State and Local Implementation of the 

No Child Left Behind Act

Volume III—Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report 

A report from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and the 

Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB) 

Kerstin Carlson Le Floch, AIR 

Felipe Martinez, RAND 

Jennifer O’Day, AIR 

Brian Stecher, RAND 

James Taylor, AIR 

Andrea Cook, AIR 

---------------- 

Series Principal Investigators 

Georges Vernez, RAND 

Beatrice F. Birman, AIR 

Michael S. Garet, AIR 

Jennifer O’Day, AIR 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2007 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED00CO0087 with RAND 

and Contract Number ED-01-CO-0026/0024 with AIR. Stephanie Stullich served as the contracting officer’s 

representative for the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind, and Collette Roney and Elizabeth Eisner 

served as contracting officer’s representatives for the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher 

Quality Under No Child Left Behind. 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 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Doug Mesecar 

Acting Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies 

David Goodwin 

Director 

September 2007 

This report is in the public domain, except for the cover photo, which is © 2007 JupiterImages Corporation. 

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 Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume 

III—Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report, Washington, D.C., 2007. 

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 1-877-576-7734. 

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

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

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title. 

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more 

information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818. 
Contents iii 

CONTENTS 

Exhibits......................................................................................................................................v

Preface ................................................................................................................................... xiii

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................xv

Executive Summary...............................................................................................................xvii

Key Findings..............................................................................................................................................xvii

NCLB Requirements ...............................................................................................................................xviii

State Standards, Assessments, and Targets ............................................................................................xix

Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress Targets............................................................................................xxi

Identifying Schools and Districts for Improvement...........................................................................xxiv

Providing Information About School Performance ............................................................................xxv

Actions to Promote Improvement ........................................................................................................xxvi

Implications for Future Policy................................................................................................................xxix

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

Overview of Accountability Provisions of NCLB ...................................................................................1

Evaluation Questions and Data Sources ...................................................................................................6

II. State Standards, Assessments, and Targets ........................................................................9

Implementing Standards and Assessments in Reading, Mathematics and Science .............................9

Measuring Progress Toward Proficiency: Adequate Yearly Progress..................................................18

Aligning Prior State Accountability Systems With NCLB ....................................................................27

Ensuring Progress for Students With Limited English Proficiency: Title III Accountability .........29

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................33

III. Early Results: Meeting AYP Targets...............................................................................35

School and District Adequate Yearly Progress.......................................................................................36

Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives ..........................................................................48

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................48

IV. Identifying Schools and Districts for Improvement ........................................................ 51

Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement................................................................................52

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................60
Contents iv 

V. Providing Information About School Performance to Stakeholders................................63

State Data Systems and Reporting............................................................................................................64

State Report Cards ......................................................................................................................................67

Principal and Teacher Knowledge of the Status of Their Schools......................................................69

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................72

VI. Actions to Promote School and District Improvement....................................................73

School Improvement Efforts ....................................................................................................................74

District Improvement Efforts.................................................................................................................103

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................109

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 111

References...............................................................................................................................115

Appendix A. Description of NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB Methodologies ............................119

Appendix B. State AYP Definitions ...................................................................................... 129

Appendix C. Supplemental Exhibits..................................................................................... 133

Appendix D. Standard Error Exhibits................................................................................... 163
Exhibits v 

EXHIBITS 

 

Executive Summary 

Exhibit S.1 Stages of Identification for School Improvement............................................................xx 

Exhibit S.2 Percentage of Schools Making AYP, by School Poverty Level, Minority 

Level, and Urbanicity, 2003–04.........................................................................................xxii 

Exhibit S.3 Reasons Schools Did Not Make AYP, 2003–04 ...........................................................xxiii 

I. Introduction 

Exhibit 1 NCLB Strategies to Reach 100 Percent Student Proficiency ...........................................2 

Exhibit 2 Stages of Identification for School Improvement..............................................................5 

II. State Standards , Assessments, and Targets 

Exhibit 3 Year in Which Current Reading, Mathematics and Science Content Standards 

Were Adopted or Most Recently Revised .........................................................................11 

Exhibit 4 Number of States That Administered Assessments Intended to Meet NCLB

Requirements, by Subject and Grade, 2004–05................................................................12 

Exhibit 5 State Approaches to Developing Assessments Required for 2005–06 .........................13 

Exhibit 6 Six Most Commonly Offered Accommodations for Students With Limited 

English Proficiency in Content-Area Assessments..........................................................16 

Exhibit 7 NAEP Scale Equivalents of State Proficiency Standards, by State EighthGrade Mathematics, 2003 ....................................................................................................19 

Exhibit 8 Improvement Needed to Reach 100 Percent Proficient by 2013–14, by Level 

of Difficulty of State Academic Achievement Standards, for Eighth-Grade 

Mathematics ...........................................................................................................................23 

Exhibit 9 Examples of Stair-Step, Linear, and Mixed-Pattern AMO Trajectories 

(Mathematics) ........................................................................................................................24 

Exhibit 10 Expected Achievement Growth Based on Different AMO Trajectory Types............25 

Exhibit 11 Perceived Benefits and Drawbacks of Having State and District 

Accountability Initiatives in Addition to NCLB, in Districts and Schools 

That Report Having Them, 2004–05.................................................................................29 

Exhibit 12 State English Language Proficiency Standards: First School Year When 

2004–05 Standards Were Implemented.............................................................................30 

Exhibit 13 Content-Area Subjects Aligned with 2004–05 English Language Proficiency 

Standards ................................................................................................................................31 

Exhibit 14 Numbers of States Calculating AMAOs for Various Types of Districts......................33 

III. Early Results: Meeting AYP Targets 

Exhibit 15 Percentage of Schools and Districts That Made AYP, by State, 2003–04....................37 
Exhibits vi 

Exhibit 16 Percentage of Schools That Made AYP, by State Accountability Policies, 

2003–04 ..................................................................................................................................38 

Exhibit 17 Percentage of Schools Making AYP, by School Poverty Level, Minority 

Level, and Urbanicity, 2003–04...........................................................................................39 

Exhibit 18 Percentage of Schools Making AYP, by School Grade Level and School Size, 

2003–04 ..................................................................................................................................40 

Exhibit 19 Percentage of Schools That Made AYP, by School Poverty Level and 

Number of Subgroups, 2003–04.........................................................................................41 

Exhibit 20 Reasons Schools Did Not Make AYP, 2003–04 ..............................................................43 

Exhibit 21 Number and Percentage of Schools Required to Calculate AYP for Each 

Student Subgroup, 2003–04.................................................................................................44 

Exhibit 22 Percentage of Schools Held Accountable for a Subgroup That Did Not Make 

AYP for That Subgroup, 2003–04......................................................................................45 

Exhibit 23 Percentage of Schools by Number of Student Subgroups for Which AYP was 

Calculated, 2003–04..............................................................................................................45 

Exhibit 24 Percentage of Schools with Various Numbers of Subgroups That Did Not 

Make AYP for Subgroups, 2003–04...................................................................................46 

Exhibit 25 Number and Percentage of Schools That Did Not Make AYP Due to the 

Other Academic Indicator, by School Grade Level, 2003–04 .......................................47 

Exhibit 26 Number and Percentage of Title III Subgrantees That Met AMAO Targets 

and Number of LEP Students Served, by State, 2003–04 ..............................................49 

IV. Identifying Schools and Districts for Improvement 

Exhibit 27 Number and Percentage of Title I Schools Identified for Improvement, 

1996–97 to 2004–05 .............................................................................................................52 

Exhibit 28 Percentage of Districts That Had At Least One Identified Title I School, 

2001–02 to 2004–05 .............................................................................................................53 

Exhibit 29 Percentage of Districts, by Number of Schools Identified for Improvement, 

2002–03 to 2004–05 .............................................................................................................54 

Exhibit 30 Number and Percentage of Identified Schools, by State, 2004–05 ...............................55 

Exhibit 31 Number and Percent of Identified Districts, by State, 2004–05....................................57 

Exhibit 32 Percentage of Schools Identified for Improvement, by School Poverty Level, 

Minority Level, and Urbanicity, 2004–05 ..........................................................................58 

Exhibit 33 Percentage of Identified Schools, by School Size, 2004–05 ...........................................59 

Exhibit 34 Number and Percentage of Identified Title I Schools That Exited 

Improvement Status for 2004–05.......................................................................................60 

V. Providing Information About School Performance to Stakeholders 

Exhibit 35 Timing of State Notification to Districts and Schools Regarding Preliminary 

and Final School Identification, 2004–05 (Number of States, by Month of 

Notification)...........................................................................................................................65 
Exhibits vii 

Exhibit 36 Number of States with Data Systems That Include a Unique Student 

Identifier, 2001-05.................................................................................................................66 

Exhibit 37 Content of State Assessment Reports to Districts or Schools, 2003–04......................67 

Exhibit 38 Percentage of Staff Correctly Reporting Whether Their School Made AYP or 

Was Identified for Improvement Based on 2003–04 Test Results................................70 

Exhibit 39 Percentage of Staff in Title I Schools Correctly Reporting Whether Their 

Schools Were Identified for Improvement, 2004–05......................................................71 

VI. Actions to Promote School and District Improvement 

Exhibit 40 Primary Support Mechanisms for Identified Schools, 2004–05 ...................................74 

Exhibit 41 Primary Focus of Support Provided by States, 2004–05.................................................78 

Exhibit 42 Percentage of Non-Identified and Identified Schools Reported Needing and 

Receiving Various Types of Technical Assistance, 2003–04 or 2004–05.....................79 

Exhibit 43 Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance in Four Areas, by 

School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05......................................................................80 

Exhibit 44 Percentage of Districts with Identified Schools Reporting That They 

Provided Technical Assistance to Various Types of Schools in Either 

2003–04 or 2004–05 .............................................................................................................82 

Exhibit 45 Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance to Improve the Quality 

of Teachers' Professional Development, by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 

2004–05 ..................................................................................................................................84 

Exhibit 46 Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance to Meet the Needs of 

Students with Disabilities, by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05..................85 

Exhibit 47 Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance to Meet the Needs of 

Limited English Proficient Students, by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 

2004–05 ..................................................................................................................................86 

Exhibit 48 Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance to Analyze Assessment 

Results, by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05..................................................87 

Exhibit 49 Percentage of Schools Reporting Major Focus on Various School 

Improvement Strategies, 2004–05 ......................................................................................88 

Exhibit 50 Percentage of General Education Teachers Reporting Availability of Various 

Resources for Aligning Curriculum and Instruction With State Content 

Standards, 2004–05...............................................................................................................90 

Exhibit 51 Percentage of General Education Teachers Reporting Moderate or Major 

Challenges to Improving Student Performance, 2004–05 ..............................................91 

Exhibit 52 Percentage of Schools Offering Extended Time Instructional Programs and 

Percentage of Students Served by Such Programs, 1997–98 and 2004–05..................92 

Exhibit 53 Percentage of Elementary Schools Increasing and Decreasing Instructional 

Time in Various Subjects by More Than 30 Minutes per Day Between 

2003–04 and 2004–05...........................................................................................................93 

Exhibit 54 Percentage of Secondary Schools Increasing Instructional Time for LowAchieving Students in Various Subjects Between 2003–04 and 2004–05 ....................94 
Exhibits viii 

Exhibit 55 Percentage of Schools Reporting Moderate or Extensive Use of State 

Achievement Tests for Various Purposes, 2004–05........................................................95 

Exhibit 56 Percentage of Elementary Teachers and Secondary English Teachers Using 

State Reading Assessment Results Moderately or Extensively for Various 

Purposes, 2004–05 ................................................................................................................96 

Exhibit 57 Percentage of Schools Administering Progress Tests, by School 

Characteristic, 2004–05 ........................................................................................................98 

Exhibit 58 Percentage of General Education Teachers Administering Progress Tests in 

Reading Who Use Results Moderately or Extensively for Various Purposes, 

2004–05 ..................................................................................................................................99 

Exhibit 59 Percentage of Title I Schools Experiencing Various Types of Interventions 

From Their State or District, 2004–05.............................................................................100 

Exhibit 60 Percentage of Districts With Identified Schools Requiring Schools to Enact 

Various Improvement Efforts, 2004–05 .........................................................................101 

Exhibit 61 Number of States Using Specific Corrective Action and Restructuring 

Strategies, 2004–05..............................................................................................................103 

Exhibit 62 Number of States Providing Technical Assistance to Districts, by Type of 

Technical Assistance, 2004–05..........................................................................................104 

Exhibit 63 Percentage of Districts Needing and Receiving Mandated Technical 

Assistance and Finding It Sufficient to Meet Their Needs, 2003–04 or 

2004–05 ................................................................................................................................106 

Exhibit 64 Percentage of Identified Districts Implementing Various Initiatives in 

Response to Being Identified for Improvement, 2004–05 ...........................................108 

Exhibit 65 Percentage of Identified Districts Experiencing State Interventions Mandated 

for Districts in Corrective Action, 2004–05....................................................................109 

Appendix A. Description of NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB Methodologies 

Exhibit A.1 Sample Sizes and Response Rates for NLS-NCLB Surveys.........................................120 

Exhibit A.2 Characteristics of NLS-NCLB District and School Sample Compared With 

the Universe of Districts and Schools..............................................................................121 

Appendix B. State AYP Definitions 

Exhibit B.1 Core Components of State AYP Definitions, 2003–04 ................................................129 

Appendix C. Supplemental Exhibits 

Exhibit C.1 Relationship of Alignment of ELP Standards to Academic Content Standards 

and of ELP Assessments to ELP Standards, by State, 2004–05.................................133 

Exhibit C.2 Status of ELP Assessments, by State, 2004–05..............................................................135 

Exhibit C.3 Percentage of Schools and Districts That Made AYP, by State, 2003–04..................137 

Exhibit C.4 Results of Multiple Logistic Regression Model of Schools’ Likelihood of 

Making AYP, 2003–04 .......................................................................................................139 
Exhibits ix 

Exhibit C.5 Probability of Making AYP for Various Types of Schools, 2003–04 .........................140 

Exhibit C.6 Percent of Schools That Did Not Make AYP, by Reason for Not Making 

AYP and by State, 2003–04..............................................................................................141 

Exhibit C.7 Percentage of Schools that Did Not Make AYP for the Additional Academic 

Indicator, by Type of School and by State, 2003–04....................................................143 

Exhibit C.8 Percentage of Schools that Did Not Make AYP, by Reason for Not Making 

AYP and by State, 2003–04...............................................................................................145 

Exhibit C.9 Percentage of Students in Each Subgroup in Schools Held Accountable for 

Their Subgroup, by Student Subgroup, 2003–04 ...........................................................147 

Exhibit C.10 Percentage of Schools That Did Not Make AYP That Missed Subgroup 

Achievement Targets, 2003–04, by Student Subgroup..................................................148 

Exhibit C.11 Percentage of Schools that Missed AYP Due to Achievement and 

Participation, by Student Subgroup, 2003–04.................................................................148 

Exhibit C.12 Number and Percentage of Identified Title I Schools, by State, 2003–04 .................149 

Exhibit C.13 Number of Schools Identified for Improvement, and Percentage of Students 

in Identified Schools, by Subgroups and by State, 2003–04........................................151 

Exhibit C.14 Percentage of Identified Schools, by Other Demographic Characteristics, 

2004–05 ................................................................................................................................153 

Exhibit C.15 Results of Multiple Logistic Regression Model of Schools’ Likelihood of 

Having Been Identified for Improvement, 2004–05 .....................................................154 

Exhibit C.16 Probability of Being Identified for Improvement for Various Types of 

Schools, 2004–05.................................................................................................................155 

Exhibit C.17 Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance Related to Professional 

Qualifications, by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05....................................156 

Exhibit C.18 Percentage of Schools Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance to Meet 

the Needs of Students with Disabilities and Percentage Finding It Sufficient 

to Meet Their Needs, by School Characteristic, 2004–05.............................................157 

Exhibit C.19 Percentage of Schools Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance to Meet 

the Needs of LEP Students and Percentage Finding It Sufficient to Meet 

Their Needs, by School Characteristic, 2004–05............................................................158 

Exhibit C.20 Existence of and Participation in Extended Time Instructional Programs, 

2004–05 ................................................................................................................................159 

Exhibit C.21 Percentage of Elementary Schools Increasing and Decreasing Instructional 

Time in Various Subjects Between 2003–04 and 2004–05...........................................160 

Exhibit C.22 Percentage of Districts Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance to Meet 

the Needs of Students with Disabilities and Percentage Finding It Sufficient 

to Meet Their Needs, by District Characteristic, 2004–05............................................161 

Exhibit C.23 Percentage of Districts Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance to Meet 

the Needs of LEP Students and the Percentage Finding It Sufficient to Meet 

Their Needs, by District Characteristic, 2004–05 ..........................................................162 
Exhibits x 

Appendix D. Standard Error Exhibits 

Exhibit D.1 Percentage of School Staff Correctly Reporting Whether Their School Made 

AYP or Was Identified for Improvement Based on 2003–04 Test Results...............163 

Exhibit D.2 Percentage of Staff in Title I Schools Correctly Reporting Whether Their 

Schools Were Identified for Improvement .....................................................................163 

Exhibit D.3 Percentage of Identified Schools That Reported Needing and Receiving 

Various Types of Technical Assistance, 2003–04 to 2004–05 .....................................164 

Exhibit D.4 Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance in Four Areas, by 

School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05....................................................................165 

Exhibit D.5 Percent of Districts With Identified Schools Reporting That They Provided 

Technical Assistance to Various Types of Schools in Either 2003–04 or 

2004–05 ................................................................................................................................166 

Exhibit D.6 Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance Related to Professional 

Development, by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05 ....................................167 

Exhibit D.7 Percentage of Schools Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance to Meet 

the Needs of Students with Disabilities and Percentage Finding It Sufficient 

to Meet Their Needs, by School Characteristic, 2004–05.............................................168 

Exhibit D.8 Percentage of Schools Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance to Meet 

the Needs of LEP Students and Percentage Finding It Sufficient to Meet 

Their Needs, by School Characteristic, 2004–05............................................................169 

Exhibit D.9 Percentage of Schools Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance to 

Analyze Assessment Results and Percentage Finding It Sufficient to Meet 

Their Needs, by School Characteristic, 2004-05.............................................................170 

Exhibit D.10 Percentage of Schools Reporting Major Focus on Various School 

Improvement Strategies, 2004–05 ....................................................................................171 

Exhibit D.11 Percentage of Teachers Reporting Availability of Various Resources for 

Aligning Curriculum and Instruction With State Content Standards, 2004–

05 ...........................................................................................................................................171 

Exhibit D.12 Percentage of Teachers Reporting Moderate or Major Challenges to 

Improving Student Performance, 2004–05.....................................................................172 

Exhibit D.13 Percentage of Schools Offering Extended Time Instructional Programs and 

Percentage of Students Served by Such Programs, 2004-05.........................................172 

Exhibit D.14 Percentage of Elementary Schools Increasing and Decreasing Instructional 

Time in Various Subjects by More Than 30 Minutes per Day Between 

2003–04 and 2004–05.........................................................................................................172

Exhibit D.15 Percentage of Secondary Schools Increasing Instructional Time in Various 

Subjects by More Than 30 Minutes per Day Between 2003–04 and 2004–05 ..........173 

Exhibit D.16 Percentage of Schools Reporting Moderate or Extensive Use of State 

Achievement Tests for Various Purposes, 2004–05......................................................173 

Exhibit D.17 Percentage of Elementary Teachers and Secondary English Teachers Using 

State Reading Assessment Results Moderately or Extensively for Various 

Purposes, 2004–05 ..............................................................................................................173 
Exhibits xi 

Exhibit D.18 Percentage of Schools Administering Progress Tests, by School 

Characteristic, 2004–05 ......................................................................................................174 

Exhibit D.19 Percentage of Teachers Administering Progress Tests in Reading Who Use 

Results Moderately or Extensively for Various Purposes, 2004–05............................175 

Exhibit D.20 Percentage of Title I Schools Experiencing Various Types of Interventions 

from Their State or District, 2004–05..............................................................................176 

Exhibit D.21 Percentage of Districts with Identified Schools Requiring Schools to Enact 

Various Improvement Efforts, 2004–05 .........................................................................177 

Exhibit D.22 Percentage of Districts Needing and Receiving Mandated Technical 

Assistance and Finding It Sufficient to Meet Their Needs, 2003–04 or 

2004–05 ................................................................................................................................177 

Exhibit D.23 Percentage of Identified Districts Implementing Various Initiatives in 

Response to Being Identified for Improvement, 2004–05 ...........................................178 

Exhibit D.24 Percentage of Identified Districts Experiencing State Interventions 

Mandated for Districts in Corrective Action, 2004–05.................................................178 
 
Preface xiii 

PREFACE 

This report presents findings about accountability from two longitudinal studies, the National 

Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB), and the Study of State Implementation of 

Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB). The research teams for 

these two studies have collaborated to provide an integrated evaluation of the implementation of key 

NCLB provisions at the state level (SSI-NCLB) and at the district and school levels (NLS-NCLB). 

Together the two studies are the basis for a series of reports on the topics of accountability, teacher 

quality, Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, and targeting and resource 

allocation. 

This is the third volume in this report series. The first two volumes were: 

Volume I—Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and Student Achievement 

Volume II—Teacher Quality Under NCLB: Interim Report. 

Acknowledgments xv 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We wish to thank the many individuals who contributed to the completion of this report. Particularly 

helpful were several individuals at the U.S. Department of Education. Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth 

Eisner and Collette Roney of the Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) served as project officers 

for the two studies that were the data sources for this report. All three project officers provided 

invaluable substantive guidance and support throughout these studies and the production of this report. 

We are also grateful to state accountability directors for their kind cooperation and assistance in 

participating in interviews and follow-up communications in the 2004–05 data collections. In addition, 

teachers, principals, and school district staff across the country took time out of their busy schedules to 

respond to the NLS-NCLB surveys. Without their efforts, this report would not have been possible, and 

we deeply appreciate their assistance. 

The information in this report was provided through two studies done by independent research firms 

under contract to the U.S. Department of Education: 

• The National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB), led by Georges Vernez 

of the RAND Corporation and Michael Garet and Beatrice Birman of the American Institutes 

for Research (AIR), assisted by Brian Stecher (accountability team leader), Brian Gill (choice 

team leader), and Meredith Ludwig (teacher quality team leader). Marie Halverson of the 

National Opinion Research Center directed data collections for the NLS-NCLB. 

• The Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left 

Behind (SSI-NCLB), led by Jennifer O’Day and Kerstin Carlson Le Floch of the American 

Institutes for Research. A team led by Rolf Blank at Council of Chief State School Officers 

(CCSSO) assisted with state-level data collections. 

Other researchers who provided useful assistance for this report include Nina de las Alas of CCSSO; 

Hiro Hikawa, Lori Nathanson, and Yu Zhang of AIR; and Scott Naftel of RAND. 

We would like to acknowledge thoughtful contributions of the members of our Technical Working 

Group, including Julian Betts, David Francis, Margaret Goertz, Brian Gong, Eric Hanushek, Richard 

Ingersoll, Phyllis McClure, Paul Peterson, Christine Steele, and Phoebe Winter. 

Many Department staff reviewed drafts of this report and provided useful comments and suggestions. 

We would like to acknowledge the assistance of David Goodwin, director of program and analytic 

studies in PPSS, and Daphne Kaplan, PPSS team leader, as well as Tom Luce, Millicent Bentley-Memon, 

Kerri Briggs, Carol Cichowski, Tom Corwin, Tim D’Emilio, Sarah Dillard, David Harmon, Stacy 

Kreppel, Holly Kuzmich, Milagros Lanauze, Kathleen Leos, Jeannette Lim, Meredith Miller, Kay Rigling, 

Krista Ritacco, Phil Rosenfelt, Grace Ross, Ross Santy, Martha Snyder, and Christine Wolfe. 

While we appreciate the assistance and support of all of the above individuals, any errors in judgment or 

fact are of course the responsibility of the authors. 

Executive Summary xvii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is designed to achieve an ambitious goal: All children will be 

proficient in reading and mathematics by the 2013–14 school year. A key strategy for achieving this goal is 

accountability. NCLB holds schools and districts accountable for their students’ mastery of state content 

standards, as measured by state tests. NCLB accountability rests on several key premises: that clear 

definitions and targets for desired academic outcomes will provide both incentives for and indicators of 

improvement; that identification of districts and schools not meeting their improvement targets will help 

focus assistance and interventions in places where they are most needed; that widely available 

information about student performance will enable parents, educators and other stakeholders to make 

informed decisions about how best to serve their students or children; and that targeted assistance will 

stimulate school and district improvement. 

Based on findings from two federally funded studies—the Study of State Implementation of 

Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB (SSI-NCLB) and the National Longitudinal Study of 

NCLB (NLS-NCLB)—this report describes the progress that states, districts and schools have made in 

implementing the accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act through 2004–05. 

KEY FINDINGS

3⁄4 States, districts and schools had mostly met the relevant NCLB accountability requirements 

through 2004–05. 

3⁄4 All states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had enacted the accountability provisions 

required by NCLB, including academic achievement standards in reading and mathematics and 

other required performance indicators. 

3⁄4 More than half of states were testing students in all required grades in reading and mathematics 

in advance of the 2005–06 NCLB deadline. However, 20 states were behind schedule in 

implementing assessments that measure English language proficiency. A similar number of 

states were not able to notify schools of their performance on the statewide assessments before 

the start of the 2004–05 school year. 

3⁄4 Seventy-five percent of the nation’s schools made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in 2003–04; 

of the 25 percent that did not make AYP, half (51 percent) did not succeed because the school 

as a whole (i.e., the “all students” group) or multiple student subgroups did not meet 

achievement standards. When schools did not make AYP for a single subgroup, it was usually 

for students with disabilities. 

3⁄4 About one-third of schools that did not make AYP did not do so for students with disabilities or 

LEP student groups. About two-thirds of those schools reported needing technical assistance to 

improve instruction for these subgroups. 

3⁄4 Thirteen percent of the nation’s schools were identified for improvement in 2004–05. Those 

schools were most likely to be high-poverty, high-minority, large, urban schools to which Title I 

has historically directed substantial resources. 
Executive Summary xviii 

3⁄4 Nearly all schools reported making multiple improvement efforts. Schools identified for 

improvement focused on more areas of improvement than non-identified schools. Schools also 

reported receiving technical assistance that met their needs, with exceptions in two areas. About 

one-half of schools needing assistance to improve services to students with disabilities and to 

improve services to limited English proficient students, did not have these needs met. States and 

districts were implementing the required interventions in schools identified for improvement and 

corrective action, but they were not implementing the required actions in most of the 

1,199 schools in restructuring. 

Overall, states took advantage of the flexibility provided by NCLB to establish accountability systems 

that vary significantly in a number of areas, including the level of student academic achievement required 

to be proficient, the type of assessments, and the pace of improvement required to reach 100 percent 

student proficiency by 2013–14. The result was a large variation across states in the percentage of 

schools missing AYP and being identified for improvement. 

This report presents findings from the SSI-NCLB and NLS-NCLB and summarizes major issues in 

state-, district-, and school-level implementation of the accountability provisions of NCLB. It addresses 

questions in four areas: 

• How have states implemented the standards, assessments, and accountability provisions of 

Titles I and III of NCLB? 

• How are districts and schools performing with respect to making adequate yearly progress 

(AYP)? What are the reasons why schools do not make AYP? Are there common 

characteristics among districts and schools identified for improvement? 

• How is information about NCLB, AYP, and identification for improvement communicated to 

stakeholders, and how well do district and school staff understand the status of their districts and 

schools’ performance? 

• What efforts are being made to improve district and school performance, including state support 

systems, technical assistance, mandated interventions, and local initiatives? 

NCLB REQUIREMENTS

NCLB is the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). NCLB is stricter 

and more specific than the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA), the 1994 reauthorization of the same 

law. Key NCLB accountability provisions include the following: 

• Every state must have in place content standards for what students should know and be able to 

do in reading and mathematics, and must implement content standards in science by 2005–06. 

• Every state must administer annual tests in reading and mathematics for all students—including 

students with disabilities and limited English proficiency (LEP)—in grades 3–8 and at least once 

in grades 10–12 by 2005–06. By 2007–08, all states also must assess students in science at least 

once each in grades 3–5, 6–9 and 10–12. 

• Every state must also develop annual AYP targets for schools and districts for all students and 

for key subgroups of students based on state test results, student test participation rates, and one 

other academic indicator (such as graduation rate). Increasing AYP targets require that all 

students demonstrate proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2013–14. 
Executive Summary xix 

• States must implement English proficiency standards and assessments for LEP students by 

2002–03, and must administer these tests annually. By 2005–06, states must have set annual 

measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) specifying expected progress in LEP students’ 

learning English proficiency and in meeting AYP targets. 

• Information on school and district performance must be communicated to parents, teachers, and 

other stakeholders. 

• Specific assistance and consequences must be implemented for schools and districts that 

repeatedly do not make AYP. 

NCLB sets up a series of progressively more serious interventions for schools that do not make AYP for 

two or more consecutive years (see Exhibit S.1). First, such schools become “identified for 

improvement”; the interventions include developing or revising a school plan to address the areas that 

caused the school to miss AYP, offering parents the choice to transfer to another public school, and in 

the second year of improvement, providing supplemental educational services (e.g., free tutoring). 

Following identification for improvement, schools are also to receive technical assistance from their 

respective districts and states, and they must set aside 10 percent of their Title I allocations for 

professional development. After a school in improvement misses AYP for two years, its district must 

take one of a number of specified corrective actions, followed by restructuring the school if it misses 

AYP yet again. NCLB also defines consequences for districts identified for improvement and corrective 

actions for districts. A school or district exits from improvement, corrective action or restructuring 

status when it makes AYP for two consecutive years. NCLB requires these interventions only for 

schools and districts receiving Title I funding, although states have the option of applying some or all of 

the interventions to non–Title I schools and districts using the state’s own resources. 

STATE STANDARDS, ASSESSMENTS, AND TARGETS

Setting Standards and Aligned Assessments 

In 2004–05, all states had met NCLB requirements for content standards and were making progress 

toward meeting NCLB requirements for assessments of all students in all required grades. 

All states have content standards in reading, mathematics and science, but most 

continue to revise their standards or adopt new standards. 

By 2003, all states had received federal approval for the processes used to develop reading and 

mathematics standards. Nonetheless, many states adopted new standards or revised existing standards 

for reading (32 states and the District of Columbia), mathematics (33 states and the District of 

Columbia), and science (37 states and the District of Columbia) between 2001–02 when NCLB was 

passed and 2004–05, the year of data collection for this report. 

As of 2004–05, 27 states and the District of Columbia had instituted yearly testing in 

grades 3–8. Twenty-three states and Puerto Rico were still working to implement 

testing in all required grades for 2005–06, as required by NCLB. 

By 2004–05, 28 states had instituted yearly testing in grades 3–8 as required by NCLB for the 2005–06 

school year, an increase from 12 states with such tests in place in 1999–2000. Nearly all states also 

administered high school assessments intended to meet NCLB requirements for 2005–06. States 

reported that implementing the annual testing requirements was one of the most substantive challenges 

they faced in the first three years of NCLB. 
Executive Summary xx 

Exhibit S.1 

Stages of Identification for School Improvement 

Student “proficiency” has little common meaning across states. 

NCLB sets the goal of all students reaching proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014 but allows 

each state to determine what it means to be “proficient.” States varied widely in the levels at which they 

set their performance standards for proficiency in reading and mathematics. Using the 2003 National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as a common external metric, state standards for NCLB

proficiency ranged from a NAEP equivalent score of approximately 247 to a NAEP equivalent score of 

approximately 314, a range of 67 points. Thus, a student deemed to be proficient for NCLB purposes in 

one state might not be considered proficient in another state. 

In 2004–05, all states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico either administered 

or were planning some form of alternate assessments for students with disabilities. 

All states also allowed testing accommodations to enable students with disabilities 

and students with limited English proficiency to take the regular statewide tests. 

Alternate assessments are relatively new in most states, but in 2004–05, nearly all states administer some 

form of alternative assessment for students with disabilities. In addition, all states offered 
Executive Summary xxi 

accommodations for students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency, including 

16 states with native-language assessments. States varied considerably in the proportions of students 

taking tests with accommodations. 

Measuring Progress Towards Proficiency 

States used their allowed flexibility to define (and amend) their AYP indicators, 

adding to the complexity of AYP calculations and their variability across states. 

NCLB requires states to use five indicators to determine AYP: (1) the percent of students who are 

proficient in reading; (2) the percent of students who are proficient in mathematics; (3) the percent of 

students who participate in reading assessments; (4) the percent of students who participate in 

mathematics assessments; and (5) at least one other academic indicator at each school level (elementary, 

middle, and high school). Even small differences in the rules for calculating each AYP indicator will 

affect whether schools or districts make AYP. In addition, as most states have taken advantage of 

federal flexibility in developing and refining their definitions of AYP, these definitions have changed 

over time and vary across states. 

The variation in states’ AYP starting points—and thus in how much progress a state 

must demonstrate by 2014—is strongly related to how high the states set their 

academic achievement standards for proficiency. 

In order to develop AYP targets, each state established starting points (baselines) for their NCLB

accountability systems. With these starting points in place, each state then charted a trajectory of 

expected progress toward the goal of 100 percent proficiency. States that set higher performance 

standards tended to have a lower percentage of students scoring at the proficient level and must 

therefore make greater progress in student achievement by 2013–14. Put simply, states with higher 

standards are likely to face more challenges in reaching 100 percent proficiency. 

MEETING ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS TARGETS

Three-quarters of the nation’s schools and 71 percent of districts made AYP in 2003–04. 

In 2003–04, 75 percent of the nation’s schools made AYP as defined by their states, a 2 percentage point 

increase from 2002–03. However, if many non-identified schools that did not make AYP in 2003–04 did 

not make AYP again in 2004–05, the number of schools identified for improvement would rise 

substantially for 2005–06. 

States varied greatly in the proportions of schools and districts that made AYP. 

The percentage of schools that made AYP in 2003–04 ranged from 95 percent of schools in Wisconsin 

to 23 percent of schools in Alabama and Florida. Similarly, the percentage of districts that made AYP 

ranged from 100 percent of districts in Arkansas and Delaware to less than 10 percent of districts in 

Alabama, West Virginia, and Florida. 

AYP results reflect state accountability policy decisions. 

In 2003–04, schools in states that used the scores of students in all of grades 3–8 and one high school 

grade to determine AYP were less likely to make AYP than schools in states that used scores from fewer 
Executive Summary xxii 

grades. In addition, schools in states that set their AYP proficiency levels higher (relative to NAEP) 

were less likely to make AYP than schools in states with lower proficiency standards. 

High-poverty, high-minority and urban schools were less likely to make AYP. 

Whether or not a school made AYP was strongly related to the percentage of low-income and minority 

students in the school (see Exhibit S.2). Schools with higher proportions of low-income and minority 

students were less likely to make AYP than schools with lower proportions of such students. Urbanicity 

was also related to AYP; rural schools 

made AYP at higher rates than schools 

in urban fringe areas or central city 

schools. 

Schools that were held 

accountable for greater numbers 

of subgroups were less likely to 

make AYP. 

Sixty-one percent of schools that had 

six or more subgroups made AYP, 

compared with 90 percent of schools 

for which AYP was calculated for only 

one subgroup. Even after controlling 

for the level of poverty, schools with 

more subgroups were less likely to 

make AYP. 

After controlling for other school and 

district characteristics, secondary 

schools were less likely to make AYP 

than were elementary schools. Larger 

school enrollments, higher proportions 

of low-income and minority students, 

and greater district concentrations of 

students with disabilities also were 

associated with lower likelihood of 

making AYP. 

Half of the schools that did not make AYP in 2003–04 did not do so because the “all 

students” group or multiple subgroups did not meet achievement targets. 

Fifty-one percent of schools did not make AYP for the achievement of the “all students” group and two 

or more student subgroups in 2003–04 (see Exhibit S.3). Missing AYP due to the achievement of the 

“all students” group or of two or more student subgroups suggests that schools are being held 

accountable for widespread low performance. Twenty-three percent of schools that did not make AYP 

missed due to the achievement of any single subgroup, most frequently students with disabilities. 

Exhibit S.2 

Percentage of Schools Making AYP, 

by School Poverty Level, Minority Level, 

and Urbanicity, 2003–04 

Exhibit reads: Fifty-seven percent of schools with more than 

75 percent of students in poverty made AYP. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National Database of School AYP and 

Identification and Common Core of Data, 2002–03 (based on data 

from 49 states and the District of Columbia for 76,405 to 80,803 

schools in these states). 
Executive Summary xxiii 

Students with 

disabilities, students 

with limited English 

proficiency, and 

African-American 

students were the 

subgroups most 

likely not to make 

AYP. 

The rates at which 

specific subgroups did 

not make AYP varied 

dramatically. Of those 

schools in which AYP 

was calculated for the 

subgroup of students 

with disabilities, 

37 percent did not make 

AYP because that group 

did not meet achievement 

targets. Similarly, 

26 percent and 22 percent 

of schools held 

accountable for the LEP 

and African-American 

subgroups, respectively, 

did not make AYP 

because those subgroups 

did not meet achievement 

targets. In contrast, less 

than 5 percent of the 

schools held accountable 

for white and Asian 

subgroups did not make 

AYP because those 

subgroups, respectively, did not meet achievement targets. 

Most African-American, Hispanic, and white students, and most students from lowincome families, attended schools with sufficient numbers of similar students to 

require the school to compute AYP for their respective subgroup. 

Seventy-nine percent or more of African-American, Hispanic and white students, as well as students 

from low-income families, attended schools in which 2003–04 AYP was calculated for their subgroup.1 

However, only 25 percent of Native American students and 45 percent of Asian students attended 

schools in which AYP was calculated for their subgroups. In schools in which subgroups were too small 

 

1 Available data did not permit making similar estimates for the students with disabilities subgroup or the LEP students 

subgroup. 

Exhibit S.3 

Reasons Schools Did Not Make AYP, 2003–04 

Exhibit reads: In 2003–04 testing, 33 percent of schools that did not make 

AYP missed for the achievement of the “all students” group in reading or 

mathematics or both. 

Note: Schools included in the "Achievement of the ‘All Students’ Group” and the 

"Achievement of Two or More Subgroups" categories of the graph may have also 

missed AYP for test participation or the other academic indicator. However, schools 

included in the "Achievement of a Single Subgroup Only" category are those that 

missed AYP for that factor alone and did not miss any other AYP indicators. 

“Other” includes: schools that missed AYP for combinations of the achievement of a 

single subgroup, test participation, or the other academic indicator (8 percent), or for 

alternate AYP determinations for small schools and schools without tested grades 

(5 percent). 

Source: SSI-NCLB National Database of School AYP and Identification (based on 

data reported by 33 states for 15,731 schools that missed AYP in these states). 
Executive Summary xxiv 

to warrant separate subgroup AYP calculations, the students’ scores were included in the school’s “all 

students” AYP calculation. 

IDENTIFYING SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Thirteen percent of the nation’s schools were identified for improvement for 2004–05 (including both 

Title I and non–Title I). 

The percentage of Title I schools identified for improvement increased from 

12 percent for 2003–04 to 18 percent for 2004–05. 

The number of Title I schools identified for improvement increased from 6,212 for 2003–04 to 9,333 for 

2004–05 (18 percent of the nation’s 52,220 Title I schools). The number had remained stable for the 

previous three years at about 6,000-6,500 out of 50,000 schools. In 2004–05, 977 Title I schools were in 

corrective action and 1,199 were in restructuring status. 

States varied greatly in the percentage of Title I schools and districts identified for 

improvement for 2004–05. 

Rates of school identification of Title I schools ranged from 2 percent in Iowa and Nebraska to 

68 percent in Florida. Rates of district identification ranged even more widely—from none in several 

states to 100 percent in Florida. Schools in states with high AYP proficiency standards, as referenced to 

NAEP, were more likely to be identified for improvement than schools in states with lower standards. 

High-poverty, high-minority and middle schools, and large urban schools were most 

likely to have been identified for improvement in 2004–05. 

The same types of schools that were most likely to not make AYP were also most likely to be identified 

for improvement. Over one-third (36 percent) of high-poverty schools were identified for improvement, 

compared with 4 percent of low-poverty schools (and 13 percent of all schools). Thirty-six percent of 

high-poverty schools were identified for improvement compared with 4 percent of low-poverty schools. 

Similarly, 34 percent of schools with a high concentration of minority students were identified, as were 

22 percent of urban schools. Eighteen percent of middle schools were identified for improvement 

compared with 11 percent of elementary schools and high schools. 

Nearly one in four identified Title I schools exited improvement status in 2004–05. 

Twenty-three percent of the Title I schools identified for improvement for 2003–04 were no longer 

identified for 2004–05. 

Ten percent of districts were identified for improvement for 2004–05. 

Ten percent of all districts were identified for improvement for 2004–05, a lower rate than that of 

schools. Further, 49 districts in 11 states were identified for corrective action for 2004–05. About onethird of the identified districts contained no identified schools. This situation occurred when subgroups 

were large enough to be included in AYP calculations aggregated at the district level but were too small 

to be used in calculations at the school level. 
Executive Summary xxv 

PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

States reported performance results for 2003–04 more quickly than the previous 

year, but nearly one-half of principals did not receive notification of their school’s 

status before the start of the 2004–05 school year. 

States are responsible for notifying schools and parents about performance. To be most useful, such 

information should be reported before the school year begins so that both schools and parents have 

adequate time to take appropriate actions. For 2003–04 testing, 31 states provided preliminary 

notification to schools identified for improvement before September 2004—typically the beginning of 

the school year. The timing of reporting based on 2003–04 testing was an improvement over the 

previous year, when only 28 states delivered AYP and school-improvement determinations prior to 

October. Overall, 56 percent of principals indicated they were notified of their school’s improvement 

status before September 2004. 

Most state report cards included the required accountability data, but many did not 

include graduation rates and teacher quality data. 

A review of state agency Web sites in September 2005 found 49 states, the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico reported on the percentage of all students achieving at the proficient level and also reported 

on the performance of white, African American, Asian and Hispanic students achievement data 

disaggregated by subgroup for 2003–04 testing. However, most states did not yet include many of the 

newer reporting requirements in their state report cards. For example, NCLB requires states to provide 

disaggregated data on graduation rates, an element that was absent from the majority of state reports. 

Forty-two states and the District of Columbia reported the names of schools identified for 

improvement, but far fewer included the required data on the percentage of core academic classes taught 

by highly-qualified teachers. In addition, many state and district reports (available via the Internet) were 

difficult to find and student reports sent to parents were often difficult to understand. States have 

steadily increased the sophistication of their data systems. In 2004–05, 30 states were using data systems 

with unique student identifiers up from 23 states in 2003–04 and 11 states in 1999–2000. 

Principals, generally, knew whether their schools made AYP or were identified for 

improvement; however, about one-third of teachers were not aware of the status of 

their schools. 

A large majority of principals knew whether their schools had made AYP in 2003–04 (88 percent) or 

whether they were identified for improvement for 2004–05 (92 percent). Among identified Title I 

schools, 78 percent of principals correctly knew their school’s status in 2004–05, compared with 

59 percent in 2001–02, the year before NCLB went into effect. Teachers were less likely than principals 

to know whether their schools had made AYP in 2003–04 or were identified for improvement for 

2004–05. For example, 72 percent of elementary teachers and 58 percent of secondary teachers correctly 

reported whether their school made or did not make AYP. In general, elementary teachers were more 

knowledgeable than secondary and special education teachers about their schools’ AYP and 

improvement status. In a sample of eight urban districts, parents were much less likely than either 

principals or teachers to know if their child’s school had been identified as low-performing. 
Executive Summary xxvi 

ACTIONS TO PROMOTE IMPROVEMENT 

Creating state systems of support for school improvement 

Nearly all states established systems of support for school improvement; more than 

half reported providing some level of support to all identified schools. Others 

targeted support to a subset of identified schools. 

NCLB requires states to establish support systems to help schools and districts that are identified for 

improvement. Nearly all states provided some type of support for at least some identified schools. 

Thirty states reported providing some level of support to all schools identified for improvement during 

the 2004–05 school year. Other states provided support to a subset of identified schools. 

The most common mechanisms for supporting identified schools were those mandated by NCLB: 

school support teams and individual school improvement specialists. Thirty-seven states employed 

support teams, and, in 14 states, these structures predated NCLB. Twenty-nine states also used 

individual school improvement specialists—experienced teachers or administrators external to the 

district—to provide support to schools identified for improvement. 

Providing technical assistance for school improvement 

Both identified and non-identified schools reported needing technical assistance in 

many areas in 2003–04 or 2004–05; but the need was greater among identified 

schools. 

Principals in three-quarters of all schools reported needing technical assistance for some aspect of NCLB

implementation. Schools identified for improvement were more likely than non-identified schools to 

report needing assistance in most areas, including improving the quality of professional development, 

getting parents more engaged in their child’s education, addressing the instructional needs of students 

with disabilities, or identifying effective curriculum. 

In most areas, schools reported receiving the technical assistance they needed and 

found it sufficient to meet their needs. 

A majority of principals who indicated their schools needed technical assistance reported receiving it and 

reported that it was sufficient to meet their needs. This was true for both identified and non-identified 

schools. However, identified schools reported receiving more days of assistance, on average, from their 

districts (15 days) than did non-identified schools (10 days). Identified schools in states with 

comprehensive systems of support reported receiving technical assistance in many areas at higher rates 

than those in states with limited or moderately comprehensive support systems. 

Of the schools that needed technical assistance to improve services to students 

with disabilities or students with limited English proficiency, half reported that they 

did not have their needs met. 

About half of the schools that needed assistance with respect to students with disabilities or limited 

English proficient students did not have their needs met. For example, about 30 percent of schools that 

reported needing assistance to address the needs of students with disabilities did not receive it. 

Moreover, about one-quarter of the schools that did receive technical assistance related to these students 
Executive Summary xxvii 

reported that the assistance was not sufficient to meet their needs. Thus, about one-half of the schools 

that needed assistance to improve services for students with disabilities indicated that their needs were 

not met. 

Improvement initiatives by schools 

Nearly all schools were making improvement efforts. Identified schools emphasized 

more areas of improvement than did non-identified schools. 

Almost all schools reported engaging in their own voluntary improvement initiatives; 90 percent of 

schools reported a major focus on at least one kind of improvement effort, and most principals reported 

placing a major focus on multiple school improvement strategies during 2004–05. Almost all schools 

were involved in joint school improvement planning with their district or state, and were using 

assessment results for planning instruction and professional development. Two-thirds of schools 

implemented periodic “progress” tests to monitor student performance during the school year. Schools 

identified for improvement reported engaging in more types of improvement efforts than non-identified 

schools. 

Curriculum enhancement was a major focus of school improvement in identified and 

non-identified schools, but about one-third of teachers in identified schools reported 

having an inadequate number of textbooks and instructional materials. 

Most schools, regardless of improvement status, were involved in efforts to improve curriculum and 

instruction, placing particular emphasis on aligning curriculum and instruction with standards. Most 

teachers reported having access to necessary resources to align curriculum with standards; however, 

about one-third of teachers in elementary and secondary schools identified for improvement reported 

that they lacked sufficient numbers of textbooks and instructional materials. Increasing reading and 

mathematics instructional time for some or all students was another improvement strategy in many 

identified elementary and secondary schools. In addition, about half of identified schools reported a 

major focus on other extended-time instructional programs (such as after-school programs). 

Teachers found annual state tests and local progress tests useful for improving 

student learning in one or more ways. 

Nearly 90 percent of teachers made moderate or extensive use of state test results for one or more 

instructional purposes. For example, 80 percent of elementary teachers and secondary English teachers 

in identified schools reported using the results to identify areas in which they needed to strengthen their 

content knowledge or teaching skills. 

Progress tests are periodic standardized assessments that are administered and scored locally so results 

can be made rapidly available to teachers. The use of progress tests was widespread in 2004–05: More 

than two-thirds of the schools supplemented annual state assessments with additional periodic 

assessments. Most teachers who administered progress tests reported using the results to identify 

students in need of remedial assistance or to tailor instruction to individual students. 
Executive Summary xxviii 

Interventions for identified schools 

Required interventions occurred in most, but not all, Title I schools in Year 1 or 

Year 2 of identification for improvement or in corrective action. 

More than 80 percent of Title I schools in Year 1 of improvement reported that parents had been 

notified of the status of the school and offered the option of transferring their child to a non-identified 

school. Similarly, almost all Title I schools in Year 2 of improvement offered students supplemental 

educational services. 

Ninety-six percent of Title I schools in corrective action status experienced at least one of the NCLBdefined interventions. The most common interventions involved changes in curriculum (89 percent) or 

the appointment of outside advisors (59 percent). In contrast, only 27 percent of schools in corrective 

action status reported a reduction in management authority in the school, and only 7 percent reported 

that staff members were replaced. 

Few Title I schools in restructuring status reported experiencing any of the specific 

interventions listed in the law. 

Restructuring is the most serious form of NCLB intervention, reserved for those schools that did not 

make AYP for five or more years. However, according to principal reports, few schools in the first or 

second year of restructuring status reported state take-over of the school (9 percent), reopening of the 

school as a public charter school (2 percent), contracting with a private entity to manage the school 

(2 percent), or replacement of all of the school staff (2 percent).2 In addition to these specific 

interventions, the law also permits districts to make “any other major restructuring of the school’s 

governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms.” Schools in restructuring status frequently 

reported interventions associated with the “corrective action” stage of school improvement, and 

20 percent reported that a new principal had been appointed. 

State reports also indicate that use of the most serious NCLB interventions was infrequent; for example, 

only two of 27 states with Title I schools in restructuring status used the takeover option, four reopened 

schools as public charters, and nine replaced most or all of the school staff. 

District improvement efforts 

Most states reported providing a broad range of technical assistance to all districts. 

States have a responsibility to provide technical assistance to all districts to develop their plans and work 

with schools needing improvement. In addition, states must take more intensive actions with districts 

that are identified for improvement. All responding states but one reported providing technical 

assistance to all districts on accountability system rules and requirements, and almost all reported 

providing assistance to some districts on a variety of other aspects of NCLB. Some states provided 

technical assistance specifically to identified districts, most notably in developing and implementing 

 

2 The NLS-NCLB principal survey question did not exactly parallel the law on one intervention: The law gives the 

option of “replacing all or most of the school staff (which may include the principal)” who are relevant to the failure to 

make adequate yearly progress,” while the survey asked if the state or district had “replaced all of the school staff” or 

“appointed a new principal.” The survey did not include an option for “any other major restructuring of the school’s 

governance.” 
Executive Summary xxix 

district improvement plans (23 states) and providing better professional development to schools in the 

areas in which they did not make AYP (12 states). 

Three-quarters of districts reported receiving the technical assistance they needed 

and were satisfied with the assistance they received. However, assistance related 

to students with disabilities or limited English-proficient students was often not 

sufficient to meet districts’ needs. 

Three-quarters of all districts federal program coordinators reported needing technical assistance 

regarding some aspect of NCLB implementation, such as analyzing student assessment data to 

understand program strengths and weaknesses. Districts identified for improvement reported greater 

need for technical assistance than did non-identified districts. Forty percent of districts reported needing 

technical assistance to help them meet the needs of students with disabilities; of the districts needing this 

assistance, more than half reported that their needs were not met. Similarly, one-quarter of all districts 

reported needing assistance to address the needs of LEP students, and of these about half reported their 

needs were met. 

Almost all districts were engaged in improvement efforts. 

Almost all districts, not just those identified for improvement, reported engaging in one or more 

initiatives to improve their own performance. The majority of identified districts reported that they 

implemented additional professional development for teachers and principals, distributed test 

preparation materials, and increased monitoring of instruction and school performance as a result of 

being identified for improvement. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE POLICY

Overall, the findings presented in this report paint a picture of considerable activity and rapid 

implementation of NCLB requirements. The findings also identify areas in which limited 

implementation and information present challenges to achieving the goal of proficiency for every student 

in reading and mathematics by 2014. 

• The numbers and percentages of identified schools and districts varied considerably across 

states, in part due to differences in state standards, assessments, and AYP targets. 

