Day 1999). By school year 2001-02, IASA’s final year, only 21 states had 

achieved final approval from the U.S. Department of Education for their assessment 

systems. 

The No Child Left Behind Act seeks to address the shortcomings and uneven 

implementation of accountability systems under Title I. NCLB follows the basic 

philosophy of IASA: high standards for all students, establishment of clear performance 

goals and accountability for results. Yet, the new legislation clarifies a number of 

provisions, adds rigor to AYP definitions and includes requirements that ensure more 

uniformity across states. 

Exhibit 1 compares the key Title I accountability provisions regarding the definition 

of AYP and the identification of schools identified as in need of improvement in IASA to 

those in NCLB. Both laws have the same basic structure for accountability: 

establishment of a definition of AYP toward state goals and the identification of schools 

and districts that do not meet those goals. There are some important differences, 

however. Under NCLB, states will have to test all students in each of grades 3 through 8 

annually, as well as once between grades 10 and 12, in reading or language arts and 

mathematics by 2005-06, and in science by 2007-08 (although NCLB does not require 

that science assessments be used to determine AYP). IASA had required testing only in 

mathematics and reading, and only once in each of the three grade spans (elementary, 

middle, and high school). Under NCLB, states must also follow more specific 

requirements for defining AYP. NCLB requires AYP definitions based on goals of all 

students reaching proficiency in a specified time period, where IASA did not require 

goals for all students reaching proficiency or end dates for reaching student achievement 

goals. To AYP calculations based primarily on state assessment results in reading or 

language arts and mathematics, NCLB adds minimum assessment participation rates of

95 percent, graduation rates for high schools and at least one other state-selected 

academic indicator for elementary and middle schools. States are required to establish 

baseline measures using test data from the 2001-02 school year for both reading or 

language arts and mathematics. States must then ensure that all students reach statedefined proficiency levels in reading and mathematics in 12 years or by the 2013-14 

school year. In addition, states must set intermediate goals between 2002-03 and 2013-

14 that will be used to gauge schools’ AYP. Unlike IASA, NCLB requires that states 

hold schools accountable for reaching AYP targets for students in each major subgroup at 

the school (major racial and ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students, students 

with disabilities and LEP students). 
3

Exhibit 1: Key Accountability Requirements for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 

and Identifying Schools for Improvement

Requirements IASA NCLB

Performance 

measures used 

in AYP 

definitions

Annual state assessments in reading 

or language arts and math at least 

once in each of the following grade 

spans: 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. States 

could include additional indicators. 

Annual state assessments in reading or language arts 

and math. Assessments must be administered at least 

once in grades 3-5 and 6-9 until 2005-06 when all 

grades 3-8 must be assessed; assessments also must 

be administered at least once in grades 10-12. 

Assessment participation rates, graduation rates, and 

another academic indicator for elementary and 

middle schools. States can include additional 

indicators.

Criteria for 

state 

definitions of 

AYP for 

schools

Targets for school performance could 

be absolute or relative, summarized 

across subjects or not.

No timeline for gains or students 

reaching proficiency.

Results could be aggregated for all 

students or disaggregated by student 

groups.

Districts could use additional criteria 

to add or delete schools from state 

lists.

Must include absolute targets for each measure of 

school performance. Participation rate targets must 

be at least 95 percent.

Must provide for all students reaching proficiency 

within 12 years, set annual objectives and 

intermediate goals. Baseline must be calculated 

following specific formula.

Must include separate, absolute targets for key 

groups of students (all, major racial and ethnic 

groups, economically disadvantaged students, 

students with disabilities, and LEP students). 

Districts may use additional criteria to add, but not 

subtract, schools to state lists of identified schools.

AYP for 

districts

States created definitions for district 

AYP based on state assessments in 

reading and math.

Formula for AYP for districts same as for schools. 

Identification 

of schools for 

improvement, 

corrective 

action and 

restructuring

Schools that do not make AYP:

• For two consecutive years were 

identified as in need of 

improvement under Title I.

• After three years in improvement 

status were identified for 

corrective action.

Schools that do not make AYP:

• For two consecutive years are identified as in need 

of improvement under Title I.

• For four years are identified for corrective action.

• For five and six years are identified for 

restructuring (planning for restructuring for one 

year, then restructuring the following year).

Identification 

of districts for 

improvement

Districts that did not make AYP

for two consecutive years were 

identified as in need of improvement 

under Title I.

After four years of improvement 

status were identified for corrective 

action under Title I.

Districts that do not make AYP for two consecutive 

years are identified as in need of improvement under 

Title I.

Districts that do not make AYP for four years are 

identified for corrective action under Title I.
4

Exhibit 1: Key Accountability Requirements for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 

and Identifying Schools for Improvement (Concluded)

Requirements IASA NCLB

Single, 

statewide 

system

States with a statewide assessment 

required to apply AYP definitions to 

all schools in the state. Other states 

allowed to implement assessment and 

accountability systems only for 

Title I. 

All students must be assessed by the same state 

assessment and AYP definitions must apply to all 

schools in the state, Title I and non-Title I.

Public 

reporting

Districts required to publish 

“individual school profiles.” 

State and district report cards required to include 

information on state assessment results, schools and 

districts identified for improvement, and certain 

other information. 

Exhibit 2 compares the key provisions regarding assistance to and consequences for 

schools and districts identified as in need of improvement in IASA to those in NCLB. 

Again there are many similarities: under both IASA and NCLB identified schools must 

develop school plans, are eligible for assistance, and face increasingly stronger 

consequences the longer they do not make AYP. Yet, NCLB also places much greater 

emphasis on parental choice, providing options for parents to move their children to 

schools not identified as in need of improvement and to choose supplemental educational 

services for their children. NCLB also provides more specific guidance regarding 

schools in corrective action and those subject to restructuring, requiring districts to 

implement one of the steps outlined in the legislation. Under IASA, corrective actions 

were defined by the district and state. 
5

Exhibit 2: Key Requirements for Assistance and Consequences for Schools and 

Districts Identified for Improvement, Corrective Action and Restructuring

Requirements IASA NCLB

Consequences 

for schools 

identified as in 

need of 

improvement 

Schools must develop or revise a 

school improvement plan.

Districts must provide technical 

assistance to identified schools.

Schools must develop or revise a school 

improvement plan. 

Districts must provide technical assistance to 

identified schools.

Parents of students in identified schools must be 

offered school choice.

Districts must offer students from low-income 

families in identified schools supplemental 

educational services from an approved provider 

(beginning year 2). 

Consequences 

for schools 

identified for 

corrective 

action 

Districts must implement “corrective 

action” as defined by the state and 

district if state assessment system 

was approved by ED. 

Consequences from years 1 and 2 of improvement 

continue.

Districts must implement one of a series of 

“corrective actions” defined in legislation.

Consequences 

for schools 

identified for 

restructuring

Not applicable. Districts must spend first year planning to implement 

at least one of a series of school “restructuring 

efforts.” During second year, district must 

implement school restructuring plan.

Consequences 

for districts 

identified for 

improvement 

Districts must develop or revise a 

district improvement plan. State 

must provide technical assistance to 

the district.

Districts must develop or revise a school 

improvement plan. 

States must provide technical assistance to identified 

districts.

Consequences 

for districts 

identified for 

corrective 

action

States must implement “corrective 

action” as defined by the state for 

identified districts.

States must implement one of a series of “corrective 

actions” for identified districts.

State 

assistance for 

identified 

districts and 

schools

States required to have school 

support teams to assist schoolwide 

programs and, if funds available, 

high-poverty schools and schools 

identified for improvement under 

Title I. 

States required to establish a corps of 

distinguished educators to assist 

schools and districts identified for 

improvement.

States required to have school support teams to assist 

with schools identified for corrective action, schools 

identified for improvement, and other Title I schools. 

States are required to use teams of distinguished 

teachers and principals to support identified Title I 

schools and districts.

Overview of the Study

The timeline for TASSIE data collection spans the last year of IASA and the first 

two years in which states, districts and schools will be operating under NCLB. Thus, the 
6

evaluation will be able to track changes in state and local Title I accountability practices 

during this transition period. 

TASSIE addresses the four key evaluation questions listed below:

• How have districts and schools implemented accountability provisions under 

Title I? 

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

accountability systems?

• What assistance and incentives are provided to Title I schools to help them 

improve?

• What is the impact of district accountability policies and practices on Title I 

schools?

The evaluation consists of four related, longitudinal components spanning three 

years of data collection beginning in school year 2001-02:

• A survey of Title I administrators in a nationally representative sample of 

approximately 1,300 districts that receive Title I funds. The universe of 

eligible districts was developed with information from the 1999 Common Core 

of Data and the 2000 Quality Education Data database. Districts were stratified 

according to size (enrollment), poverty (based on the percentage of children 

living in poverty within each district) and geographic region. The stratification 

by geographic region was done to facilitate selection of an oversample from 

three states that are the focus of the analysis of school performance. Districts 

were selected using a simple random sample without replacement within each 

stratum. All very large districts were sampled; approximately equal numbers of 

districts were selected from the other size strata. Each poverty stratum includes 

approximately one-third of all children in the sampling frame. 

