In 2008, the U.S. Department of Education launched a differentiated accountability pilot to allow states to vary the intensity and types of interventions to better target resources and assistance to those schools most in need of intensive interventions and significant reform.  Under Title I of the *Elementary and Secondary Education Act*, schools and districts that do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward the goal of all students achieving proficiency on state reading and mathematics assessments, for two or more consecutive years, are identified as in need of improvement and are subject to increasing levels of interventions.  States participating in the differentiated accountability pilot were granted waivers allowing them to change the structure of their school improvement categories based on the lengths of time and reasons for missing AYP.  Each state was expected to clearly define its system of interventions to be applied to schools in each category, including interventions for the lowest-performing schools.

The Department approved waivers through the 2011–12 school year for Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and Ohio in July 2008, and through the 2012–13 school year for Arkansas, Louisiana, and New York in January 2009.

# Research Questions 

1. How have states used their waivers to change their school improvement categories?

2. How have states responded to their waivers in terms of proposed plans for school interventions?

3. What challenges are states, districts, schools, and school support providers experiencing in implementing differentiated accountability?

# Study Design

The study gathered information on implementation of the differentiated accountability pilot through interviews at the state and local levels and through review of extant documents, such as states’ differentiated accountability plans, and other public documents. 

Staff interviewed in each state included the state Title I director, a state support provider, a district Title I director, and an elementary or middle school principal.

**Highlights**

· Most pilot states determined school improvement status based on both the percentage of AYP indicators the school had met and the number of years the school had been under an improvement plan. 

· Although most changes implemented were allowable prior to the waiver, state respondents reported that the differentiated accountability pilot provided an impetus for their states to implement strategies intended to better coordinate, target, and expand their technical assistance services. 

· The main change made under differentiated accountability that was not already allowable without the waiver was that seven of the nine states offered supplemental educational services one year earlier and counted those funds towards meeting the requirement for spending on supplemental services and transportation related to public school choice.

# Key Findings

**Most pilot states determined school improvement status based on both the percentage of AYP indicators the school had met and the number of years the school had been under an improvement plan.**

Eight of the nine states reported that they added tiers within school improvement levels to differentiate schools based on the number of AYP indicators not successfully met. The states used terms such as “targeted” or “focused” for schools that missed AYP based on the performance of a small number of subgroups and words like “comprehensive” for schools with more widespread problems. 

Pilot states varied in the specific categories that were added and the rules that they defined to determine the specific category for each school.

**Pilot States Using Various Criteria for Measures of Differentiated Accountability Tiers**

**Although most changes that states implemented were allowable prior to the waiver, state respondents reported that the differentiated accountability pilot provided an impetus for their states to implement strategies intended to better coordinate, target, and expand their technical assistance services.**

State respondents said that the waiver provided an opportunity to rethink and improve their approaches to supporting Schools in Need of Improvement. Strategies that states reported implementing under the differentiated accountability pilot included aligning technical assistance services with newly designated improvement tiers, expanding leadership institutes, designing more professional development regarding the use of data, and increasing on‐site assistance for schools from state, regional, and district service providers. 

States with regional service centers reported taking steps to coordinate state education agency and regional service center support activities in order to avoid overlap, and one state created a new regional support system to assist the state in delivering support services.

The one change made under differentiated accountability that was not already allowable without the waiver was the option to offer supplemental educational services one year earlier and count the costs of doing so toward a district’s “20 percent obligation” (i.e., the amount of Title I funds that districts with schools identified for improvement are required to spend on public school choice-related transportation and supplemental educational services).  This option was chosen by seven of the nine pilot states.

**Implementation of the differentiated accountability plans varied across the pilot states.**

Most pilot states reported that they had implemented differentiated accountability as scheduled and proposed in their plans. A few reported a variety of circumstances, ranging from short implementation time lines to shifting priorities to changes in leadership, as reasons to modify or delay the implementation of their differentiated accountability plans.

# Study Limitations

The study reflects an early stage of implementation of states’ differentiated accountability plans: 18 months at most (and, in some cases, much less). The report is based on interviews with a small number of purposively selected individuals in the pilot states (four per state). 

Many of the findings are based on self-reports from the state agency staff responsible for implementing the differentiated accountability plans, and there was often little supporting documentation for the information they reported (aside from the plans themselves). Although the study also conducted interviews with local educators in districts and schools that were affected by the differentiated accountability plans, local educators often did not have a clear understanding of what state actions and changes were part of the state’s differentiated accountability plan, particularly because these plans often sought to coordinate with and use resources from other programs.