• Some states still struggle to deliver information on school status in a timely manner. 

• Some states and districts still struggle to provide basic resources to schools—for example, about 

one-third of teachers in identified schools reported that they did not have an adequate number 

of textbooks and instructional materials. 

• The increasing number of schools and districts identified for improvement presents challenges 

to state and district support systems. 

• Little is known about the quality of local improvement efforts or the effectiveness of state and 

district technical assistance and interventions. 

In summary, states, districts and schools have engaged in a high level of activity and have largely met the 

NCLB accountability system requirements through 2004–05. 

Chapter I 1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) establishes an ambitious goal for the nation’s states, districts 

and schools: All children will be proficient in reading and mathematics by the 2013–14 school year. The federal 

strategy for achieving this goal is multifaceted, but at its heart lies a set of performance-based 

accountability provisions that build on and expand those of its predecessor law, the Improving America’s 

Schools Act of 1994 (IASA).3 Two titles of NCLB embody its main performance accountability 

requirements, based on the principle that all children should “have a fair, equal, and significant 

opportunity to obtain a high quality education” (Sec. 1001): 

• Title I of NCLB outlines the standards, assessment and accountability requirements intended to 

guide the instruction of all students in the core academic subjects of reading,4 mathematics, and 

science. 

• Title III adds provisions to ensure that students with limited English proficiency (LEP) gain the 

English language skills they need to meet the state standards and be successful in school. 

This report describes the ways in which states, districts and schools are implementing the standards, 

assessment and accountability provisions of Titles I and III and analyzes the progress the nation is 

making toward the goal of proficiency for all students, as of the 2004–05 school year. These findings are 

based on data collected through two federally funded studies, the Study of State Implementation of 

Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB), and the National 

Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB). Two companion reports, also based on these 

studies, will address NCLB implementation and progress in the areas of teacher quality and Title I school 

choice and supplemental educational services, and a fourth report will examine targeting and resource 

allocation under Title I and certain other federal education programs. 

OVERVIEW OF ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS OF NCLB

Like other performance-based accountability systems, NCLB accountability rests on several key 

premises: (1) clear definitions and targets for desired outcomes—in this case, high academic achievement 

for all students—will provide both incentives and indicators for improvement; (2) identification of 

districts and schools not meeting their improvement targets will help focus assistance and interventions 

where they are needed most; (3) widely available information about performance will enable parents, 

educators, and other stakeholders to make appropriate decisions about how best to serve their students; 

and (4) targeted assistance and consequences will stimulate school and district improvement. 

These premises are not new with NCLB, but NCLB alters or expands their parameters in significant 

ways. NCLB is the most recent authorization of the most comprehensive federal legislation in K–12 

education, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). First passed in 1965, ESEA has been 

reauthorized six times; accountability for school performance has been included as a component of 

ESEA since the 1988 reauthorization. The 1994 reauthorization, entitled the Improving America’s Schools 

Act (IASA) first established a comprehensive academic standards-based approach to school 

improvement and school accountability in federal statute. Building on the IASA, NCLB significantly 

 

3 Both IASA and NCLB are reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). 4 For simplicity, the term “reading” is used throughout this report to refer to the set of subjects that may be variously 

known as reading, English, or language arts. 
Chapter I 2 

expands or modifies the accountability provisions in several key areas. These include the requirements 

to: 

• develop a standards-based system of measures and targets; 

• identify schools and districts that need improvement; 

• provide useful information about school performance to stakeholders; and 

• provide appropriate assistance and require interventions to stimulate school and district 

improvement. 

NCLB accountability strategies are shown in Exhibit 1, and each set of requirements is further described 

below. 

Exhibit 1 

NCLB Strategies to Reach 100 percent Student Proficiency 

Source: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110-Jan 8, 2002. 

Develop a standards-based system of measures and targets 

Prior to NCLB, IASA required states to develop and implement challenging content standards, 

specifying what students should know and be able to do in reading and mathematics and to administer 

assessments aligned with those standards at least once in each of three grade spans: grades 3–5, 6–9, and 

10–12. 

• NCLB requires either statewide grade level content standards or statewide specific grade-level expectations

instead of only content standards for broad grade spans, as in IASA.5

 

5 States may elect to add expectations to their existing standards delineating which of the standards students should 

know and be able to meet at the end of each grade and to what level of performance. 
Chapter I 3 

• NCLB increases the assessment requirements to include annual testing of all students in grades 3–8 

and one-time testing of all students during high school, in reading and mathematics. To meet 

this requirement, states were required to develop or adopt assessments for the previouslyuntested grades by 2005–06. As with IASA, the state assessments must be aligned with state 

content standards. 

• NCLB also required states to develop or adopt science content standards by 2005–06 and to 

implement science assessments in the three grade spans by 2007–08. 

• NCLB (Title III) added a requirement that states must develop or adopt standards for English 

language proficiency for students with limited English proficiency by 2002–03 and annually assess 

progress of all LEP students toward these standards. 

NCLB builds on the IASA requirement that states set adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets for schools 

and school districts that would demonstrate “continuous and substantial improvement toward the goal 

of all Title I students achieving proficient and advanced levels of performance on the assessments 

aligned with state standards.” NCLB continues the AYP requirement but modifies and expands its 

specifications. 

• NCLB mandates a uniform timeline for demonstrating progress of all students toward meeting 

state standards. While initial starting points may vary, AYP targets in every state must reflect the 

goal of all students performing at proficient levels in reading and mathematics by 2013–14. 

IASA had no such timeline. 

• NCLB requires that AYP be measured relative to an absolute target (percent of students at or 

above proficiency in reading and mathematics), not growth from a previous level of 

performance. IASA did not specify the form of the target, but instead left if up to the states. 

• To make AYP, schools and districts must meet student assessment participation requirements

(95 percent tested) and annual targets for every key subgroup (major racial and ethnic groups, lowincome students, students with disabilities, and LEP students) as well as for the district or school 

as a whole. The participation and subgroup criteria are a centerpiece of NCLB and are included 

to help ensure that schools are held accountable for meeting the needs of all of their students, 

not just the majority group. IASA included neither assessment participation criteria nor 

subgroup targets. 

• NCLB requires states to include an “other academic indicator” in definitions of AYP, in addition to 

proficiency targets on state assessments.6 IASA allowed for but did not require additional 

indicators. 

• NCLB (Title III) requires states to establish English language proficiency targets (called “annual 

measurable achievement objectives”) to demonstrate progress of LEP students in learning 

English as well as progress toward meeting the standards in other content areas. 

Identify schools and districts that need improvement 

Establishing standards, assessments, and targets is only the first step in performance-based 

accountability. Equally important is the use of these measures to identify schools and districts that need 

to improve. For interventions and assistance to be appropriately targeted, the accountability system 

 

6 The state must select one “other academic indicator” to be used for AYP calculations for each level of schooling. For 

high schools, the other indicator must be graduation rates. For elementary and middle schools, states have the flexibility 

to choose their own indicator (see Chapter II). 
Chapter I 4 

must validly and reliably determine which schools did not make AYP targets, and which require 

improvement. While identification of Title I schools for improvement predated IASA, the 1994 ESEA

statute tied this identification to the failure of schools or districts to make state-established AYP 

performance targets. Thus, under IASA, schools and districts that failed to make AYP for two 

consecutive years were identified for improvement and schools that failed for three more years were to 

receive “corrective actions” from the district. To exit the “identified for improvement” designation, the 

school or district had to make AYP for two consecutive years. NCLB maintained the initial “identified 

for improvement” criteria (not making AYP for two consecutive years) and the exit criteria (making AYP 

for two consecutive years), but altered the stages and timeline in significant ways. 

• Under NCLB, there are four stages of identification (as compared with two under IASA). These 

are: Identified for Improvement Year 1, Identified for Improvement Year 2, Corrective Action, 

and Restructuring. 

• The criteria and timeline for advancing to a more intensive stage of the improvement process are 

dependent on whether the school did not make AYP for an additional year, not on the absolute 

number of years the school is in a given stage. The resulting timeline is as follows: After a 

school does not make AYP for two consecutive years, it is identified for improvement (Year 1). 

Each time it does not make AYP for an additional year, the school moves into another stage of 

identification and intervention. Year 2 improvement schools have not made AYP for three (not 

necessarily consecutive) years. A fourth year of failure to make AYP targets places the school in 

“corrective action” status and the fifth such year places the school into the final “restructuring” 

stage (see Exhibit 2). Restructuring occurs in two phases; during the first year schools develop a 

restructuring plan, which is implemented during the second year. 

Provide useful information about school performance to stakeholders 

A central assumption of performance-based accountability is that when educators, administrators, 

parents and other stakeholders have information about the performance of schools and districts, they 

will be able to make informed decisions about resources and actions that are in the best interest of 

students. For this assumption to hold, stakeholders must have access to accurate, reliable and valid 

information about the requirements and options specified in the law, about student performance and 

about resources and practices likely to result in improved student achievement. As did IASA, NCLB

requires states to produce and distribute “report cards” that include information on AYP, improvement 

status and student achievement. It also adds requirements. 

• NCLB adds new accountability indicators, includes non–Title I schools, and reinforces the 

public dissemination of disaggregated achievement data. It also requires reporting the 

percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers, classified by high- and low-poverty 

schools. 

• NCLB also requires that information on student and school performance be made available to 

schools, districts and parents in a timely fashion so that parents may take advantage of the 

school choice and supplemental educational services options and schools may take appropriate 

improvement actions by the beginning of the school year. 
Chapter I 5 

Exhibit 2 

Stages of Identification for School Improvement 

Provide appropriate assistance and require interventions to stimulate 

school and district improvement 

The purpose of identifying schools and districts for improvement is to help ensure that appropriate 

actions are taken to foster school progress and provide options to students and parents. NCLB is more 

prescriptive and specific than IASA in the actions that states and districts must take to ensure school 

improvement. 

• NCLB specifies the required intervention options for each stage of school identification. For a 

Title I school in Year 1 or any subsequent year of identification, the district must offer all 

parents the option of transferring their child to another public, non-identified school. Districts must notify 

parents of choice options before the start of the school year and provide students with 

transportation to non-identified schools. (Under IASA, Congress added requirements in 1999 

and 2000 that school choice be offered to students in Title I schools identified for improvement, 

when feasible. However, IASA did not require districts to apply this option to all schools in 

need of improvement without regard to structural constraints, such as space available, or to 

provide transportation.) For Title I schools beginning in Year 2 of improvement status, districts 
Chapter I 6 

must also offer students from low-income families the option of receiving supplemental educational 

services from a state-approved provider. 

• For schools in corrective action status, districts must implement at least one of six specified 

interventions (replacing staff relevant to the failure to make AYP, implementing a new curriculum, 

decreasing management authority at the site, appointing an outside expert, extending the school 

day or year, or restructuring the school’s internal organization). And after not making AYP 

targets for five years, the school must plan to restructure its governance and the next year either close 

the school and reopen it as a charter school, replace all or most of the school staff, turn 

management over to the state or a private agency or take on other major forms of restructuring 

(see Exhibit 2). 

• NCLB also identifies specific support mechanisms for schools identified for improvement, including 

technical assistance, school support teams, and distinguished teachers and principals to assist in 

planning and improvement efforts. States are also required to provide support to districts 

identified for improvement, including assistance in developing an improvement plan and 

strategies to work more effectively with schools identified for improvement, and addressing 

potential challenges related to parent involvement or professional development. Although 

IASA specified some state strategies, NCLB emphasizes the development of state support 

systems. NCLB also requires districts to assist schools in analyzing data from state assessments, 

identifying proven effective strategies for professional development and instruction, and revising 

school budgets to allocate resources more effectively. As under IASA, schools identified for 

improvement under NCLB must spend 10 percent of their allocation of Title I, Part A, funds for 

the purpose of providing professional development. 

To document the ways in which they would comply with the accountability requirements of NCLB, 

states were required to submit initial accountability plans (often referred to as “accountability 

workbooks”) to the U.S. Department of Education by January 2003. These plans were approved 

through a peer review process in spring 2003.7 Since then, states have had the option of submitting 

annual amendments to their accountability plans. These amendments require approval by the 

U.S. Department of Education. 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND DATA SOURCES

This report addresses four broad questions relevant to the NCLB performance accountability provisions 

outlined above. 

• How have states implemented the standards, assessment, and accountability provisions of 

Titles I and III of NCLB? (see Chapter II.) 

• How are schools and districts performing with respect to making AYP? What are the reasons 

why schools do not make AYP? Are there common characteristics among districts and schools 

identified for improvement? (see Chapters III and IV.) 

• How is information about NCLB, AYP, and identification for improvement communicated to 

stakeholders, and how well do district and school staff understand the status of their districts and 

schools? (see Chapter V.) 

• What efforts are being made to improve district and school performance, including state support 

systems, technical assistance, mandated interventions, and local initiatives? (see Chapter VI.) 

 

7 See Erpenbach, Forte-Fast and Potts (2003) for a description of this process. 
Chapter I 7 

To address these questions, this report presents findings from two federally funded studies—the Study 

of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB (SSI-NCLB) and the 

National Longitudinal Study of NCLB (NLS-NCLB). 

The SSI-NCLB examines state implementation of NCLB in the areas of accountability and teacher 

quality through analysis of data collected from all states on school performance and state documents 

(including state Web sites and consolidated applications and reports) and telephone interviews with state 

officials responsible for implementation of the accountability, teacher quality, Title III, and supplemental 

educational services requirements of NCLB. Administrators in all states, Puerto Rico, and the District of 

Columbia were interviewed during fall and winter 2004–05. 

The NLS-NCLB assesses the implementation of NCLB in districts and schools through analysis of 

survey data collected in a nationally representative sample of 300 districts and, within those districts, of 

1,483 elementary, middle and high schools. In each school, six teachers were randomly selected: at the 

elementary school level, one teacher each in grades 1–6, and at the secondary school level, three English 

teachers and three mathematics teachers. In total, the NLS-NCLB surveyed 4,772 elementary teachers, 

2,081 secondary English teachers and 1,938 secondary mathematics teachers. In addition, 

1,483 principals, 300 district administrators, 1,408 special education teachers and 950 Title I 

paraprofessionals (teacher aides) were surveyed. Response rates ranged from 82 to 96 percent. 

Taken together, the purpose of these two studies was to provide an integrated longitudinal evaluation of 

the implementation of NCLB at the state, district, and school levels, with particular focus in four areas: 

(1) accountability, (2) teacher quality, (3) Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, and 

(4) resource allocation and targeting. This report focuses on the first of these areas, while companion 

reports will address the others. This report draws on information collected in fall 2004 and winter 2005 

from all sources in both the SSI-NCLB and the NLS-NCLB. The studies will collect data again in 

fall 2006 and report on changes in NCLB implementation in 2007. 

Technical Note 

The following conventions were used when referring to school year in discussions of AYP and 

identification for improvement. Schools or districts are said to make (or not make) AYP in a particular 

year based on test results from that same year. However, schools or districts are said to be identified for 

improvement for a particular year based on test results from the previous year (or years). For example, if 

43 percent of the students at Garden Elementary were proficient on tests taken in spring 2003–04 and 

the state’s AYP target for 2003–04 was 49 percent of students proficient, we would say that Garden 

Elementary did not make AYP in 2003–04. If the school had also not made AYP the previous year 

(2002–03), we would say that Garden Elementary was identified for improvement for 2004–05. 

This report is primarily descriptive; with few exceptions, we do not have information about the quality of 

the activities and services that are described. 

References in the text to differences between groups or over time that are based on nationally 

representative samples highlight only those differences that are statistically significant using the t-statistic 

and a significant level of 0.05. The significance level, or alpha level, reflects the probability that a 

difference between groups as large as the one observed could arise simply due to sampling variation, if 

there were no true difference between groups in the population. The tests were conducted by calculating 

a t-value for the difference between a pair of means and comparing that value to a published table of 

critical values for t. Differences between proportions were tested using a design-adjusted chi-square 

statistic. 
Chapter I 8 

Analyses of data on student achievement on state assessments, percentages of schools and districts 

identified for improvement, and reasons for schools not making adequate yearly progress were based on 

the full population of schools as reported by each state. 
Chapter II 9 

II. STATE STANDARDS, ASSESSMENTS, AND TARGETS 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) creates a system of accountability in which every public 

school in the country is held responsible for the academic achievement of all of its students. At the heart 

of this system are state content standards that articulate what students should know and be able to do at 

different grade levels, as well as assessments and other indicators of progress toward meeting those 

standards, and specific annual improvement targets for which all schools and districts are to be held 

accountable. Although all levels of the educational system have responsibility for implementing the 

provisions of the law, states play a particularly important role in that they adopt the standards-based 

policies that determine the accountability goals and interventions throughout their jurisdictions. This 

chapter focuses on state policy response to NCLB requirements for standards, assessments, and 

measuring progress, with particular attention to those provisions that represent a change from prior law. 

IMPLEMENTING STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS IN READING, MATHEMATICS AND 

SCIENCE

Content standards and aligned assessments have been core elements of ESEA since its 1994 

reauthorization as the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). At that time, Congress required states to 

establish content and performance standards and aligned assessments in reading and mathematics for all 

students covered by Title I of ESEA. NCLB built on and expanded IASA provisions by requiring 

states to add either grade-level standards or grade-level expectations to the broader grade-span standards 

that all public schoolchildren are expected to meet, to annually administer aligned assessments in each of 

grades 3 through 8, and once in high school, and to add requirements for standards and testing in 

science. NCLB also requires that 95 percent of students participate in the assessments of reading and 

Key Findings 

• As of 2004–05, more than half of the states (27 states and the District of Columbia) had 

instituted yearly testing in grades 3–8, up from 12 states in 1999–2000. The other 23 

states and Puerto Rico were making progress in addressing NCLB test requirements for 2005–

06. Nearly all states had high school assessments intended to meet NCLB requirements. 

• Student “proficiency” has little common meaning across states. States vary in the levels 

at which they set their academic achievement standards in reading and mathematics. 

• The variation in starting points—and thus how much progress a state must 

demonstrate by 2014—is strongly related to how high the state set its proficiency bar. 

States that set higher performance standards tended to have fewer students scoring at the 

proficient level and must make greater progress in student achievement by 2013–14. 

• In setting annual targets for achievement growth, the majority of states (27) started 

with small increments, followed by increased growth expectations after 2009. Other 

states spread their growth expectations fairly evenly between 2002–08 and 2008–14. 

• By 2004–05, most states had implemented English language proficiency (ELP) 

standards and annual targets, but implementation of ELP tests was incomplete in over 

half (27) of the states. 
Chapter II 10 

mathematics. This participation requirement applies to all public elementary and secondary schools and 

districts and to each major student subgroup within those jurisdictions. All students with limited English 

proficiency (LEP) and students with disabilities are to be included in statewide assessments and are to be 

provided accommodations or alternate assessments, as appropriate. 

These requirements and changes in the law generated a great deal of activity in the three years between 

the passage of NCLB (2001) and the collection of the data for this study (2004–05). During this period, 

states revised existing content standards or adopted new standards in reading, mathematics, and science; 

developed or adopted new assessments in grades or subjects previously untested; and finalized their 

definitions and cut scores8 for “proficiency” (i.e., meeting the state’s academic achievement standards) on 

statewide tests. 

Establishing content standards in reading, mathematics, and science 

Both NCLB and its precursor, IASA, required states to establish content standards that “specify what 

children are expected to know and be able to do” in reading and mathematics, and that “contain 

coherent and rigorous content” and “encourage the teaching of advanced skills.” NCLB also added 

requirements for content standards in science. Prior to NCLB, states were to have their content 

standards in place for reading and mathematics and to have their standards development process 

reviewed and approved by the U.S. Department of Education. The Department’s review of standardsetting processes began in 1998, and by the time NCLB was enacted in 2001, nearly all states had 

received federal approval. 

All states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have content standards in 

reading, mathematics and science, but most continue to revise their standards or 

adopt new standards. 

By 2003, all states had received federal approval for the process through which they developed reading 

and mathematics content standards. Nonetheless, many states adopted new standards or revised existing 

standards for reading (32 states and the District of Columbia), mathematics (33 states and the District of 

Columbia) and science (37 states and the District of Columbia) between 2001–02, when NCLB was 

passed, and 2004–05, the year of data collection for this report (see Exhibit 3). 

One of the most common revisions to state content standards has been the delineation of specific 

expectations for each grade level. Although some states had specific grade-level expectations prior to 

NCLB, many were using grade-span standards and have added such expectations since 2002. By 2005, 

most states had established either grade-level standards or grade-by-grade expectations designed to 

support annual testing in reading and mathematics in grades 3–8, as required by NCLB. 

Expanding student assessment systems 

Assessment of student achievement relevant to state standards is a central feature of NCLB, as it was of 

IASA. Measurement of student progress toward achieving state standards forms the basis on which 

districts and schools are held accountable; interventions are determined; and additional provisions, such 

as school choice and supplemental educational services, are provided. 

 

8 Cut scores are the minimum scores required for students to demonstrate proficiency—or other designated levels of 

achievement—on assessments. 
Chapter II 11 

As of 2004–05, 27 states and the District of Columbia had instituted yearly testing in 

grades 3–8. The other 23 states and Puerto Rico were making progress in addressing 

NCLB testing requirements for 2005–06. 

Exhibit 3 

Year in Which Current Reading, Mathematics and Science Content Standards 

Were Adopted or Most Recently Revised 

Exhibit reads: In 1995, two states adopted content standards in reading. 

Note: Three states have revised their K–8 standards and their 9–12 standards in different years and so are 

represented in the appropriate count for each of those years. 

a Indicates that the District of Columbia is included. 

b Indicates that Puerto Rico is included. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB, Accountability Interviews; Consolidated State Performance Reports and State Education 

Agency (SEA) Web sites (n=50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). 

By 2004–05, more than half of the states (27 states and the District of Columbia) had instituted yearly 

testing in grades 3–8 as required by NCLB for 2005–06 up from 12 states in 1999–2000, and nearly all 

states had high school assessments intended to meet NCLB requirements (see Exhibit 4).9 Under IASA, 

states were required to test students in reading and mathematics at least once in grade spans 3–5, 6–9, 

and 10–12. Title I of NCLB requires that beginning in 2005–06, states test students annually in 

mathematics and reading in every grade from 3 through 8 and once during grades 10 through 12 using 

assessments aligned to the state content standards. NCLB also requires that states administer 

assessments aligned to state science standards by 2007–08. At the time of NCLB passage, few states met 

all NCLB testing requirements, but much progress toward this goal has been made in the intervening 

years. 

 

9 To ensure that all states comply with NCLB testing requirements, the U.S. Department of Education use a peer review 

process involving experts in the field of standards and assessments. Reviewers examine the evidence submitted by each 

state to show that its assessment system meets NCLB requirements. (For more details on this process, see Standards and 

Assessments Peer Review Guidance: Information and Examples for Meeting Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, April 

28, 2004, accessible through the U.S. Department of Education Web site.) 
Chapter II 12 

Complying with NCLB testing requirements has necessitated substantial test development by states. 

While about one-third of the states planned to keep their existing tests to meet the requirements of 

NCLB, almost half were developing new tests. States reported that implementing the additional testing 

requirements was one of the most substantive challenges they faced in the first three years of NCLB. 

Test hurdles included development, psychometric issues, the timelines associated with test development, 

and financial constraints (although substantial additional funding was provided by the U.S. Congress to 

assist with assessment development). Representative comments from state respondents included the 

following: 

• “There are a lot of psychometric issues presented by needing to test all students in grades 3 

through 8. Some of them have to do with vertical alignment and scaling in a criterion-referenced 

test setting.” 

• “One [challenge] is just simply the pace of development to bring all of these tests online within 

three years. That includes mathematics and reading in [grades] 3 through 8 as well as 10th grade, 

plus science. This dwarfs any other project we’ve done; in fact, it’s three times as large as any 

other testing program we’ve had in the state.” 

• “The largest issue has been that we had to do [the test development] with the existing staff. No 

new staff [and] more than twice as many grade levels tested...so you have had all the ramp-up in 

terms of item development and piloting that’s gone on for the last two years to have those [tests] 

ready, and we’ve done it with the same staff as when we had four grades.... An additional 

challenge is [developing] the rubrics and trying to deal with all the anchor papers and training 

papers that you have to pull in order to be able to score all the open-ended items. So I’ve got 

people spending literally six weeks of their year doing nothing but pulling anchor and training 

papers for piloting one form or another.” 

Exhibit 4 

Number of States That Administered Assessments Intended 

to Meet NCLB Requirements, by Subject and Grade, 2004–05 

 Reading Mathematics Science 

Grade 3 38 34 

Grade 4 41 41 

Grade 5 33 32 

Grade 6 32 33 

Grade 7 33 31 

Grade 8 42 44 

All grades 3–8 28 28 

At least one grade 3–5 43 

At least one grade 6–9 41 

At least one grade 10–12 50 50 40 

Exhibit reads: For grade 3, 38 states implemented reading assessments; 34 states implemented 

mathematics assessments. 

Note: Although states have implemented assessments intended to meet NCLB requirements, as of summer 2005, 

no state assessment system had received full approval. For Reading and Mathematics assessments, the District of 

Columbia is included in the totals for grades 3-8, and Puerto Rico is included for grades 3, 6, 8, and 11. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB, Accountability Interviews and Extant Sources (n=50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico). 
Chapter II 13 

Despite the limited amount of time that was available for test development, no states opted to rely 

entirely on off-the-shelf tests. Instead, all of the newly adopted tests were either developed specifically 

to align with state standards or were off-the-shelf tests that had been augmented to align with state 

standards (see Exhibit 5). 

Testing all students 

NCLB places great emphasis on the 

inclusion of all students in statewide 

assessments. In the case of students with 

disabilities or limited English proficiency, 

this inclusion is an essential foundation 

for ensuring equal opportunity to achieve 

to the state’s common high standards. 

When large groups of students go 

untested, the school and the larger system 

lack needed information to monitor 

progress, detect low performance, and 

adjust educational strategies. 

Testing all students in a valid, fair, and 

reliable way presents challenges. While 

some students with disabilities or limited 

English proficiency can participate in the 

regular statewide assessments unaided, 

others require testing accommodations or 

even alternate assessments. NCLB and 

other federal statutes not only allow for 

but, in some cases, require such measures 

(when appropriate for the individual 

child). The sections below discuss 

separately the steps states have taken to 

ensure the inclusion of these students in 

state assessment systems. 

Students with disabilities 

In 2004–05, all states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico either administered 

or were planning some form of alternate assessments for students with disabilities. 

Although alternate assessments are relatively new, nearly all states currently administer some form of 

alternate assessment for students with disabilities. The 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required that states include students with disabilities in statewide 

assessment programs and administer alternate assessments for students with disabilities who cannot 

participate in the state’s regular assessment even with appropriate accommodations. Prior to this federal 

mandate, such students were frequently excluded from large-scale testing programs. In 1999–2000, 

12 states had alternate assessments in place, and 35 were in the process of developing them (Goertz and 

Duffy, 2001). 

Exhibit 5 

State Approaches to Developing 

Assessments Required for 2005–06 

Percent of State Assessments

in Grades 3–8a

 in 2004–05 

Reading Mathematics 

Kept existing assessment 31% 30% 

Modified existing assessment 5% 5% 

Adopted New Assessment 

Used existing off-the-shelf 

test 0% 0% 

Augmented existing off-theshelf test 12% 12% 

Developed new assessmentc 45% 46% 

Other approach 4% 4% 

Data not availableb 3% 3% 

Exhibit reads: In order to meet the NCLB requirements 

for state assessments in grades 3 though 8 in reading, states 

used existing assessments in 31 percent of the cases and 

modified existing assessments in an additional 5 percent of 

the cases for 2004–05. 

a Data were not available for Puerto Rico (all grades) and 

Connecticut (grades 3, 5, and 7) 

b Percentage calculated as the sum of assessments for grades 3 

through 8 divided by 312 (52 states times six grade levels) 

c The District of Columbia is included in this category. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, Accountability Interviews (n=49 states and 

the District of Columbia). 
Chapter II 14 

Under NCLB, alternate assessments must be aligned with the state’s content standards; must yield results 

separately in reading or language arts, mathematics, and, beginning in the 2007–08 school year, science; 

and must be designed and implemented in a manner that supports the use of the results as an indicator 

of AYP. Alternate assessments can measure proficiency based on grade-level achievement standards and 

can also measure proficiency based on alternate standards for students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities. Alternate assessments may be needed for students who have a broad variety of 

disabilities; consequently, a state may employ more than one alternate assessment. 

Alternate assessments may use different methods of measuring student achievement, such as teacher 

observation or samples of student work demonstrating mastery of the content standards assessed by the 

statewide assessment or standardized performance tasks. With these methods, the progress of students 

with the most significant cognitive disabilities can be evaluated based on achievement standards 

appropriate for their intellectual development, giving states the opportunity to more accurately gauge 

their academic progress. 

In the 2004–05 school year, respondents from nearly all states reported administering alternate 

assessments in reading and mathematics for some students with disabilities. Forty-four states and the 

District of Columbia used alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards, which may 

cover a narrower range of content (e.g., fewer objectives may be covered under each content standard) 

or reflect a different set of expectations in the areas of reading or language arts, mathematics, and science 

than do regular assessments or alternate assessments based on grade-level achievement standards. 

During the 2004–05 school year, 24 states and Puerto Rico administered or piloted alternate reading and 

mathematics assessments based on the same grade-level expectations used for all other students. 

Fourteen states administered or were developing alternate assessments in science. 

All states allowed testing accommodations to enable students with disabilities to 

take the regular state assessments. 

Similarly, in 2004–05, all states allowed testing accommodations for students with disabilities. While 

some students with disabilities can participate in the regular assessment without special accommodations, 

such accommodations enable many others to participate. The accommodations most frequently 

approved by states in 2002–03 included the following (Clapper et al., 2005)10: 

• Presentation accommodations—large-print tests (47 states), sign interpretations of questions 

(45 states), Braille (38 states), instructions read aloud to student (35 states). 

• Equipment and material accommodations—magnification equipment (41 states), amplification 

equipment (42 states), light or acoustics accommodations (38 states). 

• Response accommodations—computer or machine (37 states), Braille (36 states), write-in test 

booklets (35 states). 

• Scheduling and timing accommodations—test administration with breaks (39 states), multiple 

sessions (35 states), time beneficial to students (35 states). 

• Setting accommodations—small-group administration (47 states), individual administration 

(46 states), carrel administration (40 states). 

 

10 This report did not include data from the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico. 
Chapter II 15 

Students with limited English proficiency 

All states allowed accommodations in the assessment of LEP students, but states 

varied widely in the percentages of students actually using them. 

Title I requires that all LEP students—regardless of the amount of time they have been in a school, a 

district, or the United States—be included in academic content area assessments with reasonable 

accommodations, including native language versions of the assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 

2003a).11 In 2004–05, all states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico12 allowed LEP students to use 

a variety of accommodations when taking state content assessments. Accommodations for LEP 

students fall into the general categories of presentation, setting, timing, and response (see Exhibit 6). 

The percentage of LEP students actually using accommodations varied greatly from state to state. Of 

the 28 states and the District of Columbia that tracked and reported this information, the percentage of 

LEP students who took accommodated reading or mathematics assessments in 2003–04 ranged from 

100 percent in Louisiana, North Carolina, and District of Columbia to 6 percent in Texas and Idaho. 

The percentage of students assessed using accommodations did not seem to be associated with the total 

number of LEP students tested in the state; both high and low percentages were reported for states with 

large and small LEP student populations. 

NCLB also allows for the use of native language assessments, provided the assessment is aligned to the 

state content and achievement standards. (After students have attended school in the United States for 

three years, they must be assessed on reading in English). Because native-language assessments are 

costly and difficult to develop, only 16 states reported having them available, and most of these were 

only in Spanish. Four states reported administering assessments in additional languages for 2004–05, 

including Chinese, Gujarati, Haitian-Creole, Hmong, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Somali, and 

Vietnamese.13

 

11 In February 2004, the U.S. Department of Education announced new flexibility allowing LEP students, in their first 

year of enrollment in U.S. schools, to take an English language proficiency assessment instead of the state reading 

assessment, permitting states to exclude those students’ reading and mathematics scores from AYP calculations, and 

permitting states to retain formerly LEP students in the LEP subgroup for AYP calculations for up to two years after 

they attain English proficiency. States may take advantage of this flexibility by amending their Consolidated State 

Application. At the time of interviews, several states had submitted amendments to reflect this flexibility. 12 In the case of Puerto Rico, Title III policies pertain to students who are not proficient in Spanish. 13 One of these four states expected to discontinue assessments in these additional languages in 2005–06. 
Chapter II 16 

Even when a state had a 

native-language 

assessment in place, the 

assessment was not 

available for all grades in 

all subjects. Nine states 

offered native-language 

assessments in 

mathematics, four offered 

them in reading, three 

offered them in science, 

and one offered them in 

social studies. 

Respondents in two states 

did not know the subjects 

in which native-language 

assessments were 

available. Four states had 

native language options 

available for their high 

school graduation 

examinations. For some 

states, the only nativelanguage assessment 

offered was the high 

school exit examination; 

other states offered 

Spanish tests for grades 

3–8 and 9–11 in mathematics, science, and social studies. 

Defining student proficiency: academic achievement standards 

NCLB sets the goal of all students reaching proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2013–14, but 

each state must define the level of student performance that is to be labeled “proficient” on its statewide 

assessments. Each state’s definition of proficiency is reflected in its academic achievement standards

(previously referred to as performance standards under IASA) for each grade level and subject tested. 

Academic achievement standards are linked to both content standards and assessments. They include 

achievement-level descriptors that clarify student skills and anchor the achievement standards to the 

content standards. For example, one descriptor in Illinois reads: “Students who meet the standard can 

use correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization and structure.” More importantly, states must 

determine the “cut scores” on the state assessment that determine each achievement level. Under 

NCLB, states are required to establish at least three achievement levels—basic, proficient and advanced. 

However, most states (as of 2003–04, 41 states and the District of Columbia) had opted to designate 

four or five achievement levels, with the additional levels usually, but not always, being set below the 

basic level. 

States determined achievement level cut scores through a systematic judgmental process that often 

involved committees of psychometric experts, teachers and administrators. The most frequent strategy 

for setting cut scores is called “bookmarking” (Mitzel, 2005). During this process, participants review 

Exhibit 6 

Six Most Commonly Offered Accommodations 

for Students With Limited English Proficiency 

in Content-Area Assessments 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-seven states allowed the use of dictionaries as an 

accommodation for LEP students taking state content-area tests. 

a Indicates that Puerto Rico is included. 

b Indicates that the District of Columbia is included 

c Indicates that both the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are included. 

Sources: Biennial Evaluation Report to Congress on the Implementation of the 

State Formula Grant Program, 2002–04, English Language Acquisition, Language 

Enhancement and Academic Achievement Act (ESEA, Title III, Part A) (n=50 

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). 
Chapter II 17 

test booklets in which items are arranged from least difficult to most difficult. Committee participants 

then set “bookmarks” to delineate different levels, consistent with the achievement-level descriptors. 

In 2004–05, at least 23 states lacked operational test data to set cut scores. 

Ideally, states must set cut scores based on data from a full operational administration of the test, so 

those states that are phasing in new assessments should wait to accumulate and analyze initial results for 

each grade as it is phased in before they can finalize academic achievement standards.14 NCLB requires 

that academic achievement standards in reading and mathematics be in place by the end of the 2005–06 

school year for grades 3–8 and one high school grade. However, as of 2004–05, 23 states had not yet 

administered assessments in all NCLB required grades and so had not accumulated sufficient data to set 

cut scores in all these grades. As of the 2003–04 school year, fewer than ten states reported that they 

had completed the process of setting academic achievement standards for all grades tested under NCLB. 

In the interim, states used existing information to define achievement levels. Because all states were 

required to administer assessments for at least three grade spans under IASA, every state had established 

academic achievement standards for selected grades. As of 2004–05, most states were in the process of 

extending those academic achievement standards to additional grade levels to meet NCLB requirements. 

In the interim, they used previously established academic achievement standards to determine whether 

schools make AYP or are identified for improvement. 

Student “proficiency” has little common meaning across states. 

Academic achievement standards for proficiency are pivotal to NCLB accountability: Schools’ AYP 

determinations are based on each subgroup of students reaching the state-defined proficiency level. 

Thus, how states define academic proficiency is an important consideration in evaluating performance. 

Because achievement standards are established relative to state content standards and assessments, they 

can and do vary from state to state.15

One way to measure the amount of variation in proficiency achievement standards is to compare each 

state’s test against a common external benchmark. The only benchmark available across all states is the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). A recent analysis examined how state 

proficiency levels in reading and mathematics for grades 4 and 8 varied against this common metric 

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2007; see also McLaughlin, Bandeira de Mello, Blankenship, 

Chaney, Hikawa, Rojas, William, and Wolman, 2007). Using a process called equipercentile mapping,16

the researchers calculated NAEP scale equivalents for the mathematics and reading standards for 

proficiency in each state (see Exhibit 7 for eighth-grade mathematics). 

 

14 Although some states may choose other strategies to set cut scores for academic achievement standards, assessment 

experts suggest that operational test score data is preferable. Indeed, the Standards and Assessment Peer Review 

Guidance notes, “States can develop the level and description components of the standards prior to the availability of 

assessment data that will be necessary to set the cut scores components of these standards.” (emphasis added) (U.S. Department of 

Education (2005a). 

15 Such variation does not imply that states are out of compliance with NCLB; indeed, the law does not attempt to 

define either state content standards or academic achievement standards. 

16 Equipercentile mapping is a process in which the percentages of students meeting the state proficiency standards in 

schools participating in NAEP in each state were matched with the distribution of performance on NAEP of students in 

those same schools. The accuracy of this metric depends on the correlations between NAEP and state assessment 

results. In the majority of the states examined, the standards were sufficiently correlated to warrant reporting the NAEP 

equivalents. Exhibit 7 displays data only for those states with sufficiently high correlation between NAEP and the state 

assessment. 
Chapter II 18 

States varied widely in the levels at which they set their performance standards in reading and 

mathematics. Using NAEP as a common external metric, state standards for proficiency in eighth-grade 

mathematics under NCLB range from a NAEP equivalent score of approximately 247 to 314 (see 

Exhibit 7). Similar patterns occurred in fourth-grade mathematics and in reading at both grade levels. 

As a result, a student deemed to be proficient for NCLB purposes in one state might not be considered 

proficient in another. Because attainment of the NCLB goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2013–14 

depends, in part, on the level at which states set their proficiency standard, cross-state comparisons and 

nationwide estimates of percent proficient must be interpreted with caution. 

This variation in achievement standards should be taken into account in any examination of state 

variation in the numbers and percentages of schools that make or do not make AYP or are identified for 

improvement. Relative to one another and to NAEP, states can be categorized as setting their standards 

for proficiency at low, medium and high levels of expected performance. Chapter III of this report 

incorporates these categories in analyses of AYP results across states. 

MEASURING PROGRESS TOWARD PROFICIENCY: ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS

State measures of AYP are the foundation of NCLB accountability. Both Title I and non–Title I schools 

must meet AYP targets; hence, AYP is the accountability mechanism with the greatest scope, affecting 

all public schools in the United States. State AYP accountability mechanisms have three components: 

1. AYP indicators—percent of students performing at the proficient level on statewide 

assessments in reading and mathematics, student test participation rates, and other academic 

indicators. 

2. AYP targets—starting points, annual measurable objectives, and intermediate goals for percent 

proficient in reading and mathematics. 

3. Methods to avoid misclassifying schools—“safe harbor,” minimum n, confidence intervals, 

and definitions of full academic year. 

The U.S. Department of Education permits states to seek amendments to their NCLB accountability 

plans, including elements of their AYP definitions. In late summer 2003, states began submitting 

amendments for 2003–04 for review and approval. In 2004, 47 states had requested amendments by the 

April 1 deadline set by the Department; in 2005, 42 states submitted requests by the June 1 deadline. In 

general, states have continued to ask for flexibility in areas likely to increase the validity and reliability of 

their AYP decisions and enable them to focus on the districts and schools that most need improvement. 
Chapter II 19 

Exhibit 7 

NAEP Scale Equivalents of State Proficiency Standards, 

by State Eighth-Grade Mathematics, 2003 

Exhibit reads: By matching percentages of students meeting state standards in schools participating in 

NAEP with the distribution of performance of students in those schools on NAEP, state standards for 

proficiency may be mapped to scores on the NAEP scale. On average, students who met the state’s proficient 

level in Missouri would be estimated to score 314 or higher on NAEP while students who met the state’s 

proficient level in North Carolina would have an estimated NAEP score of 247 or above. 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2007 (n=33 states and the District of Columbia). 
Chapter II 20 

Selecting AYP indicators 

NCLB requires states to use five indicators to determine AYP: (1) the percent of students who are 

proficient in reading; (2) the percent of students who are proficient in mathematics; (3) the percent of 

students who participate in reading assessments; (4) the percent of students who participate in 

mathematics assessments; and (5) at least one other academic indicator at each school level (elementary, 

middle, and high school). Even small differences in the rules for calculating each AYP indicator will 

affect whether schools or districts make adequate yearly progress. For this reason, states have given 

considerable attention to the details of their choices.17

States used their allowed flexibility to define (and amend) their AYP indicators, 

adding to the complexity of AYP calculations and their variability across states. 

Calculating the percent proficient—which at first appears a straightforward process of dividing the 

number of students who score proficient by the total number of students in the school, subgroup, or 

district—depends in large part, on how the state defines the “total” number of students. Initially, most 

states defined percent proficient as the “number of students scoring at or above proficient” divided by 

the “number of students enrolled for a full academic year.” However, several states received approval to 

change the denominator to “the number of students enrolled and tested.”18 This slight change in the 

formula is designed to ensure that schools are not penalized twice for low participation in tests 

(nonparticipating students also affect the participation rate scores, another component of AYP, as 

described below). The fact that some states have used this option and some have not may contribute to 

variation in AYP results among states. Additionally, at least ten states use weighted indices to determine 

proficiency (for example, to adjust for different numbers of students within grades in a school), rather 

than a simple percentage. 

States also had the option of including the scores of students assessed using the alternate assessment 

based on alternate achievement standards in AYP calculations—provided that the proficient scores did 

not exceed 1.0 percent of all students tested. The regulations also allow states and districts to receive 

exceptions to exceed the 1.0 percent cap. Nearly all states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico 

included the scores of students assessed using alternate assessments based on alternate achievement 

standards in their AYP calculations, but few states or districts used waivers to exceed the 1.0 percent cap. 

For AYP determinations for 2003–04 testing, 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico 

included the scores of students assessed using alternate assessments for their AYP calculations. For the 

1.0 percent cap, three states were granted exception for 2003–04 testing from the U.S. Department of 

Education, and 18 states reported granting such exceptions to districts. Among the states that granted 

this flexibility to districts, only six could report on the number of exceptions they granted (a total of 

approximately 134 exemptions). 

In addition to measures of student proficiency in reading and mathematics, measures of AYP must 

incorporate at least one other indicator for each schooling level. At the elementary and middle school 

levels, these indicators are selected by the state. Attendance was the most common “other academic 

indicator” (33 states and the District of Columbia) for elementary and middle schools in 2003–04, but 

some states chose to use additional achievement measures instead. These states included results from 

other state assessments, including writing or science assessments (six states), or performance increases 

on a state index (three states). Other indicators also included reductions in the percent of students with 

below-basic performance (Wyoming) and proficiency in English as a second language (Puerto Rico). 

 

17 See Appendix B, Exhibit B.1, for information on key components of state approaches to AYP in 2003–04. 18 For a more detailed discussion of state AYP definitions and amendment requests, see Erpenbach and Forte (2005). 
Chapter II 21 

At the high school level, states are required to use graduation rates as the other academic indicator, but 

they can establish their own baselines, targets, and long-term goals for progress. Not surprisingly, the 

resulting baselines and targets vary by state. Baseline graduation rates for 2002 ranged from 62 to 

94 percent. The range was even greater for the 2003–04 graduation targets, which ranged from 50 to 

97 percent, with 15 states setting targets for 2003–04 that were lower than their actual reported rates in 

2001–02. Long-term goals for graduation were similarly disparate. In contrast to the mandatory 

100 percent proficiency states must meet by 2013–14 for reading and mathematics, states have flexibility 

in setting their 12-year goals for graduation. The range for the 2013–14 graduation rate goals varied 

from 65 to 100 percent across states. In other words, while some states seek to graduate all their 

students from high school in 2014, others will be satisfied with graduating 65 percent of their students.19

One reason for the variation in long-term graduation goals is that states define graduation rates 

differently. Seven states reported that they were using a temporary proxy measure (i.e., dropout rate), 

and 14 states allowed more than four years to graduation (for students with such provisions written into 

their individualized education programs, or for students with limited English proficiency). Finally, some 

states have amended their AYP definitions in 2004 and 2005 to permit progress toward the attainment of 

graduation targets, rather than actual attainment of those targets.20

Setting targets for performance 

NCLB requires states to set proficiency targets in increments from the percentage of students scoring 

proficient at the point at which NCLB went into effect in 2001–02 to the ultimate goal of 100 percent in 

2014. Targets give systems near-term goals to shoot for and also allow them to determine whether the 

progress being made at any point in time is sufficient for reaching their long-term objective. 

Establishing a starting point 

One of the first tasks states were required to do after they defined their AYP indicators was to establish 

starting points in reading and mathematics and trajectories of expected progress toward the goal of 

100 percent proficiency in each subject. 

Under NCLB, states with adequate data from 2001–02 were required to use those results to determine 

their starting points for establishing AYP targets in reading and mathematics. As required by statute, 

starting points were to be the higher of the percentage of students at the proficient level in (1) the state’s 

lowest-achieving subgroup, or (2) the school at the 20th percentile among all schools based on 

enrollment, ranked by the percentage of proficient students. In most states, this latter process yielded 

the higher percentage. Thus, the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level in the school at 

the 20th percentile became the AYP starting point for the state. States were allowed—but not 

required—to establish different starting points by grade span (for example, grades 3–8), by school level 

(elementary, middle, high school), or by grade. The same starting points had to be used for all subgroups 

and for all schools within the state. 

Most states developed starting points for grade spans, but 12 states set starting points only for the grades 

tested prior to NCLB (for example, grades 4, 8, and 11), and 12 states determined starting points for the 

elementary, middle, and high school levels (rather than specifying grades). Connecticut set different 

 

19 Sixteen states have targets of 100 percent, 13 have targets between 90 and 99 percent, nine have targets of 80 to 89 

percent, and four states have targets of 51 to 75 percent (data for the remaining eight states, the District of Columbia 

and Puerto Rico were unavailable). 

20 While state-reported graduation rates ranged from 97 to 62 percent, the average freshman graduation rate was 

somewhat lower, ranging from 86 to 58 percent (U.S. Department of Education, 2005a). 
Chapter II 22 

starting points for each of its two regular state assessments, while the starting points in Oklahoma, New 

York, and Vermont were expressed on an index scale,21 rather than as a percentile scale. Mississippi set 

the most starting points, in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 for the subjects of reading and mathematics, and 

grades 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 for algebra. 

The starting points used to develop the AYP targets for each subject also varied among states. For 

example, starting points for elementary reading ranged from 14 percent of students proficient in 

California to 78 percent of students proficient in Colorado. In elementary mathematics, the range was 

even greater: from 8 percent of students proficient in Missouri to 80 percent of students proficient in 

Colorado. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia had starting points lower than 50 percent in 

elementary reading; 28 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico were below this mark in 

elementary mathematics. High schools are furthest from the target, with 24 states and the District of 

Columbia having starting points of less than 50 percent proficiency, and more than ten states starting 

with fewer than 30 percent proficient.22

This variation in starting point has implications for evaluating progress across states. Because states did 

not start at the same place (as indicated by the ranges noted above), some have much farther to go to 

realize the goal of 100 percent proficiency. For example, in five states the starting point for mathematics 

was below 20 percent proficient. In contrast, North Carolina’s starting point was 75 percent proficient 

(thus far fewer students need to increase their performance to the proficient level in North Carolina than 

in the other five states). 

The variation in AYP starting points—and hence in how much progress a state must 

demonstrate by 2014—is strongly related to how high the states set their academic 

achievement standards for proficiency. 

As discussed earlier, one way to measure the variation in achievement standards across states is to 

compare each state’s cut score for determining proficient performance relative to the proficiency score 

used by NAEP. There is a negative correlation (r = –.58 to –.79) between states’ academic achievement 

standards (converted to the NAEP scale) and starting points for NCLB accountability. In other words, 

states that set higher academic achievement standards tend to have a lower percentage of students 

scoring at the proficient level and therefore must make greater progress in student achievement by 

2013–14 (see Exhibit 8). States with high performance standards in mathematics, for example, must 

realize an average increase of 81 percentage points in the share of students who are proficient by 

2013–14, while states with low performance standards have to realize an average increase of 

51 percentage points. 

Annual Measurable Objectives 

Under NCLB, each state must set statewide annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for mathematics and 

reading assessments. AMOs identify the minimum percentage of students required to meet or exceed 

the proficient level on the academic assessments in a given year. AMOs may vary by grade span, and 

they are not required to apply to the same interval from year to year. The first increase was required in 

two years or less after NCLB implementation (by 2004–05), and the subsequent increases must occur at 

not more than three-year intervals. 

 

21 In Oklahoma, for example, the starting point for math was 648 on an index on which 1,500 constitutes proficiency. 22 Starting points for high school from eight states were not available. 
Chapter II 23 

Exhibit 8 

Improvement Needed to Reach 100 percent Proficient by 2013–14, by Level of Difficulty 

of State Academic Achievement Standards, for Eighth-Grade Mathematics 

Exhibit reads: States that set higher standards for proficiency relative to other states, had an average 

starting point for their AYP target for eighth-grade mathematics of 19 percent; they need to increase the 

percentage of students achieving at the state proficiency level by 81 percentage points, on average, in order 

to achieve the goal of all students achieving at the state’s proficient level by 2013–14. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB analyses. Data from National Center for Education Statistics; 2007; State Accountability 

Workbooks; and SEA Web sites (n=33 states and the District of Columbia). 

By 2006–07, state approaches to setting their AMOs and intermediate goals fell into one of three 

common types of trajectories—linear, stair-step or mixed (see Exhibit 9). Most states chose to start their 

trajectories with little or no growth required in the first two to three years after NCLB implementation 

(stair-step and mixed): 

• Nine states had linear growth plans that expect roughly equal increments of progress each year. 

• Fourteen states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had “stair-step” plans in which the 

AMO remains the same for two or three years before increasing, and this pattern is repeated 

until the AMO equals 100 percent proficient). 

• Twenty-seven states had a mixed pattern in which AMOs follow a stair-step pattern for a few 

years, then switch to a linear trajectory. 
Chapter II 24 

Exhibit 9 

Examples of Stair-Step, Linear, and 

Mixed-Pattern AMO Trajectories (Mathematics) 

Exhibit reads: North Dakota’s mathematics trajectory exemplifies a linear pattern; 

Washington’s is stair-step; and Louisiana’s is a mixed-pattern trajectory. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, Analysis of State Accountability Workbooks. 

In setting annual measurable objectives for achievement growth, many states (27) 

start with small increments then increase growth expectations after 2009. 

An important feature of the “mixed pattern” trajectories established by many states is that on average 

they project a more rapid increase in the latter years of NCLB implementation. Indeed, among these 

states, the average required annual growth in the initial (stair-step) part of the trajectory is only 

3 percentage points; when the trajectory becomes linear, however, the annual expected growth is 

8 percentage points. In other words, the rate of growth is expected to accelerate in the latter half of the 

NCLB time period. 

In the “mixed-pattern” states, only 28 percent of the total required growth is expected to occur in the 

first half of the trajectory (from 2004 to 2009), while 72 percent of the achievement growth is expected 

in the last five years (from 2009 to 2014) (see Exhibit 10).23 This means that these states expect 

achievement to increase twice as fast between 2009 and 2014 as it is expected between 2004 and 2009. 

In contrast, the linear and stair-step states expect fairly consistent increases over the full trajectory. 