• A survey of principals in a nationally representative sample of 739 Title I 

schools identified as in need of improvement. The sampling frame for schools 

in need of improvement was developed in a two-stage process. First, lists of the 

schools in each of the sampled districts were developed from the 1999 Common 

Core of Data (CCD) and the 2000 Quality Education Data database. Schools 

eligible for the sample were classified as regular, but not charter, in the CCD 

and served a grade range that could be classified as elementary, middle, or high 

school. In the second stage, sampled districts were asked to provide a list of 

current Title I schools in need of improvement at the time of the request in fall 

2001. In states where Title I schools in need of improvement are identified by 

the state education agency, the list of schools identified on the basis of 2000-01 

assessment data was requested. Only Title I schools identified for improvement 

in reading, math, or both subjects were included in the sampling frame. The 

sampling frame of the resulting 4,054 Title I schools in need of improvement 

was stratified by district size, school level (elementary, middle or high), poverty 

and geography. 1 

 

1

 Response rates for the district and principal survey were 88 percent and 86 percent, respectively.
7

• Case studies of 20 schools identified for improvement under Title I in 15 

districts in five states. Case study schools were selected through a multiple 

stage process in which states, then districts within those states, and then schools 

within those districts were chosen. Three critical dimensions for state sample 

selection were identified: state AYP definition, alignment of Title I and the 

general state accountability systems, and the process of identifying schools in 

need of improvement. States were sorted along these three dimensions and 

selected through an iterative process to represent the actual variation. Within 

states, the largest urban districts were targeted as well as one suburban and one 

rural district, in consultation with the state Title I director. Within each urban 

district, two elementary schools identified for improvement were selected in 

consultation with the district Title I coordinator. Within the rural and suburban 

districts, one elementary school was chosen, often the only identified school in 

those districts. 

• Secondary analyses in three of the case study states of school performance 

data for all schools in the state that serve elementary students. Eligible schools 

were those classified as regular, but not charter schools, in the Common Core of 

Data. The analysis contrasts scores of Title I schools in need of improvement, 

other Title I schools, and non-Title I schools for each state.2

The district and school surveys and the case studies are being repeated in school 

years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Secondary analysis of school performance data will be 

carried out again in school year 2003-04. The study is also adding data collection 

components to examine state policies.3 

This document reports on findings related to the first three evaluation questions 

above—the emphases of TASSIE’s first year of data collection. It is based on data only 

from the first year of data collection, 2001-02, during which IASA was still in effect. As 

noted earlier, these findings can serve as a baseline against which to examine activities 

under NCLB. 

The remainder of this document presents findings on the implementation of IASA 

accountability provisions, and discusses the implications for the implementation of 

NCLB. The following section focuses on which schools have been identified for 

improvement and the process through which identification has been made. The third 

section focuses on the support provided to and interventions taken with schools identified 

as in need of improvement. The central theme running through the findings is that states, 

districts and schools are well positioned to implement many of the NCLB provisions but 

will need to make substantial changes to meet other provisions. 

 

2

 In the analysis of school performance and throughout this report, group differences that are reported are 

statistically significant at p < .05. Details on the statistical tests and the standard errors of statistical 

estimates are found in the TASSIE technical report (Shields et al. 2003). 

3

For more information about TASSIE and to view the district and principal surveys, see 

http://www.TASSIEonline.org.
8
9

II Identification of Schools and Districts in Need of Improvement

A pivotal component of Title I accountability is the identification of schools and 

districts that have not met their goals of adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two years. 

This section of the report provides estimates of the number and distribution of schools 

and districts identified for improvement in school year 2001-02, the year prior to the 

enactment of NCLB. It also examines the process and definitions used to identify 

schools and districts, and describes the results of different approaches. Third, the section 

discusses the alignment of the Title I accountability system with state and local 

accountability systems. The final portion of this section focuses on the key issue of 

communication to stakeholders about the status of schools identified for improvement. 

Wherever possible, the document focuses on the degree to which state, district and school 

practice in 2001-02 was already aligned with the NCLB accountability provisions.

Characteristics of Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement Under 

Title I in 2001-02

In fall 2001, the school year before NCLB went into effect, an estimated 8,078 

schools had been identified for improvement under Title I based on previous years’ 

assessment results representing 21 percent of all Title I schools nationwide.4 This 

estimate, based on the data gathered from states, districts, and schools in the Evaluation 

of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE), is 

consistent with the number of identified schools reported by states in their Title I 

performance reports and reported by the U.S. Department of Education.5 

More than three-quarters of Title I schools identified for improvement served 

the elementary grades, reflecting the grade-level distribution of all Title I schools. 

Of schools identified for improvement under Title I, 78 percent were elementary schools, 

nearly the same proportion as among all Title I schools. Of identified schools, 15 percent 

(approximately 1,248) were middle schools; in comparison 14 percent of all Title I 

schools were middle schools. Relatively few high schools were identified for 

improvement nationwide (approximately 538), although the proportion of identified 

schools that were high schools is roughly the same as the proportion of all Title I schools 

that were high schools (see Table 1).

 

4 The estimate of 8,078 schools was computed from a weighted analysis of the number of schools 

responding to the principal survey. Once weighted, the count of the number of schools in the respondent 

sample projects up to the number estimated in the national population of schools in need of improvement. 

The weights were derived from the sampling frame that contained the lists of all Title I schools in the 

TASSIE district sample that were identified to be in need of improvement. The TASSIE technical report 

(Shields et al. 2003) describes in detail the sampling strategy and derivation of weights.

5

 In July 2002, the U.S. Department of Education reported that 8,652 schools had been identified for 

improvement under Title I, based on the most recently submitted Consolidated State Performance 

Reports; however, some states’ lists in these Consolidated State Performance Reports were for the 2000-

01 or 1999-2000 school years rather than the 2001-02 school year examined by this study (U.S. 

Department of Education 2003). 
10

Schools in the nation’s very largest districts (those with enrollments over 

37,740) were more likely to be identified for improvement, compared with schools in 

other districts. An estimated 37 percent of schools in very large districts were identified 

for improvement, as were 17 percent of the schools in small and medium districts (see 

Table 1). Thus, an estimated 75 of the nation’s largest school districts contain an 

estimated 2,200 identified schools.

However, the largest numbers of schools identified for improvement were 

located in small and medium districts. As shown in Table 1, 52 percent of schools 

identified under Title I were located in districts with enrollments under 10,449 students. 

Because there are relatively few very large districts and many more small and medium 

Title I districts in the nation, these smaller districts contain large numbers of identified 

schools. Nearly a third of identified schools were located in districts with enrollments 

under 3,504. Districts with enrollments below 10,449 contain the majority of identified 

schools and therefore hold primary responsibility for providing support and assistance to 

more than half of all identified schools nationwide. 

A relatively small proportion of Title I districts had schools in need of 

improvement—approximately one in five Title I districts nationwide. As shown in 

Table 2, an estimated 2,313 districts, or 21 percent of districts that received Title I funds, 

reported that they had at least one school identified for improvement under Title I. 

Almost two-thirds of the districts with a school identified for improvement under Title I 

(an estimated 1,475 districts) were small; very large districts represented just 3 percent of 

the total number of districts with identified schools. 

Districts with identified schools were more likely to be in the highest-poverty 

category than were Title I districts in general. Forty-four percent of districts with 

identified schools were in the highest poverty category (i.e., above 22 percent), compared 

with 26 percent of all Title I schools (Table 2).
11

Table 1

Schools Identified for Improvement and All Title I Schools, 

by District Size and Grade Level Distributions6

Estimated 

Number of

Schools 

Identified for 

Improvement

Percent of All 

Schools 

Identified for 

Improvement

Percent of 

All Title I 

Schools

Percent of 

Schools 

Identified 

Within 

Categories

District size, by student 

enrollment

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

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

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

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

Total 8,078* 100 100* 21

Grade level

Elementary 6,292 78 79 21

Middle 1,248 15 14 24

High 538 7 8 18

Total 8,078 100 100* 21

* Totals may not be exact because of rounding.

Exhibit reads: An estimated 2,200 schools in very large districts were identified for improvement, which 

represents 27 percent of all identified schools in the nation. Very large districts contain an estimated 5,975 

Title I schools overall, or 16 percent of all Title I schools. In very large districts, an estimated 37 percent of 

Title I schools (i.e., 2,200 divided by 5,975) have been identified for improvement.

Note: The denominator for computing the percent of schools identified for improvement in each category is 

8,078 schools (unweighted N = 578). The denominator for computing the percent of all Title I schools in each 

category is 38,194 schools (unweighted N = 1,030); this is the weighted N based on the TASSIE survey sample 

described on page 6. The identification rate for schools was computed by dividing the number of identified 

schools by the number of all Title I schools in each category.

Source: National estimates of the numbers (and associated percentages) of schools identified for improvement 

were derived from a weighted analysis of the number of respondents to the TASSIE principal survey. 

Estimates for all Title I schools are based on the numbers of Title I elementary, middle, and high schools 

reported by districts on the TASSIE district survey, weighted up to estimate the responses of all districts 

nationwide. 

 

6

 See Esch, Lash and Shields 2003, for a more comprehensive picture of schools identified under Title I.
12

Table 2

Size and Poverty Distributions of Districts with at Least One School Identified for 

Improvement under Title I and All Districts That Receive Title I Funds

Estimated 

Number of 

Districts with 

Schools 

Identified for 

Improvement

Percent of 

Districts with 

Schools 

Identified for 

Improvement

Percent of All 

Districts That 

Receive Title I 

Funds

District size, by student 

enrollment

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

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

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

Very large (> 37,740) 75 3 1

Total 2,313* 100 100

District poverty, by percent 

of children living in poverty

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

Middle poverty (11-22 percent) 820 36 39

Lowest poverty (<11 percent) 471 20 35

Total 2,313* 100 100

* Totals may not be exact because of rounding.

Exhibit reads: An estimated 75 very large districts have schools identified for improvement, which 

represents 3 percent of the total number of districts with identified schools. The nation has an estimated 

125 very large Title I districts, which represent 1 percent of Title I districts.

Note: The denominator for computing the percent of districts with schools identified for improvement in 

each category is 2,313 districts (unweighted N = 404). The denominator for computing the percent of all 

districts that receive Title I funds in each category is 11,208 districts (unweighted N = 1,141); this is the 

weighted N based on the TASSIE survey sample described on page 6.

Source: National estimates of the numbers (and associated percentages) of all districts and districts with 

schools identified for improvement under Title I were computed from a weighted analysis of responses to 

the TASSIE district survey.
13

Among districts that reported that their state had begun to identify districts 

for improvement, 15 percent—an estimated 1,075 districts nationwide—reported 

that they were identified for improvement under Title I. Identification for 

improvement did not vary by district size, but did appear to be related to the degree of 

district poverty: high-poverty districts were more likely to report that they were identified 

as in need of improvement (28 percent) than medium-poverty districts (12 percent) or 

low-poverty districts (8 percent). 

How States and Districts Define Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and 

Identify Schools for Improvement under Title I

How states and districts define AYP under IASA affected the number and types of 

schools identified for improvement. IASA required states to set targets for school 

performance. These targets could be absolute or relative, summarized across subjects, 

and aggregated for all students at a school. NCLB, in contrast, contains more specific 

criteria for AYP, including an end point for all students achieving proficiency by 2013-14 

and accountability for the achievement of key subgroups of students. Both IASA and 

NCLB, however, place final responsibility for the details of AYP definitions in the hands 

of state and local policymakers. Examination of the implementation of AYP definitions 

under IASA provides a context for understanding how state systems may transition to 

meet NCLB requirements. 

Under IASA, AYP definitions varied widely from state to state. The five states 

in the TASSIE case study sample illustrate this variation in 2001-02 (see Exhibit 3). For 

example, Maryland adopted a simple relative-growth measure that allowed schools to 

make AYP if they showed growth, of any magnitude, on the state’s school performance 

index. Michigan’s AYP definition called for narrowing the gap in performance among 

student groups by reducing the number of students scoring at the lowest performance 

levels. Arizona, Louisiana and Washington adopted multipart AYP definitions that 

combined criteria based on absolute thresholds (e.g., 90 percent of students scoring 

“proficient” in both reading and mathematics) with criteria based on relative progress 

(e.g., making a two-year growth target that would enable schools to achieve the state’s 

standard for proficiency in 10 years). States also differed in the measures they adopted to 

assess school performance: two states combined test scores across multiple subjects with 

attendance and dropout rates to create a weighted average index that served as a single 

measure of school performance; the remaining three set separate performance goals for 

each subject area. Michigan required schools to meet targets in four subject areas, two 

more than most other states.

In all of these states, AYP definitions (either the benchmarks set for individual 

schools or the assessment measures on which they were based) were complex and could 

not be summarized easily in a single sentence or reduced to a single numerical goal for 

any one school. Two reviews of Title I accountability systems conducted in 1999-2000 

found similar variation in AYP definitions across states nationwide (U.S. Department of 

Education 2001; Schenck and Carlson 2002). 
14

Great variation also existed in the identification rates of schools across states. 

The variation among states in AYP definitions is one factor, along with the rigor of 

assessments and the actual performance level of students, that accounts for this 

variation. For example, in 2000-01, based on previous years’ assessment results, six 

states reported identifying 1 percent or fewer of their Title I schools (Florida and 

Wyoming identified no schools), 10 states identified between 10 percent and 20 percent 

of their schools, and three states identified more than 30 percent of their schools 

(Michigan, Hawaii and Georgia) (U.S. Department of Education 2002). 

Exhibit 3

AYP Definitions in Five States, 2001-02

Arizona schools had to meet absolute or growth targets separately for both reading comprehension 

and mathematics in a single grade level for each school. Schools made AYP if 90 percent of 

students scored “proficient” or above on the state test in both reading comprehension and math, or if 

no student scored below “basic” on either test. If the school did not meet these absolute targets, it 

could make AYP if it reduced the gap between the state goal and its 1997 performance by the 

average change needed to achieve the state goal by 2005. Districts had responsibility for making 

final AYP determinations and could use additional local measures to add or remove schools from the 

state list.

In Louisiana, the state combined scores from multiple grade levels on two different assessments of 

reading, mathematics, science and social studies, as well as attendance and dropout rates, in a 

complex weighted composite known as the School Performance Score (SPS). Louisiana had defined 

a growth target for each school that represented the amount of progress it must make every two 

years to reach the state’s 10- and 20-year goals. The state established separate targets for students 

with disabilities and for limited-English-proficient (LEP) students and combined them in a weighted 

average to calculate the overall growth target for the school (thus, a school’s growth target depended 

in part on how many students it had in these subgroups). Schools made AYP if their SPS was 100 or 

above (the state goal), regardless of growth; schools were automatically identified for improvement if 

their SPS was 30 or lower. For schools between 30 and 100, identification depended on meeting the 

growth target.

In Maryland, the state combined scores on the state assessment from multiple grade levels across 

six subject areas with attendance rates to create a School Performance Index (SPI). The SPI 

measured each school’s distance from the state’s goal of having 70 percent of students scoring 

“satisfactory” or above in each subject included in the state assessments. Schools that showed an 

increase in SPI—no matter what the size—over the average of the previous two years were 

considered to have made AYP. There was no clearly specified timeline that required all schools to 

meet the state goal of 100 on the SPI. 

In Michigan, schools were identified for improvement on the basis of their performance in each of 

four subject areas (reading, mathematics, science, and writing). Deficient performance in any one of 

these subject areas could cause a school to not make AYP. The Michigan AYP definition was based 

on a relative-growth model that was defined in terms of narrowing the gap between the percentages 

of students scoring in the highest and lowest achievement categories. Schools had to reduce the 

gap every year by 10 percent. Individual school targets changed every year in every subject and 

varied across schools within the state.

In Washington, the state had developed nine separate criteria for determining AYP among 

elementary schools. These criteria were based on the school’s performance on the state 

assessment: five addressed reading and four addressed mathematics. Four of the nine criteria were 

absolute targets for performance, and five were relative-growth targets. Schools that had met any 

five of the nine criteria (across either or both subjects) were judged to have made AYP. 
15

Under IASA, the majority of states relied primarily on relative-growth models 

to define AYP, with the expected gain varying for each school depending on its 

baseline performance. In 2001-02, data collected on AYP definitions indicated that 33 

states relied entirely on relative-growth models and that 12 more combined some form of 

relative growth with an absolute target (Council of Chief State School Officers 2002). 

Under NCLB, absolute measures of performance are much more important in 

determining AYP. NCLB requires that states adopt a status model for evaluating AYP, in 

which benchmarks are the same for all schools statewide; measures of growth (as 

provided for under the legislation’s “safe harbor” provision) will apply only if schools 

did not meet these absolute benchmarks. 

As states move away from relative-growth AYP models under NCLB, it is 

likely to affect the types of schools that are identified for improvement. School 

performance data collected in Maryland and Louisiana show that AYP definitions 

built on growth in achievement rather than absolute levels of performance can cause 

some relatively high-performing Title I schools to be identified for improvement, 

whereas some lower-performing Title I schools may not be identified. Because both 

Maryland and Louisiana examined growth in school performance to assess AYP, some 

Title I schools with low performance levels were not identified for improvement if they 

showed adequate growth, whereas higher-performing schools that did not achieve growth 

targets were identified. Nonetheless, in both states, identified Title I elementary schools 

scored lower than nonidentified Title I elementary schools, on average, on their state’s

measures of school performance (see Exhibits 4 and 5). 

Differences in the AYP definitions between Maryland and Louisiana helped to 

explain the extent of overlap in school performance for identified and nonidentified 

schools. In Maryland, schools were identified if they did not show growth of any size, 

regardless of the school’s absolute level of performance. As shown in Exhibit 4, 

approximately 95 percent of the identified schools scored higher than the lowest scoring 

nonidentified school, and 95 percent of the nonidentified schools scored lower than the 

highest scoring identified school. In Maryland, half of identified schools scored as well 

as or better than 25 percent of the nonidentified schools.

In Louisiana (see Exhibit 5), scores overlapped somewhat less than in Maryland, in 

part because Louisiana’s AYP definition combined absolute and relative criteria; thus, no 

schools attaining a school performance score of 100 or more were identified for 

improvement, and all schools scoring 30 or lower were identified. In addition, the 

growth criteria for AYP for schools scoring between 31 and 99 varied, depending on the 

score of the school: lower scoring schools required higher growth to meet AYP. In this 

state, slightly more than one-quarter of the identified schools scored as well as or better 

than 25 percent of the nonidentified Title I schools.
16

Exhibit 4

Distributions of School Performance, for Maryland Schools

with Elementary Students 

Exhibit reads: The school performance score for identified Title I schools ranged from about 10 to 100 with 

a median of 40. In this type of plot, the vertical line spans the range of scores obtained in the group. The 

box spans the range for the middle 50 percent of the distribution, from the 25th to the 75th percentile, and 

the horizontal line within the box identifies the 50th percentile, or median. The horizontal line that spans 

the width of the figure identifies the 50th percentile (median) for the total population of schools in the 

analysis.

Exhibit 5

Distributions of School Performance, for Louisiana Schools 

with Elementary Students

Exhibit Reads: The school performance score for identified Title I schools ranged from about 29 to 92, with 

a median of 61.5. Also see the note to Exhibit 4 above. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Title I identified

(N=125)

Title I not

identified

(N=579)

Not Title I

(N=202)

School type

School Performance Score (SPS)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Title I identified

(N=95)

Title I not

identified (N=270)

Not Title I (N=429)

School type

School Performance Score (SPS)
17

As states comply with NCLB and use an AYP based on absolute scores as 

opposed to relative growth models, less overlap in performance may occur between 

identified and nonidentified schools—especially in higher-performing schools. 