 

23 Because states were not required to increase their AMOs for the first two years of NCLB implementation, these 

analyses were conducted starting from spring 2004. 
Chapter II 25 

Methods to avoid 

classifying schools as 

missing AYP targets due 

to chance fluctuations 

It is important to ensure that AYP 

calculations are valid (i.e., measure the 

right things) and reliable (i.e., avoid 

year-to-year fluctuations not related to 

changes in student achievement). 

Differences in a school’s scores from 

year to year should not be the result of 

random fluctuations in the individual 

students tested, the specific questions 

included in the assessment, or the 

peculiarities of the testing situation. 

NCLB requires that states establish 

criteria and conditions that make their 

AYP models valid and reliable. NCLB

includes a “safe harbor” provision used 

by all states: Schools may make AYP if 

the percentage of students in a group or 

subgroup that did not meet the AYP 

target decreases by 10 percent from the 

preceding school year, and if the school 

makes AYP for the relevant group or 

subgroup for the other academic 

indicator and participation rate. Some 

of the most common other measures 

include: 

• establishing the minimum (“minimum n”) needed to constitute a subgroup for reporting AYP; 

• using confidence intervals and rounding rules; 

• modifying definitions of full academic year; and 

• creating rules for combining AYP status indicators from two consecutive years. 

While these methods reduce the likelihood that schools or subgroups are mistakenly counted as having 

not made AYP, the methods also reduce the likelihood that schools that are truly low-performing will be 

counted as missing AYP targets. 

Setting minimum sizes for subgroups 

Under NCLB, states are required to determine minimum sizes (“minimum n”) for groups to be included 

in calculations of AYP. Setting a minimum size reduces statistical error due to small sample size. For 

example, if a state sets a minimum n at 30 students, a school must serve 30 or more students in a given 

group (e.g., LEP students) for that group to count separately in the school’s AYP calculation. States set 

minimum n’s for schools and districts, and some have set separate n’s for proficiency and test 

Exhibit 10 

Expected Achievement Growth Based on Different 

AMO Trajectory Types 

Exhibit reads: On average, in states with a linear trajectory, 

at least 51 percent of the expected growth must take place 

between spring 2004 and spring 2009, and 49 percent can 

occur between spring 2009 and spring 2014. 

Note: Because states were not required to increase AMOs for the 

first years of NCLB implementation, the calculations were 

conducted using state AMOs from 2004 through 2014. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB, Review of State Accountability Workbooks 

and State Education Agency Web sites (n=49 states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico). 
Chapter II 26 

participation rates. The minimum n’s set for 2004–05 ranged from 10 students to 50 students, with most 

states choosing either 30 or 40 as the threshold number. In the case of small schools whose total 

enrollment falls below the overall minimum n, the state may determine AYP using an alternate, smallschool AYP formula.24 In either case—subgroup or overall minimum n—the purpose is to avoid 

misclassifying a school or district based on an unreliable estimate of performance. 

Although the majority of states employed a single number as their n size, a growing number use a 

“progressive minimum n,” that may vary, depending on enrollment or the number of students tested. In 

states that used a progressive minimum n, the required subgroup size increased as the enrollment within 

a school or district increased. For example, in 2005, Georgia adopted a minimum n size that was 

“proportional to the overall student population in AYP grades.” The group n size is 40 students or 

10 percent, whichever is greater (with a 75 students cap).25 Thus, large schools are not held accountable 

for the performance of a subgroup that may constitute a very small proportion of total enrollment. 

In 2004, 17 states requested an increase in their minimum n sizes for subgroups, schools, or districts or a 

progressive minimum n. In 2005, three states and Puerto Rico received approval to do so. The majority 

of these increases applied to the minimum n size for subgroups: A growing number of states have set a 

larger minimum n for students with disabilities and limited English proficiency than for other groups. 

Using confidence intervals and rounding rules 

Another strategy states use to avoid misclassifying schools is to construct a confidence interval around 

the observed percent proficient on student tests in a given year. Although it may be difficult to 

determine accurately a school’s true level of proficiency, it is possible to estimate a range of values within 

which it can be assumed with some degree of confidence (e.g., 95 percent) the true percent proficient lies 

(Coladarci, 2003). The use of confidence intervals is designed to reduce the likelihood that schools will 

be incorrectly labeled as not making AYP. 

In calculating AYP determinations based on 2002–03 test results, 31 states used confidence intervals to 

enhance reliability; 39 states used confidence intervals the following year. In 2005, five more states 

requested permission to use confidence intervals for AYP or to increase the confidence interval from 

95 to 99 percent. In general, the larger the confidence interval, the more likely that ineffective schools 

will be classified as making AYP and the less likely it is that effective schools will be misclassified as not 

making AYP. 

Redefining full academic year 

Under NCLB, students enrolled for a full academic year are to be included in school AYP calculations. 

Each state defines it own full academic year. In 2004–05, state definitions of full academic year fell into 

four main categories. The most frequently used definition (38 states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico) was the time from a target date in the fall through a test date in the spring. Four states 

 

24 Under NCLB, states are required to determine the AYP status of all schools, even those in special circumstances—

that is, schools that are very small and do not meet the minimum n size, or schools that do not have tested grades (such 

as K-2 schools). States have developed specific strategies to ensure that such schools receive an AYP designation. In 

Alabama, for example, a school with untested grades may be linked with the school to which it feeds and will have the 

same AYP status as the receiving school. In Colorado, AYP for such schools may be determined through locallyadministered assessments. To determine AYP of small schools, Montana uses state assessment data as well as a broader, 

“qualitative review” of other performance data and information related to student achievement. Other states, such as 

New Hampshire, aggregate data from small schools across years to determine AYP. 25 Georgia’s Single Statewide Accountability System: Meeting State and Federal Requirements (August 2005, 

www.gaosa.org/documents/SSAS8-22-05.ppt). 
Chapter II 27 

created a profile of enrollment on one specific date during the year (for example, in the case of Vermont, 

this was Oct. 1); five established a minimum number of days of enrollment; and three required 

continuous enrollment from one test administration to the next (for example, spring 2003 testing 

through spring 2004 testing). In 2005, five states requested permission to modify their definitions of full 

academic year, but the general pattern among states remained the same. 

Combining AYP status indicators from two consecutive years 

Use of same indicator for two consecutive years. NCLB requires that schools or districts that do not make AYP 

for two consecutive years be identified for improvement. However, states have different procedures for 

combining AYP results over two years. Some states considered each of the five AYP indicators to be 

independent, while others did not. At least 20 states identified schools and districts for improvement 

only if they did not make their AYP target for the same subject two years in a row. The other 30 states 

identified schools and districts for improvement if they did not make any of the AYP targets for 

two consecutive years. 

Use of all three school levels in the same content area for district identification. In 2004, 18 states received approval 

to limit identification of districts for improvement to those that did not make their AYP targets at each 

of the three school levels (elementary, middle, and high school) in the same content area (reading or 

mathematics) for two consecutive years. 

These four approaches to avoiding misclassification errors (setting minimum sizes for subgroups using 

confidence intervals, redefining full academic year, and combining AYP status indicators) prevent states 

from erroneously identifying schools and districts for improvement. They are among the sections of 

state definitions of AYP that are most frequently amended and most hotly debated in the media and by 

researchers (for example, Erpenbach and Forte, 2005; Porter, Linn and Trimble, 2005). They are also 

among the most complex aspects of NCLB. Recent requests to amend AYP definitions suggest that 

states are continuing to seek strategies to ensure that the schools and districts identified for improvement 

are indeed those that require intervention. In particular, states increasingly incorporate the use of 

confidence intervals in their determinations of proficiency and participation, seek increases in the 

minimum n size for all or some subgroups (most notably, students with disabilities and LEP students), 

or incorporate a progressive rather than a stable number for participation. Many of these AYP 

mechanisms have the added effect of reducing the numbers of schools and districts that would otherwise 

be identified for improvement. 

ALIGNING PRIOR STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS WITH NCLB

Many states established their own systems of accountability in the 1990s, prior to NCLB, and some have 

maintained these initiatives after NCLB implementation. In 2004–05, 24 states had accountability 

requirements that went beyond, or were used in addition to, what is required of these states under 

NCLB. The presence of dual accountability systems was noted during the IASA era (Goertz and Duffy, 

2001; O’Day, 1999), when many states had a system that applied to all schools as well as a Title I system 

charting the AYP of schools that received Title I funds. NCLB was intended to reconcile these systems, 

and states have worked to integrate state accountability practices with new federal requirements. 

Dual federal-state accountability initiatives continued in 24 states, and conflicts 

were being resolved in most states. 

This section focuses on those 24 states with accountability programs and laws that predate NCLB and 

were continuing in some form in 2004–05. 
Chapter II 28 

In 2004–05, all continuing pre-NCLB state accountability programs used designations of school 

performance that differed somewhat from those of NCLB or reported their results in different ways. 

For example, some used letter grades, others identified “high-improving” schools, and so forth. Another 

notable difference was that many state programs (17) relied on growth measures to track progress toward 

accountability targets instead of an absolute target (percent reaching a set proficiency level) as in NCLB. 

Eight states used additional measures of student achievement (for example, tests in subjects not required 

under NCLB), and two have different inclusion rules for LEP students. As a result of these alternate 

measures, 15 states that maintain their pre-NCLB accountability programs reported that different 

schools were identified for improvement under NCLB than those identified under the state’s other 

initiative. 

Earlier in the implementation of NCLB, observers reported tensions between the prior state 

accountability systems and the newer, less familiar NCLB accountability requirements, particularly with 

respect to the identification of low-performing schools based on AYP. For example, in some cases, state 

accountability designations from spring 2003 testing differed from AYP determinations for the same 

schools. Reportedly, some schools that missed AYP targets received high marks under the state system 

(Hoff, 2004).26

Given the concern about sending mixed signals to schools, state officials have tried various approaches 

to reconciling conflicts. As one state official explained, “Our original system has only been modified 

slightly to comply with NCLB and actually has been approved with the NCLB and [state] pieces 

combined together into an integrated system.” Another noted, “What we tried to do with the 

architecture is subsume the AYP calculation within a larger system.” 

Overall, most state respondents reported success in incorporating NCLB requirements into state 

systems. In 2004–05, a majority of both district administrators and principals agreed that having a state 

or district program in addition to NCLB gives a more complete picture of effectiveness. Nonetheless, 

over 40 percent believed that this additional system resulted in staff confusion about targets,27 and about 

one-third believed that the dual system reduced community support for public schools (see Exhibit 11). 

 

26 See Linn (2005) for a more extensive discussion of differences between pre-NCLB state accountability provisions and 

NCLB requirements. 27 See Bitter et al. (2005) for an analysis of similar reported confusion among low-performing schools identified in the 

Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program in California. 
Chapter II 29 

Although states managed to integrate both systems, this does not mean that they accept NCLB

requirements uncritically. As one state official commented, “We talk about our accountability system as 

including the requirements of NCLB. So we don't talk about dual systems.... I’ve always pitched it as a 

complementary system. But that doesn’t mean we like the way AYP is computed.” 

ENSURING PROGRESS FOR STUDENTS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY:

TITLE III ACCOUNTABILITY

In addition to accountability requirements for Title I, NCLB also includes special provisions (Title III) to 

ensure progress of LEP students. Over the past decade, concern over how best to meet the needs of 

LEP students has increased along with the number of these students in U.S. schools. In 2003–04, an 

estimated 4.3 million LEP students were enrolled in U.S. public schools,28 an increase of 50 percent over 

1993-94. California has the largest number of LEP students (1.6 million), as well as the largest 

percentage of LEP students (25 percent). LEP students constitute more than 10 percent of total 

enrollment in nine states. In other states, the LEP population is relatively small, and in 12 states, LEP 

students constitute 2 percent or less of total enrollment.29

In order to determine whether or not LEP students are making sufficient progress in learning English, 

NCLB requires states to establish English language proficiency (ELP) standards for their LEP students 

(distinct from their reading content standards and assessments) and to measure progress toward meeting 

those standards. States’ ELP standards must define competence in listening, speaking, reading, and 

 

28 This figure does not include Puerto Rico because most of the Puerto Rican student population is made up of native 

Spanish speakers. In Puerto Rico, Title III primarily targets students with limited Spanish proficiency, offering Spanish 

as a second language classes. Even though Title III in Puerto Rico differs significantly from Title III in the other 

50 states and the District of Columbia, the basic NCLB requirements for non-native-language-speaking students are the 

same, so Puerto Rico is included in this report’s discussion of Title III. 29 National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA) 

Web site, AskNCELA No. 1, http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/01leps.htm, accessed July 6, 2005. 

Exhibit 11 

Perceived Benefits and Drawbacks of Having State and District Accountability 

Initiatives in Addition to NCLB, in Districts and Schools 

That Report Having Them, 2004–05 

Percent of 

Districts 

Agreeing 

(n=160) 

Percent of 

Schools 

Agreeing 

(n=899) 

Gives us a more complete picture of our effectiveness than a single 

accountability system 61% 58% 

Results in staff confusion about our targets for student achievement 42% 44% 

Reduces community support for public schools 36% 34% 

Allows us to focus on the goals that are most important to us 49% 40% 

Helps us make effective decisions about how to improve student achievement 55% 49% 

Exhibit reads: Sixty-one percent of district administrators agree that having a dual accountability system 

gives a more complete picture of effectiveness than a single accountability system. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District and Principal Surveys. 
Chapter II 30 

writing,30 and should set clear levels of progress (proficiency levels) that reflect the differences in each 

student’s grade level and English language abilities. Proficiency levels must include a label (such as 

novice or intermediate) and there must be an assessment cut score corresponding to each level. 

After a slow start, most states had implemented ELP standards in 2004–05. 

Although states were required to establish their ELP standards before or during the 2002–03 school year, 

few met that deadline. Prior to NCLB, ELP standards were not required, and only 14 states had some 

form of such “standards” in place when the law was passed. In each of these 14 states, ELP standards 

were not binding but served merely as guidance or curriculum aids. 

As of fall 2004–05, 40 states and Puerto Rico had adopted ELP standards. Of the 11 that had not 

implemented ELP standards, six were planning to implement them mid-year, two states and the District 

of Columbia were waiting for state board of education adoption and planned a formal rollout in 

2005–06, and two were still developing their standards (see Exhibit 12).31

NCLB also requires that 

the English language 

proficiency standards be 

aligned with the state 

content and academic 

achievement standards to 

ensure that LEP students 

are making progress not 

only in learning English 

but also in the content 

areas of reading, 

mathematics, and science. 

States reported that they 

employed a variety of 

strategies to link their ELP 

standards with state 

content and academic 

achievement standards. 

For example, the standards 

themselves may be linked 

through the use of subject-relevant vocabulary or through notation to show the specific content standard 

to which the ELP standard relates (and vice versa). States also reported developing instructional tools, 

such as teaching guides or professional development, to assist teachers in understanding the linkages. 

States varied in the subject areas in which such linkage has occurred, though nearly all reported having 

made linkages to reading standards and most reported having made linkages to mathematics standards 

(see Exhibit 13). 

 

30 Comprehension, as exhibited through reading and listening, must be considered when states develop their English 

language proficiency standards. (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). 31 See Appendix C, Exhibit C.1 for the status of individual states with regard to the development of ELP standards in 

2004–05. 

Exhibit 12 

State English Language Proficiency Standards: 

First School Year When 2004–05 Standards 

Were Implemented 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-two states first implemented their current ELP 

standards in 2004–05. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, Title III Interviews (n=50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico). 
Chapter II 31 

Implementation of ELP 

tests was incomplete in 

over half (27) of the 

states in 2004–05. 

NCLB requires states to provide 

for an annual assessment of 

English language proficiency in 

reading, writing, speaking, 

listening, and comprehension. 

Although many states had some 

type of proficiency test for LEP 

students prior to NCLB, these 

were generally designed for 

placement purposes, not to 

measure progress in acquiring 

language proficiency. For this 

reason, most states have had to 

develop or adopt new assessments 

to meet NCLB requirements. 

States used various means to 

establish their ELP assessments 

under NCLB. Thirty-seven states 

and the District of Columbia 

worked with multi-state consortia receiving Enhanced Assessment Grants to support test development.32 

Because of the lengthy test development process, however, only 11 states were able to use those 

assessments in 2004–05. Meanwhile, 27 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico were using 

assessments that had been adopted from an out-of-state (often commercial) source. 

Although states were originally required to have their ELP assessment(s) in place during the 2002–03 

school year, few met that requirement.33 Nineteen states and Puerto Rico reported in 2004–05 that they 

had an assessment in place that met NCLB requirements, and 26 states and the District of Columbia 

planned to implement an assessment that met NCLB requirements in 2005-06.34

Even where assessments are in place, many are expected to change. In 2004–05, 43 states and the 

District of Columbia indicated that they anticipated making revisions to their ELP assessments, and 

 

32 In March 2003, the U.S. Department of Education awarded Enhanced Assessment Grants under Sections 6111 and 

6112 to state education agencies or consortia to help them enhance the quality of assessment and accountability systems, 

with award preference targeting assessments for LEP students and students with disabilities. Four of the recipients were 

multi-state consortia formed for the purpose of developing assessments to measure yearly progress of LEP students. 33 A July 1, 2005, letter from the associate assistant deputy secretary for the Office of English Language Acquisition 

extended the deadline for states to fully implement their new integrated systems of ELP standards, aligned assessments, 

and accountability required by Title III. The letter states, “The Department has determined that spring 2006 is a 

reasonable time frame to expect States to fully establish and implement these new systems. Therefore, States are 

expected to begin full administration of ELP assessments aligned with State ELP standards in grades K-12 by spring 

2006” (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b). 

34 See Appendix C, Exhibit C.2 for the status of individual states with regard to the development of ELP assessments in 

2004–05. Five states had not yet made a decision as to which ELP assessment instrument they would use to meet 

NCLB requirements. 

Exhibit 13 

Content-Area Subjects Aligned with 2004–05 

English Language Proficiency Standards 

Exhibit reads: Forty-eight states have linked ELP standards to 

content standards in English or language arts. 

Note: Three states argued that it was premature to report linkages because 

ELP standards were still being developed. 

 a Indicates that the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are included. 

 b Indicates that the District of Columbia is included. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, Title III Interviews (n=50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico). 
Chapter II 32 

23 states and the District of Columbia reported that they planned to use a different assessment in 

2005–06 than the one they used in 2004–05. 

With all this change, it is not surprising that the alignment of ELP assessments with the relevant 

standards was still incomplete. Only half of the states (24 states and Puerto Rico) reported that they had 

aligned their ELP assessments to the ELP standards, as required by Title III. Twenty-one states and the 

District of Columbia either had not yet made that alignment or had aligned the standards to the new 

ELP assessment that would be used in 2005–06 (but were not in use in 2004–05). 

Many states lacked sufficient ELP test data to establish valid annual measurable 

achievement objectives for English language proficiency. 

In addition to monitoring AYP for Title I accountability, states must report the progress of their LEP 

students in learning English, as defined by the state’s ELP standards, measured by the state-adopted ELP 

assessment. Progress is to be reported relative to the state’s annual measurable achievement objectives 

(AMAOs),35 which include three criteria: (1) annual increases in progress in learning English; (2) annual 

increases in attainment of English language proficiency; and (3) meeting AYP targets in reading and 

mathematics for the LEP subgroup. The AMAOs hold districts receiving Title III funds accountable for 

improving levels of English proficiency. 

States were required to establish AMAOs in 2002–03, the same year they were to have ELP standards 

and assessments in place. However, because of the delays states faced in implementing valid and reliable 

assessments as well as standards that were linked or aligned with state content standards, it was difficult 

for them to set AMAO targets. To do so, a state must have valid and reliable assessments in addition to 

longitudinal data to determine with some validity how much progress can be expected. Few states were 

in a position to set AMAO targets in this way in 2002–03. In fact, some state Title III coordinators 

described the AMAO targets they set as “arbitrary.” 

One of the major challenges associated with setting AMAOs is that in 2003–04 (and especially 2002–03), 

most states were using ELP assessments that were not designed to measure growth in language 

acquisition, as required by NCLB. Instead, their purpose was to determine whether students needed to 

be placed in classes specifically designed for LEP students. Many states that had no prior ELP 

assessment had to adopt an interim test that would assess LEP students annually while working on the 

development of assessments that were in line with NCLB requirements. Even though many states had 

such assessments in place in 2004–05 or were planning to have them in 2005–06, most states indicated 

that their AMAOs would change in the next few years as they received new test data and created new 

baselines. 

Interpretation of state AMAO data is complicated further by the fact that not all states calculate or 

report AMAOs for the same collection of districts. Title III requires that AMAOs be calculated for all 

districts receiving Title III funds, but some states calculated AMAOs for all districts in the state that have 

LEP students, regardless of whether they receive Title III funds (see Exhibit 14). 

 

35 The term annual measurable achievement objective refers to performance targets set specifically for LEP students. This 

should not be confused with AMOs (annual measurable objectives), which are AYP targets for all students. 
Chapter II 33 

Overall, despite some advances in 

implementation of standards and assessments 

for English language proficiency, 

implementation of the accountability 

provisions of Title III regarding LEP students 

in 2004–05 lagged behind the implementation 

of Title I accountability provisions. 

DISCUSSION

Three themes are apparent in state policy 

responses to the standards, assessment, and 

improvement targets required by NCLB. 

First, as of 2004–05, states had made 

substantial progress toward compliance with 

NCLB accountability requirements. For the 

most part, the standards, assessments, and 

AYP provisions had been established, often 

(though not always) within the time frame 

stipulated in the law. This is particularly true 

in the areas in which states had prior 

compatible policies, such as previously 

established standards and assessments in 

reading and mathematics. Where the policy 

foundation was less developed such as in the 

area of English language proficiency, 

implementation has been slower. 

Second, states displayed variation in the specifics of their policies—from setting academic achievement 

standards in reading and mathematics to issues of reliability and assessment of LEP students. In 

comparison to a nationwide benchmark, the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP), state NCLB academic achievement standards for proficiency ranged from a low NAEP 

equivalent score of 247 to a high NAEP equivalent score of 314, a difference of 67 points. This 

variation must be taken into account in any cross-state or national examination of the number and 

percentages of schools that make AYP, as discussed in Chapters III and IV of this report. 

Third, the resulting state accountability systems reflect complex and changing policy choices. 

One contributing factor may be that states are still in early stages of implementation; in 2004–05, they 

were continuing to refine and adopt new standards, assessments, and AYP procedures as new 

requirements and flexibility were enacted. In addition, where prior state accountability programs were 

well established and differed from NCLB requirements, states made a number of adjustments to 

integrate the two approaches into a single system. While a majority (58 percent) of school principals 

believed that the combination of state and federal accountability programs provided a more complete 

picture of school effectiveness, a large minority believed that this combination resulted in staff confusion 

about targets. 

As states make—and revise—choices about the interconnected elements of NCLB accountability, they 

create complicated policies that are unique from state to state. Such complexity makes it difficult to 

associate specific policy alternatives with changes in practice or achievement across states. 

Exhibit 14 

Numbers of States Calculating AMAOs 

for Various Types of Districts 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-five states calculated AMAOs 

only for Title III districts, while 13 states did so for all 

districts with LEP students. 

a Indicates that the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico 

are included. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, Title III Interviews (n=50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). 

Chapter III 35 

III. EARLY RESULTS: MEETING AYP TARGETS 

Under NCLB, each state must establish a definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) that is used to 

determine the annual status of each public school and school district. To make AYP, schools and 

districts are required to meet their state’s performance targets for all students and for each required 

subgroup of students36 in reading and mathematics, test participation, and one other academic indicator. 

Schools and districts that do not make AYP for two consecutive years are identified for improvement 

and receive the supports and interventions associated with that status. Under Title III, states are also 

expected to establish annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) for limited English proficient 

(LEP) students. 

 

36 The eight student subgroups in standard use in the state-reported data were: (1) white, (2) African-American, (3) 

Hispanic, (4) Asian, (5) American Indian, (6) students with disabilities, (7) students from low-income families, and (8) 

limited English proficient students. 

Key Findings 

• Three-quarters of the nation’s schools and 71 percent of districts made adequate 

yearly progress (AYP) in 2003–04. The proportion of schools that made AYP differed 

across states, ranging from nearly all schools in six states to less than one-quarter of schools 

in two states. Similarly, the proportion of districts that made AYP ranged from all districts in 

two states to less than 10 percent of districts in five states.

• High-poverty, high-minority and urban schools were less likely to make AYP. 

Secondary schools and large schools were also less likely to make AYP.

• Schools that were held accountable for greater numbers of subgroups were less likely 

to make AYP. 

• Half of the schools that did not make AYP did not do so because the “all students” 

group or two or more student subgroups did not meet achievement targets. About 

one-quarter of schools that did not make AYP did not do so for one subgroup only. 

Remaining schools did not make AYP for the other academic indicator only, test 

participation only, or other combinations of targets. 

• Most African-American, Hispanic and white students, and most students from lowincome families, attended schools with sufficient numbers of similar students to 

require the school to compute AYP for their respective subgroups.

• Students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, and AfricanAmerican students were the subgroups most likely not to make AYP. 

• More than one in ten schools that did not make AYP appealed the determination. 

About 40 percent of these appeals were successful. Most appeals involved either errors 

in data or misclassification of students into subgroups.
Chapter III 36 

SCHOOL AND DISTRICT ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS 

Three-quarters of the nation’s schools and 71 percent of districts made AYP in 

2003–04. 

In 2003–04, 75 percent of the nation’s schools made AYP as defined by their states. The number of 

schools that did not make AYP (21,540 out of 87,892 schools)37 based on 2003–04 testing was lower 

than the number of schools that did not make AYP in 2002–03 (25,971).38 However, the number of 

schools that did not make AYP in 2003–04 was still nearly double the number of schools identified for 

improvement for 2004–05 (11,019). Therefore, if many non-identified schools that did not make AYP 

in 2003–04 did not make AYP again the following year, the number of identified schools would rise 

substantially for 2005–06. 

Seventy-one percent of districts made AYP in 2003–04. Specifically, 3,388 districts (29 percent) did not 

make AYP in 2003–04 in the 46 states that reported data.39 The formula for determining AYP is the 

same for districts as it is for schools, but in practical terms, there were several important differences in 

the way AYP was implemented at the district and school levels. First, in most states, district 

determinations occurred after school determinations. Most states were accustomed to making school 

accountability determinations under NCLB’s predecessor, the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). 

However, even though IASA included provisions for district identification, states were given 

considerable leeway in how those provisions were implemented. Second, under NCLB, most states 

aggregated student scores across schools and grade levels at the district level to determine whether the 

district as a whole made AYP. As a result, districts often had more subgroups than their individual 

schools, and were therefore slightly less likely to make AYP than their schools. 

States varied greatly in the proportion of schools and districts that made AYP. 

The proportion of schools that made AYP in 2003–04 ranged from nearly all schools in Wisconsin 

(95 percent) to less than one-quarter of schools in Alabama and Florida (23 percent). Similarly, the 

proportion of districts that made AYP ranged from 100 percent of districts in Arkansas and Delaware, to 

less than 10 percent of districts in Alabama, West Virginia, and Florida (see Exhibit 15).40 This variability 

between states does not necessarily imply great variation in performance; rather, it may reflect the 

variation in states’ implementation of NCLB accountability requirements (see Chapter II). For example, 

states used different proficiency standards for their assessments and set different trajectories of annual 

measurable objectives for reaching the goal of 100 percent proficiency in 2013–14. Furthermore, some 

states used unique measures (e.g., writing assessments rather than attendance rates) as additional 

academic indicators. Minimum student subgroup sizes varied across states as well; some states counted 

smaller student subgroups for AYP than did other states, and as a result, schools in these states were 

likely to have more subgroup targets to meet. 

 

37 The SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database contains 87,892 schools with valid AYP statuses located in 

approximately 15,000 districts across 50 states and the District of Columbia. 38 Data for 2002–03 were collected through SSI state interviews. This reduction in the number of schools not making 

AYP is consistent with reports by the National Education Association and Education Week Research Center. 39 Five states (Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and Oklahoma) did not report district AYP data in time for this 

report. Therefore, the total number of districts included in these analyses is 11,775 districts in 46 states. 40 For percentage of schools and districts that made AYP by state, see Appendix C, Exhibit C.3. 
Chapter III 37 

The role of state accountability policy in AYP results 

AYP results reflect state accountability policy decisions. 

In 2003–04, schools in states that used the scores of students in grades 3–8 and one high school grade to 

determine AYP were less likely to make AYP than schools in states that used scores from fewer grades 

(71 percent versus 82 percent respectively; see Exhibit 16). Given the impending administration and use 

of accountability assessments at each grade level in grades 3–8 and one high school grade in all states in 

2005–06, this finding suggests that schools in the states that still must add more grades might make AYP 

at lower rates in 2005–06. In schools in which more grades were tested, more students and more 

Exhibit 15 

Percentage of Schools and Districts That Made AYP, by State, 2003–04 

State 

Percentage of 

Schools That 

Made AYP 

Percentage of 

Districts That 

Made AYP State 

Percentage of 

Schools That 

Made AYP 

Percentage of 

Districts That 

Made AYP 

Total 75% 71% Missouri 77% NA 

Alabama 23% 0% Montana 85% 83% 

Alaska 59% 40% Nebraska 87% 73% 

Arizona 83% 65% Nevada 63% 47% 

Arkansas 77% 100% New Hampshire 71% 76% 

California 65% 59% New Jersey 69% NA 

Colorado 79% 63% New Mexico 68% 38% 

Connecticut 81% 77% New York 80% 86% 

Delaware 76% 100% North Carolina 71% 21% 

District of 

Columbia 41% 0% North Dakota 90% 84% 

Florida 23% 7% Ohio 83% 64% 

Georgia 80% NA Oklahoma 75% NA 

Hawaii 52% 0% Oregon 71% 39% 

Idaho 84% 58% Pennsylvania 86% 57% 

Illinois 71% NA Rhode Island 83% 89% 

Indiana 75% 46% South Carolina 56% 20% 

Iowa 94% 96% South Dakota 67% 97% 

Kansas 92% 95% Tennessee 85% 68% 

Kentucky 76% 63% Texas 94% 88% 

Louisiana 92% 70% Utah 76% 58% 

Maine 77% 97% Vermont 89% 80% 

Maryland 78% 63% Virginia 72% 23% 

Massachusetts 72% 61% Washington 88% 79% 

Michigan 77% 80% West Virginia 72% 4% 

Minnesota 74% 57% Wisconsin 95% 93% 

Mississippi 76% 40% Wyoming 92% 98% 

Exhibit reads: Nationally, 75 percent of schools made AYP in 2003–04. 

Note: NA indicates not available. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database (based on data reported by 50 states and the 

District of Columbia for 87,892 schools in these states). 
Chapter III 38 

subgroups tended to be included in AYP determinations. Specifically, states in which more grades were 

used for AYP determinations had a median of two subgroups, whereas the median number of subgroups 

for schools in the other states was one. Schools with more subgroups were less likely to make AYP. 

Schools in states that set higher proficiency standards were less likely to make AYP than schools in states 

that set lower standards. As described in Chapter II, one indicator of state variation in achievement 

standards is the level at which states defined proficiency on state tests relative to the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Using NAEP as a common external metric, states’ 

reading and mathematics standards for grades 4 and 8 can be compared on a common scale. State 

standards for proficiency range from 242 to 314 on the NAEP scale. In the states that set the highest 

proficiency standards according to this metric, 70 percent of schools made AYP, compared with 

84 percent of schools in the states with low proficiency standards relative to this metric (see Exhibit 16). 

This finding points to the 

importance of 

considering the level of 

challenge of each state’s 

standards when judging 

the rates at which the 

schools in each state 

made or did not make 

AYP. 

Schools in states that set 

either linear or stair-step 

targeted trajectories to 

100 percent proficiency in 

2013–14 were less likely 

to have made AYP in 

2003–04 than schools in 

states that set a mixed 

pattern trajectory (see 

Exhibit 16). In general, 

states with mixed pattern 

trajectories require less 

growth in student 

achievement in the early 

years of NCLB

implementation, so it was 

expected that these states 

have a higher proportion 

of schools that met AYP 

targets that did other 

states. 

Exhibit 16 

Percentage of Schools That Made AYP, 

by State Accountability Policies, 2003–04 

Exhibit reads: Seventy-one percent of schools made AYP in the states in 

which the scores of students in each grade 3 through 8 and one high school 

grade were used to determine AYP. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database (based on data 

reported by 37 states and the District of Columbia for 75,753 schools in these states 

for standards analyses and 49 states and the District of Columbia for 80,907 schools 

in these states for other analyses). 
Chapter III 39 

The role of school demographics in AYP results 

High-poverty, high-minority, and urban schools were less likely to make AYP. 

Schools with higher 

proportions of low-income 

and minority students were 

less likely to make AYP than 

schools with lower 

proportions of such students

(see Exhibit 17).41 Fiftyseven percent of schools at the 

highest poverty level made 

AYP. The percentage 

increased to 72 percent and, 

subsequently, 84 percent as the 

level of poverty decreased. 

Similarly, 55 percent of 

schools with the highest 

concentrations of minority 

students made AYP, compared 

with 86 percent of schools 

with low concentrations of 

minority students. Sixtyfive percent of schools in 

central cities made AYP, 

compared with 78 percent of 

schools in urban fringe areas 

and large towns and 

82 percent in rural areas and 

small towns.42

 

41 The SSI-NCLB National Database of School AYP and Identification was used for these school characteristic analyses. 

Information other than overall AYP status for all schools in New York (4,909) was not available, so these schools are 

not included in the analyses of school characteristics. Other schools are missing because their data were not complete in 

the Common Core of Data, 2002–03, the most recent available at the time of these analyses. 

42 These findings are in line with previous studies that have found that schools’ characteristics—such as proportion of 

students from low-income families, proportion of minority students, school size, urbanicity, grade span, and number of 

applicable subgroups—contribute to the variability in schools’ performance on AYP. The U.S. Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) reported that proportionately more middle and high schools than elementary schools are 

identified for improvement (GAO, 2004). GAO also found that proportionately more schools in urban and suburban 

areas than in rural areas are identified for improvement. The U.S. Department of Education (2005c) found that the 

chance of a school being identified for improvement was much higher for schools in large, urban, and high-poverty 

districts. Novak and Fuller (2003) found that greater racial or ethnic diversity of students in a district translates into 

more subgroups for which the district is accountable in AYP determination, resulting in a lower likelihood of making 

AYP. 

Exhibit 17 

Percentage of Schools Making AYP, by School Poverty 

Level, Minority Level, and Urbanicity, 2003–04 

Exhibit reads: Fifty-seven percent of schools with more than 

75 percent of students from low-income families made AYP. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database and Common 

Core of Data, 2002–03 (based on data reported by 49 states and the District of 

Columbia for 76,405 and 80,803 schools in these states). 
Chapter III 40 

Secondary schools and larger schools were less likely to make AYP. 

Middle and high schools were less likely to make AYP than elementary schools and, at each level, larger 

schools were less likely to make AYP than smaller schools (see Exhibit 18). Eighty-four percent of 

elementary schools made AYP, compared with 63 percent of middle schools and 65 percent of high 

schools. Smaller schools were much more likely to make AYP than larger schools. For instance, 

80 percent of middle schools with enrollments of 400 or fewer students made AYP compared with 

47 percent of middle schools with 801 or more students. 

Schools that were 

accountable for greater 

numbers of subgroups were 

less likely to make AYP. 

AYP may be calculated for up to 

eight student subgroups: up to 

five state-determined major racial 

and ethnic groups, economically 

disadvantaged students, students 

with disabilities, and LEP 

students. States define a 

minimum subgroup size that 

must be met before AYP is 

calculated for a subgroup in a 

school or district. Schools with 

larger and more diverse student 

populations can be expected to 

have more subgroup targets, and 

therefore, can be expected to be 

less likely to make AYP. 

Schools with more student 

subgroups were less likely to 

make AYP than schools with 

fewer subgroups. Among 

schools for which AYP was 

calculated for six or more 

subgroups, 61 percent made AYP, compared with 90 percent of schools for which AYP was calculated 

for one subgroup. Even after controlling for the level of poverty, schools with more subgroups were 

less likely to make AYP (see Exhibit 19).43 At every level of poverty, schools with six or more student 

subgroups made AYP at a rate at least 30 percent lower than those with only one subgroup. 

 

43 This analysis uses the SSI-NCLB national database to replicate an analysis of AYP in California conducted by Novak 

and Fuller and reported in Table 1 of the Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) brief, Penalizing Diverse Schools?

(Novak and Fuller, 2003). 

Exhibit 18 

Percentage of Schools Making AYP, 

by School Grade Level and School Size, 2003–04 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-one percent of small elementary schools 

(with enrollments of 200 or fewer students) made AYP in 2003–04, 

compared with 69 percent of large elementary schools (with 

enrollments of 801 or more students). 

Sources: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database and 

Common Core of Data, 2002–03 (based on data reported by 49 states and 

the District of Columbia for 80,907 schools in these states). 
Chapter III 41 

Schools with combinations of 

challenging characteristics 

were least likely to make AYP. 

Thus far, analyses of the 

relationships between school 

characteristics and AYP have 

examined only one or two school 

characteristics at a time. However, 

considering each characteristic 

separately does not provide an 

accurate portrayal of the relative 

effect of these characteristics.44

After controlling for other school 

and district characteristics (see 

Appendix C, Exhibits C.4 and C.5), 

secondary schools were less likely 

than elementary schools to make 

AYP. The probability of a 

“baseline”45 elementary school 

making AYP was 0.87 (i.e., 87 out 

of every 100 such schools made 

AYP). In contrast, the probability 

was .63 for a “baseline” secondary 

school. 

Larger school enrollments, higher 

proportions of low-income and 

minority students, and greater 

district concentrations of students 

with disabilities also were 

associated with a lower likelihood 

of making AYP. After controlling 

for the other school characteristics, 

urbanicity, and the number of 

subgroups still contributed 

significantly—but less strongly 

than suggested previously (see 

Exhibits 17 and 19)—to the 

likelihood of making AYP. 

 

44 The analyses below estimate the likelihood of making AYP in 2003–04 and the independent contributions of the 

following school and district characteristics: poverty level, minority level, size, locale, grade level, number of subgroups, 

district concentration of students with disabilities and district concentration of LEP students (see Appendix C, Exhibits 

C.4 and C.5). 

45 For the purposes of these analyses, a “baseline” elementary school was located in a rural area; had a moderate level of 

poverty and of minority students (35–75 percent and 25–75 percent, respectively); had an enrollment of 200 to 600; 12 

to 16 percent of its students had disabilities; 1 to 10 percent had limited English proficiency; and the number of 

subgroups was near the median (2 or 3). 

Exhibit 19 

Percentage of Schools That Made AYP, 

by School Poverty Level and Number of Subgroups, 

2003–04 

Exhibit reads: Among schools with poverty levels below 

35 percent, schools for which AYP was calculated for only one 

subgroup were much more likely to make AYP (97 percent) than 

were schools where AYP was calculated for six subgroups 

(65 percent). 

Sources: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database and 

Common Core of Data, 2002–03 (based on data reported by 34 states for 

55,751 schools in these states). 
Chapter III 42 

Looking at several school characteristics in combination, the probability of making AYP for a small 

elementary school in a rural area with low percentages of low-income and minority students and with no 

applicable subgroup was 96 out of 100. In contrast, the expected probability for a large elementary 

school in an urban area with high percentages of low-income and minority students and with four or 

more subgroups was 42 out of 100. A large secondary school in an urban area with high percentages of 

low-income and minority students and with four or more subgroups had an expected probability of 

making AYP of 16 out of 100. 

Reasons schools did not make AYP 

Schools did not make AYP for a wide variety of reasons. Some schools did not make AYP due to the 

reading or mathematics proficiency of the school as a whole (the “all students” group) or due to the 

reading or mathematics proficiency of two or more student subgroups, whereas others did not make 

AYP for one subgroup or because they missed the 95 percent test participation requirement. Missing 

AYP due to the achievement of the “all students” group or of two or more student subgroups suggests 

that schools are being held accountable for widespread low performance. On the other hand, making 

AYP for the “all students” group and missing AYP for a single subgroup suggests a difference between 

the school’s overall performance and the performance of a very specific subgroup of its students. 

NCLB’s requirement to disaggregate achievement data by subgroup makes possible the identification of 

such differences. 

Half of the schools that did not make AYP did not do so because the “all students” 

group or two or more subgroups of students did not meet achievement targets. 

Fifty-one percent of schools did not make AYP for the achievement of the “all students” group or two 

or more student subgroups in 2003–04 (see Exhibit 20). Among schools that did not make AYP in 

2003–04, 33 percent did not meet achievement targets for the “all students” group in reading or 

mathematics. Another 18 percent of these schools did not make AYP because two or more subgroups 

did not meet achievement targets, though the school made AYP for the “all students” group. Twentythree percent of schools that did not make AYP missed due to the achievement of a single subgroup. 

The remaining schools missed for the other academic indicator only (7 percent); test participation only 

(6 percent); or for other reasons, such as combinations of the achievement of a single subgroup, the 

other academic indicator, and test participation (8 percent), or the alternate AYP determination for small 

schools and schools without tested grades (5 percent).46

Sixty-four percent of schools that did not make AYP missed for a reading achievement target and 

58 percent missed for a target in mathematics, while 42 percent missed AYP in both subjects. 

About one-quarter of the schools that did not make AYP met reading and 

mathematics proficiency targets for the school as a whole but missed for one 

subgroup. 

A key feature of the NCLB accountability system is the disaggregation of achievement test data by 

subgroups in order to identify differences in proficiency between subgroups and the school as a whole. 

Twenty-nine percent of schools that did not make AYP did not do so due to low levels of proficiency in 

 

46 For state-by-state data on the reasons that schools did not make AYP, see Appendix C, Exhibits C.6, C.7, and C.8. 
Chapter III 43 

one subgroup.47 About half of these schools did not make AYP for the students with disabilities 

subgroup. 

Most African-American, Hispanic and white students and most students from lowincome families, attended schools with sufficient numbers of similar students to require 

the school to compute AYP for their respective subgroup. 

Seventy-eight percent or more of African-American, Hispanic and white students, as well as students 

from low-income families, attended schools in which 2003–04 AYP was calculated for their subgroup.48 

 

47 This figure represents the 23 percent of schools that missed AYP only for a single subgroup as well as the 6 percent of 

schools that missed AYP for a single subgroup and the other academic indicator or test participation located in the 

“Other” section of the chart. 

48 In the 34 states with available data. Available data did not permit making similar estimates for the students with 

disabilities subgroup or the LEP student subgroup. 

Exhibit 20 

Reasons Schools Did Not Make AYP, 2003–04 

Exhibit reads: In 2003–04 testing, 33 percent of schools that did not make AYP did not do so because 

the “all students” group did not meet achievement targets in reading or mathematics or both. 

Note: Schools included in the "Achievement of the ‘All Students’ Group” and the “Achievement of Two or More 

Subgroups” categories of the graph may have also missed AYP for test participation or the other academic indicator. 

However, schools included in the “Achievement of a Single Subgroup Only” category are those that missed AYP for 

that factor alone and did not miss any other AYP indicators. “Other” includes: schools that missed AYP for 

combinations of the achievement of a single subgroup, test participation, or the other academic indicator (8 percent), 

or for alternate AYP determinations for small schools and schools without tested grades (5 percent). 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database (based on data reported by 33 states for 15,731 

schools that missed AYP in these states). 
Chapter III 44 

However, only 24 percent of NativeAmerican students and 45 percent of Asian 

students attended schools in which AYP 

was calculated for their subgroups (see 

Appendix C, Exhibit C.9). About twothirds (64 percent) of schools had a 

sufficient minimum number of white 

students for the white student subgroup to 

be counted for AYP purposes in 2003–04 

(see Exhibit 21). Similarly, 56 percent of 

schools had enough students from lowincome families to calculate AYP for the 

economically disadvantaged student 

subgroup. However, for the large majority 

of schools, the American Indian and Asian 

subgroups were not large enough for AYP 

to be calculated for those subgroups. 

If a school did not have a sufficient number 

of students in a subgroup to require 

calculation of AYP for that subgroup, then 

the school was not accountable for the 

performance of that subgroup. In schools 

in which subgroups were too small to 

warrant separate subgroup AYP 

calculations, the students’ scores were still 

included in the school’s “all students” AYP calculation. In addition, AYP was calculated for subgroups 

at the district and state level, and subgroups that were too small to be included in school-level AYP 

calculations were included in district and state subgroup AYP calculations where minimum n sizes were 

met at the district or state level. 

Students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, and AfricanAmerican students were the subgroups most likely to not make AYP. 

The rates at which specific subgroups did not make AYP varied dramatically. Among schools for which 

AYP was calculated for the subgroup of students with disabilities, 37 percent did not make AYP for the 

students with disabilities subgroup (these schools also may have missed AYP for other subgroups). 

Similarly, 26 percent and 22 percent of schools held accountable for the LEP and African-American 

subgroups, respectively, did not make AYP because those subgroups did not meet achievement targets 

(see Exhibit 22). In contrast, less than 5 percent of the schools held accountable for white and Asian 

subgroups did not make AYP because those subgroups, respectively, did not meet achievement targets.49 

These schools also might have missed AYP for other reasons, such as test participation, attendance or 

graduation rates. In most cases, a subgroup was less likely to miss AYP for the 95 percent test 

participation target than for the reading or mathematics proficiency targets (see Appendix C, Exhibit 

C.11). The white subgroup is the only subgroup with a higher percentage of schools missing AYP for 

low levels of test participation than for reading or mathematics proficiency. 

 

49 See Appendix C, Exhibit C.10 for percentage of schools that did not make AYP for subgroup achievement targets, by 

student subgroup. 

Exhibit 21 

Number and Percentage of Schools Required to 

Calculate AYP for Each Student Subgroup, 

2003–04 

Schools Required to Calculate 

AYP for Subgroup 

Student Subgroups 

Number of 

Schools 

(n=68,638)

Percentage 

of All 

Schools 

African-American 15,536 23% 

American Indian / Alaskan 

Native 815 1% 

Asian/Pacific Islander 3,637 5% 

Hispanic 16,529 24% 

White 43,774 64% 

Low-income students 38,194 56% 

Students with disabilities 14,274 21% 

LEP students 10,001 15% 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-three percent of schools have a 

sufficient number of African-American students to require 

calculation of AYP for this subgroup. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database 

(based on data reported by 34 states for 68,638 schools in these 

states). 
Chapter III 45 

 Most schools had 

only one or two 

subgroups for which 

AYP was calculated. 

Up to eight student 

subgroups may be 

considered in AYP 

calculations (in addition to 

the all students group). For 

63 percent of the schools, 

AYP determinations were 

based on two or fewer 

subgroups (see Exhibit 23). 

The median number of 

subgroups for which AYP 

was calculated was two. 

Only 10 percent of schools 

had five or more 

subgroups. About onefifth of schools—typically 

very small schools with too 

few students in any 

subgroup to reliably 

estimate that subgroup’s 

proficiency rate—had no 

applicable subgroup. The 

median number of 

applicable subgroups in 

schools that did not make 

AYP was three. 

Of schools that had 

subgroups, 70 percent 

made AYP for all their 

subgroups, though they 

may have missed it for 

other reasons. However, 

schools that had several 

subgroups were more likely 

to miss subgroup targets 

than were schools with 

fewer subgroups (see 

Exhibit 24). Of schools 

with one to three 

subgroups, 77 percent made AYP targets for all subgroups, whereas among schools with more than 

three subgroups, 49 percent made AYP for all subgroups. These analyses included missing AYP for 

either proficiency or participation of the subgroup. 

Exhibit 22 

Percentage of Schools Held Accountable for a Subgroup 

That Did Not Make AYP for That Subgroup, 2003–04 

Exhibit reads: Fourteen percent of schools held accountable for the lowincome students subgroup missed AYP for that subgroup on reading or 

mathematics proficiency criteria. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database (based on data 

reported by 34 states for 68,638 schools in these states). 

Exhibit 23 

Percentage of Schools by Number of Student Subgroups for 

Which AYP was Calculated, 2003–04 

Exhibit reads: Nineteen percent of schools had no applicable subgroup. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database (based on data 

reported by 34 states for 68,638 schools in these states). 
Chapter III 46 

Missing AYP due to the other academic indicator was more prevalent at the high school 

level. 

States commonly selected attendance as the other academic indicator for elementary and middle schools. 

High schools were required to use graduation rates. Of the schools that did not make AYP in 2003–04, 

19 percent missed the other academic indicator. The rates varied by school level: 8 percent of 

elementary schools, 13 percent of middle schools, and 33 percent of high schools (see Exhibit 25). 

However, only 7 percent of schools that did not make AYP missed solely due to the other academic 

indicator. Twelve percent of the high schools that did not make AYP missed solely due to the other 

academic indicator. 

Exhibit 24 

Percentage of Schools with Various Numbers of Subgroups 

That Did Not Make AYP for Subgroups, 2003–04 

Exhibit reads: Of the schools for which AYP was calculated for at least one subgroup, 70 percent 

of schools did not miss for any subgroup. Seventy-seven percent of schools with one to three 

subgroups did not miss for any subgroup, whereas 49 percent of schools with three or more 

subgroups did not miss for any subgroup. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database (based on data reported by 33 states for 61,868 

schools in these states). 
Chapter III 47 

Across states, the percentage of 

high schools that did not make 

AYP because they missed 

graduation rate targets ranged 

from 0 to 82 percent. Of course, 

states set their target graduation 

rates at very different levels: 

targets ranged from 50 to 

97 percent in 2003–04 and will 

range from 65 to 100 percent in 

2013–14 (see Chapter II). For 

elementary and middle schools, 

the percentage that missed due 

to their other academic 

indicators ranged from 

11 percent to 64 percent across 

states. In 22 states, less than 

10 percent of the elementary and 

middle schools that did not 

make AYP missed because of 

the other academic indicator. 

AYP appeals 

Nationally, more than 

one in ten schools that 

did not make AYP appealed the determination to their state. About 40 percent of 

these appeals were successful. The rates for appeal applications and approval 

varied sharply across states. 

NCLB includes provisions that allow local education agencies (LEAs) the opportunity to appeal AYP 

determinations on behalf of their schools. LEAs appealed in 35 of the 38 states that reported appeals 

data. The number of appeals ranged from one in Missouri to more than 300 in Idaho. The states with 

the highest numbers of AYP appeals were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Idaho, New Mexico, 

Pennsylvania, and Washington. Of the approximately 2,580 school AYP determinations that were 

appealed following 2003–04 testing,50 44 percent were approved. The rate at which states approved 

appeals ranged from 0 percent in Ohio and West Virginia to 100 percent in Utah. Among the states with 

the highest numbers of appeals listed above, approval rates were higher than 60 percent with 

two exceptions: California (9 percent) and New Mexico (36 percent). Similarly, districts could appeal 

their own district AYP determinations. Of the approximately 236 appeals by districts, 50 percent were 

approved. 

Most appeals involved either errors in data or the misclassification of students to subgroups. One state 

official explained, “A lot of the appeals were based on data correction. The schools made mistakes in 

inputting their demographic data, that’s really the majority of them: schools making mistakes in how they 

input their data.” 

 

50 Appeals were filed by 15 percent of the 17,521 schools that did not make AYP in 2003–04 in the 36 states and Puerto 

Rico that reported appeals.. 

Exhibit 25 

Number and Percentage of Schools That Did Not Make 

AYP Due to the Other Academic Indicator, 

by School Grade Level, 2003–04 

Schools Did Not Make AYP for: 

 

Other 

Academic 

Indicator 

Other Academic 

Indicator and 

Other Target(s) 

Other 

Academic 

Indicator Only

Total 19% 12% 7% 

(n=15,268) 2,973 

Elementary 8% 3% 5% 

(n=5,516) 398 

Middle 13% 9% 4% 

(n=3,979) 487 

High 33% 21% 12% 

(n=4,376) 1,415 

Other 48% 36% 12% 

(n=1,397) 673 

Exhibit reads: Of the schools that did not make AYP, 2,973 or 

19 percent of schools missed AYP for the other academic indicator. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database (based on 

data reported by 33 states for 15,268 schools that missed AYP in these 

states). 
Chapter III 48 

TITLE III ANNUAL MEASURABLE ACHIEVEMENT OBJECTIVES

In addition to Title I AYP targets for all students and all subgroups, NCLB’s Title III requires states to 

establish annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) specifically for limited English proficient 

students. These AMAOs must apply at least to all districts receiving Title III funds and must encompass 

progress covering both core content (AYP) and English language proficiency. The three components of 

Title III AMAOs are: (1) meeting AYP targets for the LEP subgroup, (2) increasing the percentage of 

LEP students scoring proficient in the English language proficiency tests, and (3) demonstrating 

progress of LEP students toward English language proficiency. 