Under NCLB, all schools that attain the benchmark target that the state sets will make 

AYP, whether or not their scores have risen or declined from the year before. As a result, 

overlap in performance between identified and nonidentified schools should decrease at 

the higher end of the achievement spectrum, with fewer high-scoring schools identified 

for improvement, all other factors being equal. At the same time, other factors may 

contribute to the overlap in distributions. Because under NCLB’s “safe harbor” provision 

strong growth in the percentage of students scoring “proficient” will allow a school to 

make AYP even if it does not attain the state’s benchmark, the ranks of nonidentified 

schools may continue to include some schools that are relatively low performing but have 

demonstrated strong growth. Finally, because AYP definitions under NCLB will hold 

schools accountable for attaining the same intermediate benchmark and 95 percent 

assessment participation rates for all subgroups of students, a number of schools with 

high average scores may nevertheless be identified on the basis of subgroup 

performance.7 

Other changes to AYP definitions required under NCLB are likely to influence 

the number of schools identified as in need of improvement under Title I, but the net 

effect of the various changes is difficult to predict. Some potential changes could 

result in more schools being identified. Schools of all types may have difficulty meeting 

progressively more challenging benchmarks that states must establish on the road to 

ensuring that all students reach the state’s standard for proficiency in both reading and 

mathematics within 12 years. Schools with high or moderate average scores but large 

gaps in performance among subgroups may now be identified for the first time. On the 

other hand, given the absolute targets required for AYP under NCLB, some higher 

achieving schools that are declining in achievement will not necessarily be identified as 

long as their achievement levels remain above the target. Yet, until states’ NCLB AYP 

definitions, including definitions of “proficient” and the measures used to measure 

proficiency, are put in place, the impact of the new law on the number and types of 

schools is uncertain.

The implementation of district identification systems, required under both 

IASA and NCLB, was proceeding slowly in 2001-02. In spring 2002, two-thirds of 

Title I districts reported that their state had begun to review the progress of districts under 

a definition of AYP developed for the districts by the state. A third of districts reported 

either that their state did not review the progress of districts or that they were not sure 

whether their state had begun that function. There was some confusion among 

respondents within states about whether or not the state had begun to review the progress 

of districts. For example, of the 113 districts that responded to the district survey in 

California, 41 indicated that the state had not begun to review district performance, 57 

 

7

 Few states used subpopulation performance as a criterion for AYP under IASA (Goertz, Duffy, and Le 

Floch 2001). 

9

 For tables in this report, statistics are reported only when the unweighted sample is 30 or more.
18

indicated that the state had begun to do so, and 15 reported that they were not sure. 

Among districts that reported that their state had developed a definition of 

AYP for districts, four-fifths reported that they had made AYP in the 2000-01 

school year. The percentage of districts reporting that they had made AYP did not vary 

significantly by district poverty or by district size. 

NCLB strengthens and standardizes AYP requirements for districts. Under NCLB, 

districts will be held accountable for the same goals for student performance as schools, 

both in the aggregate districtwide and for each subgroup of students enrolled by the 

district. Students whose performance is not disaggregated at the school level because 

there are not enough students in the subgroup at the school will be considered separately 

at the district level if enough students in that subgroup are enrolled in the district. Under 

NCLB, more states are likely to identify districts for improvement, and districts will be 

held accountable for many more benchmarks for student performance. As a result, more 

districts may be identified for improvement, all other things being equal. 

Alignment of Title I Accountability with Accountability Systems for All 

Schools 

IASA called on states to hold all schools and districts accountable to the same 

standards for achievement through the development of aligned systems of high standards 

and challenging assessments to determine AYP, and by aligning their Title I programs 

with these requirements. Yet states without statewide assessment systems were allowed 

to have Title I-only accountability systems to identify low-performing schools. NCLB 

strengthens this provision, requiring that states use the same accountability system 

(including assessment instruments and goals for AYP) for all schools, Title I and nonTitle I. 

In 2001-02, most states had still not established unitary (i.e., single, statewide) 

accountability systems that applied the same criteria for identification for 

improvement to both Title I and non-Title I schools. Only 18 states reported that they 

had unitary identification systems to measure AYP; 13 other states reported Title I-only 

systems (Council of Chief State School Officers 2002). States had not made progress 

toward implementing unitary systems in the few years before these data were collected. 

In 1999-2000, 22 states operated unitary accountability systems (U.S. Department of 

Education 2001). In 19 states, Title I was the only system in operation; the remaining 

states operated dual systems (one for Title I and one for non-Title I schools). The 

existence of different accountability systems can send mixed messages about what 

constitutes the attainment of standards.

Establishing unified systems was a challenge for many states under IASA and 

is likely to continue to be a challenge under NCLB. The experiences of the TASSIE 

case study states in 2001-02 pointed to a number of the challenges in creating such a 

system. Only two of the five case study states operated unitary accountability systems 

with the same or very similar criteria applied to both Title I and non-Title I schools. The 

other three states faced serious obstacles to passing new accountability legislation that 

would both satisfy the requirements of NCLB and apply to all schools in the state. In 
19

Washington, the state legislature failed to pass legislation to establish a new statewide

accountability system that would apply to both Title I and non-Title I schools. The 

Arizona legislature, in contrast, had recently passed legislation establishing a new 

statewide accountability system that, according to the Arizona Department of Education, 

would not meet the requirements of NCLB. In spring 2002, the Michigan State Board of 

Education approved a plan for a new statewide accreditation system that assigns schools 

a letter grade on the basis of achievement status, achievement trends over three years, 

achievement growth for individual students and indicators of engagement, instructional 

quality and learning opportunities. This new system may operate in conjunction with a 

Title I-based accountability system because the measures and criteria used to accredit 

schools under this system are so different from those required under NCLB. These 

challenges that states faced in meeting the requirements of IASA will, of course, remain 

as they seek to build accountability systems in line with NCLB. 

Communication about Schools Identified for Improvement

A central principle underlying the Title I accountability system is that local 

educators, as well as parents, have a clear understanding of the progress for which 

schools are being held accountable. For accountability systems to be effective, local 

educators and parents must understand the criteria by which their schools are held 

accountable and must be aware of whether or not their schools have been identified for 

improvement. Without such an understanding, the Title I accountability system can be 

expected to have a limited impact. Under IASA, states and districts were required to 

inform schools of their status and to issue individual school profiles. NCLB strengthens 

the reporting provisions by specifying that states and districts issue “report cards” with 

state assessment results and lists of schools identified for improvement. 

Communication with Educators

Under IASA, there was a lack of clarity about the particulars of how and 

which schools are identified for improvement. Fifty-nine percent of the principals 

surveyed, all of whom had been selected for the TASSIE sample because they were 

included on a district or state list of identified schools for 2001-02, reported that they had 

been, in fact, identified for improvement; 41 percent reported that they had not been 

identified or did not know if they had been identified for improvement. This finding 

replicates the results of another survey of identified schools conducted in 1999-2000, 

which also found that 41 percent of principals disagreed that their school had been 

identified or reported that they did not know (U.S. Department of Education 2002). This 

discrepancy between principal reports and district and state lists suggests that 

considerable confusion exists among principals, district Title I directors, and state 

education agency staff about which schools have been identified for improvement at any 

one time. This confusion does not appear to have lessened over the last several years. 

Principals may confuse program improvement status with adequate yearly 

progress determinations; confusion may also stem from the complexity of AYP 

definitions and the measures used to track progress. Identified schools that make 

AYP for one year remain in program improvement until they make AYP a second time. 
20

But of the 42 percent of schools identified as in need of improvement in 2001-02 that had 

made AYP the year before, only 36 percent agreed with their states or districts that they 

continued to be identified for improvement. One explanation for the extent of this 

disagreement is that principals do not distinguish clearly between making AYP and 

exiting improvement status. Some principals whose schools have made AYP for just one 

year appear to believe that their school has exited improvement status. (Principals whose 

schools had not made AYP the year before were much more likely to agree that their 

school was identified for improvement.) Even among principals who agreed with their 

districts or states that they were identified for improvement, almost a third reported some 

uncertainty about the criteria they would need to meet to exit improvement status. 

As noted in Exhibit 3 above, AYP definitions in the case study states were 

multifaceted and generally could not be reduced to a single number or criterion. As a 

result, school staff in the TASSIE case study sites generally were unfamiliar with the fine 

points of the AYP definitions under which they had been identified for improvement or 

with the particulars of their Title I identification status. Many of the principals 

interviewed, for example, disagreed with their districts about the length of time their 

school had been identified for improvement. 

Confusion may also stem from the presence of state accountability systems that 

operate in conjunction with Title I. About a third of the schools that disagreed with 

their states or districts that they were identified for improvement under Title I reported 

that they were identified for improvement under their state’s accountability system. 

Overall, close to 68 percent of schools reported that they were identified for 

improvement, either under the state system or under Title I (conversely, 32 percent 

reported that they were not identified or did not know if they were identified under either 

system). This finding suggests that most schools that are designated as in need of 

improvement under Title I by their states and districts recognize that they are in some 

kind of improvement status; however, they are not always clear about the role that Title I 

accountability requirements played in their identification. 

Despite this confusion about the particulars of Title I identification, school 

staff in the TASSIE case study sites understood that their schools were lowperforming and that student achievement needed to improve. School staff across the 

TASSIE case study sites—both teachers and principals—had carefully reviewed the 

achievement data provided by their states and districts and were familiar with the public 

reporting that had been done on the performance of their schools. As a result, teachers 

and principals shared the general perception that their schools were low-performing and 

that they needed to improve their scores, especially on state assessments. In these sites, 

regular participation in state assessments, public reporting of assessment results and 

regular review of assessment data had contributed to a general understanding that the 

school was being held accountable for student results. 

As AYP definitions become more standard within and across states under NCLB, 

state education agencies and districts may find it easier to communicate with schools 

about specific expectations for performance. However, to the extent that states use 

additional rating systems for evaluating the performance of schools, confusion may 

persist.
21

Communication with Parents

In 2001-02, report cards were prepared and actively disseminated in almost all 

districts. By spring 2002, some form of public reporting on school performance was 

nearly ubiquitous: 92 percent of schools identified for improvement under Title I reported 

that their state or district prepared a school report card or profile of their performance. A 

large majority of districts (78 percent or more) reported that school report cards were 

distributed to parents in a newsletter or other publication, reported in local newspapers, or 

posted on the state or district Web site. Similarly, a 2002 report indicated that all 50 

states required dissemination of some sort of report card, and 42 states included data at 

the school level (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2002). 