The percentage of Title III subgrantees that made their 2003–04 AMAOs could not be confidently 

reported at the time of this report. Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia provided data on the 

number of Title III subgrantees that made Title III AMAOs in 2003–04 (see Exhibit 26). These states 

represent 2,997 subgrantees (61 percent of total subgrantees nationwide) and 2,916,556 LEP students 

(68 percent of nationwide LEP student enrollment in 2003–04). Of these subgrantees, 1,898, or 

63 percent, achieved their AMAOs. Seven states (with a total of 186,811 LEP students) reported that 

100 percent of districts achieved their Title III AMAOs. 

Because annual measurable achievement objectives for LEP students are new, 

many states were not able to report their performance in 2003–04. 

Fifteen states did not provide data or did not have data available on the number of Title III subgrantees 

that made Title III AMAOs in 2003–04. These nonreporting states represent nearly 2,000 Title III 

subgrantees (39 percent of all Title III subgrantees) and more than 1.4 million, or 32 percent, of LEP 

students served under Title III during 2003–04. Therefore, significant numbers of states, subgrantees, 

and students are not reflected in the reported number of Title III subgrantees achieving AMAOs. 

DISCUSSION

The differences in the ways in which states have implemented the accountability provisions of NCLB

(described in Chapter II), combined with differences in student demographics and prior student 

achievement, have led to marked state-to-state differences in the proportion of schools and districts 

making AYP. In some states, nearly all schools and districts made AYP, while in a few states, large 

majorities of schools and districts did not. 

The schools that did not make AYP in 2003–04 were most likely to be high-poverty, diverse, large urban 

schools to which Title I has historically directed substantial resources. Furthermore, schools most 

commonly missed AYP due to the low achievement of students in the school as a whole or across 

multiple subgroups, rather than solely due to factors such as test participation, attendance, or graduation 

rates. About one-quarter of schools did not make AYP due to a single subgroup. The subgroups most 

likely to miss AYP were students with disabilities, LEP students, and African-American students. 
Chapter III 49 

Exhibit 26 

Number and Percentage of Title III Subgrantees That Met AMAO Targets 

and Number of LEP Students Served, by State, 2003–04 

State (n=36)

Number of 

Title III 

Subgrantees 

Number of Title III 

Subgrantees That 

Met Title III AMAOs 

Percentage 

That Met AMAO 

Targets 

Number of LEP 

Students Served 

in Title III 

Total 2,997 1,898 63% 2,916,556 

Alabama 42 33 79% 13,312 

Alaska 14 0 0% 21,533 

Arizona 162 67 41% 144,145 

Arkansas 23 23 100% 15,581 

California 839 681 81% 1,598,535 

Colorado 134 102 76% 91,751 

Connecticut 95 64 67% 25,867 

Delaware 19 14 74% 4,246 

District of Columbia 3 0 0% 5,201 

Georgia 61 61 100% 59,126 

Hawaii 1 1 100% 12,850 

Idaho 34 2 6% 20,541 

Illinois 172 77 45% 161,700 

Indiana 63 44 70% 28,741 

Kansas 33 13 39% 25,504 

Louisiana 36 36 100% 7,546 

Maine 18 14 78% 3,179 

Maryland 23 23 100% 27,849 

Michigan 77 77 100% 62,265 

Missouri 90 0 0% 14,855 

Nevada 10 2 20% 58,753 

New Hampshire 31 29 94% 2,755 

New Jersey 303 204 67% 66,451 

New Mexico 50 8 16% 54,528 

North Carolina 75 55 73% 70,937 

Oklahoma 118 61 52% 33,266 

Oregon 57 6 11% 61,695 

Rhode Island 22 14 64% 9,645 

South Carolina 39 32 82% 12,653 

South Dakota 4 0 0% 3,433 

Tennessee 76 47 62% 19,352 

Utah 41 11 27% 46,521 

Vermont 9 0 0% 1,017 

Virginia 66 22 33% 60,306 

Washington 132 50 38% 69,323 

West Virginia 25 25 100% 1,594 

Exhibit reads: In the 35 states and the District of Columbia that reported data for the 2003–04 

school year, 1,898 of 2,997 Title III subgrantees, or 63 percent, achieved their AMAOs. 

Sources: Biennial Evaluation Report to Congress on the Implementation of the State Formula Grant Program, 

2002–2004, English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement Act (ESEA, Title III, 

Part A), and National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational 

Programs (NCELA) Web site, www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/01leps.htm, accessed July 6, 2005. 
Chapter III 50 

States have made substantial progress toward the goal of counting the achievement of every child. States 

disaggregated data by student subgroup so that the performance of children from minority and lowincome families could not be obscured by the overall performance of the school. As a result, nearly half 

of the schools did not make AYP for one or more subgroups, though they made AYP for the school as a 

whole. To fulfill the promise of NCLB, districts and schools must now respond to the needs of these 

low-performing subgroups; this may constitute one of the most challenging tasks confronting 

administrators and educators. 
Chapter IV 51 

IV. IDENTIFYING SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS 

FOR IMPROVEMENT 

A key component of NCLB accountability is the identification of schools and districts for improvement. 

Under NCLB, states are required to identify for improvement any Title I school that does not meet 

state-defined adequate yearly progress targets for two consecutive years. In addition, 34 states have 

opted to identify non–Title I schools through a similar process. Identification is used both to target 

assistance to schools and districts and for other interventions. Each additional year in which a school 

does not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) triggers increasingly more extensive interventions, as 

described in Chapter II. An identified school exits improvement status if it makes AYP for 

two consecutive years. 

Key Findings 

• Thirteen percent of the nation’s schools (including Title I and non–Title I schools) 

were identified for improvement for 2004–05. Thirty-four states reported that state policy 

required the identification of non–Title I schools. 

• The percentage of Title I schools identified for improvement increased from 12 

percent for 2003–04 to 18 percent for 2004–05, and these schools were spread across a 

larger number of districts than they were in previous years. The number of Title I 

schools in corrective action and restructuring remained fairly stable nationally, though not in 

all states. 

• Ten percent of districts were identified for improvement for 2004–05. These districts 

enrolled 26 percent of the nation’s students. 

• States varied greatly in the percentage of Title I schools and districts identified for 

improvement. Schools in states that set high AYP proficiency standards, as referenced to 

the NAEP, were more likely to have been identified than schools in states that set lower 

AYP standards.

• High-poverty, high-minority, and middle schools, and large schools in urban areas, 

were more likely than other schools to be identified for improvement for 2004–05. 

Similarly, schools with more student subgroups and greater proportions of students with 

disabilities were more likely to be identified for improvement. 

• Nearly one in four identified Title I schools exited improvement status in 2004–05. 

Among the schools that were in corrective action and restructuring status the previous year, 

nearly one-fifth exited improvement status in 2004–05. 
Chapter IV 52 

SCHOOLS AND 

DISTRICTS IDENTIFIED 

FOR IMPROVEMENT

A total of 11,617 schools 

(13 percent of all schools, 

both Title I and non–Title I) 

were identified for 

improvement for 2004–05.53 

Title I schools accounted for 

more than three-fourths of 

all identified schools. The 

remainder of this section 

focuses primarily on Title I 

schools. 

The percentage of Title I 

schools identified for 

improvement increased 

from 12 percent for 

2003–04 to 18 percent 

for 2004–05. 

The number of Title I 

schools identified for 

improvement increased from 

6,219 for 2003–04 to 9,333 

for 2004–05 (18 percent of 

52,220 Title I schools) (see 

Exhibit 27). The number 

had remained stable for the 

previous three years at about 

6,000–6,500 out of 50,000 

schools. 

 

51 The 2002–03 Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) directed states to provide a list of Title I schools 

identified for improvement for the 2003–04 school year based on state assessment data from the 2003–04 school year. 

For previous years, the directions were less specific and states may have followed different practices for defining the year 

for which they reported data. In this report, the number of identified schools from the 2002–03 CSPR is reported as 

“schools identified for the 2003–04 school year.” Prior to that year, this report uses the CSPR year as the data year; for 

example, the number of identified schools from the 2001–02 CSPR is reported as the number identified for 2001–02. 52 The total numbers of identified schools in each year differ from the totals in summary reports on the Consolidated 

State Performance Reports because the CSPR reports also include data reported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (in 

addition to data reported by the states). The number of identified Title I schools for 2004–05 differ from the official 

data in the Consolidated State Performance Reports because Michigan and Oregon indicated that their CSPR 

submissions included non–Title I schools. 53 The SSI-NCLB National AYP Identification Database contains 88,160 schools (Title I and non–Title I) with valid 

improvement status located in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

Exhibit 27 

Number and Percentage of Title I Schools 

Identified for Improvement, 1996–97 to 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Sixteen percent of Title I schools were identified for 

improvement in 1996–97. 

Note: The first year that schools were identified for improvement based in part 

on AYP definitions was 2003–04, based on assessments administered in 

2002–03. However, 2004–05 was the first year schools were identified because 

they did not make AYP targets for two consecutive years Data for 2002–03 are 

not available because reporting requirements were changed with the 2002–03 

Consolidated State Performance Report..51 NA means not available. 

Sources: Consolidated State Performance Reports (1996–97 to 2002–03) and 

SSI-NCLB (2003–04 and 2004–05) (based on data reported by 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico for 52,220 Title I schools).52
Chapter IV 53 

The number of Title I schools in corrective action and restructuring54 increased between 2003–04 and 

2004–05, though not in all states. During 2003–04, 947 schools were in corrective action status and 

838 were in restructuring status. Those numbers rose to 977 in corrective action and 1,199 in 

restructuring for 2004–05. The majority of schools already identified for improvement in 2003–04 were 

not moved into corrective action or restructuring status for 2004–05. Although many Title I schools 

were newly identified in 2004–05, those schools will not move to corrective action or restructuring for at 

least two more years, and then only if they continue not to make AYP targets. 

The previous trend in which identified Title I schools were concentrated in fewer and 

fewer districts did not continue for 2004–05. 

In 2004–05, a greater proportion of districts than 

in years past had at least one identified Title I 

school (see Exhibit 28). A previous longitudinal 

study found that 21 percent of Title I districts had 

at least one identified school in 2001–02; in 

2002–03, this proportion was 16 percent, and in 

2003–04, this proportion decreased further to 

14 percent (Padilla et al., 2006). This trend of 

identified schools being concentrated in fewer 

districts did not continue for 2004–05, likely due 

to the large increase in the number of identified 

Title I schools for 2004–05. For 2004–05, 

2,408 districts had at least one identified Title I 

school, representing nearly 18 percent of the 

13,441 districts analyzed. 

A majority of the districts with identified Title I 

schools had only one identified Title I school. 

Among districts with identified schools, the 

proportion of districts with only one identified 

school increased from 31 percent for 2003–04 to 

56 percent in 2004–05, comparable to the 

58 percent noted for 2002–03 (see Exhibit 29). 

This shift may be attributable to the addition for 

2004–05 of approximately 900 districts in their 

first year with an identified Title I school. 

Ten percent of districts were identified 

for improvement for 2004–05. 

Ten percent of districts (1,511) were identified for improvement for 2004–05; however, these districts 

enrolled 26 percent of all students, or about 12.6 million students (across 48 states that had available 

data). In contrast to the findings on AYP, districts were identified for improvement at a lower rate than 

schools. Among the identified districts, 49 districts in 11 states were identified for corrective action for 

2004–05. 

 

54 The data do not allow us to distinguish schools in restructuring that are planning for restructuring from those that are 

implementing restructuring. 

Exhibit 28 

Percentage of Districts That Had At Least 

One Identified Title I School, 

2001–02 to 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-one percent of districts 

with Title I schools had at least one Title I school 

that was identified for improvement for 2001–02. 

Sources: Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems 

and School Improvement Efforts (2001–02 to 2003–04) 

and SSI-NCLB (2004–05) (n=13,441 districts with at 

least one Title I school).
Chapter IV 54 

About one-third of identified districts contained no identified schools. 

Approximately 32 percent of 

identified districts in 2004–05 

(477 districts) had no schools 

identified for improvement. 

Because district-level AYP 

calculations include students from 

all schools, districts may meet the 

minimum sizes to calculate AYP 

for specific subgroups even if its 

schools do not. If such 

subgroups, when aggregated, do 

not make AYP at the district level 

but are too small to be counted at 

the school level, the result will be 

that districts with no identified 

schools will be identified for 

improvement. 

Such identification of districts 

ensures that an educational 

jurisdiction is held accountable for 

low rates of proficiency among these subgroups of students. On the other hand, because assistance 

commonly focuses on schools, this situation raises questions about how to provide support to identified 

districts in which no school has been identified for improvement. 

State-to-state differences in identification rates 

States varied greatly in the percentage of Title I schools and districts identified for 

improvement for 2004–05. 

Rates of identification of Title I schools ranged from 2 percent in Iowa and Nebraska to 68 percent in 

Florida (see Exhibit 30).55 Similarly, the numbers of Title I schools in corrective action or restructuring 

status varied by state, from none in several states to more than 100 in a few states. 

Schools in states with higher AYP proficiency standards, as referenced to the NAEP, were more likely to 

be identified for improvement than schools in states with lower standards. Specifically, 17 percent of 

schools were identified in states with higher reading standards, while 6 percent of schools were identified 

in states with lower standards. The difference between states with higher and lower standards was even 

more pronounced in mathematics (21 and 6 percent, respectively). As with AYP, it is important to 

consider the variability in the level of each state’s standards when reviewing states’ proportions of 

schools identified for improvement. 

Many states identified more schools for improvement in 2004–05 than in 2003–04. The number of 

states that identified 10 percent or more of their Title I schools nearly doubled from 19 for 2003–04 to 

 

55 For the percentage of identified schools for 2003–04 and the percentage of students in identified schools by state for 

2003–04, see Appendix C, Exhibits C.12 and C.13, respectively. 

Exhibit 29 

Percentage of Districts, by Number of Schools Identified 

for Improvement, 2002–03 to 2004–05 

Number of identified 

schools in the district 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 

1 school 58% 31% 56% 

2 schools 15% 16% 17% 

3 or 4 schools 13% 17% 14% 

5 to 12 schools 10% 23% 9% 

13 or more schools 2% 12% 4% 

Exhibit reads: In 2002–03, 58 percent of districts with at least one 

identified Title I school had a single identified Title I school. 

Note: This exhibit includes only districts with at least one identified Title I 

school. 

Sources: Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School 

Improvement Efforts (2002–03 and 2003–04) and SSI-NCLB National 

AYP and Identification Database (2004–05) (n=2,408 districts with at least 

one identified Title I school). 
Chapter IV 55 

32 for 2004–05. While only five states identified 25 percent or more of their Title I schools for 2003–04, 

eleven states did so for 2004–05.56

Exhibit 30 

Number and Percentage of Identified Schools, by State, 2004–05a

 

All Schools Title I Schools Title I Schools by Improvement Status 

State Number Percent Number Percent Year 1 or 

Year 2 

Corrective 

Action Restructuring 

Total 11,617 13% 9,333 18% 7,157 977 1,199 

Alabama 79 6% 79 9% 34 7 38 

Alaska 179 36% 125 40% 109 8 8 

Arizona 135 7% 135 13% 87 37 11 

Arkansas 300 27% 203 24% 198 4 1 

California 1,618 18% 1,618 29% 1,167 173 278 

Colorado 87 7% 87 10% 57 27 3 

Connecticut 134 12% 93 20% 85 0 8 

Delaware 44 21% 18 15% 15 3 0 

District of Columbia 75 45% 75 45% 61 14 0 

Florida 965 29% 965 68% 965 0 0 

Georgia 413 20% 285 30% 154 27 104 

Hawaii 138 49% 84 62% 24 6 54 

Idaho 71 10% 28 6% 28 0 0 

Illinois 660 15% 660 27% 400 238 22 

Indiana 77 4% 77 7% 49 18 10 

Iowa 66 4% 13 2% 13 0 0 

Kansas 21 1% 21 3% 17 3 1 

Kentucky 135 10% 135 13% 129 6 0 

Louisiana 70 6% 64 7% 48 11 5 

Maine 51 7% 20 5% 20 0 0 

Maryland 255 19% 115 24% 51 7 57 

Massachusetts 391 20% 288 24% 244 20 24 

Michigan 511 13% 267 32% 106 46 115 

Minnesota 48 2% 48 4% 40 8 0 

Mississippi 71 8% 71 10% 67 2 2 

Missouri 132 6% 132 10% 124 8 0 

Montana 69 8% 68 10% 31 4 33 

Nebraska 46 4% 9 2% 8 1 0 

Nevada 111 21% 49 20% 47 2 0 

New Hampshire 61 13% 27 9% 26 1 0 

New Jersey 520 22% 368 27% 271 97 0 

New Mexico 182 23% 121 20% 57 35 29 

New York 508 11% 508 19% 272 53 183 

North Carolina 159 7% 159 14% 153 6 0 

North Dakota 21 4% 21 5% 8 6 7 

Ohio 487 13% 304 12% 214 31 59 

Oklahoma 142 8% 111 9% 96 4 11 

Continued next page 

 

56 These trends are consistent with the data for Title I participation reports and previous findings reported by the 

Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (U.S. Department of Education, 2005c). 
Chapter IV 56 

Exhibit 30 

Number and Percentage of Identified Schools, by State, 2004–05a

 (continued) 

All Schools Title I Schools Title I Schools by Improvement Status 

State Number Percent Number Percent Year 1 or 

Year 2 

Corrective 

Action Restructuring 

Oregon 214 17% 35 6% 31 2 2 

Pennsylvania 629 20% 323 15% 247 1 75 

Puerto Rico 598 40% 598 40% 598 0 0 

Rhode Island 61 19% 39 21% 34 5 0 

South Carolina 207 19% 207 39% 186 10 11 

South Dakota 59 8% 59 16% 55 2 2 

Tennessee 207 13% 128 16% 86 0 42 

Texas 199 3% 199 4% 197 2 0 

Utah 16 2% 16 7% 14 2 0 

Vermont 25 7% 16 8% 13 3 0 

Virginia 111 6% 111 14% 103 8 0 

Washington 156 7% 72 8% 57 15 0 

West Virginia 37 5% 37 9% 36 0 1 

Wisconsin 51 2% 35 3% 18 14 3 

Wyoming 15 4% 7 4% 7 0 0 

Exhibit reads: Nationally, 18 percent of Title I schools were identified for improvement in 2004–05. 

Rates of school identification range from 2 percent in Iowa and Nebraska to 68 percent in Florida. 

a Data for this exhibit was collected between October 2004 and April 2005. Some states decided appeals prior to this 

data collection, and others made appeal decisions later; for example, Texas later approved more than 100 appeals, 

resulting in a final count of 91 identified schools. This exhibit uses the numbers that states reported during the data 

collection period. 

Notes: a) The denominator for percentages of all schools is the number of schools in the state, as contained in the 

database. The denominator for the percentages of Title I schools is the number of Title I eligible schools in the state 

from the Common Core of Data for 2002-03. b) Pennsylvania does not use the term “restructuring,” but the 75 

Pennsylvania schools in “corrective action II” experience the supports and interventions associated with NCLB

restructuring. 

Sources: Annual Consolidated State Performance Reports and SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification database 

(n=50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). 

The rates at which states identified districts for improvement varied, ranging from none in several states 

to 100 percent in Florida (see Exhibit 31). This variability may reflect state differences in achievement 

standards, assessments or proficiency levels, district identification policies (e.g., schools are identified 

only if the district does not make AYP for two consecutive years at elementary, middle and high school 

grade levels), district characteristics, and levels of performance. 

Differences in school identification rates by school characteristics 

Previous studies have found that the probability that a school was identified for improvement varied 

significantly by such demographic characteristics as grade level, poverty level, minority level, size, and 

urbanicity. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that proportionately more 

middle and high schools than elementary schools were identified for improvement for 2003–04 (GAO, 

2004). The GAO also found that proportionately more schools in urban and suburban areas than in 

rural areas were identified for improvement and that identified schools enrolled larger proportions of 

minority students and students from low-income families than other schools. Padilla et al. (2006) also 
Chapter IV 57 

found that the probability of a school being identified for improvement was higher for schools in large, 

urban, and high-poverty districts. Novak and Fuller (2003) found that the greater racial or ethnic 

diversity of students in a district translates into districts being held accountable for more subgroups, 

resulting in a lower likelihood of making AYP and, eventually, a greater likelihood of being identified. 

This study’s findings for 2004–05 are consistent with these previous studies.57

Exhibit 31 

Number and Percent of Identified Districts, by State, 2004–05a

State Number Percent State Number Percent 

Total 1,511 10% 

Alabama 0 0% Montana 56 12% 

Alaska 31 58% Nebraska 4 1% 

Arizona 74 23% Nevada 9 53% 

Arkansas 0 0% New Hampshire 15 8% 

California 14 <1% New Jersey 28 5% 

Colorado 57 32% New Mexico 0 0% 

Connecticut 39 23% New York 60 9% 

Delaware 0 0% North Carolina 41 35% 

District of Columbia 1 100% North Dakota 13 6% 

Florida 67 100% Ohio 49 8% 

Georgia 12 7% Oklahoma 22 4% 

Hawaii 0 0% Oregon 15 8% 

Idaho 44 39% Pennsylvania 175 35% 

Illinois 248 28% Rhode Island 6 17% 

Indiana 22 7% South Carolina 68 76% 

Iowa 9 2% South Dakota 5 3% 

Kansas 7 2% Tennessee 25 18% 

Kentucky 53 30% Texas 0 0% 

Louisiana 0 0% Utah 21 53% 

Maine 0 0% Vermont 7 2% 

Maryland 9 38% Virginia 80 59% 

Massachusetts 14 4% Washington 29 10% 

Michigan 0 0% West Virginia 27 49% 

Minnesota 17 4% Wisconsin 1 <1% 

Mississippi 36 24% Wyoming 1 2% 

Missouri 0 0% 

Exhibit reads: Nationally, 1,511 districts (10 percent of all districts) were identified for 

improvement for 2004–05. 

 a Data in this exhibit was collected between October 2004 and April 2005. Some states decided appeals 

prior to this data collection, and others made appeal decisions later; for example, California later increased 

its number of identified districts to 58. 

Source: SSI-NCLB; Accountability Interviews (n=50 states and the District of Columbia). 

 

57 These analyses include both Title I and non–Title I schools. 
Chapter IV 58 

High-poverty, high-minority, and middle schools, and large urban schools, were 

most likely to have been identified for improvement for 2004–05. 

The same types of schools that were most likely to not make AYP (see Chapter III) were also most likely 

to be identified for improvement. Schools with higher proportions of low-income and minority students 

were more likely to have been identified for improvement than schools with lower proportions of such 

students (see Exhibit 32). Thirty-six percent of the high-poverty schools were identified for 

improvement, compared with 4 percent of low-poverty schools. Similarly, 34 percent of schools with a 

high concentration of minority students were identified for improvement, compared with only 4 percent 

of low-minority schools. Urban schools located in central cities (22 percent) were more likely to be 

identified for improvement than their counterparts in suburban and large towns (10 percent) or rural 

areas and small towns (7 percent). 

Students from lowincome families and 

minority students 

were more likely to 

attend schools 

identified for 

improvement than 

were other students. 

Twenty-six percent 

of students from 

low-income families 

attended schools 

identified for 

improvement in 

2004–05, compared 

with 17 percent of all 

students. Similarly, 

32 percent of 

African-American 

students, 28 percent 

of Hispanic students, 

and 21 percent of 

Native American 

students attended 

schools identified for 

improvement in 

2004–05, compared 

with 9 percent of 

white students. In 

absolute numbers, 

the largest subgroup 

in identified schools was students from low-income families (4.4 million), followed by African-American 

students (2.5 million), white students (2.4 million), and Hispanic students (2.3 million). Overall, 

7.8 million students attended identified schools in 2004–05. 

Exhibit 32 

Percentage of Schools Identified for Improvement, by School 

Poverty Level, Minority Level, and Urbanicity, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-six percent of schools with poverty rates of 75 percent or 

greater were identified for improvement for 2004–05, compared with 4 percent of 

schools with poverty rates below 35 percent. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database and Common Core of 

Data, 2002–03 (based on data from 50 states and the District of Columbia for 80,812 and 

87,728 schools in these states). 
Chapter IV 59 

Middle schools were more likely than elementary and high schools to be identified for improvement.

Eighteen percent of middle schools were identified for improvement, compared with 11 percent of 

elementary and high schools (see Appendix C, Exhibit C.14, for this and other demographic analyses). 

Large schools were more likely than small schools to be identified for improvement. For example, 

schools with 601 or more students were much more likely to be identified than were schools with fewer 

than 600 students (see Exhibit 33). The likelihood of identification increased fairly steadily as the size of 

the school increased. 

Secondary schools 

were more likely 

than elementary 

schools to be 

identified for 

improvement (see 

Appendix C, 

Exhibit C.15). 

The probability of 

a “baseline”58

elementary school 

being identified 

for 2004–05 was 8 

in 100 elementary 

schools. In 

contrast, the 

probability of a 

“baseline” 

secondary school 

being identified 

was higher: 14 in 

100 secondary 

schools. 

School poverty had the strongest relationship to likelihood of identification. Taking other factors into 

account, high-poverty schools were more likely to be identified than low-poverty schools. The 

probability of a low-poverty elementary school being identified was 3 in 100, but that of a high-poverty 

elementary school was 20 in 100. For secondary schools, the difference between expected probabilities 

of schools with low and high poverty levels was larger: 6 in 100 for a low-poverty school and 32 in 100 

for a high-poverty school. Larger school enrollments, higher proportions of minority students, and 

greater district concentrations of students with disabilities also were associated with a greater likelihood 

of identification. Similarly, urban school locale and larger numbers of subgroups were associated with a 

greater likelihood of identification. 

 

58 For the purposes of these analyses, a “baseline” elementary school was located in a rural area; had moderate levels of 

low-income and minority students (35–75 percent and 25–75 percent, respectively); had an enrollment of 200 to 600; 12 

to 16 percent of its students had disabilities; 1 to 10 percent of its students had limited English proficiency; and the 

number of subgroups it contained was near the median (2 or 3). For the probability of being identified for schools with 

various characteristics, see Appendix C, Exhibit C.16. 

Exhibit 33 

Percentage of Identified Schools, by School Size, 2004–05 

 

Not 

Identified Identified Year 1 Year 2 

Corrective 

Action Restructuring 

200 or fewer 

students 

(n=15,838) 

95% 5% 3% 1% 0% 0% 

201 to 400 

students 

(n=21,936) 

91% 9% 6% 1% 1% 1% 

401 to 600 

students 

(n=21,534) 

88% 12% 7% 2% 1% 1% 

601 or more 

students 

(n=27,609) 

80% 20% 12% 3% 2% 3% 

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, 95 percent of schools with 200 or fewer students were 

not identified for improvement, and 5 percent were identified. 

Note: Figures do not total to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database and Common Core of Data, 

2002–03 (based on data reported by 50 states and the District of Columbia for 86,917 schools 

in these states). 
Chapter IV 60 

Schools with combinations of challenging demographic characteristics were most 

likely to be identified. 

The probability of being identified for improvement for a small elementary school in a rural area with 

low levels of poverty and a low minority concentration and with no applicable subgroup was less than 

1 in 100. In contrast, the probability of being identified was 66 in 100 for a large elementary school in an 

urban area with a high level of poverty and a high minority concentration and with four or more 

subgroups. For a large secondary school in an urban area with a high concentration of poverty and 

minorities and with four or more subgroups, the probability of being identified was very high: 78 in 100. 

Exit from identified for improvement status 

Nearly one in four identified Title I schools exited improvement status in 2004–05. 

To exit improvement status, schools are required to make AYP for two consecutive years. It can be 

challenging to achieve his level of improvement because the annual measurable objectives upon which 

AYP is based rise gradually over the years, essentially “raising the bar” over time. 

About one-fourth (23 percent) of the Title I schools that were identified for improvement for 2003–04 

were no longer identified as such for 2004–05 (see Exhibit 34). Specifically, 1,336 (23 percent) of the 

5,867 schools that were identified during 2003–04 (and for which two years of identified for 

improvement data exist) were no longer identified in 2004–05 because they made AYP for 

two consecutive years. The remainder (77 percent) of identified schools remained at the same status or 

moved into a more serious intervention status. Of the schools that were in corrective action and 

restructuring for 2003–04, 18 percent and 16 percent, respectively, exited improvement status for 

2004–05. Elementary schools were more likely to exit improvement status (29 percent) than were 

middle (9 percent) and high schools (20 percent).59

DISCUSSION

Compared with past years, 

greater numbers of schools 

and districts were identified 

for improvement for 2004–05. 

The number and percentage of 

identified schools and districts 

varied considerably across 

states. Some states identified 

one of every 20 of their 

schools, while others identified 

one out of every three. 

Although most districts with 

identified schools had only 

one or two identified schools, 

over 100 districts each had more than 13 identified schools. Schools and districts with high 

 

59 These findings are consistent with the findings presented in the Center of Education Policy’s recent report, From the 

Capital to the Classroom: Year 3 of the No Child Left Behind Act (Center on Education Policy, 2005a). 

Exhibit 34 

Number and Percentage of Identified Title I Schools That 

Exited Improvement Status for 2004–05 

By Improvement Status for 2003–04 

 Total 

Year 1 Year 2 

Corrective 

Action Restructuring 

Percent 

Number

23% 

1,336

24% 

641 

28% 

399 

18% 

167 

16% 

129 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-three percent of schools (or 1,336 schools) that 

were identified for improvement in 2003–04 were no longer identified in 

2004–05. Furthermore, 18 percent of schools in corrective action and 

16 percent in restructuring in 2003–04 exited improvement status in 

2004–05. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database (n=5,867 Title I 

schools identified in 2003–04). 
Chapter IV 61 

concentrations of low-income and minority students or many student subgroups were the most likely to 

be identified. 

One-quarter of identified schools from previous years made AYP for a second consecutive year in 

2003–04, thereby exiting improvement status for 2004–05. Little is known about what these schools did 

to improve their AYP scores or about what support they needed or received after exiting improvement 

status. 

Over one-quarter of the nation’s students attended schools in districts that were identified for 

improvement. One-third of identified districts did not include any identified schools; because districtlevel AYP calculations included students from all schools, low-performing subgroups may have been 

large enough to be counted at the district level, but too small to be counted at the school level. This 

way, school districts were held accountable for the achievement of student subgroups even when schools 

were small or the concentrations of students from low-income families, minority students, disabled 

students, or LEP students were small. 

Chapter V 63 

V. PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT SCHOOL 

PERFORMANCE TO STAKEHOLDERS 

To help schools and districts to reach NCLB accountability goals, clear and accurate information about 

performance must be communicated in a timely manner to key stakeholders (including district and school 

personnel, parents, policymakers and the public). Key NCLB information includes whether a school made 

adequate yearly progress (AYP) during a specific school year and whether students met state academic 

achievement standards, as well as each school’s accountability status, based on performance over multiple 

school years. Stakeholders also need to know whether a school has been identified for improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring, so that appropriate actions can be taken. In addition, stakeholders 

should know the reasons for the classification; that is, whether identification is based on achievement for 

all students or specific subgroups in reading or mathematics, test participation, or other indicators. 

Improvement efforts can be more appropriately targeted if stakeholders have all pertinent information 

before the school year begins. The responsibility for producing and distributing this information falls on 

states and districts; the responsibility for acting on the information is shared by states, districts, schools, 

teachers, and parents. 

Key Findings 

• States reported performance results from 2003–04 more quickly than for the previous 

year, but nearly one half of principals did not receive notification of their schools’ 

status before the start of the 2004–05 school year.

• States improved their data systems and the specificity of their reports; many states 

went beyond NCLB requirements. In 2004–05, 49 states, the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico reported assessment results by student subgroup, up from 44 states the previous 

year and 17 states in 1999–2000. In 2004–05, 30 states were using data systems with student 

identifiers, up from 23 states in 2003–04 and 11 states in 1999–2000. 

• Most state report cards included the required achievement data, but many did not 

include graduation rates and teacher quality data. In addition, many state and district 

reports available via the Internet were difficult to find. 

• Principals generally knew whether their schools made AYP or were identified for 

improvement; however, about one-third of teachers were not aware of the status of 

their school. 

• Principals in Title I schools were increasingly aware of whether their school was 

identified for improvement. In 2004–05, 78 percent of principals in identified schools 

correctly reported their school’s status, up from 59 percent in 2001–02. However, 22 percent 

of principals of identified Title I schools reported their school’s status incorrectly or did not 

know their school’s status. 
Chapter V 64 

STATE DATA SYSTEMS AND REPORTING

Providing the necessary information to stakeholders about school performance and other key factors 

requires data management systems that can track student characteristics, enrollment, achievement, and 

graduation, as well as other variables. States must also be able to administer and score assessments, 

conduct AYP calculations and report these results between their spring testing periods and the start of the 

following school year. Districts, too, must issue report cards that include data on assessment results, 

accountability, and teacher quality. 

Accurate and timely information brings transparency to educational policies, uncovers academic problems 

and deficits, and highlights areas in which schools have made gains. When parents have information about 

the schools their children attend, they can make better decisions concerning their children’s educational 

futures, become more effective advocates for their children’s schools and school systems, assuage their 

own concerns, and bolster their demands for change. When taxpayers are informed about the schools they 

fund, they can celebrate progress, pinpoint problems, and determine to their own satisfaction whether 

public funds have been well spent. And when administrators and teachers have access to accurate 

performance data, they can focus on the areas in which there are problems and tailor their improvement 

efforts to those concerns. 

In recent years, states increased the capacity of their data systems to generate the information required by 

NCLB, improved the timeliness of their data reporting, and advanced their ability to report disaggregated 

achievement data. Challenges still persist, however, particularly with regard to new reporting requirements. 

In addition, states are still working to provide assessment results at the classroom level and over time. 

States reported performance results from 2003–04 more quickly than for the previous 

year, but one-half of principals did not receive notification of their school’s status 

before the start of the 2004–05 school year. 

To most efficiently take appropriate action in response to being identified for improvement, schools, 

districts and parents must receive this information prior to the start of the school year. For the 

accountability information based on 2003–04 testing, 31 states delivered preliminary notification to schools 

identified for improvement before September 2004 (see Exhibit 35). In the previous year, 28 states 

released their school improvement determinations before October. However, final determination of 

schools identified for improvement came later: Thirty-three states provided final data to schools in 

October or later; of these, 11 provided the data in December or later. Hence, the majority of states were 

still finalizing calculations and processing appeals well into the school year. This process was sometimes 

fraught with complications, as one state official explained: 

When we released the school report cards, it’s a [protected] site to district superintendents 

in October. That was their final data, their final AYP at that point in time—supposedly. 

[But] because of the problems that we’ve encountered in the past with the participation 

rate, our state superintendent opened up the window to allow us to continue to make 

corrections. We were making corrections up until [the last minute].... 

Consistent with state reports, slightly more than half of principals (56 percent) reported that they were 

notified of their school’s status before September 2004. 
Chapter V 65 

Exhibit 35 

Timing of State Notification to Districts and Schools Regarding Preliminary 

and Final School Identification, 2004–05 (Number of States, by Month of Notification) 

Exhibit reads: Seven states released preliminary accountability designations to schools in July 2004 or earlier, 

and 32 states released final designations in July 2004 or earlier. 

a Indicates that Puerto Rico is included. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB accountability interviews and extant sources (n=50 states and Puerto Rico). 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-two percent of all schools were notified of their AYP status in July 2004 or earlier. 

Twenty-two percent of identified schools were notified of their AYP status in July 2004 or earlier. 

Sixteen percent of identified schools were notified of their identified for improvement status in July 2004 or 

earlier. 

Sources: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey; SSI-NCLB, Accountability Interviews. 

States improved their data systems and the specificity of their reports; many state 

systems went beyond NCLB requirements. 

To effectively implement NCLB accountability provisions—including those related to accountability, 

teacher quality and choice—states need robust data management systems. It is easier for states to respond 

to the complex reporting requirements of NCLB if their data systems include identification codes for each 

student (often referred to as unique student identifiers). Although not required by NCLB, unique student 

identifiers enable states—and districts—to track student achievement over enrollment, as well as mobility 

between schools and districts. 

In 2004–05, 30 states and the District of Columbia were using data systems with student identifiers, up 

from 23 states and the District of Columbia in 2003–04 and 12 states and the District of Columbia in 

1999–2000 (see Exhibit 36). Nearly all of the 20 states and Puerto Rico that did not have unique student 

identifiers were in the design, development or piloting phase of a system with that capability. As one state 

official explained, “We are in the process right now; we have a contract with [a vendor] to develop a 

student information system for us. Otherwise, the information that we get from our [assessment] 

contractor cannot be used to follow a child from year to year or even throughout the year.” A few states 

reported that budget constraints have prevented them from developing the type of data systems they 

believe necessary to support NCLB implementation. Said one respondent, “We’ve been exploring that and 

trying to get funds for that for a number of years and have yet to have gotten the funds.” 
Chapter V 66 

In 2004–05, all of the 44 responding states and 

the District of Columbia were able to provide 

reports to schools on the percentage of students 

scoring at or above the proficient level and the 

percentage scoring at each performance level (see 

Exhibit 37). Likewise, states were able to report 

for the school as a whole, subgroups within the 

school, and each grade level. Reporting at the 

classroom level was more challenging: Only 

29 states (of 45 responding) reported that they 

provided assessment results by classroom. 

Reporting data that document change over time 

is currently beyond the capability of some states: 

Although 36 states and the District of Columbia 

reported trend data at the school level, only 34 

did so for subgroups, and only 17 states and the 

District of Columbia did so for individual 

students. Overall, the states that were best able 

to provide data over time were those with unique 

student identifiers. 

Moreover, in states that had established unique 

student identifiers for at least three years (i.e., prior to 2003), teachers were more likely to use available test 

data for instructional decisions. For example, a higher percentage of elementary teachers in those states 

reported moderate to extensive use of individual student test results in reading (67 percent) and 

mathematics (61 percent), compared to teachers in states that did not have a unique student identifier as of 

2005 (55 and 49 percent, respectively). Similarly, a higher proportion of elementary teachers used test 

results for specific reading and mathematics topics in states in which student identifiers have been available 

for three or more years. 

The reports from secondary teachers pointed to a similar trend: in states with student identifiers prior to 

2003 a higher proportion of English teachers reported moderate or extensive use of results for individual 

students (68 percent) and specific subgroups (46 percent) compared to teachers in states that had not 

established unique identifiers (45 and 28 percent, respectively.) Use of test results corresponding to 

specific reading and mathematics topics was also more frequent in states with unique student identifiers 

prior to 2003. 

The association between the presence of unique student identifiers and the use of test results by teachers 

could suggest that more developed and informative data systems produce reports that are of greater utility 

at the school level. Alternatively, the existence of such a system may be indicative of a more developed 

and pervasive culture of data use, which permeates down to the school level. It is interesting to note in 

this respect that states with more comprehensive systems of support60 are more likely to have data systems 

with unique student identifiers in place. 

 

60 The comprehensiveness of state systems of support is described in Chapter VI, p. 74. 

Exhibit 36 

Number of States with Data Systems That 

Include a Unique Student Identifier, 2001–05 

Exhibit reads: Thirteen states had data systems with 

unique student identified in 2000–01. 

Note. Each bar includes the District of Columbia. 

Sources: National Center for Educational Accountability 

(2001–2004) and SSI-NCLB Accountability Interviews 

(2005) (n=50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico). 
Chapter V 67 

Although many states tracked AYP appeals carefully, several states could not provide 

data on school and district AYP appeals. 

The majority of states have developed systems 

for tracking AYP appeals. Several states have 

created tracking systems and integrated them 

with their data and reporting systems. These 

states typically request that districts review all 

accountability data through an online system; 

once districts have done so, they must “certify” 

their schools’ data; after certification, they can 

no longer submit appeals. One state official 

described her state’s system: 

There really have been very few [appeals] 

because we had those checkpoints along the 

way and they can’t go back and correct the 

database after it has been reviewed and 

submitted as final.... Once they’ve 

reviewed those and confirmed that those 

are the youngsters on which we’re basing 

AYP, they can’t after a certain point go 

back and say, ‘you know I missed one,’ or 

whatever... you have to have a very, very 

elaborate system and a very strict set of 

deadlines and timelines and then make sure 

that everybody understands what the rules 

of the game are and then you move 

forward. 

States’ tracking systems varied in complexity 

because some states recorded appeals at the 

school level while others tracked appeals for 

each specific AYP target, sometimes resulting in multiple appeals per school. Fourteen states were not 

able to provide appeals data and did not exhibit evidence that they were systematically tracking AYP 

appeals. 

Finally, states also reported some difficulty in tracking other NCLB accountability provisions. For 

example, states have the flexibility to grant exceptions to districts that seek to include the proficient scores 

of more than one percent of all students in the grades assessed for students taking the alternate assessment 

based on alternate achievement standards. Of the 18 states that granted these exceptions to districts, only 

six states were able to report on the number of districts that actually made use of this flexibility. 

STATE REPORT CARDS

Under NCLB, states are required to produce annual state-level report cards, which should include 

assessment trend data, graduation rates, district accountability information, school-level accountability 

information (names of schools and overall numbers), percentage of classes taught by highly qualified 

teachers, and percentage of teachers on emergency credentials—with most variables disaggregated by 

subgroup. In addition, states “shall ensure that each local education agency collects appropriate data and 

Exhibit 37 

Content of State Assessment Reports 

to Districts or Schools, 2003–04 

 

Number of 

States 

(n=45) 

School or district results showing... 

Percent scoring at or above proficient level 45a

Percent scoring at each performance level 43a

Scale score or other similar score 41 

Results for... 

School as a whole 45a

Subgroups within a school 45a

Each grade level within a school 42a

Each classroom within a school 29 

Individual students 43a

Trends in... 

School as a whole 37a

Subgroups within a school 34 

Individual students 18a

Exhibit reads: Forty-five states reported assessment 

data results from their 2003–04 assessments for the 

percentage of students scoring at or above the proficient 

level. 

a Indicates that the District of Columbia is included. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, Accountability Introductory Materials. 
Chapter V 68 

includes in the local education agency’s annual report” the data required by NCLB. Hence, the legal 

responsibility for ensuring full compliance with NCLB state, district, and school-level reporting 

requirements lies with the state. 

Most state report cards included the required achievement data, but many did not 

include graduation rates and teacher quality data. 

States have been improving their reporting capabilities; nearly all included achievement data disaggregated 

by student groups in state report cards, a substantial increase over the number of states doing so five years 

ago. In 1999–2000, only 17 states reported disaggregated achievement results in state report cards. By 

spring 2004, 44 states made state-level data, disaggregated by student subgroups, publicly available on their 

Web sites (Padilla et al., 2006). In summer 2005, a review of state education agency Web sites revealed that 

49 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico reported on the percentage of all students achieving at 

the proficient level, and also reported on the performance of white, African-American, Asian, and 

Hispanic students. (The one state missing the most recent disaggregated data provided appropriately 

disaggregated prior year data and was changing testing programs.) The subgroup on which states reported 

least frequently was migrant students, for whom 34 states and the District of Columbia included 

achievement results in their online report cards. 

Although states reported achievement data disaggregated by student group, most did not yet include some 

of the newer reporting requirements in their state report cards. For example, NCLB requires that states 

provide disaggregated data on graduation rates, an element that was absent from the majority of state 

reports. Forty-two states and the District of Columbia reported the names of schools identified for 

improvement, but far fewer included the required data on the percentage of core academic classes taught 

by highly qualified teachers (as few as 14 states for some variables). Fewer than half of state report cards 

contained comparisons of student achievement to AYP targets. 

State and district reports were often hard to find and understand. 

The accessibility, comprehensiveness, and clarity of state report cards varied greatly for 2004–05 data. Half 

of the states (26) provided a direct link to the state report card on their home pages by fall 2005. While 

39 states included all state report card information in a single location (that is, in a single file, or with all 

relevant links on a single Web page), 12 states and the District of Columbia placed required variables in 

separate locations throughout their Web sites. Only five states and Puerto Rico posted a state report card 

in a language other than English. Overall, online access to the state report cards was relatively 

straightforward in only 24 states—that is, the report card was contained within a single file, and relevant 

links were prominent, clear and did not necessitate much navigation. 

District-level report cards were similarly challenging to locate online. Among the Web sites of the 

25 largest school districts, ten included a direct link to the district report card on their home pages. Other 

district report cards required navigation through several layers of the Web site. Nearly all district Web sites 

included a link for parents, but in many cases, test results were not the most prominently-displayed 

information. Individual school reports were easier to locate than were district reports—in 18 of the 

25 largest districts, school reports (or profiles) were accessible within one or two links. Eleven of these 

25 school districts translated portions of their Web sites into other languages, most frequently Spanish, but 

also Creole, Korean, French, Chinese, Portuguese, Vietnamese, Arabic, and Farsi. Links to translated Web 

pages were prominently displayed. 

Although state and district report cards can be informative, parents are likely to be most interested in 

reports of their own child’s assessment performance. Under the “Parents Right-to-Know” section of 
Chapter V 69 

NCLB (section 1111[h][6]) each district must provide the parents of students in Title I schools with 

“information on the level of achievement of the parent’s child on each of the State academic assessments 

required under this part.” These parent reports are often provided by a state assessment contractor. A 

review of a subsample of 27 parent reports61 indicated that they were often difficult to understand. While 

all states reported a student’s performance in terms of state proficiency levels (advanced, proficient, basic), 

15 states provided no descriptions of the levels, and two of those states indicated performance levels by a 

number without any associated word or phrase to help decode the meaning. Almost half the reports (13) 

did not include information comparing the student’s score to any other group—for example, other 

students in the state, district, or school. Twenty-two states included a graphic depiction of the child’s score 

within a full scale that helps parents better understand the data. Finally, only one state showed change 

over time, enabling parents to determine if their child was making progress. 

PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER KNOWLEDGE OF THE STATUS OF THEIR SCHOOLS

Principals generally knew whether their schools made AYP or were identified for 

improvement. 

A large majority of principals knew whether their schools had made AYP in 2003–04 and whether they 

were identified for improvement for 2004–05. Overall, 88 percent of principals were able to correctly 

report their schools’ AYP status in 2003–04, and 92 percent knew whether their schools had been 

identified for improvement for 2004–05 (see Exhibit 38). 

Principals of schools that did not make AYP or were identified for improvement were less likely to know 

the status of their schools than principals of schools that made AYP or were not identified for 

improvement. Twenty-one percent of principals of schools that did not make AYP reported their schools’ 

status incorrectly, compared with only 8 percent of those whose schools made AYP.62 Similarly, 

26 percent of principals of identified schools reported that they did not know the status of their schools or 

reported this status incorrectly, compared with only 4 percent of principals of non-identified schools. This 

means that principals of approximately 4,500 schools were unaware that their school did not make AYP, 

and principals of approximately 3,000 schools were unaware that their school was identified for 

improvement. 

Among Title I schools, 97 percent of principals of non-identified schools correctly reported their school’s 

status, compared with 78 percent of principals of identified schools (see Exhibit 39). That is, almost onequarter of principals of identified Title I schools reported their status incorrectly or did not know their 

status. However, this is an improvement over 2001–02, the year before NCLB went into effect, when 

41 percent of principals of identified Title I schools incorrectly reported their schools’ status or reported 

that they did not know their school’s status (Padilla et al., 2006). 

 

61 The NLS-NCLB collected document data from a subsample of 25 districts, including parent reports on student 

assessment results. This sample was augmented by reports from other states, for a total sample of 27 states. 62 To compare principal and teacher knowledge regarding their schools’ status with the official designation obtained from 

the state department of education, NLS-NCLB survey respondents were asked whether their school made AYP in 

2003–04, and whether, on the basis of those results, the school was identified for improvement for 2004–05. 
Chapter V 70 

Teachers were less likely to know whether their schools made AYP or were identified for 

improvement than were principals. 

Teachers were somewhat less well-informed about their school status than principals: Between 58 and 

72 percent of teachers reported their schools’ AYP status correctly compared with 88 percent of principals 

(see Exhibit 38). Overall, about one-third or more of teachers did not know the status of their schools. 

Similarly, between 51 and 65 percent of teachers, and 92 percent of principals reported their school’s 

improvement status correctly. 

Secondary teachers were less knowledgeable than elementary teachers about their schools’ status. Fiftyeight percent of secondary mathematics and English teachers correctly reported their school’s AYP status, 

compared with 72 percent of elementary teachers. Similarly, 51 percent of secondary mathematics teachers 

and 53 percent of secondary English teachers correctly reported their school’s improvement status, 

compared with 65 percent of elementary teachers. 

Unlike principals, teachers in identified Title I schools were more likely to be aware of the official status of 

their schools than were teachers in non-identified schools (see Exhibit 39). 

Exhibit 38 

Percentage of Staff Correctly Reporting Whether Their School Made AYP or 

Was Identified for Improvement Based on 2003–04 Test Results 

Did School Make Adequate Yearly Progress in 2003–04? 

Reported 

Correct Status 

Reported 

Incorrect Status Don’t know 

Principals (n=1,316) 88% 9% 3% 

Elementary teachers (n=4,089) 72% 7% 21% 

Secondary teachers (n=3,305) 58% 11% 30% 

Special education teachers (n=1,191) 65% 9% 26% 

Is School Identified for Improvement in 2004–05? 

Reported 

Correct Status 

Reported 

Incorrect Status Don’t know 

Principals (n=1,316) 92% 6% 1% 

Elementary teachers (n=4,089) 65% 8% 26% 

Secondary teachers (n=3,305) 52% 11% 36% 

Special education teachers (n=1,191) 60% 13% 27% 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-eight percent of principals correctly reported whether their school made AYP 

in 2003–04. Ninety-two percent of principals knew whether their school was identified for 

improvement for 2004–05. 

Note: Correct status indicates that the school status reported by staff (making AYP or not, identified for 

improvement or not) agrees with the official status of the school in the state records. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal and Teacher Surveys. 
Chapter V 71 

The gap between 

principal and teacher 

awareness of school 

status suggests that 

accountability 

information is not 

adequately communicated 

through all layers of 

school systems. 

Responses to open-ended 

questions in the NLSNCLB surveys illuminate 

some deficiencies with 

regard to the information 

that teachers received 

about NCLB. One 

teacher wrote, “Many 

teachers including myself 

are unclear about what 

NCLB entails.... I 

personally would love an 

in-service on NCLB.” 

Another commented, 

“We could use more 

information in general 

regarding [NCLB] and its 

current impact at our 

schools, AYP status, etc. 

Information is spotty at 

this time.” 

Principal and teacher knowledge of school status was not related to the presence of a state accountability 

initiative that went beyond the requirements of NCLB. In 2004–05, 26 states maintained accountability 

initiatives that went beyond the requirements of NCLB, and some reports suggest that this situation might 

send mixed messages to stakeholders. However, the amount of disagreement between principals’ status 

reports and official school classifications was comparable in states in which NCLB was the only 

accountability initiative and in states in which a state accountability initiative was used in addition to 

NCLB. 

Parents in a sample of eight urban school districts were much less likely to know whether their child’s 

school had been identified as low performing than either principals or teachers.63 A survey of parents 

conducted in the eight districts during the 2004–05 school year explained that under a federal law called 

the No Child Left Behind Act, each year states must name the schools that are low-performing, and asked if 

the parent knew whether their child’s school was on the state’s list of low-performing schools. Less than 

one-fourth (22 percent) of the parents of students in identified schools said the school was on the state’s 

list of low-performing schools; almost as many (17 percent) said their school was not on the list of lowperforming schools, but most (62 percent) said they were not sure. Parents in non-identified schools were 

 

63 The NLS-NCLB includes a subsample of nine districts from which data on Title I school choice and supplemental 

educational services were collected. One district did not provide the data needed to draw a sample of parents. 

Exhibit 39 

Percentage of Staff in Title I Schools Correctly Reporting Whether 

Their Schools Were Identified for Improvement, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Seventy-eight percent of principals of identified Title I schools 

knew whether their schools were identified for improvement for 2004–05. 

Note: Correctly reporting status indicates that the school status reported by staff 

(making AYP or not, identified for improvement or not) agrees with the official status 

of the school in the state records. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal and Teacher Surveys (n=1,033 principals, 3,378 

elementary teachers, 2,188 secondary teachers, and 895 special education teachers). 
Chapter V 72 

more likely to accurately report that their school was not on a list of low-performing schools (46 percent), 

but almost half (47 percent) were not sure. 

DISCUSSION

In the years since NCLB was signed into law, many states expanded the capacities of their state data 

systems. As of 2004–05, almost all states could report basic information on school performance, and the 

number of states that report student achievement data disaggregated by subgroup increased. Many states 

were building data capacity that goes beyond the NCLB requirements and will establish a foundation for 

more detailed reporting and new kinds of analyses. For example, many states have data systems that 

contain longitudinal student data with unique identifiers; these data can be used for value-added modeling, 

which some educators and researchers believe will provide more accurate indicators of school 

performance. 

Timeliness of reporting remained a challenge for states: About half of schools were notified of their 

identification status after the beginning of the school year. Although most school administrators and a 

majority of teachers knew whether their school had been identified for improvement, about one-third of 

teachers were unaware of how their schools had been classified or why, suggesting that accountability 

information does not yet permeate all layers of the educational system. Finally, state and district reports 

available via the Internet were difficult to find (though not the only way in which parents might access 

reports), and student reports that were sent directly to parents were often difficult to understand. 
Chapter VI 73 

VI. ACTIONS TO PROMOTE SCHOOL 

AND DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT 

NCLB contains a number of provisions to encourage school and district improvement. The annual 

notification of parents and the publication of achievement results put pressure on schools that did not 

make AYP to improve their practices. Schools identified for improvement (because they did not make 

AYP for two consecutive years) are supposed to receive technical assistance from districts and states to 

help them improve. If the technical assistance does not lead to improvement, NCLB establishes a set of 

interventions to be applied by districts and states to reform or even restructure schools to ensure that 

students have high-quality educational opportunities. Districts are held accountable in a similar manner, 

with states assuming the responsibility assigned to them for providing technical assistance to districts and 

intervening when districts are not successful. 

Key Findings 

• Nearly all states established systems of support for school improvement; more 

than half reported providing some level of support to all identified schools. 

Others targeted support to a subset of identified schools. The most common 

support mechanisms were among those mandated by NCLB—school support teams and 

distinguished educators. 

• Both identified and non-identified schools reported needing technical assistance 

in many areas, but the need was greater among identified schools.

• In most areas, schools reported receiving the technical assistance they needed 

and reported that it met their needs. Identified schools received more days of 

technical assistance than non-identified schools. 

• Of the schools that needed technical assistance to improve services to students 

with disabilities or students with limited English proficiency, half did not have 

their needs met.

• Nearly all schools were making improvement efforts. Identified schools 

emphasized more areas of improvement than non-identified schools.

• Curriculum enhancement was a major focus of school improvement, but about 

one-third of teachers in identified schools reported having an inadequate number 

of textbooks and instructional materials. Better use of assessment results was 

another common focus of school improvement efforts.

• Required interventions occurred in most, but not all, Title I schools in Year 1 or 

Year 2 of identification or in corrective action; however, few Title I schools in 

restructuring status reported receiving any of the four specific interventions that 

were mandated.

• Three-quarters of districts reported receiving the technical assistance they needed 

and were satisfied with the assistance received. However, assistance related to 

students with disabilities and LEP students was often not sufficient to meet district 

needs.
Chapter VI 74 

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS 

Creating state systems of support for school improvement 

Nearly all states established systems of support for school improvement; more than 

half reported providing some level of support to all identified schools. Others 

targeted support to a subset of identified schools. 

NCLB requires states to establish support systems to help schools and districts that are identified for 

improvement. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia reported that they provided some level of 

support to all schools identified for improvement during the 2004–05 school year; other states provided 

support to a subset of identified schools.64 Some states in each group included non–Title I identified 

schools in their support network, while others restricted support to Title I identified schools. Overall, 

24 states provided support to both Title I and non–Title I schools that were identified for improvement. 

The most common support 

mechanisms used by states were two 

of those mandated by NCLB: school 

support teams and distinguished 

educators. Although states often 

used multiple strategies to support 

identified schools, most focused 

their efforts on one of five primary 

mechanisms (see Exhibit 40). In 

19 states, school support teams were 

the primary form of support; in 

13 states, individual school 

improvement specialists took on this 

responsibility. Decentralized 

structures, such as regional centers 

or county offices, were the primary 

support mechanisms in nine states. 

In six states, support was relatively 

limited, consisting of statewide 

meetings or simply the provision of 

information about available 

resources and grants. These states 

convened statewide meetings for 

identified schools to review NCLB

accountability requirements, discuss improvement strategies, provide feedback on the development of a 

school improvement plan, and offer advice to facilitate the school improvement process, or ensure 

appropriate disbursement of improvement funds. In three states, districts were the primary source of 

support for identified schools, and the state assumed a very minimal role. 

 

64 Because one state did not have an operational system of support in 2004–05 and the study did not obtain these data 

from Puerto Rico, only 49 states and the District of Columbia are included in these analyses. 

Exhibit 40 

Primary Support Mechanisms for Identified Schools, 

2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In 19 states, the primary mechanism for 

providing support to schools identified for improvement in 2004–

05 were school support teams. 

Note: Two jurisdictions were excluded because we could not determine 

the primary support strategy or the state had no primary support 

mechanism. 

a Indicates that the District of Columbia is included. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB, Accountability Interviews and Extant Sources (n= 

49 states and the District of Columbia). 
Chapter VI 75 

Use of support teams 

Support teams were the most common mechanism for delivering support to schools identified for 

improvement in 2004–05. The composition of support teams varied widely, but generally consisted of 

education officials with expertise in areas such as curriculum and instruction, data analysis, special needs 

populations, and implementation of improvement strategies in low-performing schools. During 2004–05, 

37 states provided support to identified schools through some type of support team. Some of these 

team structures were well-established; in 14 states, they predated NCLB. However, a number of states 

substantially altered their support teams or established new support team structures as a result of NCLB. 

Specifically, 15 states reported that their support teams had been substantially changed since NCLB, and 

eight had entirely new structures for team support. One state official explained, “The focus has 

intensified under NCLB because we’ve developed the regional approach ... and the framework was 

more customized to meeting the needs of high-priority schools.” 

While all support teams shared the feature of being external to the school, potentially affording a new 

perspective on strategies for school improvement, they varied in a number of ways, including the 

organizations from which they originated, their role in the improvement process, and the schools to 

which they provided support. Support teams in 24 of 37 states that used them, originated at the state 

level. That is, the teams consisted of individuals who were employed by the state education agency. 

Many states drew support team members from various departments within the SEA, bringing 

complementary perspectives to the challenges of school reform. In six states, support teams were 

developed and operated by regional education organizations; in four states, the teams were the 

responsibility of districts. In the case of regional systems, the regional units were still under the purview 

of the SEA and part of an overall “state system” even if the staff were focused on only one region of the 

state. District teams were mandated by the state, which often oversaw their training and appropriate 

assignment to schools and provided supplementary personnel if there was not adequate staffing at the 

district level. 

In different states, school support teams intervened at different phases of the school improvement 

process. In 15 states, the support team’s role was to facilitate and support the school planning process: 

The team provided diagnostic assistance and helped analyze data and frame the school improvement 

plan. In another 15 states, the support team continued to participate throughout the implementation of 

the school improvement plan. The role of the support team was less clear in seven states. 

In 18 states, support teams worked exclusively with Title I schools that were identified for improvement; 

19 states used support teams with both Title I and non–Title I identified schools. Moreover, states often 

targeted their support to specific types of identified schools—in only 13 of the states with support teams 

did the teams serve all schools identified for improvement. For example, in five states, support teams 

provided assistance only to schools in corrective action or restructuring status; three states targeted other 

“high-needs” schools as defined by the state. Four states sent teams only to schools that requested 

them. Finally, three states sent support teams to districts rather than to schools, with the understanding 

that districts would then ensure that schools received appropriate assistance. (In nine states with support 

teams, the targeting strategy was unclear or the state’s respondent was unsure of the strategy.) 

Use of Individual School Improvement Specialists 

Twenty-nine states engaged educational professionals to assist schools identified for improvement. 

However, these individuals did not lend themselves to simple categorizations: They were called school 

improvement specialists, principal mentors, exemplary educators or coaches. Few states, in fact, used 

the NCLB terminology of distinguished principals and distinguished teachers, and few defined the role 

of these individuals in a manner that was strictly aligned with NCLB. Many states relied on retired 
Chapter VI 76 

teachers and school administrators; some states selected individuals from other fields if these individuals 

had appropriate expertise (for example, financial expertise). Virginia was among the states whose use of 

individual school improvement specialists closely approximated the NCLB definitions of distinguished 

principals and distinguished teachers. Participants in Virginia’s Turnaround Specialist Program were 

successful administrators who engaged in additional training focused on the needs of consistently lowperforming schools. 

Many states targeted the use of individual school improvement specialists to a small set of lowperforming schools. Eighteen states used a tiered support system in which individual school 

improvement specialists were used only for schools that were at risk of advancing to corrective action or 

restructuring status. Often, their roles were diagnostic and temporary rather than full-time. In Nevada, 

for example, trained facilitators led identified schools through the Student Achievement Gap Elimination 

(SAGE) process, which helped them to diagnose problems, identify improvement strategies, and develop 

improvement plans. Finally, in 19 states, individual school improvement specialists worked with both 

Title I and non–Title I schools that were identified for improvement. 

Comprehensiveness of state support 

Support systems were judged to be comprehensive in 20 states, moderate in 23 

states, and limited in nine states. 

Some states were engaged in multiyear efforts to develop comprehensive systems that supported schools 

at various levels of improvement. We classified state systems of support into three levels—

comprehensive, moderate, and limited—based on the breadth of the support structures, the proportion 

of identified schools that received support, the background and training required of individuals who 

provided support, the presence of complementary layers of support, and the existence of a statewide 

research-based improvement process (such as the SAGE process in Nevada or the Collaborative 

Assessment and Planning for Achievement process in New Jersey). The states with comprehensive 

systems provided direct assistance to schools, procedural steps that articulated and defined the 

improvement process, and tools to engage and inform schools as they considered improvement options. 

Many of the states with moderate or limited systems were building their systems and working to 

incorporate structures that were more consistent with the NCLB requirements (e.g., they added school 

support teams or distinguished teachers to their support systems). However, some states provided only 

minimal support, limited to a few voluntary statewide meetings or the provision of information to 

districts and schools about federal grants that might stimulate improvement. 

Overall, states with comprehensive systems of support for their low-performing schools tended to be the 

states with higher concentrations of schools identified for improvement. For example, 12 percent of 

schools in states with comprehensive systems of support were in the first year of improvement, whereas 

only 5 percent of schools in states with limited systems were in the first year of improvement. It may be 

that states with high proportions of schools identified for improvement were also most likely to perceive 

an acute need to develop support systems. About one-half of states with comprehensive systems of 

support also had well-established accountability systems that predated NCLB. 

State officials frequently expressed concern about their capacity to provide continued support if the 

number of identified schools were to increase as they anticipate it would. One official elaborated, 

“Given the number of schools identified for improvement...coupled with the lack of resources at the 

state level, it’s caused us to have to spread [support] thinner.... We would like to have a coach working 

with no more than two or three buildings at a time. We are simply unable to sustain that today.” To 

manage increasing numbers of identified schools, 20 states used a triage approach to providing support 
Chapter VI 77 

in 2004–05 in which the level of support was tailored to the number of years a school had not made 

AYP. Another 18 states opted to build in a secondary layer of support provided by regional centers, area 

education agencies, or county-level offices. These categories were not mutually exclusive—11 states had 

both a selective system and a regional support system. Twenty states indicated that they intended to 

build district capacity to better support schools identified for improvement. As one state official 

explained, “We were ratcheting up for the future, knowing we do not have the capacity to serve 

1,600 schools; what we’ve done is we turned it around to district support teams to enable them to 

basically leverage, to build their capacity to provide support to the schools.” 

Overall, it appears that states have adopted three primary strategies for building district capacity in 

2004–05: (1) developing and implementing an improvement process and resources that district-level staff 

may use to support school improvement; (2) providing statewide training to district-level staff; and 

(3) assigning state-level staff who work directly with specific districts to build district capacity. In 

2004–05, Louisiana provided an example of the second strategy: the state offered training for district 

staff who will constitute “district assistance teams.” As one Louisiana official explained, “These folks go 

through a week-long training currently composed of four modules and they actually have to be in our 

database as certified in those modules in order to serve on a district assistance team.” Massachusetts was 

an example of the third strategy: the state education agency placed a “school support specialist” in each 

of the urban districts that has the highest incidence of schools identified for improvement. 

The three strategies are not mutually exclusive. For example, in 2004–05, Massachusetts used all three 

strategies. In addition to assigning “school support specialists” to districts, Massachusetts had also 

developed their “Performance Improvement Mapping” process (PIM) which was the primary 

school-improvement mechanism in the state (an example of the first strategy). Also, officials from urban 

districts participate in training through the Massachusetts Urban Superintendents Network, and all 

district officials participate in NCLB implementation workshops several times each year. Likewise, 

officials in Kentucky indicated that the state engaged “district support facilitators” who worked directly 

with districts to “help with things like data analysis, strategies on closing achievement gaps, development 

of leadership teams... They [the district support facilitators] will work with the district in order for the 

district to know how to do those things and then carry them out.” Similarly, in 2004–05, West Virginia 

engaged in a “whole state effort” to build capacity at the county level, providing statewide training in a 

variety of topics including differentiated instruction, curriculum mapping, and revising a school 

improvement plan. 

Providing technical assistance for school improvement 

NCLB contains specific requirements regarding the provision of technical assistance to identified 

schools; both states and districts have responsibilities for providing assistance to help schools in a variety 

of areas. Reports from states, districts, and schools agreed that a great deal of technical assistance was 

both needed and available. 

Types of technical assistance provided by states 

States emphasized different aspects of improvement, but most focused on the 

specific needs of identified schools and on planning and data analysis. 

The type of support most frequently provided by states was need-based; states endeavored to tailor 

support to the specific needs of the identified school. For example, Rhode Island’s Progressive Support 

and Intervention program is designed to ensure that state resources are matched with targeted needs. As 

the Rhode Island state education agency Web site notes, “The level of support and intervention is, quite 
Chapter VI 78 

simply, dependent upon what support and intervention is needed.” In 17 states, the support system 

focused primarily on the planning process (conducting a needs assessment, determining how to 

implement improvement strategies) or on data analysis tasks (see Exhibit 41). Three states and the 

District of Columbia described their support role as that of a resource broker—they ensured that the 

schools were informed of and had access to the improvement funds and grants competitions for which 

they were eligible. Only four states focused support primarily on a content area, such as literacy or 

mathematics. 

Schools’ technical assistance needs 

Both identified and non-identified schools reported the need for technical 

assistance in many areas, but the need was greater among identified schools. 

Although most principals reported that their school needed technical assistance related to some area of 

NCLB implementation in 2003–04 or 2004–05, principals in identified schools were more likely to 

report needing assistance than were principals of non-identified schools in each of 12 areas surveyed (see 

Exhibit 42). For example, 80 percent of identified schools reported needing technical assistance to 

improve the quality of teachers’ professional development, compared with 53 percent of non-identified 

schools. On average, schools in Year 1 or Year 2 of identification needed assistance in seven of the 

12 areas, compared with four areas for non-identified schools. 

Exhibit 41 

Primary Focus of Support Provided by States, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In 19 states, the primary focus of the support system was to provide needs-based 

assistance and 17 states focused on the improvement planning process and data analysis in 2004–05. 

a Indicates that the District of Columbia is included. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB, Accountability Interviews and Extant Sources (n=49 states and the District of Columbia). 
Chapter VI 79 

While identified schools were most likely to report needing technical assistance in the area of teachers’ 

professional development (80 percent), they also needed assistance in many other areas, including getting 

parents more engaged in their children’s education (74 percent), addressing the instructional needs of 

students with disabilities (71 percent), identifying effective curricula and instructional strategies 

(70 percent), improving students’ test-taking skills (70 percent), and analyzing assessment results to 

understand students’ strengths and weaknesses (68 percent) (see Exhibit 42). 

The need for technical assistance was greater among categories of schools that were more likely to be 

identified for improvement. For example, a greater percentage of high-poverty and high-minority 

schools reported a need for technical assistance than schools with low concentrations of such students 

(see Exhibit 43). 

Exhibit 42 

Percentage of Non-Identified and Identified Schools Reported Needing and Receiving 

Various Types of Technical Assistance, 2003–04 or 2004–05

 Type of Technical Assistance 

Percent of 

Non-Identified 

Schools 

Needing 

Assistance 

(n=881) 

Percent of 

Identified 

Schools 

Needing 

Assistance 

(n=430) 

Percent of 

Identified Schools 

Needing 

Assistance That 

Received It 

(n=212 to 343) 

Percent of Identified 

Schools Reporting 

That Assistance 

Received Was 

Sufficient 

(n=147 to 313) 

Identify effective curricula, instructional 

strategies, or school reform models 54% 70% 92% 72% 

Improve quality of teachers’ professional 

development 53% 80% 91% 74% 

Address instructional needs of students 

with individual education programs (IEPs) 49% 71% 72% 69% 

Identify or develop detailed curriculum 

guides, frameworks, pacing sequences, 

and/or model lessons aligned with state 

standards 

49% 62% 93% 67% 

Get parents more engaged in their child’s 

education 46% 74% 51% 53% 

Analyze assessment results to understand 

students’ strengths and weaknesses 41% 68% 92% 94% 

Implement the provisions of NCLB relating 

to “qualified” paraprofessionals 38% 52% 86% 95% 

Address problems of student truancy, 

tardiness, discipline, and dropouts 37% 57% 68% 42% 

Address instructional needs of LEP 

students 37% 49% 69% 71% 

Improve students’ test-taking skills 32% 70% 71% 71% 

Develop or revise school improvement plan 28% 62% 89% 89% 

Recruit, retain, or assign teachers in order 

to staff all classes with a teacher who is 

“highly qualified” 

28% 62% 76% 80% 

Exhibit reads: Fifty-four percent of non-identified schools reported needing technical assistance to identify 

effective curricula, instructional strategies, or school reform models in 2003–04 or 2004–05. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey.
Chapter VI 80 

Meeting schools’ technical assistance needs 

Schools received technical assistance from a variety of sources, including the state department of 

education, regional education providers, independent organizations, and their own district offices. 

Principals’ survey responses did not identify the providers of technical assistance, just whether or not the 

assistance was received. 

In most areas, schools reported receiving the technical assistance they needed and 

reported that it met their needs. 

A majority of principals who said their schools needed technical assistance also reported that they 

received the assistance they needed and that this assistance was sufficient to meet their needs. This was 

true both for identified schools and non-identified schools. For example, the vast majority of schools 

received the technical assistance needed to analyze assessment results (92 percent); identify effective 

curricula, instructional strategies, or reform models (92 percent); and identify guides, frameworks, or 

Exhibit 43 

Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance in Four Areas, 

by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05 

 Characteristic 

Develop or 

Revise the 

School’s 

Improvement 

Plan 

Analyze Assessment 

Results to 

Understand 

Students’ Strengths 

and Weaknesses 

Get Parents 

Engaged in 

Their 

Child’s 

Education 

Improve the 

Quality of 

Teachers’ 

Professional 

Development

All Schools (n=1,311) 33% 45% 50% 57% 

By School Identified for Improvement Status 

Not identified 27% 41% 46% 53% 

Year 1 and Year 2 of identified for 

improvement status 61% 66% 72% 77% 

Corrective action status 59% 80% 89% 97% 

Restructuring status 68% 72% 73% 81% 

By School Poverty Level 

High poverty 52% 65% 73% 73% 

Medium poverty 32% 40% 53% 55% 

Low poverty 22% 39% 34% 50% 

By School Minority Concentration 

High minority (75% or more) 48% 63% 71% 71% 

Moderate minority (25–75%) 35% 44% 51% 58% 

Low minority (less than 25%) 24% 38% 41% 49% 

By Urbanicity 

Central city 41% 56% 65% 68% 

Urban fringe/large town 28% 43% 46% 53% 

Rural/small town 34% 36% 43% 51% 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-seven percent of non-identified schools reported needing technical assistance in 

developing or revising their school improvement plan, compared with 61 percent of schools in Year 1 or 

Year 2 of being identified for improvement in 2003–04 or 2004–05. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 
Chapter VI 81 

model lessons aligned with state standards (93 percent) (see Exhibit 42). The greatest unmet need was 

for assistance to increase parental involvement in their children’s education; only about half of all schools 

that needed assistance in this area received it. Importantly, non-identified schools reported receiving 

needed technical assistance at rates similar to those of identified schools. There was no evidence that 

other school characteristics (i.e., proportion of minority or low-income students, urbanicity, participation 

in comprehensive school reform, etc.) influenced the likelihood that a school received needed technical 

assistance. 

Principals in identified schools reported receiving more days of assistance from their districts than did 

non-identified schools. For 2004–05 and the previous school year, 75 percent of identified schools 

reported receiving six or more days of assistance from their districts, compared with 56 percent of nonidentified schools. Forty-eight percent of identified schools received at least 11 days of assistance, and 

25 percent received more. On average, identified schools reported receiving about 15 days of technical 

assistance, compared with ten days for non-identified schools. 

The majority of principals reported that the technical assistance received met their needs. At least 

two-thirds of all schools receiving technical assistance in nine of 12 topics surveyed were satisfied that 

the assistance met their needs. For example, principals in 94 percent of the identified schools that 

received technical assistance in analyzing assessment results reported the assistance was sufficient to 

meet their needs. For eight of 12 topics surveyed, 70 percent or more of identified schools that received 

technical assistance were satisfied that the assistance met their needs (see Exhibit 42). While it is difficult 

to assess the quality of services provided to schools without observing them directly, these results 

indicate that in the recipients’ view the technical assistance was of adequate quality. The type of 

assistance that received the lowest ratings dealt with addressing student behavior problems and getting 

parents more involved with their children’s education. In both cases, about half of the identified schools 

that needed and received assistance felt it was not sufficient. 

Districts were a major provider of technical assistance to schools, and reports from districts reflected 

patterns similar to those reported above. Most districts with identified schools reported providing a 

broad range of types of technical assistance, both to identified schools and to schools that were not lowperforming (see Exhibit 44). This is consistent with earlier findings from 2001 to 2004 that districts with 

identified schools were not focusing assistance on a subset of schools (Padilla et al., 2006). A majority of 

districts with identified schools in 2003–04 or 2004–05 reported providing technical assistance to some 

or all of these schools in areas including school planning (87 percent); analyzing assessment data 

(83 percent); and identifying effective curricula, instructional strategies, or reform models (65 percent). 

In contrast, some districts reported that they did not provide mandated technical assistance to identified 

schools to help them increase parental involvement (40 percent); identify effective curricula, instructional 

strategies, or reform models (30 percent); or identify curriculum guides, frameworks, pacing sequences, 

or model lessons aligned with state standards (45 percent). The latter finding contrasts with evidence 

that alignment was a major focus for school improvement in more than three-quarters of districts 

between 2001 and 2004 (Padilla et al., 2006). 

District size, minority enrollment, poverty, and district identification status were not related to the number 

of different types of technical assistance provided to identified schools. However, small districts, low 

minority districts, low-poverty districts, and non-identified districts, were more likely than large districts, 

high-minority districts, high-poverty districts, and identified districts to provide most types of technical 

assistance to schools that were not low-performing. This suggests that large, high-minority, high-poverty, 

and identified districts may be focusing their resources more on schools that have greater needs. Padilla et 

al. (2006) also found that larger districts provided technical assistance to identified schools related to 

planning and data use at higher rates than did other districts, and that larger districts were more likely to 

sponsor professional development on an extensive range of topics between 2001 and 2004.
Chapter VI 82 

Identified schools in states with comprehensive support systems received technical assistance in many 

areas at higher rates than schools in states with limited or moderately comprehensive support systems. 

These areas of technical assistance included improving students’ test-taking skills; implementing 

provisions related to qualified paraprofessionals; meeting the needs of LEP and special education 

students; and increasing parental involvement. In contrast, states with limited systems of support were 

less likely to provide technical assistance to identified schools in areas such as developing improvement 

plans, or meeting the needs of LEP students. 

Five areas of technical assistance are discussed in greater detail below: improving teacher professional 

development, providing services for students with disabilities, providing services for limited English 

proficient (LEP) students, curriculum development, and developing and using achievement test results. 

These areas were chosen because they were the areas of greatest need or because assistance was least 

likely to have been received. 

Exhibit 44 

Percentage of Districts with Identified Schools Reporting That They Provided 

Technical Assistance to Various Types of Schools in Either 2003–04 or 2004–05 

Type of Technical Assistance 

All or Some 

Identified 

Schools 

Schools That 

Are Not Low 

Performing 

District Did 

Not Provide 

Develop or revise school improvement plan 87% 57% 12% 

Analyze assessment results to understand students’ 

strengths and weaknesses 83% 67% 13% 

Address instructional needs of students with IEPs 79% 56^ 17% 

Implement NCLB provisions relating to “qualified” 

paraprofessionals 72% 53% 24% 

Address problems of student truancy, tardiness, 

discipline, and dropout 65% 50% 32% 

Identify curricula, instructional strategies, or school reform 

models that have been shown to be effective in 

increasing students’ achievement 

65% 48% 30% 

Recruit, retain, or assign teachers in order to staff all 

classes with a teacher who is “highly qualified” 64% 43% 34% 

Get parents more engaged in their child’s education 56% 49% 40% 

Improve students’ test taking skills 52% 44% 45% 

Address instructional needs of LEP students 49% 43% 48% 

Identify or develop detailed curriculum guides, 

frameworks, pacing sequences, and/or model lessons 

aligned with state standards 

46% 44% 45% 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-seven percent of districts with identified schools reported that they provided 

assistance to all or some of those schools to develop or revise their improvement plans in 2003–04 or 

2004–05. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n=156 districts with identified schools). 
Chapter VI 83 

Most schools reported receiving the technical assistance they needed to improve 

professional development for teachers. 

Districts are required by NCLB to provide technical assistance regarding professional development to 

identified Title I schools, and it appears that most were meeting this requirement. Most principals of 

identified schools (80 percent) reported needing technical assistance in 2003–04 or 2004–05 to improve 

the qualifications of school staff; of these, 91 percent said they received the assistance they needed, and 

72 percent of those found the assistance sufficient to meet their needs. This means that 66 percent of 

principals in identified Title I schools that had a need for technical assistance to improve teacher 

professional development had their needs fully satisfied. In comparison, 62 percent of principals in 

identified schools needed assistance in staffing all classes with highly qualified teachers; of these, 

76 percent received such assistance, and 80 percent thought it was sufficient to meet their needs. 

A previous longitudinal study found that 90 percent of districts required identified Title I schools to 

spend at least 10 percent of their Title I allocation on professional development in 2003–04 (Padilla et 

al., 2006). In non-identified schools, 53 percent of principals reported a similar need in 2003–04 or 

 2004–05; 84 percent received assistance, and 78 percent of those said the assistance they received was 

sufficient to meet their needs. 

Identified schools were more likely to express the need for technical assistance to improve the quality of 

professional development in 2003–04 or 2004–05 than were non-identified schools (see Exhibit 45 and 

Appendix C, Exhibit C.17). More than three-quarters of all identified schools (including 97 percent of 

those in corrective action status) reported needing assistance in improving professional development for 

teachers, while only half of non-identified schools reported the same need. Schools with the highest 

proportions of minority or poor students reported the greatest need for technical assistance related to 

the professional qualifications of their staff. 

Of the schools that reported needing technical assistance to improve services to 

students with disabilities, half did not have their needs met. 

More than half of all schools reported needing technical assistance to address the needs of students with 

disabilities in 2004–05. About 30 percent of schools that needed this assistance did not receive it. 

Moreover, about one-quarter of the schools that received technical assistance related to students with 

disabilities were not satisfied that the assistance was sufficient to meet their needs. Schools in 

restructuring status reported the lowest levels of satisfaction with such technical assistance—39 percent 

were not satisfied that the assistance was sufficient. Overall, about one-half of the schools that needed 

assistance to improve services for students with disabilities did not have their needs met. 

Schools that were identified for improvement were more likely to report needing technical assistance 

relating to students with disabilities than were non-identified schools (see Exhibit 46). Other school 

demographic features were not related to the need for technical assistance in this area (see Appendix C, 

Exhibit C.18). 
Chapter VI 84 

However, in 2004–05, teachers in identified schools reported receiving professional development related 

to students with disabilities at similar rates as their peers in non-identified schools. Fifty-three percent of 

elementary school teachers in identified schools received some professional development to meet the 

needs of students with disabilities. Similarly, 56 percent of secondary English teachers and 53 percent of 

secondary mathematics teachers in identified schools received the same kind of professional 

development. As would be expected, a large majority (86 percent) of special education teachers received 

professional development assistance related to students with disabilities. 

Of the schools that reported needing technical assistance to improve services to 

LEP students, more than half did not have their needs met. 

Exhibit 45 

Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance to Improve the Quality of 

Teachers' Professional Development, by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Fifty-three percent of non-identified schools reported needing technical assistance to 

improve the quality of teachers’ professional development, compared with 77 percent of schools in Year 

1 or 2 of being identified for improvement. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey (n=1,311 schools). 
Chapter VI 85 

Two of every five schools reported needing technical assistance to meet the needs of LEP students in 

2003–04 or 2004–05, but about one-third of these schools did not receive such assistance, and about 

one-third of the schools that did receive it were not satisfied that the assistance they received was 

sufficient to meet their needs. Overall, more than half of the schools that needed technical assistance to 

improve services for LEP students did not have their needs met. 

Identified schools were more likely to report needing assistance to meet the needs of LEP students than 

were non-identified schools in 2003–04 or 2004–05 (see Exhibit 47 and Appendix C, Exhibit C.19). 

Schools with the lowest proportion of minority students reported needing this technical assistance at 

lower rates than schools with higher proportions. Schools with higher proportions of low-income 

students, however, reported receiving assistance related to LEP students more often (80 percent) than 

schools with the least student poverty (54 percent). 

Exhibit 46 

Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance to Meet the Needs 

of Students with Disabilities, by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Forty-nine percent of non-identified schools reported needing technical assistance 

addressing the needs of students with disabilities, compared with 70 percent of schools in Year 1 or 

Year 2 of being identified for improvement in 2003–04 or 2004–05. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey (n=1,311 schools). 
Chapter VI 86 

In 2004–05, 45 percent of teachers in identified elementary schools received assistance to meet the needs 

of LEP students, as did 50 percent of secondary English teachers and 36 percent of secondary 

mathematics teachers in identified secondary schools—rates similar to those reported by teachers in nonidentified schools. However, a higher proportion of special education teachers in identified schools 

(29 percent) than in non-identified schools (18 percent) received professional development assistance 

related to LEP students. 

More than one-third of identified schools that reported needing assistance with 

curriculum development did not receive sufficient assistance. 

Technical assistance was available to help most schools and districts that needed assistance in the area of 

curriculum, but more than one-third of identified schools that reported needing assistance with 

curriculum either did not receive it or did not find the assistance they received to be sufficient. 

Seventy percent of identified schools and about one-half of non-identified schools reported needing 

technical assistance identifying effective curricula, instructional strategies, or school reform models that 

Exhibit 47 

Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance to Meet the Needs of Limited 

English Proficient Students, by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-seven percent of non-identified schools reported needing technical assistance 

addressing the needs of LEP students, compared with 48 percent of schools in Year 1 or Year 2 of 

being identified for improvement. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey (n=1,311 schools). 
Chapter VI 87 

have been shown to be effective in increasing student achievement in 2003–04 or 2004–05. 

Eight percent of the identified schools that needed such assistance did not receive it, and, of those that 

did receive it, 28 percent reported that the assistance was not sufficient to meet their needs. 

Most schools that needed technical assistance using achievement results received 

the help they needed. 

Most schools reported needing and receiving assistance to help them make better use of achievement 

results in 2003–04 or 2004–05. Two-thirds of principals in identified schools and about 40 percent of 

those in non-identified schools reported needing technical assistance to better use achievement test 

results. Overall, about 90 percent of all schools that needed technical assistance to analyze assessments 

received this assistance, and over 80 percent were satisfied that the assistance they received was sufficient 

to meet their needs. Only 14 percent of identified schools that needed technical assistance relating to 

assessment did not have their needs met. High-minority schools and high-poverty schools were more 

likely to report needing technical assistance analyzing assessment results than were low-minority and 

low-poverty schools (see Exhibit 48). 

Exhibit 48 

Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance to Analyze Assessment 

Results, by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Forty-one percent of non-identified schools reported needing technical assistance 

analyzing assessment results to understand student strengths and weaknesses in 2003–04 or 

2004–05, compared with 66 percent of schools in Year 1 or 2 of being identified for improvement 

that reported needing such assistance. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey (n=1,311 schools). 
Chapter VI 88 

Improvement initiatives by schools 

Nearly all schools were making improvement efforts. Identified schools emphasized 

more areas of improvement than did non-identified schools. 

Almost all schools were engaged in their own voluntary improvement initiatives, and most principals 

reported placing a major focus on multiple school improvement strategies during 2004–05 (see 

Exhibit 49). Ninety percent of schools placed a major focus on at least one improvement effort, and 

more than one-half of schools reported a major focus on nine of ten strategies surveyed. Although the 

number of improvement strategies that were emphasized is not necessarily an indication of the intensity 

or the quality of the improvement efforts, identified schools were engaged in more improvement efforts 

than were non-identified schools. On average, identified schools reported a major focus on six different 

improvement efforts, compared with four efforts in schools that were not identified. Schools in 

corrective action and restructuring status reported a major focus on between six and seven different 

improvement efforts. 

Exhibit 49 

Percentage of Schools Reporting Major Focus 

on Various School Improvement Strategies, 2004–05 

2004–05 Status 

Identified Schools 

 School Improvement Strategies 

All 

Identified

(n=430)

Year 1 or 

Year 2 Only

(n=288)

Corrective 

Action Only

(n=56)

Restructuring 

Only 

(n=79)

Not 

Identified 

Schools

(n=881)

Using student achievement data to inform 

instruction and school improvement 82% 81% 88% 86% 67% 

Providing additional instruction to lowachieving students 78% 78% 75% 74% 60% 

Aligning curriculum and instruction with 

standards and/or assessments 72% 69% 88% 82% 70% 

Implementing new instructional approaches 

or curricula in reading 61% 58% 72% 71% 49% 

Increasing the intensity, focus, and 

effectiveness of professional development 60% 57% 76% 70% 42% 

Implementing new instructional approaches 

or curricula in mathematics 59% 59% 64% 56% 41% 

Restructuring the school day to teach core 

content areas in greater depth 

(e.g., establishing a literacy block) 

52% 50% 63% 59% 31% 

Providing extended-time instructional 

programs (e.g., before-school, after-school, 

or weekend instructional programs) 

51% 46% 80% 65% 31% 

Implementing strategies for increasing 

parents’ involvement in their children’s 

education 

32% 31% 47% 26% 13% 

Increasing instructional time for all students 

(e.g., by lengthening the school day or 

year, shortening recess) 

26% 25% 39% 22% 13% 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-two percent of all identified schools gave major attention to using achievement 

data to inform instruction and school improvement. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 
Chapter VI 89 

Little can be said about the quality of school improvement efforts in 2004–05 in most areas, but 

responses from parents, teachers and principals may illuminate more about some of these areas. For 

example, although parent engagement was a major focus of school improvement efforts in less than onethird of the schools, parents reported that schools did very well at providing them with ways to help 

their students. Specifically, parents in eight districts were asked about their school’s efforts to help them 

become more involved in their child’s education. Approximately two-thirds of parents reported that the 

school did very well or okay at offering workshops, materials or advice about how to help their child 

learn at home (69 percent), providing information about how parents could help their child with his or 

her homework (65 percent), and informing parents of chances to volunteer at the school (64 percent). 

Parents in identified schools were less likely than parents in non-identified schools to report that the 

school did well at informing them of chances to volunteer. 

Similarly, parents of students in identified schools were less likely than parents of students in nonidentified schools to express satisfaction with their child’s school. In the same survey of eight districts, 

only 57 percent of parents in identified schools said they would give their child’s school an A or B grade, 

compared with 77 percent of parents in non-identified schools, and 15 percent said they would give the 

school a D or F grade, compared with 3 percent of parents in non-identified schools. Parents also gave 

identified schools lower ratings on a number of specific factors such as academic quality, their child’s 

current teacher, school safety, and discipline. 

Reports from principals and teachers illuminate more about efforts in these key areas provided additional 

information about the focus of local improvement initiatives in the areas of curriculum, instructional 

time, and the use of assessments and assessment results. 

Curriculum 

Curriculum enhancement was a major focus of school improvement in identified and 

non-identified schools. 

Most schools were involved in one or more efforts to improve curriculum and instruction in 2004–05. 

Seventy percent of all schools reported placing a major emphasis in their improvement efforts on 

aligning curriculum and instruction with state standards, and about one-half placed a major emphasis on 

improving instructional approaches or curriculum in reading and mathematics. Identified and 

non-identified schools were equally likely to emphasize alignment and new reading approaches; however, 

a higher proportion of identified than non-identified schools focused on improving curriculum in 

mathematics. 

Attention to curriculum improvement was also reflected in state- and district-level actions in 2004–05. 

Twenty-six states reported providing technical assistance to all districts to identify and implement 

effective curricula, instructional strategies, or school reform models (though only 7 percent of identified 

districts were required by their state education agencies to implement new standards-based curricula). In 

addition, 39 percent of identified districts reported enacting district-wide changes to curriculum in 

reading, and 17 percent reported enacting changes in mathematics in response to being identified for 

improvement. 

Almost all teachers had access to materials to align curriculum with standards. 

According to previous studies, aligning curriculum and instruction with standards and assessments was a 

major focus of district assistance to Title I schools. Padilla et al. (2006) found that more that 90 percent 

of districts provided professional development in aligning curriculum and instruction as of 2003–04. 
Chapter VI 90 

They also found that of seven improvement strategies and supports analyzed, aligning curriculum and 

standards, accompanied by professional development efforts in this area, was the only one that 

contributed over and above context factors to the prediction of a school’s exiting improvement status by 

2003–04. 

The NLS-NCLB probed further about materials to improve alignment in 2004–05 and found that almost 

all teachers had access to supplemental materials to help them align curriculum and instruction to state 

standards. The most common materials were district or school standards that augmented state standards 

and curriculum guides or pacing sequences (see Exhibit 50). However, about one-half of the teachers 

had access to more detailed standards-based instructional support materials, including model lessons and 

guides that cross-referenced textbooks to state standards and assessments. Teachers in identified and 

non-identified schools had similar access to these materials. 

About one-third of teachers in identified schools reported having an inadequate 

number of textbooks and instructional materials. 

Despite the availability of materials to help teachers align curriculum and instruction with state content 

standards, the quantity or quality of textbooks and other instructional materials presented a moderate or 

major challenge to as many as one-third of the teachers in identified schools in 2004–05 (see Exhibit 51). 

In identified elementary schools, 33 percent of teachers reported that they lacked sufficient textbooks 

and other instructional materials, compared with 20 percent of teachers in non-identified elementary 

schools. Some of the challenges that confronted teachers (e.g., large class sizes) were difficult to address, 

but the provision of textbooks and instructional materials is basic, and one-third or more of teachers in 

identified schools reported lacking these fundamental educational materials. 

Exhibit 50 

Percentage of General Education Teachers Reporting Availability of Various Resources 

for Aligning Curriculum and Instruction With State Content Standards, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-one percent of all elementary teachers had access to district or school content 

standards that augmented state content standards. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey (n=7,394 teachers). 
Chapter VI 91 

Instructional time 

To increase instructional time for students in reading and mathematics, districts and schools followed 

two main strategies: implementing extended-time instructional programs outside of the normal school 

day, and reorganizing the school day to increase or decrease the amount of instructional time for specific 

subjects. Both strategies were popular, and some schools (34 percent) reported using some form of both 

strategies to increase the time of instruction for their students. 

In 2004–05, almost three-quarters of schools offered extended-time instructional 

programs, which served a small, although rising, percentage of students. Identified 

schools were more likely to offer extended time programs than were non-identified 

schools.

Seventy-two percent of all schools implemented some kind of extended-time instructional program 

during 2004–05, compared with 63 percent that reported offering extended time programs in 1997–98 

(Chambers, Lieberman, Parrish, Kaleba, Van Campen, and Stullich, 2000). After-school programs were 

the most common, with 68 percent of schools reporting after-school tutorials or instruction, up from 

57 percent in 1997–98 (see Exhibit 52). Before-school and weekend programs were less common but 

their availability also increased during the past decade. 

Exhibit 51 

Percentage of General Education Teachers Reporting Moderate or Major Challenges 

to Improving Student Performance, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Fifty-nine percent of elementary teachers in non-identified schools reported that large class 

size was a moderate or major challenge in their efforts to improve student performance, compared with 

62 percent of elementary teachers in identified schools. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey (n=7,394 teachers). 
Chapter VI 92 

Overall, after-school programs served 10 percent of all students nationally in 2004–05, double the 

proportion reported in 1997–98 (Chambers, Lieberman, Parrish, Kaleba, Van Campen, and Stullich, 

2000). (See Exhibit 52). Similarly, 4 percent of all students were served by before-school programs 

nationally in 2004–05, an increase from 1 percent nine years ago; the proportion of students served by 

weekend programs nationally remained stable at about 1 percent. 

In schools that implemented after-school programs, 17 percent of students participated in these 

programs, up from 9 percent in 1997–98 (see Exhibit C.20 in Appendix C). Where implemented, afterschool programs provided students an average of 134 additional hours of instructional time per year; 

before-school programs added 115 hours. The comparable figures for 1997–98 were 111 hours and 

77 hours, respectively. By comparison, weekend programs added only 52 hours of instructional time, on 

average, in 2004–05, about the same amount as in 1997–98. 

As in the 1997–98 study, extended-time instructional programs in 2004–05 were more frequent among 

Title I schools, urban schools, and schools with higher proportions of poor and minority students. 

Furthermore, a higher proportion of schools identified for improvement reported implementing 

extended-time instructional programs (86 percent, see Exhibit C.20 in Appendix C) than did nonidentified schools (70 percent). When asked about strategies for school improvement, 51 percent of 

identified schools reported a major focus on using extended-time instructional programs, compared with 

31 percent of non-identified schools. However, there were no differences between identified and nonidentified schools in terms of the length of time the programs lasted or the proportion of their students 

served in these programs. 

Exhibit 52 

Percentage of Schools Offering Extended Time Instructional Programs and 

Percentage of Students Served by Such Programs, 1997–98 and 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-two percent of schools offered before-school tutorial or instructional 

programs in 1997–98 and 24 percent offered such programs in 2004–05. 

Sources: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey Study of Educational Resources and Federal Funding (n=1,311 schools). 
Chapter VI 93 

One-quarter of schools reported increasing instructional time for all students during 

the school day in 2004–05. 

Twenty-six percent of schools reported increasing the length of the school day or the school year to 

provide more instructional time for all students. Consistent with that report, one-quarter of districts 

reported that they required both identified and non-identified schools to increase the amount of time 

spent on mathematics or reading instruction in 2004–05. In addition, about 15 percent of districts with 

identified schools extended the school day or year in those schools. 

At the elementary level, identified schools were more likely to report increasing the amount of time 

students spent on reading and mathematics instruction than were non-identified schools. One-third of 

the principals of identified elementary schools reported that their school lengthened the amount of 

instructional time in reading by more than 30 minutes per day between 2003–04 and 2004–05, compared 

with 13 percent of principals in non-identified schools (see Exhibit 53). Seventeen percent of identified 

schools—twice as many as non-identified schools—reported increasing instructional time in 

mathematics by 30 minutes or more per day (see Appendix C, Exhibit C.21 for all responses). The 

increases in time for reading and mathematics from 2003–04 to 2004–05 were not offset by similar 

decreases in time in other subjects, which raises some questions about the accuracy of the principal 

reports. It is possible that the increases were accomplished through more focused use of existing 

classroom time, or teachers made reductions in other subjects on an individual basis and the principal 

was unaware of their specific choices. In contrast, the Center on Education Policy (2006) found that 

71 percent of districts reported that, over an unspecified but presumably longer period of time, 

elementary schools had reduced the amount of instructional time at least minimally in at least one subject 

to increase time for reading or mathematics. The most comparable result based on the NLS-NCLB

survey is that 20 percent of elementary school principals reported decreasing instructional time by any 

amount in any other subject from 2003–04 to 2004–05. Yet, 50 percent of principals in identified 

elementary schools and 33 percent of principals in non-identified elementary schools reported increasing 

instructional time by any amount in either reading or mathematics. 

Exhibit 53 

Percentage of Elementary Schools Increasing and Decreasing Instructional Time in 

Various Subjects by More Than 30 Minutes per Day Between 2003–04 and 2004–05 

Identified Schools 

(n=247) 

Non-Identified Schools

(n=588) 

All Schools

(n=838) 

 Subject 

Increased 

More Than 

30 Minutes 

Decreased 

More Than 

30 Minutes

Increased 

More Than 

30 Minutes

Decreased 

More Than 

30 Minutes 

Increased 

More Than 

30 Minutes 

Decreased 

More Than 

30 Minutes 

Reading 30% 0% 13% 0% 15% 0% 

Mathematics 17% 0% 8% 0% 9% 0% 

Science 5% 1% 4% 0% 4% 1% 

Social studies 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 

Art/music 1% 3% 0% 1% 0% 2% 

Physical education/health 2% 2% 0% 1% 0% 1% 

Other 4% 1% 0% 3% 0% 3% 

Exhibit reads: Thirty percent of identified schools reported increasing instructional time in reading 

by more than 30 minutes per day. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 
Chapter VI 94 

At the secondary level, 55 percent of identified schools reported increasing instructional time in reading 

for low-achieving students and 47 percent reported increasing instructional time in mathematics for 

low-achieving students between 2003–04 and 2004–05. Fewer than 20 percent reported increasing 

instructional time for low-achieving students in science (17 percent), social studies (16 percent) or other 

subjects (physical education, health, art, music, etc.) (9 percent). Identified secondary schools were more 

likely to increase reading instructional time than were non-identified schools; 55 percent of identified 

secondary schools reported increasing instructional time in reading for low-achieving students, compared 

with 36 percent of non-identified secondary schools (see Exhibit 54). 

Fewer than 3 percent of secondary schools, regardless of identification status, reported decreasing 

instructional time for low-achieving students in reading, mathematics, science, or social studies, and 

fewer than 10 percent reported decreasing instructional time in other subjects. 

Exhibit 54 

Percentage of Secondary Schools Increasing Instructional Time for Low-Achieving 

Students in Various Subjects Between 2003–04 and 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Forty-seven percent of identified secondary schools reported increasing the amount of 

time low-achieving students spent learning mathematics between 2003–04 and 2004–05, compared 

with 40 percent of non-identified secondary schools. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey (n=454 secondary schools). 
Chapter VI 95 

Use of assessment results 

Better use of assessment results was a common focus of school improvement 

efforts. 

The vast majority of principals in identified schools and non-identified schools reported focusing to a 

moderate or major extent on using student achievement data for a variety of school improvement efforts 

in 2004–05 (see Exhibit 55). For example, more than 80 percent of principals reported moderate or 

extensive use of state test results to develop or revise their school improvement plans, correct gaps in 

curriculum, and identify individual student needs. 

Almost all schools, regardless of improvement status, had access to additional resources to help them use 

test results, and most were making moderate to extensive use of these resources. For example, in 

2004–05, 74 percent of districts reported providing assistance to identified schools to help them analyze 

assessment results to understand students’ strengths and weaknesses, and 67 percent provided assistance 

to schools that were not identified. Almost all schools reported having access to additional resources to 

help them understand and use test results, including information from workshops (95 percent), 

information on how to use test results for instructional planning and school improvement (94 percent), 

comparative test results from other schools (90 percent), and computerized databases (86 percent). 

However, schools were more likely to use some of these test-related resources than they were others. 

For example, in 2004–05, 76 percent of all schools made moderate or extensive use of information on 

how to use test results for instructional planning or school improvement, but only 46 percent made at 

least moderate use of comparative test results from other schools. Similarly, schools with high 

concentrations of poor and minority students were more likely to report moderate or extensive use of 

test-related resources than were schools with low concentrations of poverty and minority students. 

Exhibit 55 

Percentage of Schools Reporting Moderate or Extensive Use of 

State Achievement Tests for Various Purposes, 2004–05 

Purpose 

Identified Schools 

(n=430) 

Non-Identified Schools 

(n=881) 

Develop or revise our school improvement plan 98% 85% 

Identify and correct gaps in the curriculum 91% 85% 

Plan professional development activities for teachers 97% 82% 

Identify students who need additional instructional support 94% 82% 

Tailor instruction to individual students’ needs 93% 75% 

Group students for instruction (either within or across grade 80% 63% 

Improve or increase the involvement of parents in student 

learning 73% 49% 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-eight percent of identified schools reported making moderate or extensive use of 

state achievement tests to develop or revise their school improvement plans. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey.
Chapter VI 96 

Almost all teachers used state test results to improve student learning in one or 

more ways. 

Most teachers made moderate or extensive use of state test results for one or more instructional 

purposes in 2004–05. Overall, 88 percent of all teachers, and 90 percent of teachers in identified schools 

reported using state test results moderately or extensively for one or more purposes. For example, 

80 percent of elementary teachers and secondary English teachers in identified schools used state reading 

assessment results to identify areas in which they needed to strengthen their content knowledge or 

teaching skills (see Exhibit 56). Teachers in identified schools were more likely to use state reading tests 

results than were teachers in non-identified schools. Similar patterns were found for the use of 

mathematics assessments: Eighty-four percent of all mathematics teachers, and 91 percent of 

mathematics teachers in identified schools reported moderate or extensive use of state mathematics tests 

for one or more purposes. 

In 2004–05, teachers in states that had their own accountability programs were more likely to have access 

to assessment-related resources and were more likely to use test results than were teachers in other states. 

For example, teachers in states that had their own accountability initiatives reported that they had access 

more often to test results that were summarized by grade level and by classroom than did teachers in 

other states. Teachers in states with state accountability initiatives were also more likely to use test 

results for specific purposes, including assigning students to classes or groups, tailoring instruction to 

Exhibit 56 

Percentage of Elementary Teachers and Secondary English Teachers 

Using State Reading Assessment Results Moderately or Extensively for 

Various Purposes, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Seventy-two percent of elementary teachers and secondary English teachers in nonidentified schools and 80 percent of these teachers in identified schools used the results of state reading 

tests moderately or extensively to identify areas in which they needed to strengthen their content 

knowledge or teaching skills. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey (n=3,194 elementary teachers and 1,242 secondary English teachers). 
Chapter VI 97 

individual students, recommending tutoring services, and identifying areas in which to strengthen their 

own content knowledge or teaching skills. Principals in states with their own accountability programs 

reported using information from workshops and computerized databases more often than did principals 

in other states. 

Similarly, principals in states with comprehensive systems of support were more likely to report that their 

schools used available test score data moderately or extensively for a variety of purposes than were 

principals in states with moderate or limited systems of support.65 For example, 88 percent of principals 

in states with comprehensive systems of support reported moderate or extensive use of test data to 

identify individual student needs, compared with 78 percent in states with moderate or limited support. 