Public reporting of achievement data for student subgroups was relatively 

common in 2001-02 with many districts making the data available to the public in 

Table 3

Public Reporting of Disaggregated Data, Among Districts with a Subgroup 

Enrollment of 10 Percent or More, by District Size9

Percent of Districts by Size

Data Disaggregated by:

Percent of 

All Districts

Very 

Large Large Medium Small

LEP Status 61 81 79 80 47

Racial and Ethnic Group 64 82 73 68 59

Gender 54 66 69 54 53

Special Education Status 52 69 63 57 50

Economically 

Disadvantaged Status 45 65 62 47 43

Migrant Status 27 * * * *

Exhibit reads: Among respondents in very large districts with LEP students accounting for at least 10 

percent of total enrollment, 81 percent indicated that data disaggregated by LEP status are publicly 

reported. Among comparable small districts, 47 percent indicated that data disaggregated by LEP status 

are publicly reported.

Note: The number of districts included in these analyses varies for each row and cell because only 

districts reporting each subgroup were included. The weighted sample size for LEP status = 47 to 1,318 

(unweighted = 42 to 263) for all districts; for racial and ethnic group = 104 to 3,744 (unweighted = 92 to 

624) for all districts; for gender = 121 to 10,273 (unweighted = 106 to 1,061) for all districts; for special 

education status = 81 to 7,687 (unweighted = 71 to 812) for all districts; for economically disadvantaged 

status = 111 to 8,857 (unweighted = 98 to 936) for all districts; for migrant status = 1 to 471 (unweighted 

= 1 to 51) for all districts. * = too few cases to report; data are reported for a subgroup only when that 

group accounts for at least 10 percent of the district’s student population.

Source: TASSIE district survey
22

some form. In spring 2002, between one-half and two-thirds of districts (see Table 3) 

that enrolled significant proportions of minority students, LEP students and students with 

disabilities (i.e., districts where these subgroups accounted for at least 10 percent of total 

enrollment) reported that data were already being disaggregated for these groups in 

public reporting on schools. More than half of districts reported that data were 

disaggregated by gender. Disaggregation by economically disadvantaged status was 

slightly less common, being reported by 45 percent of districts that enroll significant 

numbers of economically disadvantaged students. 

Among districts with student subgroups of significant size, larger districts were 

more likely than smaller districts to report that student data were disaggregated by 

subgroups on school report cards or other public reporting, regardless of the student 

feature used to define subgroups. These patterns suggest that larger districts have greater 

capacity to produce disaggregated data for school report cards or to support schools in 

reporting disaggregated data, a finding confirmed in the TASSIE site visit districts. 

NCLB requires that this information be included in report cards.

States, districts, and schools did not commonly include information about 

Title I improvement status in their reporting to the public in 2001-02, as is now 

required under NCLB. State and district reporting, which can include school report 

cards as well as press releases and other kinds of reporting to the media, most often 

included information on state assessment results (in 97 percent of districts), comparisons 

with other schools and districts in the state (in 81 percent of districts), attendance rates (in 

81 percent of districts), and graduation rates or dropout rates (in 79 percent of districts). 

Public reporting by states, districts and schools was less likely to include information on 

a school’s Title I accountability status. Fewer than half of districts (46 percent) reported 

that their state indicated whether a school was identified for improvement under Title I in 

its reporting to parents and the general public. About a third of districts reported that 

they included Title I improvement status in their reporting to parents, and about a third of 

districts reported that schools did. 

None of the report cards developed for 20 case study schools included specific 

information about Title I improvement status. Although lists of identified schools were 

printed in local newspapers and included in other publicly available documents in a 

number of case study sites, none of the school report cards posted on the Web or 

distributed to parents contained specific information about Title I improvement status. In 

several cases, report cards prepared by states included information about the school’s 

performance relative to goals set by the state accountability system, rather than Title I 

benchmarks. 
23

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

Schools Identified for Improvement 

Once a Title I school was identified for improvement under IASA, a sequence of 

increasingly serious interventions was set in motion. Initially, schools were to receive 

assistance from the district and state. Districts were required to provide technical 

assistance to identified schools during the process of planning and implementing an 

improvement strategy. States were required to establish school support teams and a corps 

of distinguished educators to support districts and schools. If schools continued to not 

make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two years after identification, the district must 

implement some form of “corrective action,” such as withholding funds or decreasing 

school-site decision-making authority. The parents of students in schools identified as in 

need of improvement were also to be given the choice to transfer to another school, if 

feasible. 

As with other provisions of Title I, NCLB clarifies and strengthens requirements 

associated with assistance to and interventions in schools identified as in need of 

improvement. Where IASA called for technical assistance to identified schools, and 

some state or locally defined forms of corrective action, NCLB also mandates school 

choice options for parents, the offering of supplemental educational services to children 

from low-income families, certain forms of technical assistance, a specific menu of 

corrective actions, and, eventually, school restructuring. For schools identified for 

improvement, NCLB calls for districts to provide those schools with at least three certain 

kinds of technical assistance. Specifically, districts must require the development or 

revision of school plans designed to address the problems that caused the school to be 

identified. Districts also must assist in:

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

• Identifying and implementing professional development and instructional 

strategies that have proven effective in addressing the issues that caused the 

school to be identified.

• Analyzing and revising the school’s budget to allocate resources more effectively. 

States continue to have the responsibility for establishing a statewide support system 

comprised of school support teams and distinguished teachers and principals from 

successful schools.

Under NCLB, as soon as a school is identified as in need of improvement, districts 

must provide parents of students enrolled in that school the option to transfer their 

children to a school that has not been identified for improvement. If the school does not 

make AYP the following year, low-income parents also must be provided with the option 

of supplemental educational services (e.g., tutoring) from state-approved providers for 

their child. 

If schools continue to not make AYP for two years after initial identification, 

NCLB requires districts to take at least one of a series of “corrective actions,” including:
24

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

• Implementing a new curriculum based on scientifically based research.

• Significantly decreasing management authority at the school level.

• Appointing an outside expert to advise the school.

• Extending the school day or school year.

• Reorganizing the school internally. 

Ultimately, if a school does not make AYP after one full school year of corrective action, 

NCLB calls for major restructuring of school governance through one of the following 

interventions: 

• Reopening the school as a public charter school.

• Replacing the principal and staff.

• Contracting with a private management company with demonstrated 

effectiveness.

• Having the state take over school operation. 

• Undertaking any other major restructuring of school governance. 

Findings from the 2001-02 school year suggest that states and districts are well 

positioned to implement some—but not all—of these NCLB requirements. 

In this section, the various forms of district support are discussed, focusing on 

districts with low-performing schools (defined broadly, see footnote).10 Next is a 

discussion of school choice among all Title I districts, as well as the subset of districts 

that have schools identified for improvement under Title I. Finally, corrective actions 

implemented by all districts with Title I schools in need of improvement and then by the 

subset of districts with Title I schools in corrective action, are described. 

District Support for School Planning and Data Use

In keeping with IASA requirements—as well as with the new requirements 

under NCLB—most districts with low-performing schools (estimated to be 4,290 

districts nationwide) reported focusing support for low-performing schools on 

planning, including the use of student achievement data to inform improvement 

efforts. In 2001-02, 86 percent of districts with low-performing schools identified school 

planning or the use of student achievement data to plan improvement efforts and monitor 

progress as among their two most important school improvement strategies (see Table 4). 

Such efforts are consistent with the NCLB requirement that districts provide technical 

 

10 For almost all analyses of district support, TASSIE included those districts that reported having at least 

one school in at least one of five categories of low-performing schools: schools identified for 

improvement under Title I; schools identified under the state’s own accountability system; schools 

identified under the district’s own system; schools about to be identified under Title I, state or district 

accountability systems; and schools in danger of being identified in future years. The single exception is 

in the area of curriculum adoption, where we also separately describe the subset of districts that have 

schools identified for improvement under Title I.
25

assistance to identified schools as they develop and implement a two-year school 

improvement plan designed to address the academic achievement problems that caused 

them to be identified. 

Almost all (95 percent) of the identified Title I schools reported that they had 

school improvement plans. Though the prevalence of school improvement plans is 

encouraging, it must be considered in light of the Title I requirement that all identified 

schools have such plans.

To support data analysis and the development of school improvement plans, 

many districts with low-performing schools were providing the types of technical 

assistance called for in NCLB: assigning staff to work with schools to analyze 

student achievement data to identify the specific academic problems that caused the 

school to be identified (95 percent of districts) and assigning staff to work with 

schools to identify research-based improvement strategies (84 percent). In addition, 

90 percent of districts reported assigning staff to work directly with schools to write or 

revise a school improvement plan, and 74 percent reported providing feedback on early 

drafts of the school improvement plan.

Table 4

District Rankings of School Improvement Strategies,

Among Districts with Low-Performing Schools

Percent of Districts Ranking 

Each Strategy 

1 or 2 out of 5, 

Where 1 Is the “Most 

Important Strategy”

School planning or the use of student achievement data to 

plan improvement and monitor progress or both 86

Teacher and principal professional development 51

Adoption of new curricula and instructional programs or 

curriculum guidance or both 34

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

school improvement 20

Adoption of school reform models 10

Exhibit reads: Among respondents from districts with low-performing schools, 86 percent identified 

“school planning and/or the use of student achievement data to plan improvement and monitor progress” as 

their district’s most important or second most important school improvement strategy.

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

Source: TASSIE district survey.
26

Districts with low-performing schools are also well positioned to comply with 

the NCLB requirement that student achievement data be disaggregated and 

reported for key student subgroups. In 2001-02, most districts with low-performing 

schools reported that data were being disaggregated and provided to schools in line with 

NCLB’s public reporting requirements (see Table 5). (It should be noted that two of the 

subgroups included in public reporting requirements, migrant and gender, are not 

included in AYP requirements.)

Table 5

Districts with Low-Performing Schools Reporting That Schools 

Had Access to Student Achievement Data, Disaggregated 

for Various Student Subpopulations

Data disaggregated by:

Percent of 

Districts

Limited-English-proficient (LEP) status 98

Migrant status 96

Racial and ethnic group 95

Special education status 93

Gender 83

Economically disadvantaged status 68

Exhibit reads: Among respondents from districts with low-performing schools, 

98 percent reported that schools had access to student achievement data disaggregated 

by LEP status.

Note: The number of districts included in these analyses varies for each row because 

only districts serving each subpopulation were included (weighted Ns from 246 districts 

for migrant to 3,962 districts for gender; unweighted Ns from 30 districts for migrant to 

617 for gender). Data are reported for a subpopulation only when that group accounts for 

at least 10 percent of the district’s student population.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

District Support for Professional Development 

Half of districts with low-performing schools reported assisting these schools 

by placing a “major focus” on increasing the quality and quantity of professional 

development. NCLB requires this type of technical assistance to identified schools, 

augmenting the emphasis on professional development for school planning under IASA. 

Site visits in spring 2002 revealed that many districts were focusing their professional 

development resources on literacy and were beginning to increase the support they 

provided in mathematics. In many cases, district-supported professional development 

activities focused on the implementation of new curricula and other efforts to align 

curricula with standards and assessments (for an example, see Exhibit 6).
27

Exhibit 6 

Two Maryland Districts Provided Extensive Curricular Guidance 

Two large Maryland districts developed tools and provided professional development to support 

the alignment of curriculum and instruction with standards. Both developed curriculum 

frameworks that set out learning objectives by grade level. One district also issued detailed 

curriculum guides for mathematics instruction in grades 1 through 5, and recently unveiled new 

reading curriculum guides for grades 1 and 2, which were accompanied by extensive summer 

training for teachers and follow-up during the year. Similar guides were to be issued for 

additional grade levels in succeeding years. These efforts were designed to create consistent 

reading and language arts instruction in all schools—“Everyone in first grade should be teaching 

personal narratives,” one district official explained—and to ensure that all instruction reflected the 

state standards and thus prepared students for the state assessment. Similarly, the other district 

provided teachers with a thick binder that lays out, by grade level, the Maryland Learning 

Outcomes (MLOs) in mathematics, examples of the kind of learning the MLOs require, directions 

for pacing and sequencing material and suggestions for resources and instructional materials to 

be used in teaching each of the objectives. Teachers explained that they used mathematics 

textbooks sporadically, as a source of supplemental material, rather than as a de facto curriculum 

or set of content standards. In contrast, teachers referred to the county’s mathematics framework 

as “the bible.” 

Much of this support was targeted toward all schools or all schools serving a 

particular grade span. Nonetheless, in 89 percent of districts with low-performing 

schools, respondents reported that low-performing schools were provided with additional 

professional development or special access to professional development resources. In 

some cases, identified schools received more intensive professional development or 

participated in special programs (see Exhibit 7 for an example of states providing 

identified schools with special access to professional development resources). 

Exhibit 7

Washington State Targeted Identified Schools 

for the Adoption of New Reading Programs

Washington Reads was a state grant program supported with federal funds. Selected 

Washington schools received up to $200,000 a year for two years to “systematically use practices 

which increase reading achievement in grades K through three.” In accordance with federal 

requirements, the grant served schools identified for improvement under Title I and schools in 

districts with the highest or second-highest poverty rates. Washington Reads provided grantees 

with a full-time reading coach (for the two years of the grant), training for teachers, reading 

coaches and principals in reading strategies and interventions. Instructional materials were also 

provided.

District Support for Resource Allocation

Aligning resources—money, staff, instructional materials, equipment, and 

time—with instructional goals is a key school improvement strategy that should be 
28

an outcome of a careful school planning process. Unlike IASA, NCLB calls 

specifically for districts to assist schools in their efforts to allocate resources in the 

service of their instructional goals. In 2001-02, many districts with low-performing 

schools reported that they were already providing this assistance. As districts 

worked with schools to develop improvement plans, 70 percent of districts with lowperforming schools reported assigning staff to work with schools to analyze and revise 

the school’s budget so that school resources were effectively allocated for the activities 

that were most likely to increase student performance. Similarly, 69 percent of districts 

with low-performing schools reported assigning staff to work with schools to review 

staffing plans.

In addition to providing support through the planning process, more than seven in 

10 districts reported providing low-performing schools with technical assistance on ways 

to focus resources on instruction (74 percent) and allocate resources more effectively to 

the activities most likely to increase student achievement (72 percent). Although both 

IASA and NCLB require identified schools to spend a minimum percentage of their 

Title I funds on professional development, only 52 percent of districts with lowperforming schools reported that they require their low-performing schools to do so.

Despite these reports of assistance being provided, most districts were not focusing 

their improvement efforts on resource reallocation. Only 20 percent of districts with lowperforming schools ranked resource reallocation among their two most important school 

improvement strategies (see Table 4). 

District Support for the Implementation of New Curricula 

Almost 65 percent of districts with low-performing schools required some or 

all of their schools to adopt new reading and language arts curricula in the last three 

years; similarly, more than 50 percent required the adoption of new math 

curricula.11 TASSIE also examined the reasons why districts required schools to adopt 

new curricula, focusing on those districts with Title I schools identified for improvement. 

Among districts with identified schools that required schools to adopt new curricula, 

most reported that requiring new curricula was a strategy aimed at improving and 

aligning instruction (see Table 6). Importantly, the regular textbook adoption cycle 

appeared to drive these district requirements more often than the fact that a school was 

identified for improvement under Title I. Of districts with identified schools that required 

the adoption of new reading and language arts curricula, 56 percent did so as part of their 

regular textbook adoption cycle, whereas 30 percent did so because schools were 

identified for improvement. The pattern was similar for mathematics. 

 

11 Although requiring the implementation of new curricula is listed as a corrective action in NCLB, 

TASSIE findings suggest that districts and schools generally see it as an assistance strategy. For this 

reason, it is included in the discussion of technical assistance.
29

Table 6

Reasons Schools Were Required to Adopt New Curricula, 

Among Districts with Identified Schools That Reported Requiring Some or All 

Schools to Adopt New Curricula

Percent of Districts 

Reporting Reason for 

Requiring the 

Adoption of New 

Reading and 

Language Arts 

Programs

Percent of Districts 

Reporting Reason for 

Requiring the 

Adoption of New 

Mathematics 

Programs

To support instruction that is consistent 

with our state or district standards 92 96

To establish consistency in instruction 

across schools, classrooms, and grade 

levels 90 94

To focus teachers on improving 

instruction 89 87

As part of our regular textbook adoption 

cycle 56 64

Because schools were identified for 

improvement under Title I 30 23

Exhibit reads: Among respondents from districts with identified schools that reported requiring some or all 

schools to adopt new reading and language arts curricula, 56 percent reported that they required adoption as 

part of their district’s regular adoption cycle, and 30 percent reported that they required adoption because 

schools were identified for improvement under Title I.

Note: Weighted N = 1,382 (unweighted N = 244) for calculating the percent of districts reporting reason for 

requiring the adoption of new reading and language arts programs. Weighted N = 1,313 (unweighted N = 

218) for calculating the percent of districts reporting reason for requiring adoptions of new mathematics 

programs.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

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

Special Grants 

Both IASA and NCLB call for the use of school support teams and distinguished 

educators to support schools identified for improvement. Administrators from districts 

with low-performing schools and principals of identified schools were generally 

consistent in their responses to questions about the relative use of these strategies for 

providing assistance to schools. Both reported that school support teams and special 

grants were more common means of delivering assistance than the use of additional staff 

to provide professional development or coach the principal (see Table 7). Principal 

reports, indicate that resource-intensive improvement strategies, such as school 

support teams and additional staff assigned to provide professional development or 

coach the principal, were used with fewer than half of all identified schools. Case 
30

study data suggest that, because of limited state and district capacity, these strategies 

were often used with only a subset of identified schools. This finding that many schools 

are not receiving intensive support for instructional improvement also raises questions 

about expectations for fundamental improvements in classroom practice and student 

learning. Such a finding is consistent with previous research that districts and states are 

not adequately helping low-performing schools build the capacity they need to improve 

performance because they themselves lack the capacity to assist individual schools (U.S. 

Department of Education 2001). 

Table 7

Strategies for Providing Assistance, as Reported by Administrators of Districts 

With Low-Performing Schools and Principals of Identified Schools 

Percent of Districts 

Reporting Assistance 

Provided

Percent of Principals 

Reporting Assistance 

Received

School support teams or other staff 

assigned to provide technical assistance 74 39

Special grants to support school 

improvement 66 59

Additional full-time school-level staff to 

support teacher development 27 16

A mentor or coach for the principal 26 14

Exhibit reads: Among respondents from districts with low-performing schools, 74 percent reported that 

“school support teams or other staff assigned to provide technical assistance” were provided to lowperforming schools. Among principals of schools identified for improvement under Title I, 39 percent 

reported receiving assistance from “school support teams or other staff assigned to provide technical 

assistance.”

Note: Weighted N = 4,290 (unweighted N = 642) for calculating the percent of districts reporting assistance 

provided. Weighted N = 8,078 (unweighted N = 578) for calculating the percent of principals reporting 

assistance received.

Source: TASSIE district and principal surveys.

District policy does not always distinguish between schools identified for 

improvement under Title I and other low-performing schools—or even all schools. 

The provision of technical assistance in support of school planning was, in some cases, 

targeted to schools identified for improvement (for an example, see Exhibit 8). In other 

cases, as site visits to districts in spring 2002 suggest, districts were engaged in districtwide efforts to support educators as they learned to make better use of data. 
31

Exhibit 8

Louisiana Provided Tools for Identified Schools 

to Use Data in Their Improvement Plans

The Louisiana Department of Education (LDE) provided tools for use in the school improvement 

process. LDE developed the School Assessment Model (SAM), which lays out a needs 

assessment and planning process for schools identified for improvement. The SAM includes a 

faculty needs assessment (including observation of instruction), an administrator questionnaire, a 

faculty questionnaire, interviews with 30 percent of faculty, focus groups with another 30 percent 

of faculty, a parent questionnaire, and a student questionnaire. LDE had also developed the 

School Implementation Model (SIM), which provides guidance on how districts and schools 

should monitor their progress on implementing activities outlined in the school improvement plan. 