Teachers, too, were more likely to report moderate or extensive use of test score data for a variety of 

purposes in states with comprehensive systems of support than were those in states with moderate or 

limited systems of support. For example, teachers reported using reading test data moderately or 

extensively more often to identify students in need of remedial assistance in states with comprehensive 

systems of support than in states with limited systems of support (72 percent of elementary teachers and 

68 percent of secondary teachers in states with comprehensive support, compared with 63 percent and 

50 percent, respectively, in states with moderate or limited support). Similarly, in states with 

comprehensive systems of support, 64 percent of elementary teachers and 54 percent of secondary 

teachers used data from mathematics tests moderately or extensively to tailor instruction to individual 

student needs, compared with 57 percent of elementary teachers and 40 percent of secondary teachers, 

respectively, in states with moderate or limited support. Significant differences were also found in the 

use of mathematics test data to recommend tutoring (55 percent of elementary teachers in states with 

comprehensive systems of support, compared with 42 percent in states with moderate or limited 

support). 

These differences in use occurred despite the fact that principals and teachers in both groups of states 

reported similar levels of access to various test-related resources. For example, more than 90 percent of 

principals and teachers in all states reported that they had access to school level test results in different 

formats, as well as access to results for individual students and student subgroups. Seventy-five percent 

or more of teachers and principals in all states reported that test score data were available at the 

classroom level, as well. 

Two-thirds of schools used periodic progress assessments. 

Two-thirds of the schools supplemented annual state assessments with “progress assessments” or 

“progress tests,” i.e., required assessments that are administered periodically throughout the school year 

and scored rapidly to provide feedback for teachers’ instructional planning. Progress tests were more 

common in identified schools than in non-identified schools, in reading than in mathematics, and in 

elementary schools than in secondary schools (see Exhibit 57). Progress tests also were more common 

in schools with high concentrations of students from low-income families and high concentrations of 

minority students. 

Progress tests were administered at different intervals, ranging from once every six to eight weeks 

(47 percent of teachers who administered progress tests in mathematics, 42 percent of teachers who 

administered progress tests in reading) to only two or three times per year (33 percent of teachers who 

administered progress tests in mathematics, 45 percent of teachers who administered progress tests in 

reading). More frequent progress testing provides more frequent information to teachers. 

 

65 The comprehensiveness of state systems of support is described in Chapter VI, p. 74. 
Chapter VI 98 

Almost all teachers who 

administered progress tests 

used results to improve 

student learning. 

A large majority of teachers in 

schools that administered reading 

progress tests in 2004–05 used the 

results moderately or extensively for 

several purposes. For example, 

92 percent of teachers in identified 

schools and 90 percent of teachers in 

non-identified schools who 

administered progress tests in 

reading used the results to tailor 

instruction to individual students’ 

needs (see Exhibit 58). The results 

were similar for progress tests in 

mathematics. 

Interventions for 

identified schools 

The required interventions for 

schools identified for improvement 

under NCLB escalated as schools 

moved from Year 1 of improvement 

to Year 2 of improvement, and then 

to corrective action and 

restructuring. Initial requirements 

include notifying parents about the 

status of the school, joint planning 

for school improvement between the 

school and district, and allowing 

parents to transfer their children to a 

non-identified school in the district 

with transportation provided. More serious interventions include replacing all school staff and state 

takeover of the operation of the school. States and districts must take at least one action on the 

mandated list against schools in corrective action and restructuring status. 

Exhibit 57 

Percentage of Schools Administering Progress Tests,

by School Characteristic, 2004–05 

Characteristic Reading 

Tests 

Mathematics 

Tests 

All schools (n=1,311) 66% 55% 

School Identification Status 

Not identified 64% 52% 

Year 1 and Year 2 of identified for 

improvement status 76% 67% 

Corrective action status 80% 63% 

Restructuring status 90% 73% 

School Poverty Level 

High poverty 86% 70% 

Medium poverty 70% 61% 

Low poverty 51% 41% 

School Minority Concentration 

High minority (75% or more) 86% 72% 

Moderate minority (25–75%) 77% 62% 

Low minority (less than 25%) 50% 43% 

Urbanicity 

Central city 73% 59% 

Urban fringe 68% 57% 

Rural/small town 56% 47% 

School Level 

Elementary 76% 62% 

Middle 57% 49% 

High 48% 42% 

Exhibit reads: Sixty-six percent of all schools administered 

progress tests in reading, compared with 55 percent that 

administered progress tests in mathematics. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 
Chapter VI 99 

Required interventions occurred in most, but not all, Title I schools in Year 1 or 

Year 2 of identification for improvement or in corrective action. 

Eighty-three percent of all identified schools and 82 percent of identified Title I schools developed a 

joint improvement plan with the district or state. Eighty-nine percent of Title I schools in Year 1 of 

improvement reported notifying parents of the school’s improvement status (see Exhibit 59). Over 

80 percent of Title I schools in Year 1 of improvement also offered parents the option of transferring 

their children to a non-identified school. This also means, however, that close to 20 percent of schools 

required to offer choice did not do so. Padilla et al. (2006) reported almost identical numbers for the 

years 2002–03 and 2003–04 and noted that some districts and schools faced important challenges in 

implementing choice (such as expanding capacity, time to set up the program, availability of alternatives, 

and transportation), and that for some schools there were simply no choices available for transfer 

(especially to higher performing schools). 

In almost all Title I schools in Year 2 of improvement in 2004–05, students were offered supplemental 

educational services. This represents an increase in access to supplemental services over prior years; 

58 percent of schools required to offer supplemental services in 2002–03 actually made them available, 

and 83 percent offered them in 2003–04 (Padilla et al., 2006). In 2004–05, students from low-income 

families in 90 percent of Title I schools in Year 2 of improvement were offered supplemental 

educational services. These services were also provided by almost all Title I schools in corrective action 

and restructuring status. 

Exhibit 58 

Percentage of General Education Teachers Administering Progress Tests in Reading 

Who Use Results Moderately or Extensively for Various Purposes, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-two percent of general education teachers in non-identified schools who 

administered reading progress tests used the results from these tests moderately or extensively to identify 

individual students needing remedial assistance, compared with 90 percent of general education teachers 

in identified schools. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey (n=7,394 teachers).
Chapter VI 100 

Similarly, 96 percent of Title I schools in corrective action status for 2004–05 experienced at least one of 

the NCLB-defined interventions. The most common interventions involved changes in curriculum and 

the appointment of outside advisors (see Exhibit 58). Eighty-nine percent of schools in corrective action 

were required to implement a new curriculum; 59 percent had an outside expert or advisor assigned to 

them. These two actions were the most common corrective actions reported in previous studies of 

Title I (Shields et al., 2004). Researchers also found that districts with identified schools often required 

the adoption of a new curriculum for reasons other than being identified for improvement; for example, 

Exhibit 59 

Percentage of Title I Schools Experiencing Various Types of Interventions 

From Their State or District, 2004–05 

 NCLB-Mandated Interventions 

Schools in 

Year 1 of 

Improvement

(n=199) 

Schools in 

Year 2 of 

Improvement

(n=74)

Schools in 

Corrective 

Action 

(n=52)

Schools in 

Restructuring

(n=75)

Actions Required for All Identified Schools 

Parents notified of school’s improvement status 89% 96% 96% 100% 

District or state developed a joint improvement plan 

with the school 81% 73% 93% 91% 

Students offered the option to transfer to a higherperforming school, with transportation provided 82% 75% 96% 95% 

Action Required for Identified Schools That Miss AYP After Identification (Year 2 of Improvement) 

Students offered supplemental educational 

services from a state-approved provider 46% 90% 94% 100% 

Corrective Actions (At Least One Required for Schools in Corrective Action Status)

Required implementation of a new research-based 

curriculum or instructional program 48% 66% 89% 73% 

Significantly decreased management authority at 

the school level 4% 5% 27% 25% 

Appointed outside expert to advise the school 30% 34% 59% 62% 

Extended length of school day 24% 29% 45% 29% 

Extended length of school year 9% 15% 35% 22% 

Restructured internal organization of the school 12% 22% 21% 37% 

Replaced school staff relevant to school’s low 

performance 2% 17% 7% 13% 

Restructuring Interventions 

Reopened the school as a public charter school 0% 0% 0% 2% 

Entered into a contract with a private entity to 

manage the school 0% 1% 0% 2% 

State takeover 2% 0% 0% 9% 

Replaced all school staff 0% 1% 0% 2% 

Appointed new principal 21% 20% 20% 20% 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-nine percent of Title I schools identified for improvement under NCLB for the 

first year reported that parents had been notified of the school’s improvement status. 

Note: The results refer to Title I schools exclusively because NCLB mandates apply only to these schools. 

However, some states identify and intervene in non–Title I schools as well. A replication of these analyses with an 

extended sample that included all identified schools did not produce noticeably different results. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 
Chapter VI 101 

the regular textbook adoption cycle drove the decision more often than did being identified for 

improvement (Shields et al., 2004). In 2004–05, only 27 percent of schools in corrective action status 

reported a reduction in management authority in the school, and only 7 percent reported that relevant 

staff members were replaced. This is also consistent with findings from Padilla et al. (2006), who 

reported that 12 percent of districts with schools in corrective action required either of these changes. 

Many of the interventions that NCLB defines as corrective actions were also implemented in schools in 

earlier stages of identification for improvement. For example, 66 percent of schools in Year 2 of 

improvement were required to implement new research-based curricula or instructional programs. 

Reports from districts corroborate these reports from schools. Many districts reported that they 

required some or all identified schools to undertake specific improvement efforts. The most common 

district interventions were assignment of a specialist or coach to support instruction in mathematics or 

literacy (29 percent) and increasing the amount of time spent on these subjects (25 percent) (see 

Exhibit 60). It was also common for districts to require some improvement efforts from all their 

schools, both identified and non-identified. For example, 36 percent of districts with identified schools 

required all of their schools to implement progress tests every few weeks to monitor student progress 

and 27 percent required all schools to adopt a new reading curriculum. An additional 14 percent and 

19 percent of districts with identified schools, respectively, required these two actions in identified 

schools only. 

Exhibit 60 

Percentage of Districts With Identified Schools Requiring Schools to Enact Various 

Improvement Efforts, 2004–05 

Required Action 

(n=289) 

Some or All 

Identified 

Schools 

Both Identified 

and NonIdentified Schools 

Action 

Not 

Required

Assign a school-site instructional specialist or coach to support 

mathematics or literacy instruction 29% 24% 42% 

Increase the amount of time spent on mathematics or reading 

instruction 25% 15% 55% 

Implement focused test preparation materials or activities 21% 16% 62% 

Adopt a new reading curriculum or instructional program 19% 27% 47% 

Administer common interim or progress tests every few weeks to 

monitor student progress 14% 36% 47% 

Adopt a new mathematics curriculum or instructional program 12% 15% 71% 

Assign a school-site instructional specialist or coach to support 

instruction for students with limited English proficiency 9% 7% 83% 

Adopt a new English language instruction program for students 

with limited English proficiency 3% 14% 83% 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-nine percent of districts with identified schools assigned a school-site mathematics 

or literacy instructional specialist or coach to some or all of these schools 

Note: Identified schools include those designated identified for improvement Year 1, Year 2, corrective action, or 

restructuring. The district survey does not differentiate among schools based on Title I status, so results refer to all 

schools not just Title I schools. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n=289 districts). 
Chapter VI 102 

Few Title I schools in restructuring status reported experiencing any of the specific 

interventions listed in the law. 

Few principals of schools in the first or second year of restructuring status reported state take-over of 

the school (9 percent), reopening of the school as a public charter school (2 percent), contracting with a 

private entity to manage the school (2 percent), or replacement of all of the school staff (2 percent).66 In 

addition to these specific interventions, the law also permits districts to make “any other major 

restructuring of the school’s governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as 

significant changes in the school’s staffing and governance,” so it is possible that schools in restructuring 

status may have experienced another kind of restructuring intervention not specifically listed in the law. 

Twenty percent of schools in restructuring status reported that a new principal had been appointed; 

similar percentages of schools in other stages of improvement status also reported this, so this may 

reflect the normal rate of turnover among principals in high-needs schools rather than a focused 

intervention. Schools in restructuring status frequently reported interventions associated with the 

“corrective action” stage of school improvement, including implementing a new research-based 

curriculum or instructional program (72 percent) or appointment of an outside expert to advise the 

school (62 percent). These results are consistent with those reported previously by Shields et al. (2004). 

It should be noted that schools in the first year of restructuring are only required to plan for one of the 

interventions which must be implemented in the second year (if the school misses AYP again). 

Fifty-four percent of the schools in restructuring status in 2004–05 were in at least their second year of 

restructuring. 

The limited use of the restructuring interventions may partly reflect the fact that restructuring is 

implemented in two stages, with schools spending a year planning for restructuring and then a year 

implementing the restructuring plan. Whatever the reason, the most significant interventions involving 

major changes to school governance and staffing were rarely used in 2004–05 even among schools in 

restructuring status. It is worth recalling that about 16 percent of schools in restructuring in 2003–04 

successfully exited restructuring in 2004–05 (Chapter 3), and in those cases, the less significant actions 

might have been successful. 

Title I schools in corrective action and restructuring experienced a greater number of interventions than 

did schools in Year 1 or Year 2 of improvement. Title I schools in corrective action and restructuring 

status experienced, on average, seven interventions during 2003–04, while schools in Year 1 or Year 2 of 

improvement status experienced about five different interventions. On average, Title I schools that were 

not identified experienced three interventions. 

Consistent with school reports, states reported that they rarely used the most serious NCLB

interventions for schools in restructuring; only two states reported using the state takeover option for 

schools in restructuring status. The most common state interventions for schools in corrective action 

were implementation of a new curriculum (33 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) and 

appointment of outside advisors (27 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), but other 

strategies also were used (see Exhibit 61). The 29 states with schools facing restructuring had no 

predominant intervention for those schools. 

 

66 The NLS-NCLB principal survey question did not exactly parallel the law on one intervention: The law gives the 

option of “replacing all or most of the school staff (which may include the principal)” who are relevant to the failure to 

make adequate yearly progress,” while the survey asked if the state or district had “replaced all of the school staff” or 

“appointed a new principal.” The survey did not include an option for “any other major restructuring of the school’s 

governance.” 
Chapter VI 103 

DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS

Although schools have received most of the 

attention under NCLB to date, growing attention 

is being paid to districts. The attention reflects 

both the fact that districts themselves are being 

identified for improvement under NCLB—and 

thus must take steps to function more 

effectively—and the fact that districts play an 

important role in helping their schools improve. 

The two are inextricably linked, and this section 

encompasses both aspects of district 

improvement. 

Efforts to improve the performance of school 

districts include: state technical assistance to 

districts, voluntary district initiatives, and 

required corrective actions for districts that 

continue to perform inadequately. In 2004–05, 

10 percent of districts (1,511 districts) were 

formally identified for improvement, and less 

than 1 percent (49 districts) were in corrective 

action status (see Chapter IV). As a result, 

corrective actions for districts (particularly the 

most serious types of interventions) were a 

relatively new and limited phenomenon. 

However, states were taking other actions to 

support district improvement and to help 

districts fulfill their roles in school improvement, 

and identified and non-identified districts were 

taking voluntary initiatives to improve their own 

performance. 

State support systems for districts 

State mechanisms for supporting identified districts were not yet fully developed. 

Systems designed to support districts identified for improvement were less well established than were 

those intended to support schools, and there was considerable variation among states in 2004–05. 

Fourteen states implemented supports designed exclusively to assist districts identified for improvement. 

In some cases the support was not extensive or was provided only at the request of districts. In nine 

other states, most state support was targeted toward districts, regardless of their improvement level. 

These states perceived the district as playing an important role in supporting schools and opted to focus 

much of their support on districts rather than schools. Another 15 states integrated into the same 

support system those schools and districts identified for improvement. In these states, a support team 

worked with schools that were identified for improvement, and their district received similar support, 

but with a slightly different focus, if the district was identified for improvement. Eleven other states had 

no districts identified for improvement and were still determining how they could best support those 

Exhibit 61 

Number of States Using Specific Corrective 

Action and Restructuring Strategies, 2004–05

 Number 

of States 

Replacement of staff 

relevant to failure to make 

AYP 

20 

Implementation of a new 

curriculum 35a

Significant decrease in 

management authority at 

the school 

17 

Appointment of an 

outside advisor 29a

Extension of the school 

year or school day 26 

Corrective 

action 

strategies 

(n=37 states with 

schools in 

corrective action 

status) 

Restructuring the internal 

organization of the school 23 

Reopening the school as 

a public charter school 4 

Replacing all or most of 

the school staff 9 

Hiring a private 

management contractor 7 

State takeover of a school 2 

Restructuring 

strategies 

(n=29 states with 

schools in 

restructuring 

status) 

Other major restructuring 

of school governance 18 

Exhibit reads: Twenty states reported replacing 

school staff relevant to the failure to make AYP as an 

intervention for schools in corrective action status. 

a Indicates that the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico 

are included. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, Accountability Interviews. 
Chapter VI 104 

that might become identified. Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, which are essentially 

single-district entities, were not included in this classification. 

Providing technical assistance for district improvement 

Types of technical assistance provided by states 

Most states provided a broad range of technical assistance to all districts. 

All responding states but one reported providing technical assistance to all districts on accountability 

system rules and requirements, and almost all reported providing assistance to some districts on a variety 

of other aspects of NCLB (see Exhibit 62). These findings reflect the NCLB requirement that all 

districts be provided with basic information about accountability rules and requirements and the 

interpretation of student achievement data (the topics addressed by the largest number of states). Some 

states provided technical assistance specifically to identified districts, most notably in developing and 

implementing district improvement plans (23 states) and providing better professional development to 

schools in the areas in which they did not make AYP (12 states). 

Exhibit 62 

Number of States Providing Technical Assistance to Districts, 

by Type of Technical Assistance, 2004–05 

 Type of Technical Assistance 

All 

Districts

All 

Identified 

Districts

Some 

Identified 

Districts 

Support 

Not 

Provided 

No 

Response

Clarify accountability system rules and requirements 40 1 0 0 11 

Analyze student assessment data 30 8 3 0 11 

Identify and implement strategies to address the needs of 

students with individualized education programs 28 6 4 2 12 

Identify and implement effective curricula, instructional 

strategies, or school reform models 26 7 4 2 13 

Develop strategies to recruit and retain more qualified 

teachers who are "highly qualified" under NCLB 22 2 2 9 17 

Identify parent involvement strategies 22 7 4 4 15 

Identify and implement strategies to address the needs of 

LEP students 19 7 7 3 16 

Improve the quality of professional development in areas 

in which schools missed AYP targets 17 12 6 1 16 

Analyze and revise budgets to use resources more 

effectively 17 8 6 6 15 

Develop and implement a district improvement plan 15 23 1 1 12 

Other support provided 5 0 0 0 47 

Exhibit reads: Forty of 41 states responding provided technical assistance to all districts to clarify 

accountability system rules and requirements; the other responding state provided such assistance to all 

identified districts. 

Note: Eleven states did not respond to this question; many respondents skipped several sub-items. Ten states did 

not have any identified districts in 2004–05. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, Accountability Interviews (n=50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). 
Chapter VI 105 

Districts’ technical assistance needs 

Districts needed technical assistance in many areas, and identified districts needed 

more assistance than non-identified districts. 

Three-quarters of all districts reported needing technical assistance regarding some aspect of NCLB

implementation in 2003–04 or 2004–05. Seventy-six percent of districts reported needing technical 

assistance on at least one of the identified topics; the median number of topics on which assistance was 

needed was two. One-quarter of the districts reported needing technical assistance on five or more of 

the ten topics. Districts’ most frequent needs related to understanding the rules and requirements of 

their states’ accountability systems, using data more effectively, and improving curriculum (see 

Exhibit 63). One-half of all districts reported needing technical assistance to clarify accountability 

system rules and regulations. Forty-two percent of all districts reported needing technical assistance in 

analyzing assessment data. 

Identified districts were more likely to need technical assistance in a variety of areas than were nonidentified districts. For example, 73 percent of identified districts reported needing technical assistance 

in analyzing student assessment data, compared with 36 percent of non-identified districts. Identified 

districts were also more likely than non-identified districts to need technical assistance in planning for 

district improvement, and in identifying and implementing effective curricula, strategies or reform 

models. 

Other demographic factors were also associated with districts’ need for technical assistance. Districts 

with high levels of poverty were more likely than districts with medium or low levels of poverty to need 

(and receive) assistance in analyzing student achievement data and involving parents; they also were more 

likely to report needing assistance in meeting the needs of students with disabilities. Small districts were 

less likely than medium or large districts to need technical assistance in meeting the needs of students 

with disabilities and LEP students, in addressing the areas in which schools did not make AYP, in 

recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers and in using resources more effectively. 

Meeting districts’ technical assistance needs 

Three-quarters of districts reported receiving the technical assistance they needed 

and reported that it met their needs. However, assistance related to students with 

disabilities and LEP students was often not sufficient to meet districts’ needs. 

For eight of the ten topics included in the survey, more than 70 percent of all districts that reported 

needing assistance received it. Districts were least likely to receive assistance for strategies to recruit and 

retain highly qualified teachers; only 59 percent of districts needing this type of assistance received it (see 

Exhibit 63). 

For seven of the ten topics, more than 70 percent of districts that needed and received assistance 

reported that the assistance met their needs. For example, 41 percent of districts reported needing 

technical assistance to identify and implement effective curricula, instructional strategies, or school 

reform models. Nearly all (93 percent) of the districts that needed such assistance received it, and 

87 percent reported that the assistance was sufficient to meet their needs. Thus, only 20 percent of 

districts needing such assistance did not have their needs met. 
Chapter VI 106 

Technical assistance was least likely to meet district needs for improving professional development in 

areas in which schools did not make AYP and in meeting the instructional needs of LEP students.67 The 

latter is consistent with school reports, which frequently indicated that assistance with respect to students 

with special needs was lacking or insufficient. 

NCLB places special emphasis on providing districts with technical assistance to improve professional 

qualifications of teachers and to meet the needs of students with disabilities and LEP students. 

Professional qualifications were the focus of many state improvement efforts with districts, including 

efforts to enhance the recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers and to improve the skills of 

current teachers through professional development. Twenty-two states reported that they provided 

technical assistance to all districts to develop strategies to recruit and retain more highly qualified 

teachers. Four others provided such technical assistance to some or all identified districts. Many states 

also provided technical assistance to all districts to improve the quality of professional development in 

areas in which schools missed their AYP targets; 17 provided technical assistance to all districts, and 

18 others provided such assistance to some or all identified districts. 

 

67 See Appendix C, Exhibits C.22 and C.23 for more details on technical assistance for Students with Disabilities and 

LEP students, respectively. 

Exhibit 63 

Percentage of Districts Needing and Receiving Mandated Technical Assistance 

and Finding It Sufficient to Meet Their Needs, 2003–04 or 2004–05 

 Type of Technical Assistance 

Needed

(n=289)

Received 

Where 

Needed 

(n=144 to 40)

Sufficient 

Where Needed 

and Received

(n=134 to 29) 

Clarify accountability system rules and requirements 50% 93%a 92%a

Analyze student assessment data to understand program strengths 

and weaknesses 42% 88% 79% 

Identify and implement effective curricula, instructional strategies, or 

school reform models 41% 91% 84% 

Identify and implement strategies to address the instructional needs 

of students with disabilities 40% 88% 65% 

Develop and implement a district improvement plan 31% 92% 89% 

Identify parental involvement strategies 24% 74% 81% 

Identify and implement strategies to address the instructional needs 

of LEP students 23% 68% 63% 

Improve the quality of professional development in areas in which 

schools did not meet AYP 18% 76% 48% 

Develop strategies to recruit and retain more teachers who are 

“highly qualified” under NCLB 17% 59%a

 82%a

Analyze and revise budget to use resources more effectively 14% 74% 79% 

Exhibit reads: Fifty percent of districts reported that they needed technical assistance to clarify 

accountability system rules and requirements; 93 percent of districts needing this type of assistance 

received it, and 92 percent of districts that received this assistance reported that it was sufficient to meet 

their needs. 

a More than 10 percent of surveys were missing responses to this item. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Chapter VI 107 

More than 80 percent of districts reported that they did not need technical assistance to improve the 

quality of their professional development in areas in which schools did not make AYP or in recruiting 

and retaining highly qualified teachers. However, of those districts that did need such assistance, only 

one-third reported that their needs were met. 

Districts also needed technical assistance to meet the needs of students with disabilities, but such 

assistance was not always provided, and when it was provided, it was not always sufficient to meet their 

needs. Thirty-eight states provided technical assistance to all or some districts to help them meet the 

needs of students with disabilities; 14 did not. Forty percent of districts reported needing technical 

assistance to help them meet the needs of students with disabilities.68 Eighty-eight percent of these 

districts received such assistance, and 65 percent of the recipients reported that it met their needs. 

However, this means that more than half of districts that needed this kind of assistance reported that 

their needs were not met. 

Thirty-three states provided technical assistance to meet the needs of LEP students. This assistance was 

often targeted to districts identified for improvement rather than all districts. Overall, only 23 percent of 

districts reported that they needed technical assistance to help them meet the needs of LEP students.69 

Of these, 69 percent received such assistance, and only 63 percent of the recipients reported that the 

assistance was sufficient to meet their needs—that is, around half of the districts that reported needing 

assistance regarding LEP students also reported that their needs were not met. 

Improvement initiatives by districts 

Almost all districts were engaged in improvement efforts. 

District improvement efforts occurred on a large scale in 2004–05; almost all districts, not just identified 

ones, were engaged in improvement activities. Most districts reported that they were engaged in one or 

more voluntary initiatives to improve their own performance. 

Identified districts implemented a number of voluntary improvement initiatives in response to being 

identified for improvement (see Exhibit 64). The majority of such districts reported that they 

implemented additional professional development for teachers (80 percent), distributed test preparation 

materials (67 percent), increased monitoring of instruction and student performance (61 percent), 

implemented additional professional development for principals (59 percent), and reallocated fiscal 

resources to target specific needs (51 percent). Fifty-four percent of identified districts took four or 

more of these actions. 

Districts in states with comprehensive or moderately comprehensive systems of support were more likely 

to undertake district-wide improvement efforts than were districts in states with limited systems of 

support. These initiatives included implementing new districtwide reading or mathematics curricula, 

distributing test preparation materials, reorganizing district staff, and providing professional 

development for principals or teachers. 

 

68 See Appendix C, Exhibit C.22. 

69 See Appendix C, Exhibit C.23. 
Chapter VI 108 

Interventions for identified districts 

As noted in Chapter IV, 10 percent of districts nationally were identified for improvement in 2004–05. 

NCLB requires that identified districts develop and implement an improvement plan containing a 

number of elements including incorporating scientifically based research strategies, spending at least 

10 percent of their Subpart 2 funds to improve professional development, and incorporating before 

school, after school and summer activities (as appropriate). The plan must include specific measurable 

achievement goals and strategies to promote effective parental involvement. In addition, states must 

provide technical assistance, if requested by the district. Most states reported providing technical 

assistance to identified districts to develop improvement plans, and many states reported providing 

assistance in other areas, as well (see Exhibit 62). 

Like schools, districts are identified for corrective action under NCLB if they continue to miss their AYP 

targets after they are identified for improvement. As is the case with schools, at least one of a series of 

stronger interventions must be implemented for districts in corrective action status. Corrective actions 

for districts are similar to but not identical to corrective actions for schools. There are no restructuring 

requirements for districts. Only 1 percent of districts in the country were in corrective action status for 

2004–05, and these were concentrated in only seven states. Four of these states indicated that their 

primary intervention for districts in corrective action was requiring the adoption of a standards-based 

curriculum; personnel or governance changes were rarely, if ever, required. Consistent with these reports 

from states, fewer than 10 percent of identified districts reported that they were required to take any 

corrective actions (see Exhibit 65), and the most common action was implementing a new curriculum 

based on state standards. 

Exhibit 64 

Percentage of Identified Districts Implementing Various Initiatives in 

Response to Being Identified for Improvement, 2004–05 

Focus of Voluntary District Improvement Initiatives 

Percentage of 

Districts 

(n=75)

Offered/required specific professional development for teachers 80% 

Distributed test preparation materials to some or all schools 67% 

Increased district monitoring of instruction and student performance at school sites 61% 

Offered/required specific professional development for principals 59% 

Reallocated fiscal resources to target specific needs (e.g., particular groups of students, 

subjects, or schools) 51% 

Implemented a districtwide curriculum in reading 39% 

Developed or revised district content standards 24% 

Reorganized district office staff to increase efficiency or focus on instruction 23% 

Implemented a districtwide curriculum in mathematics 17% 

Changed the budget allocation formula for schools 10% 

Hired a consultant to advise district administrators on effective strategies 11% 

Created smaller schools, or schools-within-schools 11% 

Implemented new personnel procedures for hiring or assigning principals and teachers 8% 

Exhibit reads: Eighty percent of identified districts reported that they offered or required specific 

professional development for teachers in response to being identified for improvement. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Chapter VI 109 

DISCUSSION 

In the NCLB accountability system, the responsibility for improving school performance is shared by 

states, districts, and schools. By 2004–05, all states established systems of support for school 

improvement that served all or some of their identified schools. States commonly employed support 

teams and distinguished educators to work with identified schools; however, there was considerable 

variation in the comprehensiveness of support systems across states. 

A wide range of improvement efforts occurred at the school and district levels in 2004–05, though 

activities among schools were more extensive than among districts. Almost all schools—not just 

identified schools—were engaged in improvement efforts, including seeking and receiving technical 

assistance and implementing locally initiatives involving curriculum, assessment, and other activities. 

Schools reported needing technical assistance in a dozen different areas, with identified schools reporting 

a greater need for such assistance than non-identified schools. Needed technical assistance was available 

to most schools from state, district, or other sources, and for the most part, schools were satisfied with 

the assistance they received. Districts reported making their support services widely available. Most 

districts provide technical assistance to all of their schools, but principals in identified schools reported 

receiving more hours of technical assistance from their districts than did principals in non-identified 

schools. The greatest unmet needs for technical assistance were in the areas of engaging parents in their 

children’s education and addressing the instructional needs of students with disabilities and LEP 

students. 

Identified schools reported undertaking more of their own improvement initiatives than did nonidentified schools, but all schools were engaged in improvement reforms in 2004–05. These school 

improvement initiatives focused on curriculum, assessment, instructional time, and other areas. Most 

schools reported having access to and using tests results to guide their school improvement activities. 

Use of periodic “progress” tests was also widespread, and teachers who administered such tests reported 

using them in a variety of ways to improve student performance. 

Exhibit 65 

Percentage of Identified Districts Experiencing State Interventions 

Mandated for Districts in Corrective Action, 2004–05 

Actions Required for Districts in Corrective Action 

Percentage of 

Identified Districts 

(n=75)

Implemented a new curriculum based on state standards 7% 

Authorized students to transfer from district schools to higher-performing schools in a 

neighboring district 4% 

Replaced district personnel who are relevant to the failure to make adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) 0% 

Removed one or more schools from the jurisdiction of the district 2% 

Appointed a receiver or trustee to administer the affairs of the district 2% 

Required restructuring of the district 0% 

Exhibit reads: Seven percent of identified districts were required by their state education agency to 

implement a new curriculum based on state standards. 

Note: About one in ten identified districts was in corrective action and was required to experience one or more of 

these actions. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Chapter VI 110 

Identified schools were subject to interventions from states and districts in 2004–05, as required by 

NCLB. Although most states and districts enacted NCLB-required interventions in identified schools, 

they generally did not apply the most intensive interventions and the most restrictive interventions, such 

as changing governance structures or replacing large numbers of staff, to schools in corrective action and 

restructuring. States and districts did not always provide basic resources to schools; about one-third of 

teachers in schools identified for improvement reported lacking adequate numbers of textbooks and 

instructional materials. 

Most states offered a wide range of technical assistance to districts. Like schools, districts reported 

needing technical assistance in many areas. Most reported receiving the assistance they needed and were 

satisfied that it met their needs. The greatest unmet need was for help in identifying and implementing 

strategies to meet the needs of students with disabilities and LEP students. Districts, particularly 

identified districts, were engaged in their own improvement initiatives. About half of the states provided 

identified districts with technical assistance to develop improvement plans. 
Conclusions 111 

CONCLUSIONS 

The evaluation studies reported on here were designed to answer four main questions about the 

implementation of state accountability systems under NCLB. The four questions and brief summaries of 

the study results are as follows: 

1. How have states implemented the standards, assessments, and accountability provisions of 

Titles I and III of NCLB ? 

By 2004–05, states had enacted accountability systems that were largely consistent with NCLB

requirements. All states had established standards in reading and mathematics (required at the law’s 

outset), and most had grade-by-grade expectations to be met by 2005–06. All had selected the other 

academic indicators and defined participation rates, baseline scores, and annual measurable objectives as 

required for AYP determination beginning in 2002–03. 

States were also developing and implementing required testing in advance of the 2005–06 baseline. Over 

half of the states (29) had instituted yearly testing in grades 3–8, and nearly all had high school 

assessments intended to meet NCLB testing requirements. Twenty-three states had not yet implemented 

reading and mathematics assessments in all the grades that will be required in 2005–06. These 23 states 

thus lacked the necessary data on which to set performance standards for all of these grades. 

Implementation was slowest in areas in which states had the least experience, particularly the 

requirements relating to measuring English language proficiency (Title III). NCLB required states to 

have English language proficiency (ELP) standards and assessments in place in 2002–03. By 2004–05, 

41 states had adopted ELP standards, but only 20 states reported having ELP assessments that met 

NCLB requirements. 

To create their accountability systems, many states expanded their data systems and increased their 

technical capacity. Some states now have data systems that go beyond the requirements of NCLB and 

include longitudinal data on student achievement. 

2. How are districts and schools performing with respect to making adequate yearly progress 

(AYP)? What are the reasons for not making AYP? Are there common characteristics among 

districts and schools identified for improvement? 

In 2004–05, three-quarters of schools and districts made adequate yearly progress. The remainder—a 

full 25 percent of the nation’s schools—did not. Half of the schools that missed their AYP targets did 

so because large numbers of their students performed below the proficiency levels set by the states. 

That is, most schools that did not make AYP did not do so not only on the basis of participation rates, 

the other indicator, or the performance of one subgroup of students. In the 23 percent of schools that 

did not make AYP because of the performance of a single subgroup of students, the subgroups that 

were least likely to meet AYP targets were students with disabilities, LEP students and African-American 

students. Overall, the schools that did not make AYP in 2003–04 were most likely to be the traditionally 

low-performing, low-income, diverse, large urban schools to which Title I has historically directed 

substantial funds. 

More than one in every ten schools was identified for improvement in 2004–05. This represents an 

increase over previous years, placing greater demands on states and districts to implement improvement 

activities. Schools and districts with high concentrations of low-income students or many student 

subgroups were the most likely to be identified. The level at which proficiency was set also affected 

school identification-for-improvement rates. More schools were identified in states with relatively high 
Conclusions 112 

standards for proficiency, as referenced to performance on the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress. 

3. How is information about NCLB, AYP, and identification for improvement communicated to 

stakeholders, and how well do district and school staff understand the status of their districts 

and schools? 

States and districts provided “report cards” to parents, teachers, and administrators that included most 

required data on assessment results, accountability, graduation rates, and teacher quality. State and 

district reports available via the Internet were difficult to find, and student reports that were sent directly 

to parents were often hard to understand. Timeliness of reporting remained a challenge for states: 

About half of schools were officially notified of their identification status after the beginning of the 

school year. For the most part, principals were aware of their school’s improvement status under 

NCLB, but one-third or more of teachers were not, suggesting that accountability information did not 

yet permeate all layers of the school staff. 

4. What efforts are made to improve district and school performance, including state support 

systems, mandated interventions, technical assistance, and local initiatives? 

Most states established systems of support for districts and schools, and most districts provided 

technical assistance to schools on a range of topics. Both schools and districts reported that they needed 

technical assistance in many areas and, for the most part, that they received appropriate assistance and 

were satisfied that it met their needs. Identified schools reported needing and receiving more technical 

assistance and undertaking more improvement initiatives than did non-identified schools. Although 

most states and districts enacted NCLB-required interventions in identified schools, they generally did 

not apply the most serious interventions, such as changing governance structures or replacing large 

numbers of staff, to schools in corrective action and restructuring. 

Schools’ own improvement efforts focused on curriculum, the use of assessment results, and other 

topics. Most teachers had access to materials to help them align curriculum and instruction to state 

standards, but one-third or more of teachers in identified schools reported lacking an adequate number 

of textbooks and instructional materials. Schools use state test results for many instructional purposes, 

and the use of additional periodic testing for instructional improvement is becoming widespread among 

identified and non-identified schools. Improvement efforts at the district level were less extensive and 

less developed than those at the school level. 

Overall, the findings paint a picture of considerable activity and rapid implementation; states are 

generally complying with NCLB’s immediate accountability requirements. The findings also identify 

areas in which limited implementation and information present challenges to achieving the goal of 

proficiency for every student in reading and mathematics by 2014. 

The numbers and percentages of identified schools and districts varied considerably across 

states, in part due to differences in state standards, assessments, and AYP targets. The flexibility 

in the law was designed to allow states to build systems that were responsive to local conditions. 

However, this flexibility has allowed states to establish academic standards and student performance 

criteria that require significantly different levels of student achievement. In some states, nearly all 

schools made AYP in 2003–04, while in others, a large proportion did not. Similarly, some states 

identified less than two percent of schools and districts for improvement for 2004–05, while other states 

identified more than 68 percent. 
Conclusions 113 

Some states still struggle to deliver information on school status in a timely manner. In 2004–05, 

a number of states did not provide information on school AYP and improvement status before the start 

of the school year. Nonetheless, having the information before the start of the school year is critical if 

schools are to develop effective strategies to address academic challenges and if parents are to have time 

to consider their choices. Principals’ knowledge of their respective school’s status under NCLB was less 

than universal, particularly in the schools that would benefit most from this information (i.e. those 

identified for improvement). Many teachers in identified schools were also unaware of their school’s 

status under NCLB, although the rates of awareness were even lower among their peers in non-identified 

schools. 

Some states and districts still struggle to provide basic resources to schools. One-third of 

teachers in identified schools reported that they did not have an adequate number of textbooks and 

instructional materials.

The increasing number of schools and districts identified for improvement presents challenges 

to state and district support systems. Many identified schools improved sufficiently to exit 

improvement status. However, increasing numbers of schools and districts were being identified for 

improvement. In addition, 27 states adopted annual measurable objectives that have a “delayed 

acceleration" pattern in which 33 percent of the expected growth is to occur in the first six years and 

67 percent is to occur in the second six years. These states will have to achieve even greater growth in 

student performance in the future than in the past. 

Little is known about the quality of local improvement efforts or the effectiveness of state and 

district technical assistance, and interventions. The issue is perhaps greater for districts that have to 

choose among alternative interventions for schools placed in corrective actions or restructuring. To 

date, they have chosen the options that are less serious, but they may be facing harder choices in the 

future, and at present there is limited evidence to guide them. Most schools received the technical 

assistance they needed and reported that it met their needs. However, a number of schools reported that 

they did not receive sufficient technical assistance in some areas (for example, students with disabilities 

or students with limited English proficiency). In addition, there is little information about the quality 

and effectiveness of technical assistance, even when principals reported receiving assistance and being 

satisfied that it met their needs. 

In summary, states, districts and schools have engaged in a high level of activity and have largely met the 

NCLB accountability system requirements through 2004–05. 

References 115 

REFERENCES 

Bitter, C., Perez, M., Parrish, T., Gonzalez, R., Socias, M., Salzfass, L., Chaney, K., Gubbins, P., Anand, 

P., Dawson, K., Yu, V., Delancey, D., and Esra, P. (2005). Evaluation Study of the Immediate 

Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. Palo Alto, 

Calif.: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from http://www.air.org/ 

publications/documents/IIUSP%20Report%20FINAL%209-30-05.pdf; Appendices from 

http://www.air.org/publications/documents/IIUSP%20Report%20Appendix%20FINAL%209

-30-05.pdf. 

Center on Education Policy (CEP) (2005a). From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 3 of the No Child Left 

Behind Act. Washington, D.C. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from http://www.cep-dc.org/pubs/ 

NCLBy3/press/cep-NCLBy3_21Mar2005.pdf; Errata from http://www.cep-dc.org/pubs/ 

NCLBy3/press/NCLBy3_errata_10.21.05.pdf. 

Center on Education Policy (CEP) (2005b). Identifying School Districts for Improvement and Corrective Action: 

Under the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, D.C. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from 

http://www.cep-dc.org/NCLB/identifying_school_districts.pdf. 

Center on Education Policy (2006). From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind

Act. Washington, D.C. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from http://www.cep-dc.org/NCLB/Year4/ 

CEP-NCLB-Report-4.pdf. 

Clapper, A. T., Morse, A. B., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., and Thurlow, M. L. (2005). 2003 State 

Policies on Assessment Participation and Accommodations for Students with Disabilities (Synthesis Report 

56) [Electronic version]. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, National Center on 

Educational Outcomes. Retrieved July 28, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/ 

OnlinePubs/Synthesis56.html. 

Coladarci, T. (2003). Gallup Goes to School: The Importance of Confidence Intervals for Evaluating “Adequate 

Yearly Progress” in Small Schools. Policy Brief. Washington, D.C.: Rural School and Community 

Trust. 

Erpenbach, W. J., and Forte, E. (2005). Statewide Educational Accountability Under the No Child Left Behind

Act—A Report on 2005 Amendments to State Plans. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State 

School Officers (CCSSO). Retrieved May 31, 2006, from http://www.ccsso.org/Publications/ 

Download.cfm?Filename=2005 Statewide Educ Acct Under the NCLB Act - FINAL.pdf. 

Erpenbach, W. J., Forte-Fast, E., and Potts, A. (2003). Statewide Educational Accountability Under NCLB: 

Central Issues Arising from an Examination of State Accountability Workbooks and U.S. Department of 

Education Reviews Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, D.C.: Council of 

Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Retrieved May 31, 2006, from http://www.ccsso.org/ 

content/pdfs/StatewideEducationalAccountabilityUnderNCLB.pdf. 

GAO—see U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

Goertz, M. E., and Duffy, M. (with LeFloch, K. C.) (2001). Assessment and Accountability in the 50 States, 

1999–2000. CPRE Research Report RR-046. Philadelphia, Pa.: Consortium for Policy Research 

in Education. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from http://www.cpre.org/Publications/ rr46.pdf. 
References 116 

Hill, R. (2002). Examining the Reliability of Accountability Systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of 

the American Educational Research Association, April 2002, New Orleans, La. 

Hoff, D.J. (2004). “Accountability Conflicts Vex Schools.” Education Week, 23 (26), 1. 

Linn, R. L. (2005). “Conflicting Demands of No Child Left Behind and State Systems: Mixed Messages 

About School Performance.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(33). Retrieved May 31, 2006, 

from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n33/. 

McLaughlin, D., Bandeira de Mello, V., Blankenship, C., Chaney, K., Hikawa, H., Willliam, P., and 

Wolman, M. (2005). Comparison Between NAEP and State Reading Assessment Results: 2003. 

Manuscript in preparation. 

McLaughlin, D., Bandeira de Mello, V., Blankenship, C., Chaney, K., Hikawa, H., Rojas, D., William, P., 

and Wolman, M. (2007). Comparison Between NAEP and State Mathematics Assessment Results: 2003 

(NCES 2007-471). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for 

Education Statistics. 

Mitzel, H. C. (2005). Consistency for State Achievement Standards Under NCLB. Washington, D.C.: Council 

of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). 

Novak, J. R., and Fuller, B. (2003). Penalizing Diverse Schools? Policy Brief 03-4. Berkeley, Calif.: Policy 

Analysis for California Education. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from http://pace.berkeley.edu 

/policy_brief_03-4_Pen.Div.pdf. 

O’Day, J. (with Gross, B.) (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. Retrieved 

May 31, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/onesystem/1system2.pdf. 

Padilla, C., Skolnik, H., Lopez-Torkos, A., Woodworth, K., Lash, A., Shields, P. M., Laguarda, K. G., 

and David, J. L. (2006). Title I Accountability and School Improvement from 2001 to 2004. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program 

Studies Service. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/ 

tassie3/tassie3.pdf. 

Porter, A. C., Linn, R. L., and Trimble, C.S. (2005). “The Effects of State Decisions About NCLB

Adequate Yearly Progress Targets.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 24(4), 32-39. 

Shields, P. M., Esch, C., Lash, A., Padilla, C., Woodworth, K., Laguarda, K. G., and Winter, N. (2004). 

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

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and 

Program Studies Service. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/ 

disadv/tassie1/tassie-short.pdf. 

Stullich, S., Eisner, E., McCrary, J., and Roney, C. (2006). National Assessment of Title I Interim Report to 

Congress: Volume I: Implementation of Title I. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 

Institute of Education Sciences. 

U.S. Department of Education (2003). Part II: Final Non-Regulatory Guidance on the Title III State Formula 

Grant Program—Standards, Assessments and Accountability. Washington, D.C. Retrieved July 5, 

2005, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaguidance03.doc.
References 117 

U.S. Department of Education (2005a). Standards and Assessments: Non-Regulatory Guidance. Washington, 

D.C. Retrieved July 5, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/nfdp/NRG1.2.25.03.doc. 

U.S. Department of Education (2005b). Letter to Title III State Directors. Washington, D.C.: Office of 

English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited 

English Proficient Students. 

U.S. Department of Education (2005c). Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement 

Efforts: 2002–03 Findings. Washington, D.C.: Policy and Program Studies Service. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office (2004). No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide 

Additional Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School Choice Provision. Report to 

the Secretary of Education. GAO-05-7. Washington, D.C. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d057.pdf. 

Appendix A 119 

APPENDIX A. 

DESCRIPTION OF NLS-NCLB AND SSI-NCLB METHODOLOGIES 

The purpose of the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and the Study of 

State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Provisions Under NCLB (SSI-NCLB) is to 

provide an integrated longitudinal evaluation of the implementation of No Child Left Behind by states, 

districts and schools, focusing primarily on NCLB provisions in the following four areas: accountability, 

teacher quality, parental choice and supplemental educational services, and targeting and resource 

allocation. 

Data collection for the NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB was coordinated to ensure coverage of the same set 

of questions as well as questions pertinent to the state, district and school levels. Taken together, the 

linked dataset on state policies, district policies, school strategies, teacher qualifications, parental choice 

activities, provision of supplemental services, resource allocation, and student achievement that was 

developed provides a unique resource for understanding the implementation of the key provisions of 

No Child Left Behind, including the provisions governing Title I and non–Title I schools. 

Sample and Response Rates 

The nationally representative sample selected for the NLS-NCLB includes 300 districts. The sampling 

frame included all districts with at least one public, regular school in the 2001 National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) school database. The sample was selected 

using a probability proportional to size (PPS) scheme, in which the measure of size was district 

enrollment; 36 very large districts were selected with certainty. In order to ensure sufficient sample sizes 

of schools identified for improvement under Title I, the study over-sampled high-poverty districts, 

defined as those in the highest poverty quartile. District poverty quartiles were based on Census Bureau 

estimates of the number of school-age children and poor children living in each district (2002 Small Area 

Income and Poverty Estimates). The poverty quartiles were created by ranking all districts by the 

percentage of poor school-age children and then dividing these districts into quartiles that each contains 

25 percent of the school-age children. 

The school sample included 1,483 schools randomly sampled randomly from strata within sampled 

districts. Title I schools, high-poverty schools and elementary schools with Comprehensive School 

Reform (CSR) programs were over-sampled. Schools’ Title I status and the percentage of students 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunches were taken from the CCD maintained by the NCES. The 

eligibility threshold for the National School Lunch Program is lower than the official poverty definition. 

Elementary CSR schools were identified through the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 

database on CSR schools. The sample of schools was designed so that, on average, two non-CSR 

schools, one CSR school, one middle school, and one high school were selected from each district. 

The teacher sample included approximately seven teachers per school (six classroom teachers and one 

special education teacher). School staff rosters were collected and divided into teacher strata by grade 

level taught; a stratum of Title I paraprofessionals was also created. After school rosters were stratified, 

independent random sampling took place within each stratum. At the elementary level, one teacher was 

selected per grade. At the secondary level, about three math teachers and three English teachers were 

selected per school. One Title I paraprofessional was selected from each Title I school. The resulting 

sample included a total of 8,791 classroom teachers (including 4,772 elementary teachers, 
Appendix A 120 

2,081 secondary English teachers, and 1,938 secondary mathematics teachers), 1,408 special education 

teachers, and 950 paraprofessionals. 

Of the 300 districts in the sample, all but three agreed to participate in the study. These three districts 

were replaced: Of the participating districts in the sample, 289 responded by returning completed surveys 

yielding a response rate of 96 percent (see Exhibit A.1). Of the 1,483 schools in the sample, 36 refused 

to participate and were replaced. The response rate for principal surveys in sampled schools was 

89 percent. Among teachers, response rates were highest for elementary teachers at 86 percent, while 

English and mathematics teachers responded at a rate of 82 percent. 

Exhibit A.1 

Sample Sizes and Response Rates for NLS-NCLB Surveys 

 Sample Size Responses Response Rate 

Districts 300 289 96% 

Schools 1,483 1,315 89% 

Elementary Teachers 4,772 4,089 86% 

English Teachers 2,081 1,707 82% 

Mathematics Teachers 1,938 1,598 82% 

Special Education Teachers 1,408 1,191 85% 

Paraprofessionals 950 828 87% 

Exhibit A.2 presents characteristics of the district and school samples compared with the universe of 

districts and schools based on CCD data. As intended, the sample contains higher proportions of 

high-poverty districts and schools compared with those of the universe of districts and schools. 

In addition, a subsample of nine large urban districts was selected in which to survey parents. The 

districts were selected based on a combination of factors. The districts had to have sufficient numbers 

of children eligible for school choice and supplemental services and the data systems in the districts had 

to include student-level data on eligibility and participation in choice options as well as achievement 

scores. 

A stratified simple random sample of about 400 parents was selected from each of the eight districts. 

Within each district, four sampling strata were created for use in sampling parents (one district did not 

provide the data needed to select a parent sample). The four strata included parents of children who 

transferred under NCLB, received supplemental services, were eligible to transfer or receive 

supplemental services but chose not to participate, and children who were in schools not identified for 

improvement. Sample sizes of 100 were randomly selected with equal probabilities from each of the 

four strata within each district. Districts generally fell short of the 100 sample size within the transfers 

stratum, and thus the total sample sizes were generally under 400. One district did not distinguish 

transfers under NCLB from other transfers in their district and thus had a sample equally distributed 

within strata 2, 3, and 4. A total of 3,094 parents were sampled and 1,866 completed surveys for a 

response rate of 61 percent. 

In the above 9 districts, plus 16 additional districts, randomly selected from the study sample of districts, 

various documents were collected, including district improvement plans, district report cards, parental 

choice notification letters, and school improvement plans for selected schools. All of these districts 

cooperated with the document collection activities. 
Appendix A 121 

Exhibit A.2 

Characteristics of NLS-NCLB District and School Sample 

Compared With the Universe of Districts and Schools 

Sample Universe 

Number Percentage Number Percentage 

Districts, by Poverty Quartile (Census poverty) 300 14,972 

 Highest poverty quartile 163 54% 3,743 25% 

 Second-highest poverty quartile 41 14% 3,743 25% 

 Second-lowest poverty quartile 50 17% 3,743 25% 

 Lowest-poverty quartile 46 15% 3,743 25% 

Schools, By Poverty Level 1,502 83,298 

 75-100% eligible for free or reduced price lunches 596 40% 11,282 13% 

 50-74% eligible for free or reduced price lunches 363 24% 15,461 19% 

 35-49% eligible for free or reduced price lunches 106 7% 12,844 15% 

 <35% eligible for free or reduced price lunches 291 19% 33,884 41% 

 Missing 146 10% 9,827 12% 

Schools, by Title I Status 1,502 83,298 

 Title I 1,163 77% 46,048 55% 

 Non–Title I 259 17% 31,312 38% 

 Missing 80 5% 5,938 7% 

Schools, by Grade Level 1,502 83,298 

 Elementary 906 60% 50,597 61% 

 Middle 298 20% 15,700 19% 

 High 298 20% 17,001 20% 

Item non-response was generally very low. That is, respondents tended to answer all questions in the 

surveys. Survey items with item non-response rates greater than 10 percent are generally not included in 

the report. When items with high non-response are reported, the non-response rate is reported and 

discussed in the text. 