Training on each of these models had been provided to District Assistance Teams, made up of 

district and school staff, through the state regional assistance centers.

Variation in Capacity to Provide Assistance by District Size

In 2001-02, larger districts with low-performing schools were more likely than 

smaller districts to report the provision of resource-intensive support, including 

state or district school support teams, full-time staff developers and mentors for 

principals, as well as special grants (see Exhibit 9).12 Similarly, larger districts were 

more likely than smaller districts to provide more resource-intensive types of support for 

curriculum alignment (see Exhibit 10). These findings indicate that the question of 

whether districts have the capacity to support low-performing schools may be especially 

salient for small districts. 

 

12 Analyses of principal reports by district size show a similar pattern: principals of schools in larger 

districts were more likely than principals in smaller districts to report receiving assistance from both 

school support teams and site-based professional developers.
32

Exhibit 9

District Reports of Strategies Used to Provide Assistance

to Low-Performing Schools 

18

16

60

67

32

42

71

82

53

52

86

89

68

71

92

99

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mentor or coach for

the principal.

Additional full-time

school-level staff to

support teacher

development

Special grants to

support school

improvement.

School support

teams or other staff

assigned to provide

technical assistance.

Percent of districts

Very Large District

Large District

Medium District

Small District

Exhibit reads: Among districts with low-performing schools, 68 percent of the very large districts, 53 

percent of the large districts, 32 percent of the medium districts, and 18 percent of the small districts deliver 

assistance to low-performing schools through mentors or coaches. 

Note: Weighted N for very large districts = 107 (unweighted = 94), for large districts = 413 (unweighted = 

217), for medium districts = 946 (unweighted = 188), and for small districts = 2,824 (unweighted = 143).

Source: TASSIE district survey.
33

Exhibit 10

District Reports of Assistance Provided to Low-performing Schools to Ensure 

Consistency of Curriculum and Instruction with State or District Standards

37

45

57

59

43

55

56

75

62

65

64

82

70

72

76

88

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Developed model

lesson plans based on

standards

Developed

classroom-embedded

assessments with a

standard scoring

rubric to monitor

progress

Mapped out the

alignment of required

textbooks and

instructional programs

to assessments

Published detailed

curriculum guides with

standards,

frameworks, and

pacing sequences

Percent of districts

Very Large Districts

Large Districts

Medium Districts

Small Districts

Exhibit reads: Among districts with low-performing schools, 88 percent of the very large districts, 82 

percent of the large districts, 75 percent of the medium districts, and 59 percent of the small districts assist 

schools by publishing detailed curriculum guides with standards, frameworks, and pacing sequences. 

Note: Weighted N for very large districts = 107 (unweighted = 94), for large districts = 413 (unweighted = 

217), for medium districts = 946 (unweighted = 188), and for small districts = 2,824 (unweighted = 143).

Source: TASSIE district survey.

 

In contrast, smaller districts with low-performing schools were similar to larger 

districts in terms of how they set priorities: when asked to rank order school improvement 
34

strategies (see Table 4), the pattern was the same, regardless of district size. Similarly, 

the technical assistance that districts reported providing to identified schools in the 

development of their school plans did not show a consistent pattern by district size. Nor 

were there significant differences in district reports of support for professional 

development and resource reallocation or in the rate at which districts required schools to 

adopt new curricula. These findings suggest that most districts, regardless of size, have 

the capacity to pursue these types of less resource-intensive strategies.

Limited district capacity, especially among smaller districts, is particularly 

important because districts were the primary providers of assistance to lowperforming schools under IASA and may still be under NCLB. More than threefourths of districts with low-performing schools reported that they, not states, were the 

source of four types of assistance provided to their low-performing schools: additional 

professional development, school support teams or other staff assigned to provide 

technical assistance, additional full-time school-level staff to support teacher 

development and a coach for the principal (see Table 8). Only in the case of special 

grants to support school improvement did districts report that states were the primary 

source of assistance (see Exhibit 11 for a description of the state grant program in 

Arizona). Although NCLB calls on states to help districts comply with their school 

improvement responsibilities and, if necessary, provide direct assistance to schools, 

districts are still expected to be the primary providers of assistance. 

Table 8

Source of Assistance Provided to Low-Performing Schools 

Source of Assistance

Type of Assistance

Percent of Districts 

Reporting Assistance 

Provided District State

Additional professional development or special 

access to professional development resources 89 88 35

School support teams or other staff assigned to 

provide technical assistance 74 79 37

Special grants to support school improvement 66 36 80

Additional full-time school-level staff to support 

teacher development 27 77 33

Mentor or coach for the principal 26 90 17

Exhibit reads: Among the 74 percent of districts with low-performing schools that reported that lowperforming schools in their district had been provided with assistance from “school support teams or other 

staff assigned to provide technical assistance,” 79 percent reported the district provided the assistance, and 

37 percent reported that the state provided the assistance.

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

Source: TASSIE district survey.
35

Exhibit 11

Arizona Department of Education Provided Grants to “Most in Need” Schools

The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) administered a grant program, the Title I 

Accountability Planning Grant, to provide assistance to schools identified by the state as “most in 

need of improvement;” that is, they have the largest gap between the state goals for student 

achievement in reading and mathematics and their current status, and they have not made AYP 

for two consecutive years. To receive these grants ($30,000 per grantee), schools were asked to 

select, contract and work with an ADE-approved external facilitator; develop a school 

improvement plan as specified in the Arizona School Improvement Guide; provide in-depth, 

frequent professional development for instructional staff and administrators based on school 

needs and focused on instructional strategies and content; implement research-based strategies 

that show a strong relationship with student achievement; and attend ADE school improvement 

training. This state-run grant program was funded with federal Title I Accountability Grant funds. 

Public School Choice 

Nationwide, 41 percent of all Title I districts (an estimated 4,521) reported 

offering some sort of public school choice option during the 2001-02 school year. 

For Title I under IASA, Congress added requirements in 1999 and 2000 that school 

choice be offered to students in certain Title I schools. A little more than half (54 

percent) of districts (approximately 1,217) with identified Title I schools offered 

public school choice during the 2001-02 school year, but the choice options did not 

necessarily meet the criteria now specified under NCLB that parents be notified of 

choice options before the start of the school year and that transferring students be 

provided with transportation to nonidentified schools. In many cases, these choice 

options were in place as a result of broader state policies that were not necessarily 

connected to Title I or to low-performing schools. As of the 2000-01 school year, 33 

states had enacted various open enrollment policies (Education Commission of the States 

2002).

Under IASA, few districts provided parents of students in identified schools 

with the choice to transfer to alternative public schools with transportation 

provided, as NCLB now requires. Only 7 percent of all Title I districts and 12 percent 

of districts with schools identified for improvement offered transfers to an alternate 

public school within the district, with transportation provided (see Exhibit 12). 

The most frequently reported option was residential assignment with the 

option to transfer to schools outside of a student’s attendance area (27 percent for 

all districts; 40 percent for districts with schools identified for improvement). The 

next most frequent choice option was transfer to an alternative public school outside the 

district (22 percent of all districts; 26 percent of districts with identified schools). 

The likelihood that some choice options were offered during the 2001-02 school 

year depended on the size of the district (as measured by student enrollment). 

Smaller districts were more likely than larger districts to offer transfers to schools outside 

their boundaries. Conversely, larger districts were more likely than smaller districts to 
36

offer open enrollment among magnet schools or public charter schools, transfers to an 

alternate public school within the district (without transportation) and residential 

assignment with the option to transfer to schools outside a student’s attendance area. 

This was the case whether or not districts had Title I schools identified for improvement.

Most (68 percent) of the districts with identified Title I schools that offered 

public school choice reported that they did not give students in identified schools 

priority over other students in exercising the district choice options available to 

them under IASA. Policies in these districts typically provided all students 

opportunities to select alternative public schools, regardless of the status of their own 

Exhibit 12 

District Reports of Available Public School Choice Options

27

22

11

9

9

7

40

26

20

19

18

12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Residential assignment with option to transfer to schools outside

of students' attendance area

Transfer to alternate public school outside district

Open enrollment for all schools in the district 

Open enrollment among magnet schools or charter schools

Transfer to alternate public school within district without

transportation provided, for parents of students in Title I identified

schools

Transfer to alternate public school within district, with

transportation provided, for parents of students in Title I identified

schools

Percent of districts

All Title I districts Title I districts with schools identified for improvement

Exhibit reads: Among all Title I districts, 11 percent allowed open enrollment for all schools in the district; 

among Title I districts with schools identified for improvement, 20 percent allowed open enrollment for all 

schools in the district.

Note: Weighted N = 11,208 for all Title I districts (unweighted N = 1,019); weighted N = 2,313 for Title I 

districts with schools identified for improvement (unweighted N = 404).

Source: TASSIE district survey. 
37

school. Under NCLB, such policies will likely change because the new legislation 

requires choice for parents of students in Title I schools identified as in need of 

improvement as soon as a school is identified and that such choice be provided regardless 

of structural constraints (e.g., space).

Partly as a result of the varying policies and practices involving public school 

choice, many districts were not able to specify the number of students who have 

exercised the option to transfer from a Title I school identified for improvement. Of the 

districts that were able to provide information, 76 percent said that no students exercised 

their choice options, another 22 percent said fewer than 10 students chose to move, and 

the remaining 2 percent said that 10 or more students had moved.

Even when districts with identified schools made choice options available to 

parents, they often faced structural challenges: lack of space in alternate schools, 

lack of transportation to alternate schools, and the lack of alternate schools within 

the district (e.g., there was only one school per grade level, or all schools were identified 

for improvement) (see Table 9). Only a small portion of districts was affected by these 

challenges to a great extent (20 percent to 29 percent). On the other hand, the challenges 

differed by the size of the district. Only 17 percent of the small districts reported lack of 

space to be a challenge. This percentage increased to 37 percent in medium districts, 50 

percent in large districts, and 62 percent in very large districts. In contrast, 40 percent of 

small districts reported the lack of alternate schools to present a challenge while less than 

7 percent of medium, large, and very large districts reported this challenge. The new 

federal regulations for Title I choice under NCLB, unlike the earlier IASA policies, do 

not exempt districts facing these obstacles from the requirement to offer choice.

In 2001-02, 43 percent of districts with schools identified for improvement 

indicated that they provided some form of supplemental services as a strategy for 

helping students in identified schools, but districts’ definition of what constituted 

supplemental services would not necessarily meet NCLB requirements. Thus these 

data can be used only to consider the general use of supplemental services before 

enactment of NCLB and not for understanding the implementation of NCLB 

supplemental services provisions.
38

Table 9

District Reports of Challenges to Successful Implementation of Public School Choice, 

Among Districts with Schools Identified for Improvement under Title I

Percent of Districts Reporting 

Extent of Challenge

Not at All 

or Small 

Extent

Moderate 

Extent

Great 

Extent

No alternate schools within the district (e.g., there is 

only one school per grade level, or all schools are 

identified for improvement under Title I) 70 10 20

Lack of space in alternate schools 53 17 29

Lack of transportation to alternate schools 54 21 25

Inadequate information for parents about school 

choice options 85 12 3

Inadequate information for parents about the status of 

their child’s school as identified for improvement under 

Title I 80 15 4

Exhibit reads: Among districts with identified Title I schools, 70 percent reported that having no alternate 

schools in the district did not pose a challenge to the successful implementation of public school choice or 

posed a challenge only to a small extent. Ten percent of respondents reported that a lack of alternate 

schools posed a challenge to a moderate extent, and 20 percent said it posed a great challenge. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. Weighted N = 2,313; unweighted N = 404.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Corrective Actions and School Restructuring 

Districts, allowed to define corrective actions locally under IASA, were much 

more likely to take actions with identified schools that might be characterized as 

assistance rather than as sanctions in 2001-02. Districts were required to take 

corrective actions with schools during their third year in improvement status. Districts 

with identified schools most frequently reported four corrective actions: requiring the 

implementation of a new research-based curriculum (49 percent), extending the school 

day or year (39 percent), appointing an outside expert to advise the school (32 percent) 

and decreasing school-level decision making (14 percent). These and all of the other 

strategies included in Exhibit 13 are among the corrective actions or restructuring efforts 

in NCLB that districts must select from for schools that continue to not make AYP. As 

Exhibit 13 shows, districts rarely reported pursuing those options associated with 

restructuring. 
39

Exhibit 13

District Reports of Corrective Actions Taken 

With Schools Identified for Improvement under Title I 

Exhibit reads: Fewer than half (45 percent) of districts with schools identified for improvement under 

Title I required identified schools to implement a new research-based curriculum or instructional program.

Note: Weighted N = 2,313; unweighted N = 404. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

When comparing improvement efforts taken with schools identified for corrective 

action to those with schools identified for fewer years, districts with schools in corrective 

action reported that corrective action schools were more likely to receive assistance (e.g., 

adoption of a school reform model, more-intensive support from school support teams) 

than sanctions (e.g., reduced autonomy in selecting school improvement strategies) (see 

49

39

32

14

2

0

0

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Requiring the implementation of a new researchbased curriculum/instructional program

Extending the school day/year

Appointing an outside expert to advise

Decreasing school-level decision-making authority

Replacing all or most of the school staff

Having the state takeover school operations

Contracting a private management company to

operate the school

Reopening the school as a public charter school

Percent of districts
40

Table 10). As was true for providing resource-intensive support, these findings varied by 

district size: larger districts were more likely than smaller districts to report that 

corrective action schools received greater monitoring and oversight, more intensive 

support from technical assistance providers and larger school improvement grants than 

other schools identified for improvement.

Table 10

District Reports of Assistance Provided to Schools in Corrective Action, 

Among Districts with Schools in Corrective Action

Compared with other schools identified for improvement, 

schools identified for corrective action under Title I...

Percent Reporting to a 

Moderate or Great Extent

Are more likely to adopt a new instructional program or school 

reform model.

71

Receive greater monitoring and oversight from the district or the 

state or both

61

Receive more intensive support from school support teams or 

other technical assistance providers

57

Are more likely to receive regular monitoring of classroom 

instruction by district staff

48

Receive larger school improvement grants 40

Have principals who are more closely supervised 36

Have less autonomy in selecting school improvement strategies 28

Have less discretion over school-level spending 22

Exhibit reads: 71 percent of districts reported that, to a moderate or great extent, Title I schools identified 

for corrective action are more likely to adopt a new instructional program or school reform model than 

other schools identified for improvement.

Note: Weighted N = 1,224; unweighted N = 209.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Overall, no more than 2 percent of districts with identified schools imposed 

any one action associated with restructuring, and fewer than 5 percent of districts 

that were required to take corrective actions with identified Title I schools did so. 

(Only districts with identified schools in states with approved assessment systems 

were required to take corrective action under IASA.) In both cases, these more 

severe actions were taken only in districts where the accountability system had been 

in place at least three years. The stability of the accountability system may have 

influenced which corrective actions were taken—the longer an accountability system was 

in place, the more likely that sanctions were imposed, because schools could be identified 

for improvement for a longer period. In addition, under IASA, districts were not required 

to take corrective actions if their states did not yet have an assessment system approved 
41

under Title I, and only 21 states had these final assessment systems in place as of October 

2002. 

NCLB requires districts to impose corrective actions no matter what the approval 

status of their state’s assessment and accountability systems. Moreover, it requires that 

districts begin to plan for “restructuring” actions (e.g., replacing the principal and staff) 

with schools that do not make AYP for three years after being first identified for 

improvement. As a result, these stronger consequences may occur more commonly under 

NCLB. 
42
43

IV Conclusions

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) seeks to ensure that all children have the opportunity 

to learn to high standards. NCLB’s requirements for rigorous accountability systems at 

the state and local levels are meant to further this goal by creating incentives and support 

for local educators to improve student performance in low-achieving schools. Findings 

from the first year (2001-02) of the Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and 

School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE) suggest that states, districts, and schools are well 

positioned to meet many of these challenges, but will need to make substantial changes to

meet certain provisions of the law. 

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

found:

• Nearly all states and districts had standards that applied to all students, had or 

were developing assessment systems aligned with those standards and had 

processes in place for identifying low-performing schools. 

• Most states and districts had mechanisms—such as school report cards—for 

informing parents and the public about the achievement of students in individual 

schools. 

• In most places, publicly reported data were already being disaggregated by 

student subpopulation. 

• Most districts were actively seeking to support schools identified for 

improvement, especially through school planning, the use of assessment data for 

decision-making and teacher professional development.

• Many states and districts already were providing some school choice options to 

parents, often through districtwide open enrollment policies. 

At the same time, progress in these areas did not always meet the requirements of 

NCLB; and in other areas, states and districts have a long way to go to meet both the 

letter and the spirit of NCLB. For instance, in 2001-02:

• Many states continued to operate accountability systems that applied different 

standards to Title I schools.

• The criteria used to identify schools for improvement under Title I varied 

widely from state to state, and some states relied heavily on measures of growth 

in student achievement to assess school performance. 

• Few states had fully implemented practices for identifying low-performing 

districts under Title I.

• School staffs in particular were often confused about the specifics of the 

identification process and of how and whether their school was identified for 

improvement. 

• Few schools were receiving resource-intensive support, such as coaches or 

distinguished educators. 
44

• Many district efforts to support low-performing schools made little distinction 

between schools identified under Title I and other low-performing schools. 

• Most districts did not have experience implementing the corrective action 

strategies for schools outlined in NCLB.

• State and district efforts to provide parental choice often would not meet the 

requirements in NCLB. 

The evaluation found that policymakers were aware of these problems and were 

seeking ways to address them. Of particular concern was the capacity of states and 

districts—especially small districts—to provide the resource-intensive support thought to 

be needed to turn around low-performing schools. TASSIE will continue to track 

changes at the state, district, and school levels in school years 2002-03 and 2003-04 to 

assess progress in meeting the goals of No Child Left Behind. 
45

References

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2002). State accountability profile, 2001-02 

school year. Unpublished data.

Education Commission of the States. (2002, March). No state left behind: The 

challenges and opportunities of ESEA 2001. Denver, Colorado: Author.

Esch, C., Lash, A., and Shields, P. M. (2003). Demographic characteristics of Title I 

schools in need of improvement. Menlo Park, California: SRI International. 

Goertz, M. E., Duffy, M. C., and Le Floch, K. C. (2001, March). Assessment and 

accountability systems in the 50 states: 1999-2000. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 

Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania Graduate 

School of Education.

Manise, J., Blank, R. K., and Dardine, C. (2001). State education indicators with a focus 

on Title I. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers. 

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Common core of data. U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: Author.

O’Day, J. (1999). One system or two? Title I accountability in the context of high stakes 

for schools in local districts and states. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education.

Schenck, A., and Carlson, D. (2002, January). Standards-based assessment and 

accountability in American education: Progress of the states in implementing the 

requirements of IASA, Title I, from 1997 through 2000 [draft]. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service.

Shields, P., Laguarda, K.G., Lash, A., Padilla, C., Winter, N., Woodworth, K., Uperesa, 

L., and Javitz, H. (2003). Evaluation of Title I accountability systems and school 

improvement efforts (TASSIE): First-year technical report. Menlo Park, California: 

SRI International.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001, January). First annual school improvement 

report: Executive order on actions for turning around low-performing schools. 

Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Schools identified as in need of improvement 

under Title I: Recent evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools

[Evaluation Brief]. Washington, D.C.: author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). State ESEA Title I participation information for 

2000-01. Washington, D.C.: Author.
46