Item-level imputations for missing data were made only in one instance. Missing data were imputed for 

principal survey data on the total number of elementary classroom teachers and secondary classes, which 

were used as denominators for calculating the percentage of elementary teachers who were considered 

highly qualified under NCLB and the percentage of secondary classes that were taught by highly qualified 

teachers, respectively (presented in the teacher quality report). Out of 930 elementary school principals, 

18 did not answer the survey item asking about the total number of classroom teachers at their schools, 

and 36 out of 385 secondary school principals did not answer the survey item about the total number of 

class sections. Data for elementary classroom teachers were imputed by taking the student-to-teacher 

ratios for the principals who answered the item and then fitting a regression model onto this ratio using 

the total number of students enrolled and the school poverty level as the predictors. Using the 

regression coefficients, the predicted student-teacher ratio was computed for each of the 18 schools and 

then converted to the estimated number of classroom teachers in the school. Data on the total number 

of secondary class sections were imputed in a similar manner. There were two elementary school 

principals and five secondary school principals whose values could not be imputed due to missing values 

in the predictor variables. 

The interview sample for the SSI-NCLB was straightforward and included all 50 states plus the District 

of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The response rate for all four types of interviews (accountability, teacher 

quality, supplemental educational services, and Title III) was 100 percent. However, responses for some 
Appendix A 122 

specific variables were occasionally less than 100 percent, such as if participants did not respond to an 

interview question, or if data were absent from state documentation. 

Data Collection 

NLS-NCLB data used in this report were gathered using instruments that included mail surveys of 

district federal program coordinators, school principals, classroom teachers and Title I paraprofessionals 

and parents; survey administration began in October 2004 and was completed in March 2005. A 

second wave of data collection will be conducted during the 2006–07 school year. Topics covered in the 

survey questionnaires included accountability systems, AYP and the identification of schools and 

districts for improvement, technical assistance, improvement strategies, the use of assessment results, 

Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, teacher quality, and professional 

development. 

In addition, the NLS-NCLB gathered pertinent documents (including school improvement plans, school 

report cards, and parental notifications required under NCLB). Also, student achievement data were 

collected and surveys of supplemental service providers were conducted in a subsample of districts, 

although these data are not included in this report. 

The SSI-NCLB relied on interviews with state education officials and extant data. Interviews were 

conducted between September 2004 and February 2005 with state officials who had primary 

responsibility for accountability, teacher quality, supplemental educational services, and Title III 

implementation. A second wave of interviews will be conducted in the 2006–07 school year. The 

interview protocols addressed topics including assessments, AYP definitions, state support for schools 

identified for improvement, interventions for schools in corrective action and restructuring, state data 

systems, state definitions of highly qualified teachers, professional development, technical assistance for 

teacher quality, the monitoring of supplemental educational service providers, and state approaches to 

the implementation of NCLB provisions related to English language proficiency. Each interview 

included a short section of survey questions to which state officials responded in writing (these were 

referred to as “Introductory Materials”) and also included a document request, if applicable. 

States are required to submit much documentation to the U.S. Department of Education, and the SSINCLB collected documents such as the Consolidated State Applications under NCLB (primarily the 

state accountability workbooks) as well as the annual Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs). 

In addition, state education agency Web sites were an important source of data on topics including 

Highly Objective Uniform State Standards Evaluation (HOUSSE) policies, assessment systems, and 

technical assistance. 

A national database of the 2003–04 AYP status of all schools and of schools identified for improvement 

in 2004–05 was created from data on state education agency Web sites and the CSPRs. In some cases, 

state education officials provided the necessary data files, which were requested during the interview 

process. The resulting database contains 88,160 schools (including both Title I and non–Title I schools) 

in 50 states and the District of Columbia. It does not include 2,529 schools for which states reported 

AYP as “not determined,” and about 4,000 schools that were not included in state-provided data files or 

Web sites. 

Sample Weights for NLS-NCLB Survey Data 

Survey data were weighted to adjust for differences between the composition of the sample and the 

composition of the population of interest. These differences arose partly by design—for example, 
Appendix A 123 

differential sampling rates for high- and low-poverty districts. However, differences between the 

composition of the sample and that of the population also arose because of differences in cooperation 

rates. Not every district, school or teacher agreed to participate in the survey, and members of some 

groups cooperated at higher rates than members of other groups. Differences between the composition 

of the sample and that of the universe may also arise because of various forms of under-coverage. 

Weights were used to compensate for all of these differences between samples and populations. 

Two sets of weights were created for districts and schools: A weights and B weights. The A weights 

were used to compute enrollment weighted estimates (i.e., the percentage of students enrolled in districts 

or schools that have specific features); the B weights were used to compute estimates of the percentage 

of districts or schools. The calculation methods for the sets of weights for districts, schools and teachers 

are described below. 

District Weights 

1. Base weights were computed as the reciprocal of the inclusion probability, corresponding to the 

original sample of 300. The frame included all districts with at least one public, regular school in 

the 2001 NCES CCD school database. The sample was selected using a probability proportional 

to size (PPS) scheme, in which the measure of size was district enrollment; however, 36 very 

large districts were selected with certainty. 

2. After the substitution of three non-cooperating districts, revised base weights corresponding to 

the expanded sample of 303 districts were computed. 

3. Non-cooperation-adjusted weights were computed. Because there were only three noncooperating districts, response rates approached 100 percent. The non-cooperating cells were 

defined by crossing district certainty status (certainty, non-certainty) by region (Northeast, 

Midwest, South, West) and poverty status (high, low). As all certainty districts responded, no 

non-response adjustment was made to them. 

4. A second adjustment was made for nonresponse, accounting for 11 cooperating districts that did 

not complete and return the district questionnaire. Similar to the noncooperation adjustment in 

Step 3, response rates approached 100 percent. The non-responding cells were defined by 

crossing district certainty status (certainty, non-certainty) by region (Northeast, Midwest, South, 

West) and poverty status (high, low). As all certainty districts responded, no non-response 

adjustment was made to them. 

5. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to four district outlier weights. 

6. The weights were raked to district totals on three dimensions: district size (four categories), 

region by poverty strata (eight categories), and Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three categories). 

With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after six iterations. It should be 

noted that raking of district weights was applied only to the non-certainty districts. The certainty 

districts maintained their original final weights as described above. 

7. Three districts had a raked weight under 1.00. The raked weight was reset to 1.00 for these 

three districts to produce the final raked B-weights for districts. 

8. The final raked weights were then multiplied by district enrollment. 
Appendix A 124 

9. Finally, those weights were raked to enrollment totals on three dimensions: district size 

(four categories), region by poverty strata (eight categories), and Metropolitan Status Code 2001 

(three categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after 

eight iterations. These raked weights are the final raked district A-weights. 

School Weights 

1. School weights began with the Step 3 district weights. 

2. The conditional school base weight was computed as the reciprocal of the school inclusion 

probability after allowing for replacement schools, mergers, splits, and any other status changes. 

3. School base weights were computed by multiplying the district weights (Step 1) by the Step 2 

school conditional weights. 

4. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to four outliers. 

5. The conditional school base weight was computed as the reciprocal of the school inclusion 

probability after allowing for replacement schools, mergers, splits, and any other status changes. 

6. The school base weight was computed by multiplying the Step 4 school weights by the Step 5 

school conditional weights. 

7. Schools that were closed were given a weight of zero. 

8. A nonresponse adjustment was made to the weights for the remaining (open) schools, 

accounting for non-cooperating schools. 

9. Using the non-cooperating-adjusted school weight from Step 8, a second non-response 

adjustment was made for open schools, accounting for 168 missing principal questionnaires. 

10. A Winsorization adjustment was made for seven extreme school weights. The result is called the 

preliminary B-weights. 

11. These weights were raked to school totals on four dimensions: school size (four categories), 

region by poverty strata (eight categories), Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three categories), and 

school type (four categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after 

seven iterations. The result is called the preliminary raked B-weight. 

12. Within the smallest school size category (less than 400 students enrolled), two cases had weights 

Winsorized. The result is called outlier-adjusted raked B-weight. 

13. Finally, ten schools had a raked weight under 1.00. They were reset to 1.00, while the rest of the 

school sample maintained its weights from Step 11. The result is the final raked school Bweights. 

14. These raked B-weights were multiplied by school enrollment (obtained from the school-level 

CCD file). 

15. A Winsorization adjustment was made for seven extreme weights. The result is the preliminary 

A-weights. 
Appendix A 125 

16. Finally, these weights were raked to school enrollment on four dimensions: school size 

(four categories), region by poverty strata (eight categories), Metropolitan Status Code 2001 

(three categories), and school type (four categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, 

convergence was satisfied after eight iterations. The resulting weights are the final raked school 

A-weights. 

Teacher Weights 

1. Teacher weights began with Step 8 school weights. 

2. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to seven extreme school weights within size categories. 

3. Those weights were then raked to school totals on four dimensions: school size (four categories), 

region by poverty strata (eight categories), Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three categories), and 

school type (four categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after 

six iterations. 

4. Within the smallest school size category (less than 400 students enrolled), two cases had weights 

Winsorized. 

5. Finally, 15 schools had a raked weight under 1.00. These weights were reset to 1.00, while the 

rest of the school sample maintained the weight from Step 4. 

6. The conditional teacher base weight was computed as the reciprocal of the teacher probability of 

selection. 

7. The teacher base weight was calculated by multiplying the Step 5 weight by the Step 6 

conditional weight. 

8. Teachers determined to be ineligible or out of scope (assuming no permanent replacement 

teacher was available) were given a weight of zero. 

9. A nonresponse adjustment was made for teachers who refused to complete the questionnaire 

and a proportion of the teachers with unknown eligibility. Nonresponse-adjustment cells were 

defined by crossing region by poverty stratum (eight categories) by teacher stratum 

(14 categories), and with the collapsing of a few small cells (those with fewer than 30 cases). The 

collapsing of small cells involved cells for sixth-grade classroom teachers, seventh- and eighthgrade mathematics teachers, and seventh- and eighth-grade English teachers. 

10. The nonresponse-adjusted weights were then outlier-adjusted. Outliers were defined to be any 

weights that were at or above the 99.5 percentile within the non-response-adjustment cell. 

Fifty-one outliers were flagged and Winsorized. 

Standard Errors 

The calculation of standard errors were adjusted for the complex sampling design using SAS statistical 

software that makes use of the Taylor expansion method for calculating standard errors. 

The standard errors provide an indicator of the reliability of each estimate. For example, if all possible 

samples of the same size were surveyed under identical conditions, an interval calculated by adding and 
Appendix A 126 

subtracting 1.96 times the standard error from a particular estimate would include the population value 

in approximately 95 percent of the samples. 

Statistical Tests and Modeling 

NLS-NCLB survey data 

Standard errors for means, ratios, and proportions were estimated using the Taylor expansion method to 

adjust for the complex sampling designs of the various datasets. 

All comparisons between groups discussed in the text, as well as comparisons over time, have been 

tested for statistical significance, using a significance level of 0.05. The significance level or alpha reflects 

the probability that a difference between groups as large as the one observed could arise simply due to 

sampling variation, if there were no true difference between groups in the population. 

Differences between means or ratios were tested b y calculating a t-statistic based on the following 

formula:

1 2

2 2

1 2

x x

t

SE SE

− = +

where 1 x and 2 x are the estimated means or ratios being compared and SE1 and SE2 are their 

corresponding standard errors. The t value was then compared with the critical value for an alpha level 

of 0.05, which was set at 2.0. Differences between proportions were tested using a design-adjusted 

chi-square statistic. 

When more than two groups were compared (for example, high, medium, and low poverty districts), 

comparisons were conducted separately for each pair of groups (for example, high vs medium poverty 

districts, medium vs low poverty districts, and high vs low poverty districts). 

Multivariate Analysis 

A multivariate logistic model was used to measure the net effect of different variables on an outcome, 

such as the designation of a school as being in need of improvement (that is, the effect of a particular 

factor on that outcome), while controlling for the effects of other variables. Empirically, the outcome is 

summarized by a dichotomous dependent variable. 

The logistic regression model is an appropriate choice for the functional form, since it restricts the value 

of the predicted probability to between 0 and 1. The model relates the occurrence of an event for the 

i th case, Yi , to a vector of characteristics for that case, Xi . 

( ) 0

( = 1 ) 1/(1 ) jXij P EY X e i ii

− +Σ β β = ⏐= +

where 

Pi = probability of occurrence of an outcome for case i , 

Xij = values of the explanatory variable j for case i , 

β j = estimated coefficients for the Xj , and

β 0= estimated constant term. 
Appendix A 127 

NATIONAL AYP AND IDENTIFICATION DATABASE

The Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality under NCLB National AYP 

and Identification Database contains 88,160 schools (Title I and non–Title I) with valid improvement 

status and 87,892 schools with valid AYP status located in approximately 15,000 districts across 50 states 

and the District of Columbia. The most recent available Common Core of Data (2002–03) at the time 

of the analyses indicated that there were approximately 96,000 public schools in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. Unless noted otherwise, Puerto Rico is not included in the analyses conducted 

using this database. When merged with the SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database, there 

were 2,529 of these 96,000 schools for which states reported AYP as “not determined,” or “not 

relevant,” or for which there were “no data.” Another 5,500 of these 96,000 schools were not reported 

in state-provided AYP files, because some states were not explicit about schools for which AYP was not 

determined. These 5,500 schools do not have uniform characteristics, but many are coded as 

“Other/Alternative” type schools or reported zero students enrolled. Similarly, approximately 

4,000 schools were not reported in identification files, that is, none of these schools appeared on state 

identified for improvement lists provided as a part of their respective state’s Consolidated State 

Performance Report. The database currently lacks approximately 352 Title I identified schools because 

six states’ school identification data did not include separately identified non–Title I schools. However, 

this number of 352 schools located in searches of state documents and Web sites have been added to 

relevant national and state totals. 

Appendix B 129 

APPENDIX B. STATE AYP DEFINITIONS 

Exhibit B.1 

Core Components of State AYP Definitions, 2003–04 

Elementary Grades 

used for AYP Other Academic In

State 

Minimum n Size 

for AYP (all 

students) 

Use and Value of 

Confidence 

Intervals for AYPa Math ELA Elementary Midd

Alabama 40 Yes—99% 3–8 3–8 Attendance AttendaAlaska 20 Yes—99% 3–6 3, 6 Attendance AttendaArizona 30 Yes—99% 3, 5 3, 5 Attendance AttendaArkansas 40 No 3–8 3–8 Attendance AttendaCalifornia Yes—95% 2–6 2–6 Academic Performance Index Acade

Performanc

Colorado 30 Yes—95% 5–6 3–6 

Percentage of 

students in the 

advanced category 

on CASP 

Percenta

students 

advanced c

on CA

Connecticut 40 Yes—99% 4, 6 4, 6 Writing assessment Writing asseDelaware 40 Yes—98% 1–6 2–6 

Percentage of 

students meeting/ 

exceeding standards 

on social studies and 

science tests 

Percenta

students m

exceeding s

on social stu

science 

District of Columbia 40 No 2–6 3–6 Attendance AttendaFlorida 30 Yes 3–6 3–5 FCAT writing assessment FCAT w

assessm

Georgia 40 Yes—95% 3–5 3–5 Menu from which LEA must choose Menu from 

LEA must 

Continued next page 
Appendix B 130 

Exhibit B.1 Core Components of State AYP Definitions, 2003–04 (continued) Elementary Grades used for AYP Other Academic In

State Minimum n Size for AYP (all students) Use and Value of Confidence Intervals for AYPa Math ELA Elementary MiddHawaii 40 (participation), 30 (proficiency) No 3–6 3–6 Retention RetentIdaho 34 Yes—95% 2–10 2–10 

Potential measures: 

language arts ISAT 

or student growth 

(Compass Learning 

Assessment 

Program) 

Potential me

language a

or student 

(Compass L

Assessm

Progra

Illinois 40 No 3, 5 3, 5 Attendance AttendaIndiana 30 Yes—99% 3, 6 3, 6 Attendance AttendaIowa 30 Yes—98% 4 4 Attendance AttendaKansas 30 

Yes—95–99% + 

Bonferroni 

Adjustment 

4 4 Attendance Attenda

Kentucky 10/60/15%70 Yes—99% 5, 6 3, 4, 6 Kentucky’s Academic Index Kentuc

Academic 

Louisiana 10 or 40 (participation) Yes—99% 4 4 Attendance AttendaMaine 41 Yes—95% 4 4 Attendance AttendaMaryland 5 Yes—95% 3–6 3, 5 Attendance AttendaMassachusetts 40 Yes—95% 4, 6 3, 4 Attendance AttendaMichigan 30 No 4 4 Attendance AttendaMinnesota 20 Yes—95–99% 3–6 3–6 Attendance AttendaContinued next page 

70 Each subpopulation must have at least ten students in a subpopulation in each grade in which NCLB assessments are administered and at 

subpopulation in these grades combined or a subpopulation that constitutes at least 15 percent of the students in these grades combined. 
Appendix B 131 

Exhibit B.1 Core Components of State AYP Definitions, 2003–04 (continued) Elementary Grades used for AYP Other Academic In

State Minimum n Size for AYP (all students) Use and Value of Confidence Intervals for AYPa Math ELA Elementary MiddMississippi 40 Yes—95% 2–6 2–6 Growth Index Growth IMissouri 30 Yes—99% 4 3 Attendance AttendaMontana 30 Yes—95% 4 4 Attendance AttendaNebraska 30 Yes—99% 4 4 State Writing Assessment State W

Assessm

Nevada 25 Yes—95% 3–6 3–6 Attendance AttendaNew Hampshire 40 Yes—99% 3, 6 3, 6 Retention rate Retention New Jersey 20 No 3, 4 4 Attendance AttendaNew Mexico 25 Yes 3–6 3–6 Attendance AttendaNew York 30 or 40 (participation) No 1–6 3–6 Science assessment Science assNorth Carolina 40 Yes—95% 3–6 3–6 Attendance AttendaNorth Dakota 10 Yes—99% 4 4 Attendance AttendaOhio 30 No 4,6 6 Attendance AttendaOklahoma 30 

Yes—99% 

(subgroups), 95% 

(all students) 

3–6 3–6 School Completion Component School Com

Compo

Oregon 42 Yes—99% 3–6 3–6 Attendance AttendaPennsylvania 40 Yes—95% 3, 5 3, 5 Attendance AttendaPuerto Rico 45 No 

Proficiency in 

English as a second 

language 

Proficien

English as a 

langua

Rhode Island 45 Yes—95% 4 3, 4 Attendance AttendaContinued next page 
Appendix B 132 

Exhibit B.1 Core Components of State AYP Definitions, 2003–04 (continued) Elementary Grades used for AYP Other Academic In

State Minimum n Size for AYP (all students) Use and Value of Confidence Intervals for AYPa Math ELA Elementary MiddSouth Carolina 40 Yes—95% 3–6 3–6 Attendance AttendaSouth Dakota 10 Yes—99% 3–6 3–6 Attendance AttendaTennessee 45 or 1% No 3–6 3–6 Attendance AttendaTexas No 3–6 3–6 Attendance AttendaUtah 40 Yes—99% 3–6 3–6 Attendance AttendaVermont 40 Yes—99% 4 2, 4 Vermont Reading Assessment Vermont R

Assessm

Virginia 50 No 3, 5 3, 5 Attendance AttendaWashington 

10 for all, 30 for 

other subgroups 

(except LEP and 

SWD) 

Yes—99% 3, 4, 6 3, 4, 6 Unexcused absences Unexcu

absenc

West Virginia 50 No 3–6 3–6 Attendance AttendaWisconsin 40 Yes—99% 4 3, 4 Attendance AttendaWyoming 30 Yes—95% 4 4 

Reduction in the 

percentage of 

students scoring in 

the novice 

performance 

category 

Reduction 

percenta

students sc

the nov

performa

catego

a Confidence intervals are used to estimate the range of values within which it can be assumed with some degree of confidence (e.g., 95 pe

percent proficient lies. The use of a confidence level is designed to reduce the likelihood that schools will be incorrectly labeled as not ma

Sources: SSI-NCLB and CCSSO Profiles of State Accountability Systems, http://accountability.ccsso.org/index.asp, retrieved July 2006 (

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) 
Appendix C 133 

APPENDIX C. 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 

Exhibit C.1 

Relationship of Alignment of ELP Standards to Academic Content Standards and of 

ELP Assessments to ELP Standards, by State, 2004–05

 ELP Assessment Aligned With 

ELP Standards 

ELP Standards Aligned With 

Academic Content Standards 

 State 

Aligned 

Assessments 

in 2004–05 

Will be Aligned for 

2005–06 or Future 

Assessments Math 

Reading/ 

Language Arts Science Social Studies 

AK Yes Yes Yes 

AL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

AR Yes In process In process In process In process 

AZ Yes Yes 

CA Yes Yes 

CO Yes Yes 

CT Yes Yes Yes Yes 

DC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

DE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

FL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

GA Yes In process of 

being realigned 

In process of 

being realigned 

In process of 

being realigned 

In process of 

being realigned 

HI Yes Yes 

IA Yes Yes 

ID Yes Yes 

IL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

IN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

KS Yes Yes Yes Yes 

KY Yes Yes 

LA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

MA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

MD 

Standards not 

finalized or 

implemented at 

time of 

interview 

Standards not 

finalized or 

implemented at 

time of 

interview 

Standards not 

finalized or 

implemented at 

time of 

interview 

Standards not 

finalized or 

implemented at 

time of 

interview 

ME Yes Yes 

MI Yes Yes 

MN Yes Yes Yes 

MO Yes Yes Yes 

MS Yes Yes Yes 

MT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NC Yes Yes Yes 

Continued next page 
Appendix C 134 

Exhibit C.1 

Relationship of Alignment of ELP Standards to Academic Content Standards and of 

ELP Assessments to ELP Standards, by State, 2004–05 (continued) 

 ELP Assessment Aligned With 

ELP Standards 

ELP Standards Aligned With 

Academic Content Standards 

 State 

Aligned 

Assessments 

in 2004–05 

Will be Aligned for 

2005–06 or Future 

Assessments Math 

Reading/ 

Language Arts Science Social Studies 

ND Yes 

Standards are 

currently in 

development 

Standards are 

currently in 

development. 

Standards are 

currently in 

development. 

Standards are 

currently in 

development. 

NE Yes Yes Yes 

NH Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NJ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NM Yes Yes 

NV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

OH Yes Yes Yes Yes 

OK Yes Yes Yes 

OR Yes Yes 

PA Yes Yes Yes 

PR Yes Yes Yes 

RI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

SC Yes Yes 

SD Yes Yes Yes 

TN Yes Yes 

TX Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

UT Yes Yes 

VA Yes Yes Yes 

VT Yes Yes Yes Yes 

WA Yes Yes 

WI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

WV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

WY Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Totals 25 22 35 48 22 18 

Exhibit Reads: The ELP assessment of the state of Arkansas was aligned with ELP standards in 2004–05. 

Note: States with shaded cells had not yet made a final decision as to which English language proficiency assessment 

they would use in 2004–05 (5 states). Blank means ELP standards are not aligned to content standards or ELP 

assessments are not aligned with ELP standards. 

Source: SSI-NCLB Interviews with State Title III Directors (n=50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). 
Appendix C 135 

Exhibit C.2 

Status of ELP Assessments, by State, 2004–05

 First Year of ELP Assessment Implementation Revisions 

State 

ELP Test 

In Place in 

2004–05 

State’s ELP 

Assessment 

Was New in 

2004–05 

No New ELP 

Assessment 

in 2004–05 

State’s ELP 

Assessment Will 

Be New in 

2005–06 Unknown 

State Plans Some 

Type of Revision 

to 2004–05 ELP 

Assessment 

AK Yes Yes No 

AL Yes Yes Yes 

AR No Yes Yes 

AZ Yes Yes Yes 

CA Yes Yes Yes 

CO No Yes Yes 

CT No Yes Yes 

DC No Yes Yes 

DE No Yes Yes 

FL No Yes Yes 

GA No Yes Yes 

HI No Yes Yes 

IA Yes 

ID No Yes Yes 

IL No Yes Yes 

IN No Yes Yes 

KS Yes Yes Yes 

KY No Yes Yes 

LA No Yes No 

MA No Yes No 

MD Yes 

ME Yes Yes No 

MI No Yes Yes 

MN Yes Yes Yes 

MO Yes Yes Yes 

MS Yes Yes No 

MT Yes Yes Yes 

NC No Yes Yes 

ND No Yes Yes 

NE No Yes Yes 

NH Yes 

NJ No Yes Yes 

NM No Yes Yes 

NV No Yes Yes 

NY Yes Yes No 

OH Yes 

OK No Yes Yes 

OR No Yes Yes 

PA No Yes Yes 

Continued next page 
Appendix C 136 

Exhibit C.2 

Status of ELP Assessments, by State, 2004–05 (continued) 

 First Year of ELP Assessment Implementation Revisions 

State 

ELP Test 

In Place in 

2004–05 

State’s ELP 

Assessment 

Was New in 

2004–05 

No New ELP 

Assessment 

in 2004–05 

State’s ELP 

Assessment Will 

Be New in 

2005–06 Unknown 

State Plans Some 

Type of Revision 

to 2004–05 ELP 

Assessment 

PR Yes Yes No 

RI No Yes Yes 

SC Yes Yes No 

SD Yes Yes Yes 

TN Yes 

TX Yes Yes Yes 

UT No Yes Yes 

VA No Yes Yes 

VT Yes Yes Yes 

WA No Yes Yes 

WI No Yes Yes 

WV Yes Yes Yes 

WY Yes Yes Yes 

Totals 18 12 5 24 6 44 

Exhibit reads: The state of Arkansas’ ELP assessment was consistent with NCLB requirements, and was 

in place for 2004–05. 

Note: States with shaded cells had not yet made a final decision as to which English language proficiency assessment 

they would use in 2004–05 (five states). Blank means not applicable. 

Source: SSI-NCLB Interviews with State Title III Directors (n=50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). 
Appendix C 137 

Exhibit C.3 

Percentage of Schools and Districts That Made AYP, by State, 2003–04 

State 

Percentage of 

Schools That Made 

AYP 

Total Number of 

Schools 

Percentage of 

Districts That 

Made AYP 

Total Number 

of Districts 

Total 75% 87,892 71% 11,821 

Alabama 23% 1,359 0% 129 

Alaska 59% 497 40% 53 

Arizona 83% 1,752 65% 569 

Arkansas 77% 1,037 100% 311 

California 65% 9,206 59% 988 

Colorado 79% 1,822 63% 178 

Connecticut 81% 973 77% 184 

Delaware 76% 173 100% 19 

District of Columbia 41% 157 0% 1 

Florida 23% 3,068 7% 67 

Georgia 80% 2,030 NA NA 

Hawaii 52% 281 0% 1 

Idaho 84% 709 58% 114 

Illinois 71% 3,801 NA NA 

Indiana 75% 1,776 46% 294 

Iowa 94% 1,535 96% 371 

Kansas 92% 1,400 95% 304 

Kentucky 76% 1,176 63% 176 

Louisiana 92% 1,263 70% 68 

Maine 77% 575 97% 282 

Maryland 78% 1,449 63% 24 

Massachusetts 72% 1,737 61% 377 

Michigan 77% 3,547 80% 554 

Minnesota 74% 1,765 57% 372 

Mississippi 76% 877 40% 152 

Missouri 77% 2,061 NA NA 

Montana 85% 857 83% 436 

Nebraska 87% 538 73% 152 

Nevada 63% 568 47% 17 

New Hampshire 71% 450 76% 162 

New Jersey 69% 2,144 NA NA 

New Mexico 68% 768 38% 89 

New York 80% 4,904 86% 703 

North Carolina 71% 2,270 21% 117 

North Dakota 90% 451 84% 222 

Ohio 83% 3,901 64% 613 

Oklahoma 75% 1,763 NA NA 

Continued next page 
Appendix C 138 

Exhibit C.3 

Percentage of Schools and Districts That Made AYP, by State, 2003–04 (continued) 

State 

Percentage of 

Schools That Made 

AYP 

Total Number of 

Schools 

Percentage of 

Districts That 

Made AYP 

Total Number 

of Districts 

Oregon 71% 1,189 39% 198 

Pennsylvania 86% 3,009 57% 501 

Rhode Island 83% 313 89% 36 

South Carolina 56% 1,039 20% 89 

South Dakota 67% 728 97% 178 

Tennessee 85% 1,554 68% 138 

Texas 94% 6,909 88% 1,214 

Utah 76% 800 58% 58 

Vermont 89% 307 80% 298 

Virginia 72% 1,887 23% 135 

Washington 88% 2,324 79% 337 

West Virginia 72% 704 4% 55 

Wisconsin 95% 2,122 93% 437 

Wyoming 92% 367 98% 48 

Exhibit reads: Nationally, 75 percent of schools made AYP in 2003–04. 

Note: NA indicates not available. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB, National AYP and Identification Database (school data) and State Interview Data (district 

data) (n=50 states and the District of Columbia). 
Appendix C 139 

Exhibit C.4 

Results of Multiple Logistic Regression Model 

of Schools’ Likelihood of Making AYP, 2003–04 

Independent Variable Coefficient 

Standard 

Error 

Secondary level (versus elementary) -1.3544* 0.0236 

Small size (versus medium size) -0.0404 0.0378 

Large size (versus medium size) -0.7202* 0.0250 

Low poverty (versus medium) 0.6031* 0.0272 

High poverty (versus medium) -0.5678* 0.0310 

Low minority (versus medium) 0.4741* 0.0284 

High minority (versus medium) -0.4432* 0.0314 

Fewer than two applicable subgroups (versus two or three) 0.3249* 0.0294 

More than three applicable subgroups (versus two or three) -0.1345* 0.0260 

Urban locale (versus rural) -0.3322* 0.0335 

Urban fringe locale (versus rural) -0.3351* 0.0298 

Low concentration of students with disabilities (versus medium) 0.5676* 0.0256 

High concentration of students with disabilities (versus medium) -0.5510* 0.0266 

Low concentration of LEP students (versus medium) 0.2775* 0.0371 

High concentration of LEP students (versus medium) -0.2104* 0.0268 

Intercept 1.8757* 0.0371 

Exhibit reads: The first variable indicates that a secondary school had a regression coefficient of -

1.3544 and a standard error of 0.0236. Each coefficient indicates how much higher or lower the odds of 

making AYP are for the type of school shown, in comparison to the odds for a school with the 

“baseline” characteristics. Positive coefficients indicate that the schools are more likely to make AYP 

than the baseline; negative coefficients indicate that they are less likely. For instance, after converting 

this negative coefficient (-1.3544) to an expected probability, the odds of a secondary school making 

AYP were 63 in 100, while the odds were 87 in 100 for an elementary school, where both schools had 

baseline values on all other variables (located in a rural area; had a moderate level of poverty and of 

minority students (35–75 percent and 25–75 percent, respectively; had an enrollment of 200 to 600; 12 to 

16 percent of its students had disabilities; 1 to 10 percent had limited English proficiency; and the 

number of subgroups was near the median (2 or 3). 

Note: All the predictors, except small school size (versus medium size), show statistically significant coefficients (* 

indicates p < .0001). State type classification and achievement data were not included in these analyses. Because 

school-level concentrations of students with disabilities and LEP students were not available, district-level 

concentrations were used instead as proxies. 

Note: An expected probability is computed by: 1/(1+℮ - logit(model)) where logit(model) = intercept + β1X1 + 

β2X2 + .... The expected probability of the school in this example (which this report calls the typical elementary 

school) was calculated by: 1/(1+℮ - logit(model)), where logit(model) = 1.8757. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database and Common Core of Data 2002–03 (based on 

data reported by 34 states for 60,592 schools in these states). 
Appendix C 140 

Exhibit C.5 

Probability of Making AYP for Various Types of Schools, 2003–04 

School Type Expected Probability

“Baseline” school which was an elementary school, was located in a rural area; had 

a moderate level of poverty and of minority students (35–75 percent and 25–

75 percent, respectively); had an enrollment of 200 to 600; 12 to 16 percent of its 

students had disabilities; 1 to 10 percent had limited English proficiency; and the 

number of subgroups was near the median (2 or 3). 

87 out of 100 

A small elementary school in a rural area with low percentages of low-income and 

minority students and with no applicable subgroup 96 out of 100

A medium size urban elementary school with a low percentage of low-income 

students, moderate levels of other variables 90 out of 100

A medium size urban elementary school with a moderate percentage of lowincome students, moderate levels of other variables 82 out of 100 

A medium size urban elementary school with a high percentage of low-income 

students, moderate levels of other variables 73 out of 100 

A large elementary school in an urban area with high percentages of low-income 

and minority students and with four or more subgroups 42 out of 100

A large secondary school in an urban area with high percentages of low-income 

and minority students and with four or more subgroups 16 out of 100 

Exhibit reads: A school with the characteristics as described has an 87 percent probability of being 

identified for improvement. 

Source: Computed from results of multiple logistic repression model shown in Exhibit C.4.
Appendix C 141 

Exhibit C.6 

Percent of Schools That Did Not Make AYP, by Reason for Not Making AYP 

and by State, 2003–04 

Did Not Make AYP For: 

State 

Achievement 

of All 

Students 

Achievement 

of Two or More 

Subgroups but 

Made AYP for 

All Students 

Achievement 

of Any One 

Racial 

Subgroup 

Only 

Achievement 

of Poor 

Students 

Only 

Achievement 

of LEP 

Students 

Only 

Achievement 

of SWD Only

Additional 

Academic 

Indicator 

Only 

95 percent 

Testing 

Requirement 

Only Other 

Total 33% 18% 3% 3% 4% 13% 7% 6% 13% 

AL 

AK 48% 10% <1% 1% 2% 10% 14% 4% 11% 

AZ 26% 7% 1% 0% 4% 0% 40% 3% 19% 

AR 41% 20% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 36% 

CA 20% 18% 4% 1% 16% 6% 5% 12% 18% 

CO 31% 18% 2% 1% 1% 29% 7% 3% 7% *

CN 54% 17% 9% 9% 0% 7% 0% 3% 2% *

DE 7% 40% 5% 7% 7% 29% 2% 0% 2% *

DC 

FL 31% 38% 2% <1% 1% 9% 1% 6% 12% 

GA 7% 9% 1% 5% 1% 33% 21% 4% 19% 

HI 39% 24% 2% 16% 2% 12% 1% 1% 3% 

ID 

IL 58% 15% 4% 5% 2% 13% <1% 1% 1% *

IN 20% 17% 3% 9% 0% 25% 10% 0% 16% 

IA 

KS 78% 11% 0% 4% 0% 1% 4% 0% 4% *

KY 8% 12% 4% 8% <1% 18% 41% 0% 9% 

LA 31% 3% 8% 3% 0% 12% 3% 0% 41% *

ME 

MD 41% 5% 3% 2% 2% 37% 9% 0% 2% *

MA 

MI 66% 8% <1% 2% 0% 6% 5% 5% 9% *

MN 39% 23% 3% 6% 3% 8% 10% 5% 3% 

MS 

MO 

MT 30% 2% 1% 7% 0% 1% 5% 0% 54% 

NE 

NV 

NH 10% 20% 0% 0% 0% 68% 1% 0% 2% *

NJ 

NM 32% 13% 1% 1% 7% 14% 6% 12% 14% 

NY 

Continued next page 
Appendix C 142 

Exhibit C.6 

Percent of Schools That Did Not Make AYP, by Reason for Not Making AYP 

and by State, 2003–04 (continued) 

Did Not Make AYP For: 

State 

Achievement 

of All 

Students 

Achievement 

of Two or More 

Subgroups but 

Made AYP for 

All Students 

Achievement 

of Any One 

Racial 

Subgroup 

Only 

Achievement 

of Poor 

Students 

Only 

Achievement 

of LEP 

Students 

Only 

Achievement 

of SWD Only

Additional 

Academic 

Indicator 

Only 

95 percent 

Testing 

Requirement 

Only Other 

NC 19% 18% 5% 4% 1% 45% 2% 1% 5% 

ND 17% 11% 2% 9% 0% 52% 9% 0% 0% 

OH 42% 6% 4% 11% <1% 3% 6% 11% 18% *

OK 86% <1% <1% 3% <1% 1% 3% 2% 5% 

OR 16% 29% 1% 1% 3% 13% 4% 13% 21% *

PA 42% 12% 5% 6% 0% 22% 4% 5% 4% 

RI 

SC 10% 22% 4% 1% 0% 26% 14% 12% 11% 

SD 

TN 42% 9% 2% 5% 0% 5% 29% 1% 7% 

TX 14% 16% 1% 1% 4% 12% 10% 18% 25% *

UT 

VT 

VA 

WA 33% 10% 4% 3% 4% 16% 27% 0% 3% 

WV 

WI 48% 12% 4% 6% 0% 16% 6% 5% 3% 

WY 40% 10% 0% 3% 0% 7% 40% 0% 0% 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-three percent of schools did not make AYP because of the achievement of all students in the 

school. 

Note: Schools included in the "Achievement of the ‘All Students’ Group” and the "Achievement of Two or More Subgroups" 

categories may have also missed AYP for test participation or the other academic indicator. However, schools included in the 

"Achievement of a Single Subgroup Only" category are those that missed AYP for that factor alone and did not miss any other 

AYP indicators. “Other” includes: schools that missed AYP for combinations of the achievement of a single subgroup, test 

participation, and/or the other academic indicator, or for alternate AYP determinations for small schools and schools without 

tested grades. Blank means not available. 

* Indicates that row figures do not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database (n=50 states and the District of Columbia).
Appendix C 143 

Exhibit C.7 

Percentage of Schools that Did Not Make AYP for the Additional Academic Indicator, 

by Type of School and by State, 2003–04

Elementary and Middle Schools 

State 

All 

Schools 

High 

Schools 

All 

Elementary 

and Middle 

Schools 

In States Where 

Additional 

Academic 

Indicator is 

Attendance 

In States Where 

Additional 

Academic 

Indicator is Not 

Attendance 

Specify Additional Academic 

Indicator if Not Attendance 

Total 20% 33% 10% 11% 7% 

Alabama 

Alaska 47% 56% 2% 2% 

Arizona 59% 69% 52% 52% 

Arkansas 20% 40% 1% 1% 

California 7% 22% 0% 0% Academic Performance Index 

Colorado 27% 18% 34% 34% Percentage of students in the 

advanced category on CASP 

Connecticut 5% 19% 1% 1% Writing Assessment 

Delaware 14% 27% 8% 8% 

Percent of students 

meeting/exceeding standards 

on grades 4, 6, and 8 DSTP 

science and social studies 

assessments 

District of 

Columbia 

Florida 26% 82% 5% 5% Writing Assessment 

Georgia 45% 45% 44% 

Hawaii 6% 6% 5% 5% Retention Rates 

Idaho 

Language arts ISAT or student 

growth on Compass Learning 

Assessment Program 

Illinois 5% 12% 3% 3% 

Indiana 16% 38% 5% 5% 

Iowa 

Kansas 15% 20% 8% 8% 

Kentucky 59% 40% 64% 64% Kentucky Academic Index 

Louisiana 16% 62% 0% 0% 

Maine 

Maryland 22% 25% 11% 11% 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 33% 50% 1% 1% 

Minnesota 21% 36% 4% 4% 

Mississippi 9% 33% 2% 2% Growth Index 

Missouri 

Montana 8% 37% 0% 0% 

Continued next page 
Appendix C 144 

Exhibit C.7 

Percentage of Schools that Did Not Make AYP for the Additional Academic Indicator, 

by Type of School and by State, 2003–04 (continued) 

Elementary and Middle Schools 

State 

All 

Schools 

High 

Schools 

All 

Elementary 

and Middle 

Schools 

In States Where 

Additional 

Academic 

Indicator is 

Attendance 

In States Where 

Additional 

Academic 

Indicator is Not 

Attendance 

Specify Additional Academic 

Indicator if Not Attendance 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New 

Hampshire 3% 8% 0% 0% Retention Rates 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 17% 19% 15% 15% 

New York Science Assessment 

North Carolina 10% 18% 1% 1% 

North Dakota 16% 25% 0% 0% 

Ohio 13% 15% 11% 11% 

Oklahoma 7% 12% 4% 4% School Completion Component 

Oregon 18% 10% 24% 24% 

Pennsylvania 15% 22% 7% 7% 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 32% 25% 33% 33% 

South Dakota 31% 35% 26% 26% 

Tennessee 50% 76% 21% 21% 

Texas 15% 20% 0% 0% 

Utah 

Vermont 3% 0% 4% 4% 

VT—Developmental Reading 

Assessment, Reading: Basic 

Understanding 

Virginia 

Washington 47% 47% 37% 37% 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 25% 31% 18% 18% 

Wyoming 50% 73% 33% 33% 

Reduction in percentage of 

students scoring in the novice 

performance category 

Exhibit reads: Twenty percent of all schools and 33 percent of high schools in the nation did not make 

AYP for the additional academic indicator in 2003–04. 

Note: Blank means not available. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National Database of School AYP and Identification (n=50 states and the District of Columbia).
Appendix C 145 

Exhibit C.8 

Percentage of Schools that Did Not Make AYP, by 

Reason for Not Making AYP and by State, 2003–04

State 

Missed AYP for 

Reading 

Achievement 

Missed AYP for 

Math 

Achievement 

Missed AYP for 

Reading & Math 

Achievement 

Total 64% 58% 42% 

Alabama 30% 27% 18% 

Alaska 68% 63% 59% 

Arizona 44% 23% 21% 

Arkansas 68% 76% 50% 

California 58% 38% 30% 

Colorado 75% 73% 58% 

Connecticut 72% 70% 45% 

Delaware 76% 76% 55% 

District of Columbia 95% 81% 69% 

Florida 72% 88% 68% 

Georgia 52% 52% 33% 

Hawaii 83% 85% 71% 

Idaho 87% 63% 53% 

Illinois 77% 75% 54% 

Indiana 76% 6% 4% 

Iowa 69% 67% 44% 

Kansas 56% 61% 27% 

Kentucky 40% 36% 18% 

Louisiana 46% 25% 13% 

Maine 92% 51% 38% 

Maryland 70% 58% 36% 

Massachusetts 59% 78% 37% 

Michigan 73% 72% 56% 

Minnesota 68% 64% 48% 

Mississippi 

Missouri 72% 70% 42% 

Montana 28% 28% 22% 

Nebraska 25% 33% 13% 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 73% 66% 39% 

New Jersey 78% 74% 56% 

New Mexico 59% 66% 46% 

Continued next page 
Appendix C 146 

Exhibit C.8 

Percentage of Schools that Did Not Make AYP, by 

Reason for Not Making AYP and by State, 2003–04 (continued) 

State 

Missed AYP for 

Reading 

Achievement 

Missed AYP for 

Math 

Achievement 

Missed AYP for 

Reading & Math 

Achievement 

New York 

North Carolina 79% 60% 43% 

North Dakota 78% 89% 63% 

Ohio 76% 80% 60% 

Oklahoma 84% 24% 18% 

Oregon 73% 62% 55% 

Pennsylvania 66% 73% 49% 

Puerto Rico 

Rhode Island 76% 53% 40% 

South Carolina 58% 57% 45% 

South Dakota 79% 57% 47% 

Tennessee 54% 55% 40% 

Texas 52% 52% 42% 

Utah 68% 54% 32% 

Vermont 80% 66% 46% 

Virginia 61% 40% 22% 

Washington 54% 62% 43% 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 70% 55% 38% 

Wyoming 43% 43% 27% 

Exhibit reads: Sixty-four percent of schools in the nation that did not make AYP did not make 

AYP because they missed AYP for reading achievement in 2003–04. 

Note: Blank means not available. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National Database of School AYP and Identification (n=47 states).
Appendix C 147 

Exhibit C.9 

Percentage of Students in Each Subgroup in Schools Held Accountable for Their 

Subgroup, by Student Subgroup, 2003–04 

Student Subgroups 

(a) Total number of 

students in this 

subgroup in grades 

used to calculate 

AYP 

(b) Number of 

students in this 

subgroup in schools 

held accountable for 

this subgroup 

Percent of students 

in each subgroup in 

schools held 

accountable for 

their subgroup (b/a) 

African-American 1,845,722 1,433,655 78% 

American Indian/Alaskan Native 148,210 35,234 24% 

Asian/Pacific Islander 556,370 252,466 45% 

Hispanic 2,495,177 2,119,153 85% 

White 6,114,132 5,595,831 92% 

Total across these five major 

racial/ethnic categories in 34 states 11,159,611 9,436,349 85% 

Estimated total across these five major 

racial/ethnic categories for all 50 states 

and DC 

14,977,156 12,684,286 85% 

Low-income students 13,854,989 11,767,989 85% 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-five percent of African-American students attended schools for which AYP was 

calculated for the African-American subgroup. 

Note: The numbers of students in the racial or ethnic subgroups are based on 2002-03 CCD enrollment figures by 

race or ethnicity in those grades 3-8 and 10 that were used in AYP calculations in 2003–04 by each of 34 states. The 

estimated total for all states is based on the assumption that the percent of students held accountable for each racial 

or ethnic category was the same for the 17 states lacking data as for those 34 states for which data were available. 

The numbers of low-income students are based on number of students eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch 

across all grades in the 2002-03 CCD. Available data did not permit making similar estimates for students with 

disabilities and LEP student subgroups. Only schools with valid AYP status assigned (i.e., made or did not meet 

AYP) were included. Results differ slightly from the percentages reported in the National Assessment of Title I 

interim report because the analysis has been restricted to students in grades that were tested and used in AYP 

calculations in 2003–04 where possible. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database (n=34 states). 
Appendix C 148 

Exhibit C.10 

Percentage of Schools That Did Not Make AYP That Missed Subgroup Achievement 

Targets, 2003–04, by Student Subgroup 

Student Subgroups 

Number of Schools That 

Missed AYP Targets for 

Subgroup Achievement 

Among Schools That Did Not Make AYP

(n=14,914)

Percentage of Schools That Missed 

AYP Targets for Subgroup Achievement

African-American 3,369 23% 

American Indian/Alaskan Native 121 1% 

Asian/Pacific Islander 162 1% 

Hispanic 2,022 14% 

White 501 3% 

Low-income students 5,311 36% 

Students with disabilities 5,252 35% 

LEP students 2,633 18% 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-three percent of schools that did not make AYP missed achievement targets for 

the African-American subgroup. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database (n=34 states). 

Exhibit C.11 

Percentage of Schools that Missed AYP 

Due to Achievement and Participation, by Student Subgroup, 2003–04 

Schools Missing AYP for 

Subgroup Achievement 

Schools Missing AYP for 95% 

Subgroup Participation 

Student Subgroup 

Number of 

Schools Held 

Accountable 

for Subgroup Number 

Percentage of 

Schools Held 

Accountable 

for Subgroup Number 

Percentage of 

Schools Held 

Accountable for 

Subgroup 

African-American 15,536 3,369 22% 1,302 8% 

American 

Indian/Alaskan Native 815 121 15% 74 9% 

Asian/Pacific Islander 3,637 162 4% 74 2% 

Hispanic 16,529 2,022 12% 1,169 7% 

White 43,774 501 1% 1,526 3% 

Low-income students 38,194 5,311 14% 2,711 7% 

Students with 

disabilities 14,274 5,252 37% 1,739 12% 

LEP students 10,001 2,633 26% 787 8% 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-two percent of schools for which AYP was calculated for the African-American 

subgroup did not make AYP for achievement of the African-American subgroup, whereas 8 percent of 

schools held accountable for the African-American subgroup did not make AYP for this subgroup on the 

95 percent test participation requirement. 

Source: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database (n=34 states). 
Appendix C 149 

Exhibit C.12 

Number and Percentage of Identified Title I Schools, by State, 2003–04 

Identified Improvement Status 

State Number Percent 

Year 1 or 

Year 2 

Corrective 

Action Restructuring 

Total 6,219 12% 4,455 926 838 

Alabama 47 5% 3 18 26 

Alaska 64 20% 56 8 0 

Arizona 220 21% 200 20 0 

Arkansas 275 34% 273 2 0 

California 1,205 22% 860 334 11 

Colorado 80 9% 76 1 3 

Connecticut 12 3% 7 5 0 

Delaware 12 11% 12 0 0 

District of Columbia 14 8% 14 0 0 

Florida 45 3% 45 0 0 

Georgia 533 55% 244 60 229 

Hawaii 82 57% 14 24 44 

Idaho 43 9% 43 0 0 

Illinois 577 24% 577 0 0 

Indiana 97 9% 80 17 0 

Iowa 11 2% 10 1 0 

Kansas 30 5% 12 13 5 

Kentucky 26 3% 26 0 0 

Louisiana 58 6% 47 11 0 

Maine 10 2% 10 0 0 

Maryland 102 22% 46 12 44 

Massachusetts 208 18% 171 37 0 

Michigan 368 53% 191 84 93 

Minnesota 38 4% 38 0 0 

Mississippi 7 1% 4 3 0 

Missouri 30 2% 30 0 0 

Montana 40 6% 4 8 28 

Nebraska 6 1% 2 1 3 

Nevada 27 12% 27 0 0 

New Hampshire 6 2% 6 0 0 

New Jersey 14 1% 14 0 0 

New Mexico 120 21% 69 40 11 

New York 527 19% 287 105 135 

North Carolina 36 3% 33 2 1 

North Dakota 23 5% 13 10 0 

Ohio 191 7% 118 44 29 

Oklahoma 46 4% 28 8 10 

Oregon 7 1% 5 2 0 

Pennsylvania 298 14% 161 11 126 

Rhode Island 24 16% 23 1 0 

Puerto Rico 256 17% 256 0 0 

South Carolina 82 16% 69 1 12 

Continued next page 
Appendix C 150 

Exhibit C.12 

Number and Percentage of Identified Title I Schools, by State, 2003–04 

(continued) 

Identified Improvement Status 

State Number Percent 

Year 1 or 

Year 2 

Corrective 

Action Restructuring 

South Dakota 32 9% 29 3 0 

Tennessee 55 7% 0 27 28 

Texas 9 0% 9 0 0 

Utah 68 31% 67 1 0 

Vermont 4 2% 3 1 0 

Virginia 44 6% 44 0 0 

Washington 51 6% 47 4 0 

West Virginia 7 2% 6 1 0 

Wisconsin 52 5% 46 6 0 

Wyoming 0 0% 0 0 0 

Exhibit reads: Nationally, 12 percent of Title I schools were identified for improvement in 

2003–04. Rates of school identification ranged from 0 percent in Wyoming to 57 percent in 

Hawaii. 

Sources: Consolidated State Performance Reports and SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification 

Database (based on data reported by 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico for 88,160 

schools in these states). 
Appendix C 151 

Exhibit C.13 

Number of Schools Identified for Improvement, and Percentage of Students in 

Identified Schools, by Subgroups and by State, 2003–04

Number of 

Schools 

Identified For 

Improvement 

Percent of All 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

Percent of 

Poor 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

Percent of 

American 

Indian 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

Percent of 

Asian 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

Percent of 

Black 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

Percent of 

Hispanic 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

Percent of 

White 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

Total 

schools 11,531 17% 26% 21% 17% 32% 28% 9% 

Total 

students 46,866,541 

7,794,229 

out of 

46,866,541 

4,428,652 

out of 

17,137,350

120,614 

out of 

563,408 

345,345 

out of 

2,031,889 

2,462,869 

out of 

7,796,787 

2,305,547 

out of 

8,381,040 

2,424,810 

out of 

27,090,874

AL 80 5% 9% 3% 2% 13% 4% 1% 

AK 179 45% 50% 60% 54% 51% 45% 36% 

AZ 135 8% 3% 27% 3% 7% 12% 2% 

AR 300 30% 35% 22% 27% 59% 30% 21% 

CA 1,618 24% 38% 20% 15% 33% 36% 10% 

CO 87 6% 16% 10% 4% 11% 18% 2% 

CT 134 20% 45% 15% 16% 43% 50% 10% 

DE 44 9% 12% 6% 9% 13% 12% 7% 

DC 96 53% 56% 22% 43% 55% 60% 14% 

FL 964 28% 43% 28% 17% 41% 33% 20% 

GA 413 24% 30% 25% 19% 31% 27% 20% 

HI 138 60% 64% 59% 62% 43% 61% 51% 

ID 71 6% 8% 9% 4% 4% 10% 5% 

IL 655 26% 48% 22% 15% 57% 50% 9% 

IN 77 4% 8% 5% 2% 18% 6% 2% 

IA 66 1% 2% 3% 3% 5% 6% 1% 

KN 21 2% 5% 2% 4% 7% 6% 1% 

KY 134 13% 16% 13% 14% 28% 20% 12% 

LA 570 42% 51% 38% 46% 55% 37% 30% 

ME 51 19% 17% 16% 24% 31% 23% 18% 

MD 255 7% 18% 8% 3% 16% 13% 1% 

MA 391 25% 43% 25% 31% 44% 52% 19% 

MI 511 21% 32% 14% 19% 56% 33% 12% 

MN 48 2% 7% 6% 8% 14% 9% 1% 

MS 71 9% 11% 3% 3% 15% 5% 3% 

MO 130 7% 13% 5% 7% 25% 17% 3% 

MT 69 13% 22% 56% 11% 11% 16% 7% 

NE 46 1% 2% 11% 1% 0% 4% 1% 

NV 111 28% 30% 21% 30% 35% 31% 26% 

NH 61 16% 20% 14% 14% 16% 19% 16% 

NJ 520 38% 57% 41% 25% 64% 52% 27% 

NM 182 29% 28% 46% 37% 33% 26% 27% 

Continued next page 
Appendix C 152 

Exhibit C.13 

Number of Schools Identified for Improvement, and Percentage of Students in 

Identified Schools, by Subgroups and by State, 2003–04 (continued) 

Number of 

Schools 

Identified For 

Improvement 

Percent of All 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

Percent of 

Poor 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

Percent of 

American 

Indian 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

Percent of 

Asian 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

Percent of 

Black 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

Percent of 

Hispanic 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

Percent of 

White 

Students in 

Identified 

Schools 

NY 508 17% 17% 17% 14% 31% 37% 5% 

NC 160 6% 8% 8% 4% 10% 9% 4% 

ND 21 4% 11% 42% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

OH 487 18% 31% 23% 14% 51% 30% 11% 

OK 142 10% 15% 9% 11% 30% 21% 6% 

OR 214 2% 4% 3% 2% 7% 7% 1% 

PA 629 22% 37% 24% 26% 57% 52% 12% 

RI 61 13% 29% 14% 23% 30% 41% 4% 

SC 207 17% 25% 21% 10% 24% 16% 12% 

SD 59 13% 22% 45% 12% 16% 18% 9% 

TN 207 14% 

TX 199 5% 7% 3% 2% 7% 9% 2% 

UT 16 2% 3% 12% 1% 4% 4% 1% 

VT 25 11% 18% 11% 15% 19% 20% 11% 

VA 111 5% 10% 5% 2% 10% 6% 3% 

WA 156 14% 17% 19% 17% 23% 26% 11% 

WV 37 8% 10% 8% 3% 3% 4% 8% 

WI 51 3% 9% 2% 4% 21% 8% 0% 

WY 13 4% 6% 32% 6% 8% 7% 3% 

Exhibit reads: There were 11,531 schools identified for improvement in 2003–04 and 17 percent of all 

students in the nation attended these schools. 

Note: Figures are not available for SWD and LEP because the CCD collects the numbers of SWDs and LEPs only 

at the district level. Blank means not available. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB National Database of School AYP and Identification and Common Core of Data, 2002–03 

(based on data from 50 states and the District of Columbia for 88,160 students in these states). 
Appendix C 153 

Exhibit C.14 

Percentage of Identified Schools, 

by Other Demographic Characteristics, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, 11 percent of elementary schools 

were identified for improvement. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database and 

Common Core of Data 2002–03 (based on data reported by 50 states and 

the District of Columbia for 88,160 schools in these states). 
Appendix C 154 

Exhibit C.15 

Results of Multiple Logistic Regression Model of Schools’ Likelihood 

of Having Been Identified for Improvement, 2004–05 

Independent Variable Coefficient Standard Error 

Secondary level (versus elementary) 0.6272* 0.0304 

Low poverty (versus medium) -1.0588* 0.0412 

High poverty (versus medium) 1.0059* 0.0343 

Low minority (versus medium) -0.6694* 0.0420 

High minority (versus medium) 0.8926* 0.0362 

Small size (versus medium size) -0.7394* 0.0614 

Large size (versus medium size) 0.5611* 0.0315 

Fewer than two applicable subgroups (versus two or three) -0.4358* 0.0427 

More than three applicable subgroups (versus two or three) 0.3453* 0.0316 

Urban locale (versus rural) 0.2497* 0.0436 

Urban fringe locale (versus rural) 0.3358* 0.0415 

Low concentration of students with disabilities (versus medium) -0.5493* 0.0332 

High concentration of students with disabilities (versus medium) 0.3852* 0.0343 

Low concentration of LEP students (versus medium) -0.1109* 0.0567 

High concentration of LEP students (versus medium) -0.1828* 0.0327 

Intercept -2.4045* 0.0489 

Exhibit reads: The variable indicating that a school was a secondary school had a regression coefficient 

of 0.6272 and a standard error of 0.0304. Each coefficient indicates how much higher or lower the odds 

of being identified are for the type of school shown, in comparison to the odds for a school with the 

“baseline” characteristic. Positive coefficients indicate that the schools are more likely to be identified 

than the baseline; negative coefficients indicate that they are less likely. For instance, after converting this 

positive coefficient (0.6272) to an expected probability, the odds of a secondary school being identified 

were 14 in 100, while the odds were 8 in 100 for an elementary school, where both schools had baseline 

values on all other variables (located in a rural area; had moderate level of poverty and of minority 

students (35–75 percent and 25–75 percent, respectively); had an enrollment of 200 to 600; 12 to 

16 percent of its students had disabilities; 1 to 10 percent had limited English proficiency; and the number 

of subgroups was near the median (2 or 3)). 

Note: All the variables, except for low district concentration of LEP students, show statistically significant 

coefficients (* indicates p < 05). State type classification and achievement data were not included in these analyses. 

Because school-level concentrations of students with disabilities and LEP students were not available, district-level 

concentrations were used instead as proxies. 

Note: An expected probability is computed by: 1/1+e – logit(model)) where logit(model) – intercept + β1X1 + 

β2X2 + .... The expected probability of the school in this example (which this report calls the baseline elementary 

school) was calculated by: 1/1+e – logit(model)), where logit(model) = -2.4045. 

Sources: SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database and Common Core of Data 2002–03 (based on data 

reported by 34 states for 61,229 schools in these states). 
Appendix C 155 

Exhibit C.16 

Probability of Being Identified for Improvement for Various Types of Schools, 2004–05 

School Type Expected Probability

“Baseline” school which was an elementary school, was located in a rural area; had 

a moderate level of poverty and of minority students (35–75 percent and 25–

75 percent, respectively); had an enrollment of 200 to 600; 12 to 16 percent of its 

students had disabilities; 1 to 10 percent had limited English proficiency; and the 

number of subgroups was near the median (2 or 3). 

8 out of 100 

A small elementary school in a rural area with low percentages of low-income and 

minority students and with no applicable subgroup Less than 1 out of 100

A medium size urban elementary school with a low percentage of low-income 

students, moderate levels of other variables 4 out of 100

A medium size urban elementary school with a moderate percentage of lowincome students, moderate levels of other variables 10 out of 100 

A medium size urban elementary school with a high percentage of low-income 

students, moderate levels of other variables 24 out of 100 

A large elementary school in an urban area with high percentages of low-income 

and minority students and with four or more subgroups 66 out of 100

A large secondary school in an urban area with high percentages of low-income 

and minority students and with four or more subgroups 78 out of 100 

Exhibit reads: A school with the characteristics as described has an 8 percent probability of being 

identified for improvement. 

Source: Computed from results of multiple logistic repression model shown in Exhibit C.15.
Appendix C 156 

Exhibit C.17 

Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance Related to 

Professional Qualifications, by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05 

Characteristic 

Improve Quality 

of Teachers’ 

Professional 

Development 

Recruit, Retain, or 

Assign Teachers in 

Order to Staff All 

Classes with a 

Teacher Who Is 

“Highly Qualified” 

Implement Provisions 

of NCLB Relating to 

“Qualified” 

Paraprofessionals 

All schools (n=1,311) 57% 33% 40% 

School Identification Status 

Not identified 53% 28% 38% 

Year 1 and Year 2 of identified for 

improvement status 77% 59% 47% 

Corrective action status 97% 83% 79% 

Restructuring status 81% 72% 72% 

School Poverty Level 

High poverty 73% 48% 53% 

Medium poverty 55% 36% 46% 

Low poverty 50% 21% 26% 

School Minority Concentration 

High minority (75% or more) 71% 57% 57% 

Moderate minority (25–75%) 58% 37% 46% 

Low minority (less than 25%) 50% 20% 29% 

Urbanicity 

Central city 68% 44% 50% 

Urban fringe 53% 31% 35% 

Rural/small town 52% 24% 39% 

School Level 

Elementary 55% 26%* 40% 

Middle 65% 43% 44% 

High 53% 43% 38% 

Exhibit reads: Fifty-seven percent of schools reported needing technical assistance in improving the 

quality of teachers’ professional development. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 
Appendix C 157 

Exhibit C.18 

Percentage of Schools Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance to 

Meet the Needs of Students with Disabilities and Percentage Finding It Sufficient to 

Meet Their Needs, by School Characteristic, 2004–05 

Characteristic Needed 

Received Where 

Needed 

Sufficient Where 

Needed and Received 

All schools (n=1,311) 53% 71% 76% 

School Identification Status 

Not identified 49% 70% 79% 

Year 1 and Year 2 of being identified 

for improvement 70% 70% 69% 

Corrective action status 77% 95% 78% 

Restructuring status 70% 60% 54% 

School Poverty Level 

High poverty 63% 77% 73% 

Medium poverty 50% 74% 74% 

Low poverty 50% 64% 82% 

School Minority Concentration 

High minority (75% or more) 62% 75% 77% 

Moderate minority (25–75%) 53% 71% 64% 

Low minority (less than 25%) 48% 69% 85% 

Urbanicity 

Central city 59% 67% 72% 

Urban fringe 54% 76% 73% 

Rural/small town 45% 65% 91% 

School Level 

Elementary 49% 71% 74% 

Middle 58% 79% 74% 

High 56% 61% 85% 

Exhibit reads: Fifty-three percent of all schools reported needing technical assistance to address the 

needs of students with disabilities. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Appendix C 158 

Exhibit C.19 

Percentage of Schools Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance 

to Meet the Needs of LEP Students and Percentage Finding It Sufficient 

to Meet Their Needs, by School Characteristic, 2004–05 

Characteristic Needed 

Received Where 

Needed 

Sufficient Where 

Needed and Received 

All schools (n=1,311) 38% 68% 69% 

School Identification Status 

Not identified 37% 68% 69% 

Year 1 Year 2 of being identified for improvement 48% 65% 72% 

Corrective action status 60% 94% 73% 

Restructuring status 54% 74% 48% 

School Poverty Level 

High poverty 43% 80% 72% 

Medium poverty 39% 74% 63% 

Low poverty 35% 54% 75% 

School Minority Concentration 

High minority (75% or more) 48% 75% 77% 

Moderate minority (25–75%) 51% 77% 57% 

Low minority (less than 25%) 26% 52% 83% 

Urbanicity 

Central city 45% 74% 77% 

Urban fringe 38% 68% 67% 

Rural/small town 32% 60% 60% 

School Level 

Elementary 38% 70% 68% 

Middle 41% 71% 67% 

High 38% 58% 75% 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-eight percent of all schools reported needing technical assistance addressing the 

needs of limited English proficient students. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Appendix C 159 

Exhibit C.20 

Existence of and Participation in Extended Time Instructional Programs, 

2004–05 

Percent of Schools 

Offering Each Type 

of Program 

Percent of Students 

Served in Schools 

Offering Each Type 

of Program 

Number of Hours of 

Service per Year in 

Schools Offering 

Each Type of 

Program 

All Schools (n=1,311)

Before-school tutorial or instructional 

program 24% (2.6) 15% (2.9) 115 (12.9) 

After-school tutorial or instructional 

program 68% (2.3) 17% (0.7) 134 (9.2) 

Weekend tutorial or instructional 

program 11% (1.4) 13% (1.2) 52 (5.5) 

Any program 72% (2.3) 

 Identified Schools (n=431)

Before-school tutorial or instructional 

program 28% (4.0) 8% (1.4) 115 (14.2) 

After-school tutorial or instructional 

program 84% (4.7) 18% (1.4) 145 (12.2) 

Weekend tutorial or instructional 

program 22% (3.4) 13% (1.1) 64 (7.4) 

Any program 86% (4.7) 

Non-Identified Schools (n=876)

Before-school tutorial or instructional 

program 23% (2.9) 16% (3.5) 115 (15.2) 

After-school tutorial or instructional 

program 65% (2.6) 16% (0.8) 132 (10.9) 

Weekend tutorial or instructional 

program 9% (1.5) 13% (1.6) 46 (6.6) 

Any program 70% (2.5) 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-four percent of all schools offered a before-school tutorial or instructional 

program in 2004–05. In those schools, on average, 15 percent of students enrolled in the before-school 

program, and the before-school program provided, on average, 115 hours of service during the year. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey.
Appendix C 160 

Exhibit C.21 

Percentage of Elementary Schools Increasing and Decreasing Instructional Time 

in Various Subjects Between 2003–04 and 2004–05 

Subject 

Increased 

More Than 

30 Minutes 

Increased 

Less Than 30 

Minutes 

Stayed the 

Same 

Decreased Less 

Than 30 Minutes 

Decreased 

More Than 

30 Minutes 

Identified Schools (n=247) 

Reading 30% 17% 53% 0% 0% 

Mathematics 17% 13% 68% 1% 0% 

Science 5% 5% 84% 4% 1% 

Social studies 1% 2% 88% 5% 3% 

Art/music 1% 2% 88% 5% 3% 

Physical education/health 2% 2% 88% 5% 2% 

Other 4% 7% 84% 4% 1% 

Non-Identified Schools (n=588) 

Reading 13% 16% 71% 0% 0% 

Mathematics 8% 17% 75% 0% 0% 

Science 4% 7% 82% 7% 0% 

Social studies 1% 3% 85% 11% 1% 

Art/music 0% 5% 86% 8% 1% 

Physical education/health 0% 4% 89% 6% 1% 

Other 0% 3% 90% 4% 3% 

Exhibit reads: None of the identified schools reported decreasing instructional time in reading by more 

than 30 minutes per day. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 
Appendix C 161 

Exhibit C.22 

Percentage of Districts Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance 

to Meet the Needs of Students with Disabilities and Percentage Finding It Sufficient 

to Meet Their Needs, by District Characteristic, 2004–05 

Characteristic Needed 

Received Where 

Needed 

Sufficient Where 

Needed and Received 

All districts (n=289) 40% 88% 65% 

District Identification Status 

Identified for improvement 57% 76% 29% 

Not identified for improvement 37% 90% 74% 

District Poverty Level 

High poverty 76% 84% 44% 

Medium poverty 52% 93% 73% 

Low poverty 33% 84% 68% 

District Minority Concentration 

High minority (75% or more) 24% 81% 57% 

Moderate minority (25–75%) 43% 91% 75% 

Low minority (less than 25%) 42% 87% 64% 

District Size 

Small (fewer than 2,500) 34% 88% 63% 

Medium (2,500 to 10,000) 53% 85% 66% 

Large (more than 10,000) 64% 92% 77% 

Exhibit reads: Forty percent of all districts needed technical assistance to meet the needs of students 

with disabilities. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Appendix C 162 

Exhibit C.23 

Percentage of Districts Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance to 

Meet the Needs of LEP Students and the Percentage Finding It 

Sufficient to Meet Their Needs, by District Characteristic, 2004–05 

Characteristic Needed 

Received 

Where 

Needed 

Sufficient Where 

Needed and 

Received 

All districts (n=289) 23% 69% 63% 

District Identification Status 

Identified for improvement 29% 87% 37% 

Not identified for improvement 21% 64% 71% 

District Poverty Level 

High poverty 45% 89% 68% 

Medium poverty 25% 87% 69% 

Low poverty 22% 47% 61% 

District Minority Concentration 

High minority (75% or more) 23% 96% 57% 

Moderate minority (25–75%) 45% 83% 75% 

Low-minority (less than 25%) 15% 47% 42% 

District Size 

Small (fewer than 2,500) 12% 39% 69% 

Medium (2,500 to 10,000) 51% 88% 53% 

Large (more than 10,000) 60% 83% 87% 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-three percent of all districts needed technical assistance to meet the needs of 

students with limited English proficiency. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Appendix D 163 

APPENDIX D. 

STANDARD ERROR EXHIBITS 

Exhibit D.1 

Percentage of School Staff Correctly Reporting Whether Their School Made AYP 

or Was Identified for Improvement Based on 2003–04 Test Results 

Did School Make Adequate Yearly Progress in 2003–04? 

Reported Correct 

Status 

Reported 

Incorrect Status Don’t know 

Principals (n=1,316) 88.0 (2.4) 9.4 (1.3) 3.1 (0.7) 

Elementary teachers (n=4,089) 72.3 (2.1) 6.6 (0.9) 20.9 (1.5) 

Secondary teachers (n=3,305) 59.2 (2.8) 11.5 (1.2) 30.3 (2.2) 

Special education teachers (n=1,191) 65.2 (2.4) 8.6 (1.1) 26.2 (2.1) 

Is School Identified for Improvement in 2004–05? 

Reported Correct 

Status 

Reported 

Incorrect Status Don’t know 

Principals (n=1,316) 91.7 (2.1) 6.1 (0.9) 1.2 (0.3) 

Elementary teachers (n=4,089) 65.3 (2.2) 7.9 (0.8) 26.4 (1.7) 

Secondary teachers (n=3,305) 52.2 (2.3) 11.3 (1.6) 36.5 (1.8) 

Special education teachers(n=1,191) 60.3 (2.6) 12.7 (1.4) 26.7 (2.2) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal and Teacher Surveys. 

Exhibit D.2 

Percentage of Staff in Title I Schools Correctly Reporting 

Whether Their Schools Were Identified for Improvement 

Purpose Identified Schools Non-Identified Schools 

Principals (n=1,033) 78.3 (4.0) 96.9 (0.8) 

Elementary teachers (n=3,378) 70.3 (2.6) 59.5 (2.5) 

Secondary teachers (n=2,188) 62.7 (2.7) 48.5 (2.7) 

Special education teachers (n=895) 63.4 (3.9) 58.9 (3.6) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal and Teacher Surveys.
Appendix D 164 

Exhibit D.3 

Percentage of Identified Schools That Reported Needing and Receiving 

Various Types of Technical Assistance, 2003–04 to 2004–05

 Type of Technical Assistance 

Percent of NonIdentified 

Schools That 

Needed 

Assistance 

(n=881)

Percent of 

Identified 

Schools That 

Needed 

Assistance 

(n=430)

Percent of 

Identified Schools 

Needing 

Assistance That 

Received It 

(n=212 to 343)

Percent of Identified 

Schools Reporting 

That Assistance 

Received Was 

Sufficient 

(n=147 to 313)

Identify effective curricula, 

instructional strategies, or school 

reform models 

54.3 (3.1) 69.6 (5.1) 92.5 (2.0) 72.5 (8.5) 

Improve quality of teachers’ 

professional development 52.6 (3.2) 79.7 (3.6) 91.4 (2.8) 73.7 (8.5) 

Address instructional needs of 

students with IEPs 49.5 (3.0) 70.9 (4.1) 72.4 (7.8) 69.3 (6.5) 

Identify or develop detailed 

curriculum guides, frameworks, 

pacing sequences, and/or model 

lessons aligned with state standards 

49.5 (2.8) 62.3 (5.6) 92.6 (2.0) 66.6 (8.0) 

Get parents more engaged in their 

child’s education 46.2 (3.1) 74.2 (3.9) 51.3 (6.8) 53.0 (7.9) 

Analyze assessment results to 

understand students’ strengths and 

weaknesses 

40.9 (3.1) 67.8 (4.8) 92.5 (3.0) 93.8 (1.7) 

Implement the provisions of NCLB

relating to “qualified” 

paraprofessionals 

37.9 (2.9) 52.5 (5.8) 85.8 (4.0) 95.0 (1.5) 

Address problems of student 

truancy, tardiness, and discipline, 

and of dropouts 

36.5 (2.7) 56.7 (5.1) 68.2 (6.1) 42.0 (8.5) 

Address instructional needs of LEP 

students 36.7 (3.0) 49.3 (5.5) 69.3 (9.9) 70.8 (8.1) 

Improve students’ test taking skills 32.1 (2.6) 70.0 (4.0) 71.0 (6.1) 70.8 (9.4) 

Develop or revise school 

improvement plan 27.5 (3.0) 61.7 (5.3) 89.5 (5.2) 89.4 (3.0) 

Recruit, retain, or assign teachers in 

order to staff all classes with a 

teacher who is “highly qualified” 

27.6 (2.3) 62.1 (5.5) 76.3 (5.3) 79.7 (6.1) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey.
Appendix D 165 

Exhibit D.4 

Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance in Four Areas, 

by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05 

 Characteristic 

Develop or Revise 

the School’s 

Improvement Plan

Analyze Assessment 

Results to Understand 

Students’ Strengths 

and Weaknesses 

Get Parents 

Engaged in 

Their Child’s 

Education 

Improve the Quality 

of Teachers’ 

Professional 

Development 

All Schools (n=1,311) 32.6 (2.6) 44.8 (2.7) 50.3 (2.7) 56.7 (2.8) 

By School Identified for Improvement Status 

Not identified 27.5 (3.0) 40.9 (3.1) 46.2 (3.1) 52.6 (3.2) 

Year 1 and Year 2 of identified 

for improvement status 61.0 (6.2) 65.8 (5.8) 72.5 (4.6) 77.4 (4.4) 

Corrective action status 59.3 (10.8) 79.8 (8.7) 88.8 (2.6) 97.1 (2.5) 

Restructuring status 68.1 (6.9) 72.2 (6.4) 72.8 (8.1) 80.7 (7.1) 

By School Poverty Level 

High poverty 52.4 (4.4) 64.8 (4.1) 72.8 (3.6) 72.6 (3.8) 

Medium poverty 32.5 (4.1) 39.7 (4.5) 53.5 (4.8) 55.5 (4.7) 

Low poverty 22.1 (3.7) 39.5 (4.2) 34.5 (4.2) 49.8 (4.5) 

By School Minority Concentration 

High minority (75% or more) 47.9 (4.6) 63.1 (4.3) 70.8 (4.0) 71.0 (4.4) 

Moderate minority (25–75%) 35.4 (4.6) 43.7 (4.4) 51.1 (5.4) 58.1 (4.2) 

Low minority (less than 25%) 24.8 (4.3) 38.4 (4.7) 41.3 (4.3) 49.8 (4.6) 

By Urbanicity 

Central city 40.7 (4.0) 56.5 (4.3) 64.9 (4.8) 67.8 (4.0) 

Urban fringe/large town 27.6 (4.2) 43.3 (4.1) 46.3 (3.8) 53.3 (3.9) 

Rural/small town 34.2 (5.6) 35.8 (5.2) 43.4 (5.8) 51.8 (7.1) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 
Appendix D 166 

Exhibit D.5 

Percent of Districts With Identified Schools Reporting That They Provided 

Technical Assistance to Various Types of Schools in Either 2003–04 or 2004–05 

Type of Technical Assistance 

All or Some 

Identified 

Schools 

Schools that Are 

Not Low 

Performing 

District Did 

Not 

Provide 

Develop or revise school improvement plan 87.5 (8.4) 56.5 (10.8) 11.4 (8.4) 

Analyze assessment results to understand students’ 

strengths and weaknesses 83.0 (9.0) 67.5 (10.6) 12.9 (8.9) 

Address instructional needs of students with IEPs 78.9 (9.3) 56.3 (10.7) 17.5 (9.2) 

Implement NCLB provisions relating to “qualified” 

paraprofessionals 72.4 (10.9) 53.5 (10.5) 24.2 (11.0) 

Address problems of student truancy, tardiness, 

discipline, and dropout 65.0 (10.9) 49.7 (10.3) 31.6 (11.1) 

Recruit, retain, or assign teachers in order to staff all 

classes with a teacher who is “highly qualified” 64.2 (10.8) 43.0 (9.7) 34.3 (10.9) 

Identify curricula, instructional strategies, or school 

reform models that have been shown to be effective in 

increasing students’ achievement 

65.4 (11.1) 47.9 (10.7) 30.2 (11.3) 

Get parents more engaged in their child’s education 56.2 (10.9) 49.1 (10.1) 40.4 (11.3) 

Improve students’ test taking skills 52.6 (10.8) 43.8 (10.6) 45.0 (10.9) 

Address instructional needs of LEP students 49.5 (10.2) 43.2 (9.3) 47.8 (10.5) 

Identify or develop detailed curriculum guides, 

frameworks, pacing sequences, and/or model lessons 

aligned with state standards 

46.4 (9.8) 44.5 (9.6) 45.1 (11.0) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n=156 districts with identified schools). 
Appendix D 167 

Exhibit D.6 

Percentage of Schools Needing Technical Assistance Related to 

Professional Development, by School Characteristic, 2003–04 or 2004–05 

 Characteristic 

Improve Quality of 

Teachers’ 

Professional 

Development 

Recruit, Retain, or Assign 

Teachers in Order to Staff All 

Classes with a Teacher Who Is 

“Highly Qualified” 

Implement Provisions 

of NCLB Relating to 

“Qualified” 

Paraprofessionals 

All schools (n=1,311) 56.7 (2.8) 32.8 (2.3) 40.0 (2.5) 

School Identification Status 

Not identified 52.6 (3.2) 27.6 (2.3) 37.9 (2.8) 

Year 1 and Year 2 of identified 

for improvement status 77.4 (4.4) 58.7 (6.5) 47.2 (6.5) 

Corrective action status 97.1 (2.5) 83.2 (6.4) 78.8 (6.8) 

Restructuring status 80.7 (7.1) 72.8 (8.2) 72.1 (7.6) 

School Poverty Level 

High poverty 72.6 (3.8) 47.6 (4.3) 53.0 (4.3) 

Medium poverty 55.5 (4.7) 36.2 (4.6) 46.0 (4.6) 

Low poverty 49.8 (4.5) 21.2 (3.5) 26.2 (3.4) 

School Minority Concentration 

High minority (75% or more) 71.0 (4.4) 57.0 (4.0) 57.5 (4.2) 

Moderate minority (25–75%) 58.1 (4.2) 37.2 (4.9) 45.8 (4.6) 

Low minority (less than 25%) 49.8 (4.6) 20.4 (3.7) 29.0 (3.8) 

Urbanicity 

Central city 67.8 (4.0) 43.8 (4.5) 49.9 (3.6) 

Urban fringe 53.3 (3.9) 31.5 (3.2) 35.2 (3.7) 

Rural/small town 51.8 (7.1) 24.1 (4.8) 39.3 (6.2) 

School Level 

Elementary 55.0 (3.5) 26.2 (2.5) 39.8 (3.5) 

Middle 65.4 (4.7) 43.1 (4.9) 44.0 (4.8) 

High 53.0 (6.6) 43.3 (6.3) 38.3 (6.0) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 
Appendix D 168 

Exhibit D.7 

Percentage of Schools Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance to Meet the Needs 

of Students with Disabilities and Percentage Finding It Sufficient to Meet Their Needs, 

by School Characteristic, 2004–05 

Characteristic Needed 

Received Where 

Needed 

Sufficient Where 

Needed and Received 

All schools (n=1,311) 52.7 (2.6) 71.3 (3.3) 76.2 (3.2) 

School Identification Status 

Not identified 49.5 (3.0) 70.6 (3.7) 78.7 (3.7) 

Year 1 and Year 2 of being identified 

for improvement 70.1 (5.0) 70.8 (9.3) 69.1 (8.0) 

Corrective action status 77.2 (7.0) 95.3 (3.1) 77.8 (10.9) 

Restructuring status 70.2 (7.9) 60.2 (7.1) 54.1 (12.4) 

School Poverty Level 

High poverty 62.9 (4.1) 77.3 (3.8) 73.5 (5.7) 

Medium poverty 50.0 (4.4) 74.4 (5.8) 74.2 (5.8) 

Low poverty 50.0 (4.5) 64.0 (6.3) 81.6 (4.6) 

School Minority Concentration 

High minority (75% or more) 62.4 (4.7) 75.4 (3.7) 76.7 (4.3) 

Moderate minority (25–75%) 53.4 (4.3) 71.5 (6.1) 65.5 (7.1) 

Low minority (less than 25%) 48.3 (4.5) 69.2 (5.6) 84.6 (3.9) 

Urbanicity 

Central city 58.8 (3.7) 67.3 (5.8) 71.6 (4.7) 

Urban fringe 53.7 (3.9) 75.8 (4.4) 73.2 (5.2) 

Rural/small town 44.9 (5.7) 65.6 (8.2) 91.1 (3.2) 

School Level 

Elementary 49.5 (3.5) 70.8 (4.4) 73.9 (4.9) 

Middle 58.1 (5.3) 79.0 (4.1) 74.0 (5.9) 

High 55.7 (6.2) 61.0 (9.1) 85.3 (5.1) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Appendix D 169 

Exhibit D.8 

Percentage of Schools Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance to Meet the Needs 

of LEP Students and Percentage Finding It Sufficient to Meet Their Needs, 

by School Characteristic, 2004–05 

Characteristic Needed 

Received Where 

Needed 

Sufficient Where 

Needed and Received 

All schools (n=1,311) 38.3 (2.7) 68.3 (3.6) 69.2 (5.0) 

School Identification Status 

Not identified 36.7 (3.0) 67.9 (4.2) 68.6 (6.0) 

Year 1 Year 2 of being identified for improvement 47.6 (6.7) 64.9 (12.8) 72.2 (10.3) 

Corrective action status 60.3 (11.1) 93.9 (4.4) 72.6 (4.6) 

Restructuring status 54.3 (8.4) 73.8 (12.5) 48.5 (8.6) 

School Poverty Level 

High poverty 43.5 (4.0) 79.9 (3.8) 72.5 (5.7) 

Medium poverty 38.9 (4.4) 74.1 (6.1) 63.3 (9.9) 

Low poverty 34.6 (3.8) 54.0 (7.6) 75.0 (7.1) 

School Minority Concentration 

High minority (75% or more) 48.4 (4.3) 75.0 (4.3) 77.2 (3.7) 

Moderate minority (25–75%) 51.0 (4.9) 77.5 (5.6) 57.4 (8.5) 

Low minority (less than 25%) 26.3 (3.3) 52.5 (7.1) 83.4 (5.7) 

Urbanicity 

Central city 44.5 (5.1) 74.2 (2.7) 77.0 (4.7) 

Urban fringe 38.4 (3.5) 68.1 (5.0) 67.4 (7.0) 

Rural/small town 31.6 (6.4) 60.3 (10.5) 60.5 (14.2) 

School Level 

Elementary 38.1 (3.4) 70.2 (4.5) 68.4 (6.2) 

Middle 41.3 (5.4) 71.4 (7.8) 66.8 (13.2) 

High 38.2 (5.8) 57.9 (10.9) 74.8 (8.2) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 
Appendix D 170 

Exhibit D.9 

Percentage of Schools Needing and Receiving Technical Assistance to Analyze 

Assessment Results and Percentage Finding It Sufficient to Meet Their Needs, 

by School Characteristic, 2004-05 

Characteristic Needed 

Received Where 

Needed 

Sufficient Where 

Needed and Received

All schools (n=1,311) 44.8 (2.7) 88.5 (2.3) 89.5 (2.4) 

School Identification Status 

Not identified 41.0 (3.1) 88.2 (2.5) 88.4 (3.0) 

Year 1 Year 2 of being identified for improvement 65.5 (5.9) 92.2 (4.0) 94.3 (1.9) 

Corrective action status 79.8 (8.8) 99.4 (0.6) 88.9 (4.9) 

Restructuring status 72.2 (6.5) 84.5 (6.8) 87.3 (7.4) 

School Poverty Level 

High poverty 43.0 (4.0) 89.3 (3.4) 90.9 (2.3) 

Medium poverty 39.7 (4.6) 90.5 (2.8) 88.9 (6.0) 

Low poverty 64.8 (4.1) 85.6 (4.4) 88.9 (4.1) 

School Minority Concentration 

High minority (75% or more) 63.1 (4.4) 86.8 (3.6) 89.8 (2.3) 

Moderate minority (25-75%) 43.7 (4.5) 93.5 (2.2) 87.2 (4.4) 

Low minority (less than 25%) 38.4 (4.8) 85.9 (4.6) 91.1 (4.6) 

Urbanicity 

Central city 56.5 (4.4) 92.2 (2.1) 90.7 (2.5) 

Urban fringe 43.3 (4.1) 90.5 (3.3) 86.6 (4.0) 

Rural/small town 35.8 (5.3) 76.9 (7.7) 96.3 (2.2) 

School Level 

Elementary 43.5 (3.8) 90.9 (2.5) 91.3 (5.2) 

Middle 43.6 (5.1) 86.0 (4.7) 80.9 (6.8) 

High 49.9 (6.5) 85.7 (5.5) 96.2 (3.1) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 
Appendix D 171 

Exhibit D.10 

Percentage of Schools Reporting Major Focus 

on Various School Improvement Strategies, 2004–05 

2004–05 Status 

Identified Schools 

School Improvement Strategy 

All 

Identified 

(n=430)

Year 1 or 

Year 2 Only 

(n=288) 

Corrective 

Action Only 

(n=56)

Restructuring 

Only 

(n=79) 

NonIdentified 

Schools 

(=881) 

Using student achievement data to 

inform instruction and school 

improvement 

82.4 (3.5) 81.2 (1.1) 87.8 (4.4) 86.4 (4.4) 66.8 (2.8) 

Providing additional instruction to lowachieving students 77.6 (3.9) 78.3 (2.1) 75.0 (10.9) 74.1 (6.7) 59.7 (2.7) 

Aligning curriculum and instruction with 

standards and/or assessments 72.3 (4.5) 69.0 (2.6) 87.7 (4.2) 81.9 (5.6) 70.0 (2.6) 

Implementing new instructional 

approaches or curricula in reading 61.1 (4.4) 58.3 (3.1) 71.8 (10.1) 71.5 (5.7) 49.1 (2.6) 

Increasing the intensity, focus, and 

effectiveness of professional 

development 

59.8 (5.1) 56.8 (2.3) 75.8 (10.6) 69.7 (5.7) 41.9 (2.6) 

Implementing new instructional 

approaches or curricula in mathematics 59.5 (4.8) 59.0 (3.4) 63.9 (10.6) 55.9 (6.7) 40.8 (2.6) 

Restructuring the school day to teach 

core content areas in greater depth 

(e.g., establishing a literacy block) 

52.0 (4.1) 49.9 (5.5) 63.3 (11.1) 59.5 (6.6) 31.4 (2.4) 

Providing extended-time instructional 

programs (e.g., before-school, afterschool, or weekend instructional 

programs) 

51.4 (4.7) 45.9 (6.0) 79.8 (7.8) 65.4 (7.2) 30.9 (2.6) 

Implementing strategies for increasing 

parents’ involvement in their children’s 

education 

32.2 (4.4) 31.0 (5.0) 47.0 (10.5) 26.4 (5.4) 13.4 (1.6) 

Increasing instructional time for all 

students (e.g., by lengthening the school 

day or year, shortening recess) 

26.1 (3.9) 25.0 (5.7) 39.3 (10.0) 21.9 (5.9) 13.0 (1.8) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 

Exhibit D.11 

Percentage of Teachers Reporting Availability of Various Resources for 

Aligning Curriculum and Instruction With State Content Standards, 2004–05 

Resource General Education Teachers

(n=7,394)

District or school content standards that augment state content standards 90.0 (0.7) 

Detailed curriculum guides, frameworks, and/or pacing sequences 87.1 (0.9) 

Model lessons that are aligned with state content standards 57.9 (1.4) 

A detailed table or report showing the alignment of required textbooks and 

instructional programs to state content standards 56.8 (1.4) 

A detailed table or report showing the alignment of required textbooks and 

instructions programs to state assessments 46.6 (1.6) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey. 
Appendix D 172 

Exhibit D.12 

Percentage of Teachers Reporting Moderate or Major Challenges 

to Improving Student Performance, 2004–05 

General Education Teachers 

(n=7,394)

Challenge Non-Identified 

Schools 

Identified 

Schools 

Large class size 59.4 (1.5) 62.3 (3.5) 

Too few textbooks and other instructional materials 21.4 (1.2) 33.2 (2.2) 

Textbooks and instructional materials that are not aligned with state standards 17.9 (1.2) 18.0 (1.4) 

Insufficient parent involvement 45.4 (2.1) 79.6 (2.3) 

Low student motivation 46.6 (1.9) 75.1 (2.5) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey. 

Exhibit D.13 

Percentage of Schools Offering Extended Time Instructional Programs and Percentage 

of Students Served by Such Programs, 2004-05 

 Schools Students 

Before-school tutorial or instructional program 23.9 (2.6) 4.4 (1.5) 

After-school tutorial or instructional program 68.0 (2.4) 10.1 (0.9) 

Weekend tutorial or instructional program 11.3 (1.4) 1.3 (0.2) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey (n=1,311 schools). 

Exhibit D.14 

Percentage of Elementary Schools Increasing and Decreasing Instructional Time in 

Various Subjects by More Than 30 Minutes per Day Between 2003–04 and 2004–05 

Identified Schools 

(n=247) 

Non-Identified Schools

(n=588) 

All Schools

(n=838) 

 Subject 

Increased 

More Than 

30 Minutes 

Decreased 

More Than 

30 Minutes

Increased 

More Than 

30 Minutes

Decreased 

More Than 

30 Minutes 

Increased 

More Than 

30 Minutes 

Decreased 

More Than 

30 Minutes

Reading 29.7 (4.9) 0.0 (0.2) 13.1 (2.3) 0.0 (0.0) 15.4 (2.1) 0.1 (0.0) 

Mathematics 16.7 (3.1) 0.1 (0.1) 8.3 (1.9) 0.0 (0.0) 9.4 (1.7) 0.0 (0.0) 

Science 4.8 (2.4) 1.3 (0.6) 3.6 (1.2) 0.4 (0.2) 3.7 (1.1) 0.6 (0.2) 

Social studies 1.4 (0.7) 2.7 (1.2) 0.6 (0.4) 0.6 (0.2) 0.7 (0.4) 0.9 (0.3) 

Art/music 1.3 (0.8) 3.1 (1.2) 0.1 (0.1) 1.2 (0.4) 0.3 (0.1) 1.5 (0.5) 

Physical education/health 1.8 (1.0) 2.4 (1.2) 0.3 (0.1) 1.2 (0.5) 0.5 (0.2) 1.3 (0.5) 

Other 3.5 (2.6) 0.6 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0) 2.9 (1.1) 0.4 (0.3) 2.6 (1.0) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 
Appendix D 173 

Exhibit D.15 

Percentage of Secondary Schools Increasing Instructional Time in Various Subjects by 

More Than 30 Minutes per Day Between 2003–04 and 2004–05 

Subject Identified Schools Non-Identified Schools 

Mathematics 46.7 (7.7) 39.8 (4.2) 

Reading 54.9 (5.5) 35.6 (4.0) 

Science 17.5 (5.1) 11.8 (2.3) 

Social studies 15.6 (4.9) 9.7 (2.3) 

Other (e.g., Art/music, Physical education/health) 9.2 (4.0) 3.9 (1.4) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey (n=454 secondary schools). 

Exhibit D.16 

Percentage of Schools Reporting Moderate or Extensive Use of State Achievement 

Tests for Various Purposes, 2004–05 

Purpose 

Identified 

Schools 

(n=430)

Non-Identified 

Schools 

(n=881)

Develop or revise our school improvement plan 98.3 (0.8) 85.4 (2.1) 

Identify and correct gaps in the curriculum 91.2 (2.5) 84.6 (2.3) 

Plan professional development activities for teachers 96.6 (0.9) 82.5 (2.6) 

Identify students who need additional instructional support 94.1 (2.1) 82.1 (2.7) 

Tailor instruction to individual students’ needs 93.1 (1.5) 74.8 (2.7) 

Group students for instruction (either within or across grade levels) 79.6 (3.6) 62.6 (2.7) 

Improve or increase the involvement of parents in student learning 72.8 (4.2) 48.9 (2.9) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey.

Exhibit D.17 

Percentage of Elementary Teachers and Secondary English Teachers 

Using State Reading Assessment Results Moderately 

or Extensively for Various Purposes, 2004–05 

Use of Reading Assessments 

Identified 

Schools 

Non-Identified 

Schools 

Identify individual students who need remedial assistance 76.0 (2.5) 63.9 (1.8) 

Tailor instruction to individual students’ needs 75.0 (2.4) 60.8 (1.8) 

Identify and correct gaps in the curriculum for all students 76.6 (2.3) 70.3 (1.6) 

Improve or increase parent involvement in student learning 43.6 (3.6) 38.3 (1.9) 

Recommend tutoring or other educational services to students or their parents 66.7 (3.2) 48.0 (2.0) 

Identify areas where I need to strengthen my content knowledge or teaching skills 80.2 (2.2) 71.7 (1.8) 

Assign or reassign students to classes or groups 53.9 (3.6) 42.5 (1.8) 

Develop or revise IEPs 35.1 (3.3) 31.9 (1.7) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey (n=3,194 elementary and 1,242 secondary English teachers). 
Appendix D 174 

Exhibit D.18 

Percentage of Schools Administering Progress Tests, 

by School Characteristic, 2004–05 

Characteristic Reading Tests Mathematics Tests 

School Identification Status 

Not identified 63.9 (3.0) 52.3 (3.4) 

Year 1 and Year 2 of identified for improvement status 76.0 (5.9) 67.3 (5.5) 

Corrective action status 80.5 (11.0) 63.3 (10.7) 

Restructuring status 89.8 (5.2) 73.3 (6.9) 

School Poverty Level 

High poverty 85.7 (3.0) 69.7 (3.6) 

Medium poverty 70.3 (4.4) 60.6 (4.7) 

Low poverty 51.5 (4.4) 41.0 (4.5) 

School Minority Concentration 

High minority (75% or more) 85.9 (2.7) 71.8 (3.4) 

Moderate minority (25–75%) 76.8 (3.3) 61.7 (4.6) 

Low minority (less than 25%) 50.7 (5.0) 43.2 (5.4) 

Urbanicity 

Central city 72.7 (3.9) 59.2 (4.6) 

Urban fringe 68.1 (3.6) 56.7 (4.1) 

Rural/small town 56.2 (6.8) 47.2 (7.5) 

School Level 

Elementary 75.7 (3.0) 61.6 (3.5) 

Middle 57.0 (4.7) 49.1 (4.7) 

High 48.1 (6.1) 41.8 (5.9) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey (n=1,311 schools) 
Appendix D 175 

Exhibit D.19 

Percentage of Teachers Administering Progress Tests in Reading 

Who Use Results Moderately or Extensively for Various Purposes, 2004–05 

General Education Teachers 

(n=7,394)

Purpose Non-Identified Schools Identified Schools 

Identify individual students who need remedial assistance 91.7 (1.2) 89.6 (1.7) 

Tailor instruction to individual students’ needs 89.0 (1.3) 91.7 (1.1) 

Identify and correct gaps in the curriculum for all students 85.3 (1.4) 87.5 (1.6) 

Improve or increase parent involvement in student learning 56.6 (2.1) 52.1 (3.4) 

Recommend tutoring or other educational services to 

students or their parents 63.4 (2.2) 73.3 (2.3) 

Identify areas where I need to strengthen my content 

knowledge or teaching skills 87.3 (1.6) 86.2 (1.8) 

Assign or reassign students to classes or groups 65.8 (2.2) 68.1 (2.3) 

Develop or revise individualized education programs 40.0 (2.1) 39.0 (3.2) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey.
Appendix D 176 

Exhibit D.20 

Percentage of Title I Schools Experiencing Various Types of Interventions 

from Their State or District, 2004–05 

 NCLB-Mandated Interventions 

Schools in 

Year 1 of 

Improvement 

(n=199)

Schools in 

Year 2 of 

Improvement 

(n=74)

Schools in 

Corrective 

Action 

(n=74)

Schools in 

Restructuring 

(n=75)

Not 

Identified 

Actions Required for All Identified Schools 

Parents notified of school’s improvement 

status 88.6 (9.7) 95.9 (6.3) 96.1 (3.7) 100.0 (0.0) 86.3 (9.7) 

District or state developed a joint 

improvement plan with the school 80.8 (6.4) 73.2 (8.8) 93.1 (4.3) 91.4 (4.9) 58.2 (16.1)

Students offered the option to transfer to 

a higher-performing school, with 

transportation provided 

81.8 (4.9) 74.8 (10.9) 96.0 (3.8) 95.4 (3.0) 37.4 (16.0)

Action Required for Identified Schools That Miss AYP After Identification (Year 2 of Improvement) 

Students offered supplemental 

educational services from a stateapproved provider 

45.8 (7.2) 90.1 (5.7) 94.4 (2.9) 100.0 (0.0) 26.8 (14.1)

Corrective Actions (At Least One Required for Schools in Corrective Action Status) 

Required implementation of a new 

research-based curriculum or 

instructional program 

48.3 (7.0) 65.9 (9.5) 88.8 (4.0) 72.8 (8.7) 41.8 (16.1)

Significantly decreased management 

authority at the school level 3.7 (1.4) 4.7 (2.3) 27.2 (11.1) 25.1 (7.3) 6.5 (6.0) 

Appointed outside expert to advise the 

school 30.2 (6.8) 34.3 (9.5) 58.6 (10.7) 61.6 (7.0) 13.0 (7.6) 

Extended length of school day 24.1 (6.7) 28.7 (7.7) 44.6 (11.1) 28.8 (7.6) 6.1 (5.3) 

Extended length of school year 9.0 (3.2) 15.5 (6.5) 35.2 (11.2) 21.6 (6.7) 0.2 (0.2) 

Restructured internal organization of the 

school 11.6 (5.2) 22.5 (9.9) 21.4 (5.9) 36.9 (7.5) 0.2 (0.2) 

Replaced school staff relevant to 

school’s low performance 1.6 (0.7) 16.7 (9.7) 6.6 (2.8) 13.4 (6.2) 0.0 (0.0) 

Restructuring Interventions 

Reopened the school as a public charter 

school 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 2.4 (1.9) 0.0 (0.0) 

Entered into a contact with a private 

entity to manage the school 0.4 (0.2) 0.8 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0) 2.4 (1.9) 0.0 (0.0) 

State takeover 1.7 (1.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 9.2 (5.5) 0.4 (0.4) 

Replaced all school staff 0.1 (0.1) 1.4 (1.0) 0.0 (0.0) 2.1 (1.9) 0.0 (0.0) 

Appointed new principal 21.5 (7.1) 20.5 (5.8) 19.6 (4.9) 20.4 (5.3) 10.6 (9.8) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey. 
Appendix D 177 

Exhibit D.21 

Percentage of Districts with Identified Schools Requiring Schools to 

Enact Various Improvement Efforts, 2004–05 

 Required Action 

Some or All 

Identified 

Schools 

Both Identified 

and Non-Identified 

Schools 

Action Not 

Taken 

Assign a school-site instructional specialist or coach to 

support mathematics or literacy instruction 29.1 (9.0) 23.6 (6.5) 41.8 (4.1) 

Increase the amount of time spent on mathematics or reading 

instruction 25.2 (8.7) 15.2 (4.6) 54.8 (6.2) 

Implement focused test preparation materials or activities 21.4 (8.9) 15.6 (4.5) 61.8 (4.6) 

Adopt a new reading curriculum or instructional program 19.0 (8.7) 26.9 (8.1) 46.7 (4.5) 

Administer common interim or progress tests every few 

weeks to monitor student progress 14.4 (4.7) 35.8 (8.9) 47.3 (4.6) 

Adopt a new mathematics curriculum or instructional program 12.4 (4.4) 14.6 (4.6) 70.7 (6.0) 

Assign a school-site instructional specialist or coach to 

support instruction for students with limited English 

proficiency 

9.0 (4.3) 6.9 (2.5) 82.7 (1.3) 

Adopt a new English language instruction program for 

students with limited English proficiency 2.9 (1.3) 14.3 (5.1) 82.6 (1.5) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n=289 districts). 

Exhibit D.22 

Percentage of Districts Needing and Receiving Mandated Technical Assistance 

and Finding It Sufficient to Meet Their Needs, 2003–04 or 2004–05 

Type of Technical Assistance Needed 

(n=289)

Received 

Where 

Needed 

(n=144 to 40)

Sufficient 

Where Needed 

and Received 

(n=134 to 29)

Clarify accountability system rules and requirements 50.3 (6.9) 93.4 (3.6) 91.6 (2.8) 

Analyze student assessment data to understand program 

strengths and weaknesses 41.6 (6.1) 88.1 (5.3) 79.4 (5.9) 

Identify and implement effective curricula, instructional 

strategies, or school reform models 41.1 (6.5) 91.5 (3.1) 84.5 (5.5) 

Identify and implement strategies to address the instructional 

needs of students with disabilities 40.0 (6.1) 87.8 (4.1) 65.5 (8.5) 

Develop and implement a district improvement plan 31.3 (5.8) 91.8 (6.1) 88.7 (7.9) 

Identify parental involvement strategies 23.9 (4.6) 74.2 (8.6) 80.5 (9.6) 

Identify and implement strategies to address the instructional 

needs of LEP students 23.2 (4.4) 69.0 (10.6) 62.8 (9.0) 

Improve the quality of professional development in areas in 

which schools did not meet AYP 18.5 (4.1) 76.0 (7.7) 48.0 (14.2) 

Develop strategies to recruit and retain more teachers who 

are “highly qualified” under NCLB 17.1 (4.7) 58.6 (10.0) 82.5 (8.3) 

Analyze and revise budget to use resources more effectively 13.9 (3.2) 73.7 (9.4) 78.7 (8.6) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Appendix D 178 

Exhibit D.23 

Percentage of Identified Districts Implementing Various Initiatives in 

Response to Being Identified for Improvement, 2004–05 

Focus of Voluntary District Improvement Initiatives Percentage of Districts 

(n=75)

Offered/required specific professional development for teachers 79.9 (11.4) 

Distributed test preparation materials to some or all schools 67.3 (11.8) 

Increased district monitoring of instruction and student performance at school sites 61.5 (15.6) 

Offered/required specific professional development for principals 58.5 (15.5) 

Reallocated fiscal resources to target specific needs (e.g., particular groups of 

students, subjects, or schools) 51.1 (14.6) 

Implemented a districtwide curriculum in reading 39.2 (13.8) 

Developed or revised district content standards 23.9 (9.5) 

Reorganized district office staff to increase efficiency or focus on instruction 22.6 (9.2) 

Implemented a districtwide curriculum in mathematics 17.5 (6.8) 

Changed the budget allocation formula for schools 10.5 (4.5) 

Hired a consultant to advise district administrators on effective strategies 10.9 (4.8) 

Created smaller schools, or schools-within-schools 11.2 (5.1) 

Implemented new personnel procedures for hiring or assigning principals and teachers 7.9 (3.4) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 

Exhibit D.24 

Percentage of Identified Districts Experiencing State Interventions 

Mandated for Districts in Corrective Action, 2004–05 

Actions Required for Districts in Corrective Action 

Percentage of 

Identified Districts 

(n=75)

Implemented a new curriculum based on state standards 6.8 (3.4) 

Authorized students to transfer from district schools to higher-performing schools in a 

neighboring district 3.7 (1.7) 

Replaced district personnel who are relevant to the failure to make adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) 0.0 (0.0) 

Removed one or more schools from the jurisdiction of the district 2.5 (2.4) 

Appointed a receiver or trustee to administer the affairs of the district 2.4 (2.4) 

Required restructuring of the district 0.0 (0.1) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey.