U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Title I Accountability and School 

Improvement From 2001 to 2004 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

3-6-06 

Title I Accountability and School Improvement 

From 2001 to 2004 

Prepared by: 

SRI International 

Christine Padilla 

Heidi Skolnik 

Alejandra Lopez-Torkos 

Katrina Woodworth 

Andrea Lash 

Patrick M. Shields 

Policy Studies Associates 

Katrina G. Laguarda 

Consultant 

Jane L. David 

For: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2006 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED00CO0091 with SRI 

International. Collette Roney served as the contracting officer’s representative. The views expressed herein do not 

necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. 

Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Tom Luce 

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan Ginsburg

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

April 2006

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

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

Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Title I Accountability and

School Improvement From 2001 to 2004, Washington, D.C., 2006. 

Copies of this report may be ordered in the following ways: 

• Mail. Write to: 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center

U.S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

• Fax. Dial 301-470-1244. 

• Telephone (toll-free). Dial 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in

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

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

• Electronic mail. Send your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov. 

• Online. Order a copy of the report at: www.edpubs.org. This report may also be downloaded from the 

Department’s Web site at www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title. 

• Alternate formats. Upon 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 202-260-9895 or 202-205-8113. 
Acknowledgments 

The development of this report was performed under the guidance of staff from the U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Collette 

Roney of the Policy and Program Studies Service was the project officer.

The Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts is the result 

of collaborative work by SRI International, Policy Studies Associates (PSA), and the Consortium

for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). Among the staff who contributed to the research 

were: Katherine Baisden, Camille Esch, Roneeta Guha, Heather Hough, Raymond McGhee, 

Juliet Tiffany-Morales, Cimone Satele, Amy Seligman, Lisa Uperesa, and Andrew Wayne from 

SRI; Michael Rubenstein, Christina Russell, Darxavia Stephens, Brenda Turnbull, Lisa Weiner, 

and Imeh Williams from PSA; Mark Duffy, Margaret Goertz, and Melissa Prosky from CPRE. 

Harold Javitz of SRI was responsible for designing the sampling plan and developing the 

statistical techniques for longitudinal analyses. Vanessa Barrat of SRI was responsible for 

maintaining multiple databases, conducting survey analyses, and contributing to the design of the 

longitudinal analyses. Organization and editing were done by Deborah DuCharme, Laurie Fox, 

and Klaus Krause. 

The authors would like to thank the state and local school district staff who participated in the 

TASSIE data collection efforts: the 1,300 school districts and 739 Title I schools that completed 

three annual surveys; the state department of education staffs that participated in two annual 

surveys; and in particular, state staff from our five case study states—Arizona, Louisiana, 

Maryland, Michigan, and Washington. The 15 school districts and 20 case study schools within 

these states were generous with both their time and attention to this evaluation work. We learned 

a great deal from these individuals and hope the lessons gained from their efforts will be of use 

to policymakers and other education staff at all levels of the system. 

An external advisory panel provided assistance in reviewing study methods and prioritizing 

issues to investigate, as well as reviewing and providing feedback on project reports. The 

advisory panel consisted of Karen Bachofer, director of standards, assessment, and 

accountability, San Diego City Schools; Rolf Blank, director of education indicators, Council of 

Chief State School Officers; Mitchell Chester, assistance superintendent of the Office of 

Assessment, Ohio Department of Education; Ronald Friend, formerly director of the Office of 

Comprehensive Planning and School Support, Maryland Department of Education; Margaret 

McLaughlin, associate director of the Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth, 

University of Maryland; Jennifer O’Day, American Institutes for Research; Charlene Rivera, 

director of the Institute for Equity and Excellence in Education, George Washington University; 

Russell Rumberger, director of the Linguistic Minority Research Institute, University of 

California at Santa Barbara. 

 iii

Contents 

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................xi 

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

Overview of the Study ............................................................................................................. 2 

Overview of the Report............................................................................................................ 3 

II. Context.................................................................................................................................... 5 

Background: Accountability Provisions of NCLB...................................................................5 

Title I Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement........................................................7 

Districts With Identified Schools.....................................................................................12 

Districts Identified for Improvement ...............................................................................13 

Knowledge of Accountability Elements................................................................................14 

III.Title I Choice and Supplemental Educational Services....................................................15 

Public School Choice Under Title I.......................................................................................15 

Eligibility and Participation ............................................................................................. 16 

Choice Options.................................................................................................................19 

Barriers to Providing and Exercising Choice...................................................................22 

Supplemental Educational Services.......................................................................................27 

Eligibility and Participation ............................................................................................. 27 

Providers of Supplemental Services and How They Are Chosen....................................30 

Barriers to Providing and Participating in Supplemental Services..................................34 

Communication With Parents Under NCLB..........................................................................36 

Public Reporting ....................................................................................................................41 

School and District Report Cards ....................................................................................41 

State Reporting.................................................................................................................44 

Summary................................................................................................................................45 

 v 
IV. School Improvement and District Assistance....................................................................47 

School Actions.......................................................................................................................47 

Planning, Data Uses, New Curricula, and Curriculum Alignment.................................. 49 

Professional Development, School-Based Assistance, and Other Resources.................. 53 

District Assistance .................................................................................................................60 

Planning, Data Use, and Curriculum Alignment .............................................................60 

Professional Development, School-Based Assistance, and Other Resources.................. 63 

Targeting of Assistance to Schools Within Districts.............................................................71 

State Organization of Support to Identified Title I Schools ..................................................74 

Statewide Systems of School Support .............................................................................75 

Use of School Improvement Reserve Funds....................................................................77 

Factors Associated With Changes in Improvement Status....................................................78 

Summary................................................................................................................................80 

V. Corrective Actions and Restructuring...............................................................................83 

District Actions......................................................................................................................83 

State Actions..........................................................................................................................87 

Schools’ Reports of District and State Actions ..................................................................... 89 

Summary................................................................................................................................91 

VI. Conclusions...........................................................................................................................93 

References.................................................................................................................................R-1 

Appendix A: Methods..............................................................................................................A-1 

Appendix B: Additional Exhibits ...........................................................................................B-1 

 vi
Exhibits

Executive Summary 

Exhibit S1 Distribution of Identified Title I Schools in 2001-02 and 2003-04, 

by District Size (Student Enrollment)....................................................................xiii 

Exhibit S2 Distribution of Identified Title I Schools Compared With All Title I 

Schools in 2003-04, by District Poverty................................................................xiv 

Exhibit S3 Distribution of Continuously Identified and No Longer Identified Title I 

Schools in 2003-04, by District Size.......................................................................xv 

Exhibit S4 Participation in Title I Choice and Supplemental Services, Among Districts 

With Identified Schools.........................................................................................xvi 

Exhibit S5 Districts With Different Numbers of Identified Schools Among 

Districts With Identified Schools in 2002-03 and 2003-04 ..................................xvii 

Exhibit S6 Supplemental Service Providers in 2003 and 2004 .............................................xviii 

Exhibit S7 Elements of a Statewide System of School Support...............................................xx 

Exhibit S8 Major Focus of District Resources on Strategies for Improving 

Identified Schools in 2003-04................................................................................xxi 

Exhibit S9 Engagement in Improvement Strategies in 2003-04, by School 

Identification Status..............................................................................................xxii 

Exhibit S10 School Reports of Assistance Received From School-Based Staff Developers 

and School Support Teams in 2003-04, by School Identification Status ............xxiii 

II. Context 

Exhibit 1 Summary of Key NCLB Accountability Requirements ..............................................6 

Exhibit 2 Distribution of Identified Title I Schools in 2001-02 and 2003-04, 

by District Size.............................................................................................................8 

Exhibit 3 Distribution of Identified Title I Schools Compared With All Title I 

Schools, by District Poverty ........................................................................................9 

Exhibit 4 Distribution of Continuously Identified and No Longer Identified Title I 

Schools in 2003-04, by District Size..........................................................................10 

Exhibit 5 Number of States With Varying Percentages of Their Schools Identified 

Schools Identified for Improvement, 2003-04 and 2004-05......................................11 

Exhibit 6 Districts With Different Numbers of Identified Title I Schools, Among 

Districts With Identified Schools in 2002-03 and 2003-04 .......................................13 

 vii 
III. Title I Choice and Supplemental Services 

Exhibit 7 Districts and Schools Required to Offer Title I Choice, Those That Offered 

Choice, and Students Who Exercised Choice in 2002-03 and 2003-04................... 16 

Exhibit 8 Average Number of Schools With Students Eligible to Exercise Choice, 

Among Districts That Provided Title I Choice in 2003-04......................................17 

Exhibit 9 Percentage of Districts With No Student Transfers Under the Title I 

Choice Option in 2003-04, Among Districts That Offered Choice, 

by District Size .........................................................................................................18 

Exhibit 10 Average Number of Alternate Elementary Schools Available to Parents 

With Students in Identified Title I Schools in 2003-04, Among Districts 

That Offered Choice, by District Size ...................................................................... 20 

Exhibit 11 Options for Parents Not Always an Improvement ................................................... 21 

Exhibit 12 Steps Taken by Districts to Increase the Range of Choices Available 

to Parents With Children in Identified Schools in 2003-04, Among 

Districts That Offered Title I Choice .......................................................................22 

Exhibit 13 Top Challenges Faced by Districts That Implemented Title I Choice 

in 2003-04 ................................................................................................................23 

Exhibit 14 Factors That Influence Parents’ Decisions to Transfer Their Children 

to Another School.....................................................................................................25 

Exhibit 15 Other Stumbling Blocks...........................................................................................26 

Exhibit 16 Districts and Schools Required to Offer Supplemental Services, Those 

That Offered Supplemental Services, and Students Who Participated in 

2002-03 and 2003-04................................................................................................28 

Exhibit 17 Average Number of Students in Identified Schools Who Were Eligible for 

Supplemental Services in 2003-04, Among Districts That Provided 

Services, by Urbanicity ............................................................................................29 

Exhibit 18 District Policy Regarding the Provision of Supplemental Services in 

2002-03 and 2003-04, Among Districts That Provided Services.............................30 

Exhibit 19 Criteria for Selecting Supplemental Service Providers in 2003-04 ......................... 31 

Exhibit 20 State Standards and Process for Monitoring Providers and 

Withdrawing Approval From Providers...................................................................32 

Exhibit 21 Supplemental Service Providers in Case Study States in April 2003 and 2004.......33 

Exhibit 22 Supplemental Service Providers in April 2003 and 2004 ........................................34 

Exhibit 23 Top Challenges Faced by Districts That Implemented Supplemental Services, 

Among Districts That Offered Services in 2003-04 ................................................35 

Exhibit 24 District Challenges in Working With Providers.......................................................36 

 viii 
Exhibit 25 Timing of Notification to Parents of Students in Identified Title I Schools 

About Eligibility for School Choice and Supplemental Services in 2003-04, 

Among Districts That Provided Choice and Supplemental Services.......................37 

Exhibit 26 Average Number of Students Who Transferred, by Timing of District 

Notification, Among Districts That Provided Choice in 2003-04............................38 

Exhibit 27 Number of Communication Methods Used by Districts in 2003-04 to 

Notify Parents About Their Title I Choice and Supplemental Services 

Options, Among Districts That Provided These Options.........................................39 

Exhibit 28 District Efforts to Communicate With Parents.........................................................41 

Exhibit 29 Information Included in School and District Report Cards, Among 

Districts That Had School and District Report Cards in 2003-04............................42 

IV. School Improvement and District Assistance 

Exhibit 30 Engagement in Improvement Strategies in 2003-04, by School 

Identification Status.................................................................................................. 48 

Exhibit 31 Variations in Uses of School Plans in Case Study Schools .....................................50 

Exhibit 32 Sources of Information Used by Schools to Inform Their Planning 

Process in 2002-3 and 2003-04, Among Schools With a Written School Plan ....... 50 

Exhibit 33 Trends in Data Use in Case Study Schools..............................................................51 

Exhibit 34 Principal Reports of District or State Support for Curriculum Alignment...............53 

Exhibit 35 Types of Professional Development Emphasized in Schools in 2003-04................54 

Exhibit 36 School Reports of Assistance Received From School-Based Staff Developers 

and School Support Teams in 2003-04, by School Identification Status.................55 

Exhibit 37 Case Study Examples of Staff Developer Activities................................................ 57 

Exhibit 38 Average Percentage of Teacher Participation in Each of Three Types 

of Professional Development in 2003-04, by School Identification Status .............58 

Exhibit 39 Title I Schools Receiving Four Types of Special Funding in 2003-04, 

by School Identification Status.................................................................................59 

Exhibit 40 Funding for School-Based Staff Developers in Case Study Schools....................... 60 

Exhibit 41 Percent of Districts Placing a Major Focus on Strategies for Improving 

Identified Schools, 2001-02 to 2003-04 ................................................................... 61 

Exhibit 42 Topics Addressed by District-Sponsored Professional Development in 2003-04 ...64 

Exhibit 43 Percent of Teachers in Continuously Identified Schools That Participated 

in Three Types of Professional Development in 2003-04........................................65 

Exhibit 44 District-Sponsored Staff Assistance for Identified Title I Schools in 2003-04........66 

 ix
Exhibit 45 Case Study District Resource Constraints................................................................ 67 

Exhibit 46 Focus of Assistance Most Commonly Provided by School-Based Staff 

Developers and School Support Teams in 2003-04 ................................................. 68 

Exhibit 47 Time Spent in Identified Schools by School Support Teams and 

Distinguished Teachers/Other Consultants (Those Sponsored by Both 

Districts and States) in 2003-04 ...............................................................................69 

Exhibit 48 District Assistance to Identified Title I Schools in 2003-04, by District Size .........70 

Exhibit 49 Districts That Provided Assistance to Identified Title I Schools Only, 

Among Districts That Provided Assistance and Had Identified Title I Schools, 

Schools That Missed AYP, and Higher-Performing Schools in 2003-04................72 

Exhibit 50 District-Sponsored Assistance Among Districts With Identified Title I 

Schools in 2003-04, Compared With Districts Whose Schools Had Missed 

AYP for One Year Only...........................................................................................74 

Exhibit 51 Elements of a Statewide System of School Support in 2003-04.............................. 76 

Exhibit 52 District Reports of State-Sponsored Assistance to Identified Title I 

Schools in 2003-04................................................................................................... 77 

Exhibit 53 Expected Probability of Exiting Improvement Status in 2003-04 

for Four Types of Identified Schools .......................................................................80 

V. Corrective Actions and Restructuring 

Exhibit 54 Distribution of the Number of Schools in Corrective Action in 2003-04, 

Among Districts With These Schools......................................................................84 

Exhibit 55 Corrective Actions Taken in 2003-04, Among Districts With Schools in 

Corrective Action .....................................................................................................85 

Exhibit 56 Restructuring Efforts Taken in 2003-04, Among Districts With Schools in 

Restructuring ............................................................................................................ 86 

Exhibit 57 Corrective Actions Taken by States With Title I Schools in Corrective 

Action in 2003-04..................................................................................................... 87 

Exhibit 58 Restructuring Efforts Taken by States With Title I Schools in 

Restructuring in 2003-04..........................................................................................88 

Exhibit 59 Examples of Variations in State Interventions With Identified Schools 

and Districts.............................................................................................................. 89 

Exhibit 60 Principals’ Reports of Corrective Actions Taken by the State or 

District, by School Identification Status in 2003-04 ................................................90 

 x 
Executive Summary

Accountability stands at the center of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The logic of 

NCLB is straightforward: improving the nation’s schools for all children requires the 

establishment of clear and high standards, the identification of schools in which students are not 

meeting those standards, options for parents of students in schools identified for improvement, 

support for struggling schools, and—for those schools that continue to perform poorly—

increasingly rigorous interventions. 

This report presents the key findings over the three years of the study. Findings from

2002-03, the first full year of NCLB implementation, showed that states and districts were 

making progress in implementing accountability systems under NCLB but that big gaps remained 

between their existing systems of accountability and the NCLB vision of coherent systems that 

support all schools and all students to reach high standards. During 2003-04, educators at all 

levels of the education system continued efforts to implement the accountability provisions of 

NCLB closing the gap in some areas but not all as described below. 

To understand how states, districts, and schools are implementing the Title I accountability 

provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act, the U.S. Department of Education commissioned the 

Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE). The 

study began in 2001-02 and continued to collect data through 2003-04 from a variety of sources: 

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

approximately 1,300 districts out of 11,200 districts nationally that received Title I 

funds during the study period. 

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

identified for improvement in 2001-02 out of 4,100, drawn from the 1,300 sampled 

districts. 

• Yearly case study visits to 20 schools identified for improvement under Title I in 15 

districts in five states. 

• Interviews of all state Title I administrators and analyses of state accountability systems 

components. 

Overall, states, districts, and schools were responding to NCLB requirements in different 

ways; these differences were often associated with district size, urbanicity, and poverty. Five 

themes capture the trends observed over the duration of the study, each of which is described in 

greater detail in the report: 

• Identified schools in small districts were more likely to exit improvement status than 

those in large districts; thus, identified schools became more concentrated in large 

districts. 

 xi
• More students were eligible for Title I public school choice and supplemental 

educational services in 2003-04 than in 2002-03. However, the proportion of parents 

exercising Title I choice remained at 1 percent, compared with 19 percent participating 

in supplemental services in 2003-04, an increase over the 7 percent from the previous 

year. 

• More states were providing technical assistance to identified schools (for example, 36 

states provided school support teams to identified Title I schools in 2003-04, up from

23 states the year before), and most districts were providing a range of assistance with 

data analysis, school improvement planning and curriculum alignment in 2003-04, 

similar to what they provided in 2001-02 and 2002-03. However, many identified 

schools did not receive the types of assistance specified in NCLB (for example, 57 

percent of continuously identified schools reported that they did not receive assistance 

from a school support team in 2003-04). 

• School improvement strategies nationwide remained similar across the three years, 

although schools that were still identified in 2003-04 engaged in more improvement 

activities than schools no longer identified. 

• School poverty and district size better predicted exiting improvement status than the 

improvement strategies undertaken by the schools. 

Trends in Title I Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement 

The most significant shift in identification of schools for improvement under Title I was the 

increasing concentration of identified schools in large urban districts. 

Although the total number of Title I schools identified for improvement remained 

approximately the same from 2002-03 to 2003-04, there was a steady trend toward a 

greater concentration of identified schools in large or very large districts and in urban 

districts since 2001-02 (Exhibit S1).1

 

• Two-thirds (66 percent) of the estimated 5,600 schools identified in 2003-04 were 

located in large or very large districts, up from 56 percent in 2002-03 and 48 percent in 

2001-02. 

• Conversely, the proportion of identified Title I schools that were located in small 

districts declined from 32 percent in 2001-02 to 19 percent in 2003-04. 

• The proportion of identified Title I schools located in urban districts rose from 39 

percent in 2001-02 to 53 percent in 2003-04. 

 1 The total number of districts with identified Title I schools decreased between 2001-02 and 2003-04 (16 percent 

vs. 14 percent, respectively), and this decrease also resulted in a higher concentration of identified schools in those 

districts with identified schools. 

 xii 
Exhibit S1 

Distribution of Identified Title I Schools in 2001-02 and 2003-04, 

by District Size (Student Enrollment) 

41

27

20

25

16

19

19

34

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

School year 2001-

02

School year 2003-

04

P

ercentage of Title I schools

Small (200 to 3,503)

Medium (3,504 to

10,448)

Large (10,449 to 37,740)

Very large (>37,740)

100 100

Exhibit reads: Of the estimated number of identified Title I schools, 34 percent were located

in small districts in 2001-02 and 19 percent in 2003-04.

Note: Differences significant at p < .01. 

Source: TASSIE District and School Database (see Appendix A for definition). 

In 2003-04, the chances that a school would be identified for improvement were much 

higher for schools in districts that were large, urban, and poor. For example: 

• Roughly one-third (36 percent) of all Title I schools were in large or very large 

districts, yet two-thirds (66 percent) of identified Title I schools were in these districts. 

• Almost one-quarter (24 percent) of Title I schools located in urban districts were 

identified; in contrast, only 6 percent of Title I schools in rural districts were identified. 

• Two-fifths (41 percent) of all Title I schools were in districts with the highest poverty 

rates, yet 73 percent of identified Title I schools were in the poorest districts (Exhibit 

S2). 

 xiii 
Exhibit S2 

Distribution of Identified Title I Schools Compared With 

All Title I Schools in 2003-04, by District Poverty

73

41

22

36

5

23

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Identified schools All Title I schools

Percentage of Title I schools

Low poverty

Medium poverty 

Highest poverty 

100 100

Exhibit reads: Of the estimated number of identified Title I schools in 2003-04 (5,600), 5 

percent were located in districts with the lowest poverty level, whereas 23 percent of all

Title I schools were located in districts with the lowest poverty level. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

Similarly, schools that continued to be identified in 2003-04,2

 compared with those no 

longer identified, were more likely to be in very large districts (Exhibit S3). Schools that 

remained identified were more likely to be in large or very large districts, located in urban areas, 

and serving high proportions of low-income families. For example, 74 percent of Title I schools 

that continued to be identified were located in large and very large districts compared with 38 

percent of Title I schools no longer identified. Schools that remained identified were also more 

likely to be large schools, consistent with their location in large districts, which tend to have 

larger schools than small districts. 

 2

 Continuously identified schools are those that were identified for improvement in 2001-02 and continued to be

identified in 2003-04 (see description of TASSIE school sample on pages 2 and 47 for additional information). 

 xiv
Exhibit S3 

Distribution of Continuously Identified and No Longer Identified 

Title I Schools in 2003-04, by District Size 

19

49

19

25

23

14 40

12

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Schools still

identified

Schools no longer

identified

Percentage of Title I s

chools

Small (200 to 3,503)

Medium (3,504 to 10,448)

Large (10,449 to 37,740)

Very large (>37,740)

100 100

Exhibit reads: Twelve percent of Title I schools still identified were located in small districts 

compared with 40 percent of Title I schools no longer identified. 

Source: Demographic distribution of schools in the TASSIE school sample that responded to

the school survey in 2001-02 and/or 2003-04. 

The proportion of schools that missed adequate yearly progress (AYP) in 2002-03 and 

were identified for improvement in 2003-04 varied widely across states. In seven states, 

fewer than 10 percent of schools did not make AYP, while eight states had more than 50 percent 

of schools miss AYP targets. Similarly, 37 states had less than 10 percent of their schools 

identified for improvement in 2003-04, while three states had 25 percent or more of their schools 

identified. 

Trends in Title I Public School Choice and Supplemental Services 

Increasingly, more parents took advantage of supplemental services than Title I 

choice from 2002-03 to 2003-04. In 2002-03, 7 percent of eligible students participated in 

supplemental services, compared with 1 percent who participated in Title I choice. In 2003-04, 

the proportion of eligible students who participated in supplemental services increased to 19 

percent while the proportion participating in Title I choice remained at 1 percent (Exhibit S4). 

 xv
Exhibit S4 

Participation in Title I Choice and Supplemental Services, 

Among Districts With Identified Schools 

School choice Supplemental services 

2002-03 2003-04 2002-03 2003-04

Students (among districts that provided

options): 

Number eligible3

Number who participated 

Proportion who participated

1,535,000 

18,000 

 1% 

2,752,000+

 32,000 

 1% 

592,000 

42,000 

 7% 

1,331,000*

258,000*

 19% 

Schools: 

Number where option required 

Number where option offered 

Proportion where option offered 

6,000 

5,000 

 84%

 5,600 

 4,600 

 83% 

1,300 

800 

 58% 

 3,100 

 2,500 

 83% 

Districts:

Number with schools where option 

required 

Number with schools where option 

offered 

Proportion where option offered 

1,800 

1,200 

 66% 

 1,600 

 1,100 

 67% 

1,100 

500 

 48% 

 1,100 

 600 

 57% 

Exhibit reads: Among districts that had identified schools and offered choice in 2002-03, an estimated 1,535,000

students nationwide were eligible for Title I choice; in 2003-04, the estimate was 2,752,000 students. Among 

district that had identified schools and offered supplemental services in 2002-03, an estimated 592,000 students

nationwide were eligible for supplemental services; for 2003-04, the estimate was 1,331,000.

Note: + indicates significant differences at p<.01; * indicates significant differences at p < .05. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

The number of students eligible for and participating in choice nationally increased 

between 2002-03 and 2003-04, but the proportion of students who transferred remained at 

1 percent. The percentage remained the same because the number of students eligible for choice 

and the number exercising choice increased at about the same rate. Although the number of 

students eligible for choice increased substantially from 2002-03 to 2003-04, the number of 

districts and schools offering choice changed little. This pattern probably reflects the increasing 

numbers of identified schools in large and urban districts and the declining numbers in small 

districts (Exhibit S1). Small districts had an average of one school with students eligible for 

choice, whereas very large districts had an average of 30 schools. As a result, in 2003-04, 4 

percent of districts had 13 or more identified schools compared with 2 percent in 2002-03 

(Exhibit S5). Additionally, schools in larger districts tend to have larger school enrollments than 

their small and rural counterparts thereby increasing the number of students eligible for Title I 

choice. 

 3 Not all districts that should have provided choice and supplemental services reported providing these options and 

thus did not provide eligibility data. As a result, the number of students eligible is underestimated and the 

proportion participating is overestimated. The margins of error for the estimates are: 1.5 million +/- .6 million;

2.75 million +/- .7 million; 592,000 +/- .6 million; 1.3 million +/- .34 million (see Appendix A). 

 xvi
Exhibit S5 

Districts With Different Numbers of Identified Schools Among 

Districts With Identified Schools in 2002-03 and 2003-04 

74 70

15

13

10 11

2 4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002-03 2003-04

P

erc

e

ntage of Title I s

chools

13 or more identified

schools in the

districts

5 to 12 identified

schools in the

districts

3 to 4 identified

schools in the

districts

1 to 2 identified

schools in the

districts

10 10

Exhibit reads: In 2002-03, among districts nationwide that had Title I schools identified for 

improvement, 2 percent had 13 or more identified Title I schools compared with 12 percent 

in 2003-04. 

Notes: Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

Two-thirds of the districts required to offer choice that did so gave parents a choice 

among all other schools in the districts not identified for improvement. Other options, such 

as all other schools within a certain geographic zone, were provided less frequently. Of the onethird of districts required to offer choice that did not do so, most were small with limited or no 

alternate schools from which to choose. As identified schools became more concentrated in 

large urban districts, it appeared that these districts too were finding it difficult to identify 

alternatives, especially at the middle and high school levels where the average number of 

alternate schools was two or less. Case study indicated that large urban districts were providing 

alternatives that were not always higher performing than the sending school. For example, one 

district offered to parents as options alternate schools that they thought were likely to miss AYP 

at the end of the year because they had few schools to choose among. 

In both 2002-03 and 2003-04, roughly half the districts that were required to offer 

supplemental services actually provided services. Over half of the districts (57 percent) 

required to offer supplemental services in 2003-04 did so, but among these districts 16 percent 

did not have any students sign up for services. Thus overall, 48 percent of districts required to 

offer supplemental services actually provided services in 2003-04, the same percentage as in 

2002-03. These data are supported by district reports that, among districts not yet providing 

supplemental services in 2003-04, the primary reason for not providing services (68 percent) was 

 xvii
that no parents had signed up for services. Still, the increases in the numbers of eligible and 

participating students were substantial in 2003-04 compared with 2002-03. Much of the increase 

was in urban and very large districts, which tend to have large numbers of eligible students (an 

average of 9,000 and 16,000 eligible students, respectively), and reflecting the concentration of 

identified schools in these districts. 

Supplemental service providers were primarily non-faith-based and non-online 

private providers (Exhibit S6). The number of private providers more than doubled from 2003 

to 2004 and increased from 58 percent to 69 percent of all approved providers. Case study data 

indicated that monitoring supplemental service providers and evaluating their performance 

continued to be a challenge for states.

Exhibit S6 

Supplemental Service Providers in 2003 and 2004 

April 2003 April 2004 Difference 

Type of provider 

Number of

providers 

Percent 

of total 

Number of

providers 

Percent 

of total 

Number of

providers 

Percent 

of total 

Private: 

• Faith-based 

• Online 

• Other private 

providers 

18 

98 

472 

2 

10 

46 

96 

162 

984 

5 

9 

55 

78 

64 

512 

3 

-1 

9 

Districts and public schools 326 32 431 24 105 -8 

Colleges and universities 32 3 38 2 6 -1 

Other or unknown types 71 7 68 4 3 -3 

Total 1,017 100 1,779 100 762 NA

Exhibit reads: In states that approved supplemental service providers, 18 approved providers (2 percent) were private 

faith-based organizations as of April 2003; as of April 2004, 96 approved providers (5 percent) were private faithbased organizations, a increase of 78 faith-based providers (3 percent more of all approved providers). 

Notes: Includes data from 47 states and the District of Columbia. Two states did not have schools required to provide 

supplemental services in 2003-04 and data were not available from one state. 

Sources: Policy and Program Studies Service unpublished database (PPSS 2004) and TASSIE state survey. 

Districts reported that the challenges they most frequently faced in implementing

Title I choice included the time needed for implementation (51 percent), the availability of

alternatives (50 percent), and transportation (26 percent). Time to set up Title I choice 

alternatives and transportation were particularly challenging to very large districts (e.g., 70 

percent reported time as a great to moderate implementation challenge), which had an average of

30 schools with eligible students. Additionally, as suggested by participation rates, case study 

data, and other data sources, parents continued to prefer to provide their children with extra 

assistance in their home school rather than transfer their child when a school is identified for 

improvement. Parent interviews revealed that a number of factors other than a school’s 

identification status (e.g., how well their children were achieving, the availability of special 

programs, the proximity of alternate schools to their home) influenced their decision to send their 

children to another school. The number of students receiving supplemental services increased 

 xviii 
significantly between 2002-03, but this was not the case for the number of students transferring 

under Title I choice (Exhibit S4). 

The most commonly reported district challenge in implementing supplemental 

services was lack of providers, especially in small and medium-size districts. In both 2002-

03 and 2003-04, lack of providers in the area, as well as concerns about the appropriateness and 

quality of providers, provided districts with the most significant implementation challenges. 

Over time, states and districts appeared to improve the mechanics of offering choice and 

supplemental services, although districts struggled with communicating well with parents, and 

states had not figured out how to monitor the performance of providers adequately. For 

example, districts that offered Title I choice in 2003-04 and not in the prior year reported that 

implementation challenges were more significant compared with districts that offered Title I 

choice in both 2003-04 and 2002-03. Case study states expressed a need for technical assistance 

in how to assess provider performance in improving student academic achievement. 

A majority (65 percent) of districts did not notify parents about their choice options 

prior to the opening of school, often because states had not provided timely notification on 

the AYP status of schools. For example, 11 states provided initial 2003-04 data on whether or 

not schools had met AYP to districts between September 2003 and January 2004. The timing of 

parental notification did not appear to influence rates of participation among students eligible for 

Title I choice; the average percentage of students in a district were not significantly different in 

districts that notified parents about their Title I school choice options before the beginning of the 

school year or after the start of the school year (5 percent compared with 13 percent). Case study 

data indicated that contacting and communicating clearly with parents about the availability of 

choice and supplemental services continued to present challenges to districts in 2003-04. At the 

same time, more districts (69 percent) provided parents with information about school 

performance on school report cards, although many of the report cards did not meet all the NCLB

requirements for content. 

Trends in State and District Assistance and School Improvement 

More states had systems of school support required under NCLB in place in 2003-04 

than in 2002-03 (Exhibit S7). Moreover, states reported that their systems of support were 

serving larger proportions of identified schools than they had the year before. The majority of 

states reported that they served all or nearly all of their identified Title I schools via school 

support teams, distinguished educators, and/or other types of assistance. 

 xix
Exhibit S7 

Elements of a Statewide System of School Support 

23

19

39

12

36

30

41

23

0

10

20

30

40

50

School support

teams

Distinguished

educators

Other types of

assistance

All three

elements of a

school support

system in

place

Number of states

2002-03 2003-04

Exhibit reads: Twenty-three states had organized school support teams to serve Title I 

identified schools in 2002-03, compared with 36 states in 2003-04. 

Source: TASSIE state survey. 

In 2003-04, almost all districts provided identified schools with some type of 

assistance on basic school improvement tasks such as writing an improvement plan and 

analyzing data, as they had in previous years (Exhibit S8). Districts continued to offer 

professional development on topics related to their school improvement priorities. In general, 

district activity in these areas had not changed since 2001-02, the year before NCLB went into 

effect. Moreover, districts with identified schools and other types of schools typically provided 

the same assistance to all their schools. 

Schools continued to focus on increased data use, better planning, and adoption of 

new instructional programs as their primary improvement strategies. To improve their 

students’ performance, many identified schools reported a focus on achievement results (95 

percent), adopted new curricula within the last three years (53 to 60 percent), or used school 

reform models (40 percent). The profile of school improvement strategies adopted by the cohort 

of Title I schools identified for improvement the year before NCLB went into effect changed 

very little after NCLB took effect. For example, in 2001-02 through 2003-04, more schools 

reported placing a major focus on increasing the use of student achievement data and matching 

curriculum and instruction with standards and assessments than on other school improvement 

strategies, such as teacher professional development. 

 xx
Exhibit S8 

Major Focus of District Resources on Strategies for Improving 

Identified Schools in 2003-04 

45

64

50

54

35

28

75

76

0 20 40 60 80 100

Selecting and/or implementing a school

reform model

Increasing monitoring and district oversight

Selecting and/or implementing a new curriculum

or instructional program

Using research to inform decisions about

improvement strategies

Improving the school planning process

Increasing the quality and quantity of teacher and

principal professional development

Matching curriculum and instruction with

standards and/or assessments

Increasing the use of student achievement data

Percentage of districts

%

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, 76 percent of districts with identified schools reported that increasing the 

use of student achievement data was a major focus of district assistance. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

However, continuously identified schools—those that were originally identified in 

2001-02 and remained identified in 2003-04—reported conducting more improvement 

activities than their counterparts that were no longer identified (Exhibit S9). For example, 

53 percent of continuously identified schools reported having adopted a mathematics curriculum

within the last three years, compared with 35 percent of those no longer identified. 

 xxi
Exhibit S9 

Engagement in Improvement Strategies in 2003-04, 

by School Identification Status 

53

60

95

100

35

41

76

89

0 20 40 60 80 10

Having a written

school plan

Using student

achievement data to

inform school

improvement efforts

Adoption of a new

reading/language arts

curriculum

Adoption of a new

mathematics

curriculum

Percentage of Title I schools

0

Continuously identified No longer identified

%

Exhibit reads: Fifty-three percent of continuously identified Title I schools had adopted a new 

mathematics curriculum within the last 3 years, compared with 35 percent of Title I schools no

longer identified. 

Note: Differences significant at p < .05.

Source: TASSIE principal survey. 

Although a much higher percentage of continuously identified schools compared to 

those no longer identified received assistance from a school-based staff developer or 

support team, substantial numbers of identified schools did not receive such help, either

because they were in districts and states that did not provide that assistance or because states or 

districts could not serve all of their identified schools. In spite of increases in state assistance, 

more than half (57 percent) of the continuously identified schools did not receive assistance from 

a school support team, and a more than a third (37 percent) did not receive assistance from a 

school-based staff developer (Exhibit S10). 

 xxii
Exhibit S10 

School Reports of Assistance Received from SchoolBased Staff Developers and School Support Teams 

in 2003-04, by School Identification Status 

63

43

33

11

0 20 40 60 80 100

Assistance

received from

school support

team

Assistance

received from

school-based

staff developer

Percentage of Title I schools

Continuously identified No longer identified

%

Exhibit reads: Sixty-three percent of continuously identified Title I 

schools received assistance from a school-based staff developer, 

compared with 33 percent of schools that were no longer identified 

in 2003-04. 

Note: Differences significant at p < .05. 

Source: TASSIE principal survey. 

Principals reported receiving little support and assistance for themselves. Only 14 

percent reported receiving help from a mentor or coach, 26 percent reported that they met 

regularly with other principals of low-performing schools, and 6 percent said they had special 

supervision or reporting requirements. 

In 2003-04, larger districts were more likely than smaller districts to provide 

assistance of all kinds to their identified schools, as was true in previous years. Larger 

districts consistently reported higher levels of support for identified schools in most of the 

improvement strategies described above. In addition, the gap between smaller and larger 

districts did not change over the three years. 

The presence or absence of various school improvement activities in a school had little 

effect on the probability that a school would exit improvement once school poverty and 

district size were taken into account. School poverty and district size were strong predictors of 

whether a school would exit improvement status or remain identified for improvement. Of the 

seven improvement strategies and supports analyzed, only curriculum alignment—with an 

emphasis on professional development in this area—contributed to predicting whether a school 

would exit improvement, over and above demographic factors. 

 xxiii 
Corrective Actions and Restructuring 

In 2003-04, only 6 percent of Title I districts had schools in corrective action (700

districts accounting for an estimated 2,000 schools). The majority of districts with identified 

schools (57 percent) did not have any schools in corrective action, and most of those that did had 

only one such school. The most common corrective actions taken by districts and states were 

appointing an outside expert to advise the school and requiring the implementation of a new 

research-based curriculum. Few districts (about 200) and states (12) indicated that they had any 

Title I schools identified for restructuring. Among the small group of schools identified for four 

or more years, very few reported any interventions associated with restructuring. 

Conclusions 

If the trend of increasing concentration of identified schools in large urban districts 

continues, it will increase the demands on large urban districts to provide support and assistance. 

This trend is consistent with research that indicates that many of the schools with chronic low 

achievement and students with the greatest needs are found in large urban districts (see for 

example, David and Shields 2001). Given the finding that some identified schools were 

receiving little or no assistance in 2003-04, large districts could find themselves stretched further 

beyond their capacity to provide support and assistance. 

The expansion of Title I choice faces two major challenges. One is the need to create more 

viable alternate school choices for parents. Even with only 1 percent of eligible students 

exercising choice, districts are not always able to provide satisfactory options. With the 

increasing concentration of identified schools, large districts will have an increasingly difficult 

time providing alternatives, especially at the middle and high school levels. Small rural districts 

are already having trouble. The second challenge is the hesitancy of parents to move their 

children to a school outside the neighborhood. Some of the apparent reluctance may be due to 

lack of information and understanding about the options. Several data sources point to the 

preferences of parents to have their children nearby and the appeal of tutoring in their home

school. 

Supplemental services are more appealing to parents, with slightly fewer than one-fifth of 

eligible students participating. For supplemental services to reach more students means meeting 

three challenges. First, small and rural districts will need access to providers; to date, case study 

data indicate online providers are not always a solution because some students lack access to 

needed technology and some online programs have limits as to the types of student they can 

adequately serve (i.e., certain age groups, students who are limited-English proficient, and 

students with special needs) may not be able to access online providers. Second, states need 

assistance in figuring out how to monitor and assess the effectiveness of providers. Third, 

districts need help in working with providers and in communicating clearly with parents. If the 

numbers of parents requesting supplemental services increases, these challenges will intensify. 

Although states and districts have taken many steps to provide support and assistance to 

schools identified as in need of improvement, many schools are not receiving the more intensive 

assistance needed to make progress (e.g., from school-based staff developers). Most states and 

districts will require increased capacity to support identified schools (e.g., resources, knowledge 

 xxiv
base) and to deliver effective assistance. Districts were able to provide traditional types of

assistance with planning and uses of achievement data, but they proved less able to help schools 

with the core work of instructional improvement through the efforts of school support teams, 

school-based staff developers, or other forms of intensive support. Districts will need assistance 

in determining how to work more strategically and intensively with schools that continue to miss 

AYP. 

Compared to their counterparts who had exited improvement status as of the end of the 

2002-03 school year, the finding that higher proportions of continuously identified schools were 

engaged in most of the improvement and support activities measured raises several issues. That 

they were conducting greater numbers of improvement activities and yet remained identified 

suggests three explanations. First, because continuously identified schools tend to be urban and 

poor, it is likely that they will still be identified in spite of all their activities because they are 

working with some of the most educationally disadvantaged populations: poor minority urban 

youth, many of whom are just learning English. A second explanation is the related finding that 

schools with more diverse populations are more likely to miss AYP (see for example, Novak and 

Fuller 2003). The third, supported strongly by the case studies, is that schools are grabbing at 

solutions—programs and strategies they think will increase scores quickly. As a result, they are 

doing many activities but not taking the kinds of coherent and sustained approaches that have the 

potential for a long-term payoff. Leadership by principals could play a role here; very few 

reported receiving support or assistance for themselves. 

The finding that school poverty and district size better predicted exiting improvement

status than the improvement strategies undertaken by the schools is consistent with the historical 

relationship between economic status and test scores (see Coleman et al. 1966; Jencks 1972; 

Jencks and Phillips 1998). Given the relative contribution of improvement activities to schools 

exiting improvement, it appears likely that the schools that continue to be identified will need 

much more intensive assistance and more time to implement improvement strategies than they 

have had thus far. 

 xxv 

I. Introduction 

The Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts study 

tracked changes in states, districts, and schools in the 2001-02 school year, the year during which 

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was signed into law, through its second full year of 

implementation in 2003-04. During 2001-04, states and districts took steps to align their 

accountability systems with NCLB and to help improve student achievement in Title I schools 

that did not meet required performance standards. 

This report presents the key findings over the three years of the study. Findings from

2002-03, the first full year of NCLB implementation, showed that states and districts were 

making progress in implementing accountability systems under NCLB but that big gaps remained 

between their existing systems of accountability and the vision embodied in NCLB of coherent 

systems that support all schools and all students to reach high standards (U.S. Department of 

Education 2005b). During 2003-04, educators at all levels of the education system continued 

efforts to implement the accountability provisions of NCLB. This report describes how states, 

districts, and schools implemented Title I accountability and school improvement provisions in 

2003-04 and discusses changes from the first and second years of the study. 

Overall, states, districts, and schools were responding to NCLB requirements in different 

ways; these differences were often associated with district size, urbanicity, and poverty. Five 

themes capture the trends observed over the duration of the study. Each has implications for the 

future of NCLB and is elaborated in this report. 

• Identified Title I schools in small districts were more likely to exit improvement status 

than those in large districts; thus, identified schools became more concentrated in large

districts. 

• More students were eligible for choice and supplemental services in 2003-04 than in 

2002-03; however, the proportion of parents exercising Title I choice remained small 

(1 percent) compared with 19 percent participating in supplemental services in 2003-

04, an increase over the 7 percent from the previous year. 

• More states, but not all, were providing technical assistance to identified schools (for 

example, 36 states provided school support teams to identified Title I schools in 2003-

04, up from 23 states the year before), and most districts were providing a range of 

assistance with data analysis, school improvement planning and curriculum alignment 

in 2003-04, similar to what they provided in 2001-02 and 2002-03. However, many 

identified schools did not receive the types of assistance specified in NCLB (e.g., 57 

percent of continuously identified schools reported that they did not receive assistance 

from a school support team in 2003-04). 

• School improvement strategies remained similar across the three years, although 

schools that were still identified in 2003-04 engaged in more improvement activities 

than schools no longer identified. 

 1
• School poverty and district size better predicted exiting improvement status than the 

improvement strategies undertaken by the schools. 

Overview of the Study

Data collection for the study began in 2001-02, the last year of NCLB’s predecessor, the 

Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA); the subsequent years 2002-03 and 2003-04 were the 

first two years in which states, districts, and schools operated under NCLB. The study was 

designed to investigate the means by which districts and schools were implementing 

accountability provisions under Title I, including the incentives provided to Title I schools to 

help them improve. 

Data collection for this report consisted of four components that span the three years of the 

study (additional information about the samples can be found in Appendix A): 

• A yearly survey of district Title I administrators in a nationally representative 

sample of approximately 1,300 districts out of 11,200 districts nationally that 

received Title I funds during the study period. Districts were stratified according to 

size (enrollment), degree of poverty (based on the percentage of children living in 

poverty within each district), and population density (rural, suburban, urban). 

Response rates ranged from 88 to 91 percent across the three years of survey 

administration. 

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

schools identified for improvement in 2001-02 drawn from the 1,300 sampled 

districts. Following this cohort of schools over three years allowed for an assessment of 

the extent of change in improvement status during the transitional period; factors or 

school characteristics that may have affected schools either exiting improvement status

or remaining identified were also investigated. The schools from this sample that exited 

improvement status are referred to in this document as “no longer identified.” The 

schools that did not exit are referred to as “continuously identified.” It should be noted 

that this sample of schools is not representative of Title I schools identified since the 

inception of NCLB nor of schools that will be identified when NCLB is fully 

implemented in the future. Response rates ranged from 85 to 86 percent across the three 

years of survey administration. 

• Yearly case study visits to 20 schools identified for improvement under Title I in 

15 districts in five states. The five states were selected for variation on three critical 

accountability dimensions: state adequate yearly progress (AYP) definition, alignment 

of Title I and the general state accountability systems, and the state process for 

identifying schools in need of improvement. Within each of the five states, three 

districts were selected: a large urban district, a suburban district, and a rural district. 

Within each urban district, two elementary schools identified for improvement were 

selected. In the rural and suburban districts, one elementary school was chosen (often 

the only identified school in those districts). In each case study site, district staff, 

school staff, and parents of students in identified schools were interviewed. 

 2
• Interviews of state Title I administrators. Respondents included state Title I 

directors and accountability staff. These interviews, along with the examination of 

Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbooks for State Grants under 

NCLB (2003), provide a national picture of accountability systems and procedures, 

including state assistance to districts and schools. State data were gathered from 50 

states and the District of Columbia. Tabulations of state data are based on interviews 

with staff in 48 states and the District of Columbia; two states did not respond to the 

telephone survey. 

Statistics are reported only when the unweighted sample was 20 or more. Statistically

significant differences are noted in exhibits. Group differences reported in the text were 

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

statistical estimates can be found in Appendix B. 

Overview of the Report 

The report findings are organized around three topics related to the major accountability 

provisions of NCLB: (1) public school choice and supplemental services, including 

communication with the public (Chapter III); (2) school improvement activities and the 

assistance provided to schools by states and districts (Chapter IV); and (3) corrective actions and 

restructuring activities (Chapter V). Schools and districts become subject to these accountability 

provisions when they are identified for improvement. 

To understand the implementation of these provisions, it is important to have a picture of 

the accountability requirements that were in effect during the last two years of the study. 

Similarly, it is important to understand the nature of the schools, districts, and states that are the 

subject of this evaluation. Therefore, Chapter II describes the range of schools that were 

identified for improvement under NCLB and that did not achieve adequate yearly progress and 

the districts that supported these schools in 2003-04. Consequences for schools identified for 

improvement are presented in Chapters III through V. Chapter VI presents the study’s 

conclusions. Findings based on survey data generally are presented as national estimates while 

findings based on case study data are presented as examples to help illustrate the more 

representative findings. Appendix A provides additional information on data collection and 

analysis methods, while Appendix B provides additional survey data for exhibits where only 

significant differences between years or types of districts and schools are provided to focus 

attention on particular items (the reader is directed to go to Appendix B where this occurs). 

 3

II. Context

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

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

In particular, NCLB has strengthened accountability requirements for schools, districts, and states 

and has addressed the shortcomings and uneven implementation of accountability systems under 

the previous reauthorization of Title I. This chapter describes the accountability provisions of 

NCLB, followed by a description of the Title I districts and schools identified for improvement 

that are the subject of the study. 

Because NCLB became law during the first year of the study and went into effect the 

following year, the three-year investigation covers a period of changes from the previous 

reauthorization of Title I to the first two years of the implementation of accountability under 

NCLB. 

Background: Accountability Provisions of NCLB

Accountability stands at the center of NCLB. The logic of NCLB is clear: improving the 

nation’s schools for all children requires the establishment of clear and high standards, the 

identification of schools in which students are not meeting those standards, options for parents of 

students in low-performing schools, support for struggling schools, and—for those schools that 

continue to perform poorly—increasingly rigorous interventions. 

NCLB requires states to develop and implement a single, statewide accountability system

that is effective in ensuring that all districts and schools make AYP, and to hold accountable 

those schools that do not show progress. The legislation was designed to help all students reach 

proficiency by 2013-14 by requiring that states create annual assessments that measure what 

children know and can do in reading and mathematics in grades 3 through 8, as well as testing at 

least once between grades 10 and 12 by 2005-06, and in science by 2007-08 (Exhibit 1).4

 

Assessment data are to be disaggregated for students by poverty level, race, ethnicity, 

disability, and limited English proficiency (LEP) status to ensure that attention is focused on all 

students and that all schools are held accountable for reaching AYP targets for students in each 

major subgroup at the school. In addition to AYP calculations based primarily on state 

assessment results in reading or language arts and mathematics, NCLB requires that AYP 

definitions include minimum assessment participation rate targets of 95 percent, graduation rates 

for high schools, and at least one other state-selected academic indicator for elementary and 

middle schools. Annual school “report cards” are required to provide comparative information 

on the quality of all schools so that parents can make more informed choices about their 

children’s education. The report cards are to show how well all of a school’s students are doing 

in regard to meeting standards, and they also must chart the progress of subgroups. This later 

aspect is used to track the closing of the achievement gap between various student populations. 

 4 NCLB does not require that science assessments be used to determine AYP. 

 5 
Exhibit 1 

Summary of Key NCLB Accountability Requirements 

Topics NCLB requirements 

Single, statewide system 

All students must be assessed by the same state assessment, and AYP 

definitions must apply to all schools and districts in the state, both Title I 

and non-Title I. 

Public reporting 

State and district report cards are required to include information on state 

assessment results, schools and districts identified for improvement, and 

certain other information. 

Performance measures 

used in AYP definitions

Annual state assessments must be administered to students in reading or 

language arts and mathematics. Assessments must be administered at 

least once in grades 3-5 and 6-9 until 2005-06, when all grades 3-8 must 

be assessed; assessments also must be administered at least once in 

grades 10-12. 

Assessment participation rates, graduation rates, and another academic 

indicator for elementary and middle schools must be included. States can 

include additional indicators. 

Criteria for state 

definitions of AYP for 

schools

The criteria must include absolute targets for measures of school 

performance in reading or English language arts and mathematics. 

Participation rate targets must be at least 95 percent. 

The criteria must provide for all students to reach proficiency within 12 

years (by 2013-14) and set annual measurable objectives and 

intermediate goals. The baseline achievement must be calculated by 

following a specific formula. 

The criteria must include separate, absolute targets for key groups of 

students (all students, major racial and ethnic groups, economically

disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and LEP students). 

Districts may use additional criteria to add schools to, but not subtract 

them from, state lists of identified schools. 

AYP for districts The formula for AYP must be the same for districts as for schools. 

Identification of schools

for improvement 

Title I schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive years must be 

identified for improvement under Title I. 

Identification of schools

for corrective action 

Title I schools that do not meet AYP for four years (after at least two years

in improvement status) must be identified for corrective action. 

Identification of schools

for restructuring 

Title I schools that do not make AYP for five and six years (after at least 

three and four years in improvement status) must be identified for 

restructuring (planning for restructuring for one year, then restructuring 

the following year). 

Identification of districts

for improvement 

Districts that do not make AYP for two consecutive years must be 

identified for improvement under Title I. 

Districts that do not make AYP for four years (after at least two years of 

improvement status) must be identified for corrective action under Title I. 

Exiting improvement, 

corrective action, and 

restructuring status 

A school or district may exit from improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring status when it makes AYP for two consecutive years

following its identification for improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring. 

 (continued, next page) 

 6 
Exhibit 1 (continued) 

Summary of Key NCLB Accountability Requirements 

Topics NCLB requirements 

District assistance for 

schools identified for 

improvement

Districts must provide technical assistance to identified schools to: 

• Develop and implement their school improvement plans. 

• Analyze assessment data.

• Identify and implement professional development, instructional 

strategies, and methods of instruction derived from relevant 

scientifically based research 

• Analyze and revise the school budget to more effectively allocate 

school resources to support activities most likely to increase student

achievement.

Consequences for 

schools identified for 

improvement

Schools must develop or revise a school improvement plan. Schools 

must spend not less than 10 percent of their Title I funds for professional 

development. 

Parents of students in identified schools must be offered the option to 

transfer their child to a non-identified school in the district, with 

transportation provided. 

Districts must offer students from low-income families in identified schools 

supplemental educational services from an approved provider (beginning 

in year two of improvement). 

Consequences for 

schools identified for 

corrective action 

Consequences from years one and two of improvement continue to apply. 

Districts must implement one of a series of corrective actions defined in 

the legislation.

Consequences for 

schools identified for 

restructuring 

Consequences from years one and two of improvement continue to apply. 

Districts must spend the first year planning to implement at least one of a 

series of school restructuring efforts. During the second year, districts 

must implement the schools’ restructuring plans. 

Consequences for 

districts identified for 

improvement

Districts must develop or revise a district improvement plan. Districts 

must spend not less than 10 percent of their Title I funds for professional 

development. 

States must provide technical assistance to identified districts. 

Consequences for 

districts identified for 

corrective action 

States must implement one of a series of corrective actions for identified 

districts.

State assistance for 

identified districts and 

schools

States are required to establish a statewide system of support—including 

school support teams, distinguished principals, and distinguished 

teachers—to assist schools and districts identified for improvement and 

corrective action, as well as other districts and schools receiving Title I 

funds. 

Title I Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement 

The number of identified schools remained roughly the same from 2002-03 to 

2003-04—although the demographic distribution of identified schools, and of districts with 

identified schools, shifted. An estimated 5,600 Title I schools were identified for improvement 

 7 
in 2003-04, compared with an estimated 6,000 identified schools in 2002-03. This represents 

about 12 percent of all Title I schools, compared with 13 percent in 2002-03.5

Exhibit 2 

Distribution of Identified Title I Schools in 2001-02 and 2003-04, 

by District Size 

41

27

20

25

16

19

19

34

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

School year 2001-

02

School year 2003-

04

P

ercentage of Title I schools

Small (200 to 3,503)

Medium (3,504 to

10,448)

Large (10,449 to 37,740)

Very large (>37,740)

100 100

Exhibit reads: Of the estimated number of identified Title I schools, 34 percent were located

in small districts in 2001-02 compared with 19 percent in 2003-04. 

Notes: Differences significant at p < .01. (See Appendix B for complete data table.) 

Source: TASSIE District and School Database (see Appendix A for definition). 

Between 2001-02 and 2003-04, there was a steady trend toward a greater 

concentration of identified schools in large or very large districts and in urban districts. 

Sixty-six percent of schools identified in 2003-04 were in large or very large districts, compared 

with 48 percent in 2001-02 and 56 percent in 2002-03. This figure represents a disproportionate 

share because large and very large districts only contain about one-third (36 percent) of all Title I 

schools. Comparing 2001-02 to 2003-04, there was a decline in the proportion of identified 

 5 Estimates of the number of identified Title I schools (5,565 schools with a margin of error +/- 550) and districts 

with identified schools are based on data from the TASSIE District and School Database and vary slightly from

estimates derived from respondents to the district survey. The estimate of the number of identified schools in 

2003-04 is consistent with the number of identified schools reported by the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office (6,200 schools) and Education Week (5,869 schools). The majority (65 percent) of Title I schools 

identified for improvement in 2003-04 were elementary schools, but this proportion is smaller than the 71 percent 

of all Title I schools that are elementary. 

 8 
Title I schools from small districts—from 34 percent to 19 percent (Exhibit 2). Over half (53 

percent) of identified Title I schools were located in urban districts in 2003-04, compared with 

39 percent in 2001-02. 

Schools that served higher percentages of low-income families were 

disproportionately represented among identified schools. Whereas about 41 percent of all 

Title I schools fit into the highest poverty category, 72 percent of all identified schools were in 

this same category. Only 5 percent of identified Title I schools were in the lowest of the three 

poverty categories even though a quarter (23 percent) of all Title I schools are in this category 

(Exhibit 3). 

Exhibit 3 

Distribution of Identified Title I Schools Compared With 

All Title I Schools in 2003-04, by District Poverty

73

41

22

36

5

23

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Identified schools All Title I schools

P

erc

e

ntage of Title I s

chool

s

Low poverty

Medium poverty

Highest poverty

100 100

Exhibit reads: Of the estimated number of identified Title I schools in 2003-04 (5,600), 5 

percent were located in districts with the lowest poverty level, whereas 23 percent of all

Title I schools were located in districts with the lowest poverty level. 

Notes: Title I status (identified, not identified) was significantly associated with district 

poverty at p < .01. (See Appendix B for the complete data table.) 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

These findings converge with a 2004 report from the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) that found that schools identified in 2003-04 were disproportionately located in 

 9 
urban and suburban areas and enrolled larger proportions of minority students and students from

low-income families (GAO 2004).6

Similarly, continuously identified schools in 2003-04 compared with those no longer 

identified were more likely to be in very large districts (Exhibit 4).7

 The same pattern was 

found based on district urbanicity, district poverty, and size of the school. That is, schools that 

remained identified were also more likely to be located in urban areas (55 percent compared with

32 percent for non-identified schools), serving high proportions of low-income families (77 

percent compared with 44 percent for non-identified schools), and to be large schools consistent 

Exhibit 4 

Distribution of Continuously Identified and No Longer Identified 

Title I Schools in 2003-04, by District Size 

19

49

19

25

23

14 40

12

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Schools still

identified

Schools no longer

identified

Percentage of Title I s

chools

Small (200 to 3,503)

Medium (3,504 to 10,448)

Large (10,449 to 37,740)

Very large (>37,740)

100 100

Exhibit reads: Twelve percent of Title I schools still identified were located in small districts 

compared with 40 percent of Title schools no longer identified.

Notes: Title I status (identified, not identified) was significantly associated with district size 

at p < .01. Percentages may exceed 100 percent because of rounding. (See Appendix B for 

complete data table.) 

Source: Demographic distribution of schools in the TASSIE school sample that responded to

the school survey in 2001-02 and/or 2003-04. 

 6 It should be noted that samples and methods may vary across studies. Thus, although findings that converge

across studies strengthen the reliability of each given finding, specific percentages and other statistics are not 

directly comparable across studies. 7 As noted in the introduction, “continuously identified” schools are those that were identified for improvement at 

the beginning of this study in 2001-02 and continued to be identified in 2003-04. 

 10
with their location in large districts that tend to have larger schools than small districts (35 

percent of identified schools had enrollments of more than 750 students compared with 15 

percent of schools no longer identified). 

The proportion of schools that were identified for improvement in 2003-04 varied 

widely across states. For example, 37 states had less than 10 percent of their schools identified 

for improvement in 2003-04, while three states had 25 percent or more of their schools 

identified. Data collected by Education Week (2004) includes one additional year of data. Their 

data indicate that variation in the number of identified schools across states continued in 2004-05 

but shifted as fewer states had small proportions of identified schools and more states had larger 

percentages of their schools identified. For example, in 2003-04, almost three-quarters of the 

states (37 states) had fewer than 10 percent of their schools identified; in 2004-05, more than half 

of the states (28 states) had 10 percent or more of their schools identified (Exhibit 5). This same

data base showed that there was a substantial increase in the number of identified schools 

nationwide in 2004-05. 

Exhibit 5 

Number of States With Varying Percentages of Their Schools Identified 

for Improvement, 2003-04 and 2004-05 

3

8

11

20

35

22

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2003-04 2004-05

Number of states

0% of all schools

in state

1% to 9% of all

schools in state

10% to 24% of all

schools in state

25% or more of

all schools in

state

51 50

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, two states had no schools identified for improvement. In 2004-05,

no states had none of their schools identified. 

Note: One state’s 2004-05 data was not yet available. 

Source: For school year 2003-04, Education Week (2004), with missing values for nine states 

filled in from TASSIE state data. For 2004-05 data, Education Week. 

 11
Similarly, state data indicate that there was a great deal of variation across states in 

the proportion of schools that missed AYP in 2003-04 (based on 2002-03 testing). For 

example, seven states had less than 10 percent of their schools miss AYP targets in 2003-04, 

while eight states had more than 50 percent of their schools miss AYP targets. State data 

indicated that 26,323 schools nationwide did not achieve AYP for school year 2003-04. This 

number represents 28 percent of all schools in the nation.8

 

The relationship between district size and the proportion of schools not meeting AYP 

reflects the role of subgroups in school identification. Under NCLB, if a school contains a 

minimum number of students (as defined by the states) in specific subgroups (e.g., low income, 

racial and ethnic minorities, LEP, students with disabilities), schools are held accountable for the 

academic outcomes of those groups, in addition to the academic outcomes of the entire school. 

Large or diverse schools are likely to have more student groups containing the state-defined 

minimum number of students, and consequently have more performance targets to meet. 

Because it is more difficult for schools with many targets to meet all of their performance goals, 

districts with larger or more diverse schools are more likely to have a higher percentage of 

schools miss their targets and be identified for improvement under NCLB (see, for example, 

Novak and Fuller 2003). TASSIE data allowed only limited analysis of this issue, but tends to 

support this conclusion (see also, GAO 2004). 

Districts With Identified Schools 

The total number of districts with identified Title I schools decreased between 2001-02 

and 2003-04. From 2002-03 to 2003-04, this decrease resulted in a higher concentration of

identified schools in those districts with identified schools. An estimated 1,500 school 

districts had identified Title I schools in 2003-04. This number represents 14 percent of districts 

nationwide. In 2001-02, 21 percent of Title I districts were found to have at least one identified 

school; in 2002-03, this proportion was 16 percent. About 300 districts nationwide that had 

identified schools in 2002-03 no longer had any in 2003-04. 

In 2002-03, almost three-quarters (74 percent) of the districts with identified schools had 

only one or two such schools to provide assistance, and in 2003-04, the proportion of districts 

having just one or two identified schools was 70 percent. Conversely, in 2002-03, only 2 percent 

of the districts with identified schools had 13 or more identified schools, but in 2003-04, 4 

percent of those districts with at least one identified school had 13 or more such schools (Exhibit 

6). 

Districts with identified Title I schools in 2003-04 were more likely to be large, urban, 

and poor, compared with districts without identified schools. For example, 55 percent of 

districts with identified schools were in the highest poverty level (more than 22 percent of 

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches), compared with 21 percent of those districts 

without identified Title I schools. Whereas overall, 5 percent of Title I districts were classified 

as urban districts, 17 percent of districts with identified schools were urban. Twenty-three 

 8

 An Education Week report, published in late 2004, showed a total of 24,611 schools that did not make AYP for

2003-04. Because some states include non-Title I schools in their reports, it is not possible to specify the 

percentage of these schools that are non-Title I schools. 

 12
percent of districts with identified schools were large districts, compared with 4 percent of those 

districts without identified schools. 

Exhibit 6 

Districts With Different Numbers of Identified Title I Schools, Among 

Districts With Identified Title I Schools in 2002-03 and 2003-04 

74 70

15

13

10 11

2 4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002-03 2003-04

Percentage of Title I schools

13 or more identified

schools in the

districts

5 to 12 identified

schools in the

districts

3 to 4 identified

schools in the

districts

1 to 2 identified

schools in the

districts

10 10

Exhibit reads: In 2002-03, among districts nationwide that had identified Title I schools, 2 

percent had 13 or more identified Title I schools. In 2003-04, among districts nationwide 

that had identified Title I schools, 12 percent had 13 or more identified Title I schools. 

Notes: Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. (See Appendix B for the 

complete data table.) 

Source: TASSIE 2003-04 district survey. 

Districts Identified for Improvement 

In 2003-04, eight states had identified a total of 51 districts for improvement; this 

number represents less than 1 percent of districts nationwide. However, in 2003-04, 23 

percent of districts had been designated as not having achieved AYP.9

 Any of these districts that 

miss AYP again based on 2004-05 testing will be identified. However, as noted in a report by 

the Council of Chief State School Officers (Forte Fast and Erpenhach 2004), a sizable portion of 

states applied and received approval for amendments to their accountability plans; these 

amendments will alter the formulas used to identify districts for improvement (e.g., for a district 

to be identified for improvement, it would have to miss AYP at each of three grade levels: 

elementary, middle, and high school, for two years in a row), thus likely reducing the rate at 

which districts will miss AYP, all else being equal. 

 9 This percentage was obtained from the TASSIE state data collection process. 

 13
Knowledge of Accountability Elements 

Knowledge of NCLB school accountability requirements increased among district 

administrators in 2003-04. Eighty-nine percent of district Title I administrators reported that 

they understood all or most elements of AYP determination for their schools, and the percentage 

who understood all or most of the elements for district AYP determination was essentially the 

same. In 2002-03, 76 percent of district administrators reported that they had this knowledge. 

The accuracy of school principals’ report of their identification status improved 

markedly in 2003-04, compared with 2002-03. Ninety-three percent of principals of

continuously identified schools were aware of this status. In the previous year, 66 percent of 

principals of identified schools were aware of their schools’ status. It is important to note that 

this measure of improved awareness can be generalized only to the population of schools 

identified in 2001-02 and that continued to be identified in 2003-04 (i.e., this group of schools 

has been identified for at least three years and therefore have had several years of involvement in 

the accountability process). 

District and school staff were clearer about the basis for AYP and identification than 

in the previous year in three of the five case study states but not clear about the 

consequences of different designations. Across the case study sites in 2003-04, school and 

district staff were more aware of the basis for AYP designations and identification status in over 

half the districts. Confusion continued, however, in districts in two states, one where the state 

accountability process remains the most salient and another where the state changed its labeling 

system for schools. School staff were less familiar than district staff about the basis for 

identification and were particularly uninformed about the consequences associated with different 

determinations. 

 14
III. Title I Choice and Supplemental Educational Services 

Public school choice under Title I, allowing parents with children in Title I schools 

identified for improvement to transfer their child to another public school, is a key strategy in 

NCLB for improving educational outcomes. Under NCLB, for Title I schools that do not make 

AYP for two consecutive years (i.e., “identified schools”), districts must provide parents of 

students in these schools with the option of transferring their child to a school in the district that 

has not been identified for improvement and provide transportation. If a school does not make 

AYP for three years (one year after being identified), districts must provide low-income parents 

of children in these schools with the option of supplemental educational services from stateapproved providers for their children. 

NCLB also requires that a district make available an amount up to 20 percent of the 

district’s Title I, Part A, allocation to fund Title I choice-related transportation and supplemental 

services. Unlike public school choice, supplemental services are offered only to children from

low-income families and not to parents of all children in identified Title I schools. Districts are 

to notify parents about these options so that they have time to make informed decisions for each 

school year. Notification about Title I choice and supplemental services is an extension of 

NCLB’s underlying principle of providing parents and the public with a clear understanding of 

the progress for which schools are being held accountable. 

In brief, the findings show that the proportion of students who participated in Title I school 

choice remained at 1 percent in both 2002-03 and 2003-04. Small and rural districts were the 

least likely to have students who transferred schools and had the fewest alternatives from which 

to choose. The percentage of parents choosing to enroll their children in supplemental services 

increased from 7 percent to 19 percent over the same period. Still, fewer than half the districts 

required to offer supplemental services did so. States and districts improved at the mechanics of 

offering choice and supplemental services in 2003-04, but districts still faltered in timely 

notification of parents and states struggled in monitoring the performance of supplemental 

service providers. 

These findings are elaborated below, looking first at public school choice under Title I and 

then supplemental services. Under public school choice, the findings are organized in three 

sections: eligibility and participation in Title I choice, choice options, and barriers to providing 

and exercising choice. Under supplemental services, the findings are organized in three parallel 

sections: eligibility and participation in supplemental services, providers of supplemental 

services and how they are approved, and barriers to providing and participating in supplemental 

services. The chapter then presents findings on how parents are notified about Title I choice and 

supplemental services, followed by findings on the broader topic of public reporting by states 

and districts under NCLB. 

Public School Choice Under Title I 

NCLB requires districts to give parents of all children enrolled in Title I schools identified 

for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring the opportunity to transfer their 

 15
children to a school in the district that has not been so identified. Public school choice must be 

offered to such students by the next school year, unless prohibited by state law. Districts are 

required only to offer public school choice options within the district; however, if all public 

schools in the district to which students might transfer have been identified as needing 

improvement, the districts must “to the extent practicable” establish cooperative agreements with 

other districts to provide public school choice options. Children who transfer schools under 

Title I choice are allowed to remain in the school to which they transfer until they complete the 

highest grade in that school; however, the district is no longer required to provide transportation 

services if the originating school makes AYP standards for two consecutive years and thus exits 

improvement status (see U.S. Department of Education nonregulatory guidance, 2004b). 

Eligibility and Participation 

Among districts that provided Title I choice in 2003-04, an estimated 2.75 million 

students were eligible to exercise choice because they were enrolled in an identified Title I 

school; about 3 percent of these students requested a transfer from an identified school, 

and about 1 percent then transferred to another school (Exhibit 7). The number of eligible 

students in 2003-04 increased substantially, while the number and percentage of districts and 

schools offering choice remained consistent. This likely reflects the increasing concentration of 

identified schools in large and urban districts and the increase in the number of middle and high 

schools identified. Urban schools are typically much larger than their counterparts in small and 

rural districts. Districts that did not provide Title I choice were primarily small (82 percent), and 

rural (88 percent). 

Exhibit 7 

Districts and Schools Required to Offer Title I Choice, Those That Offered Choice, 

and Students Who Exercised Choice in 2002-03 and 2003-04 

2002-03 2003-04

Students (among districts that provided choice): 

Number eligible 

Number who participated 

Proportion who participated

1,535,000 

18,000 

 1% 

 2,752,000*

32,000 

 1% 

Schools: 

Number where choice required 

Number where choice offered 

Proportion where choice offered 

6,000 

5,000 

 84% 

5,600 

4,600 

 83% 

Districts:

Number with schools where choice required 

Number with schools where choice offered 

Proportion where choice offered 

1,800 

1,200 

 66% 

1,600 

1,100 

 67% 

Exhibit reads: Among districts that had identified schools and offered choice in 2002-03, an estimated 1,535,000

students nationwide were eligible for Title I choice; in 2003-04, the estimate was 2,752,000 students. 

*Notes: Asterisk indicates significant differences at p < .01. The number of students eligible is underestimated, and

therefore the percent participating is overestimated, because not all districts that should have provided choice 

reported providing this option and thus did not provide eligibility data (about 21 percent of the districts with 

identified Title I schools). The estimated 1.5 million has a margin of error of +/- .6 million, and 2.75 million has a 

margin of error of +/- .7 million. The estimates in this exhibit vary slightly from those presented earlier because 

they are based on respondents to the district survey and not the TASSIE District and School Database. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

 16
Although the number of students eligible for choice nationally increased between 

2002-03 and 2003-04, the percentage of students who transferred remained constant (1 

percent). The percentage remained the same because both the number of students eligible for 

and the number exercising choice increased proportionately. 

Districts varied widely in the number of schools with students eligible for choice; the 

largest districts had by far the most schools (Exhibit 8). The average of four schools per 

district masks the large difference between small districts with an average of one school and very 

large districts with an average of 30 schools. Similarly, urban districts had more schools 

required to offer choice (12 schools) than suburban (two schools) and rural (one school). Again, 

these findings are consistent with the increase in the number of identified schools in the largest 

urban districts. Districts with large numbers of schools required to offer choice faced greater 

logistical challenges in setting up their choice programs (see discussion below regarding barriers 

to implementation). 

Exhibit 8 

Average Number of Schools With Students Eligible to 

Exercise Choice, Among Districts That Provided 

Title I Choice in 2003-04 

4

1

2

4

30

0 10 20 30 4

All districts

Small districts

Medium

districts

Large districts

Very large

districts

Mean number of schools

0

Exhibit reads: The average number of schools with students eligible to

exercise choice in very large districts that were required to provide choice 

and did so was 30. (See Appendix B for the complete data set.) 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

While there were large differences in the average number of schools with students eligible 

for Title I choice across districts, there were no significant differences in the percentage of Title I 

schools required to offer Title I choice by district size (between 23 and 29 percent). Larger 

districts have greater numbers of Title I schools and proportionately greater numbers of 

identified schools than smaller districts. 

 17
Most districts (78 percent) that offered Title I choice in 2003-04 had offered choice the 

previous year. Twenty-two percent of districts offering choice in 2003-04 did so for the first 

time that year. These districts had fewer students request transfers and actually transfer than 

those who had begun offering choice in 2002-03. For example, the average number of students 

who transferred to another school was 29 for districts that provided choice in both years and nine 

for those that provided choice only in 2003-04. Experience in setting up choice may account for 

some of this difference; however, it is important to note that more of the districts that started 

offering choice in 2003-04 were small (61 percent) compared with those offering choice in both 

years, of which 28 percent were small. Hence, a smaller number of students would be expected. 

Among districts that offered Title I choice, 41 percent of the identified schools had 

students who exercised the option to transfer compared with 33 percent in 2002-03. The 

average number of students who transferred per school was five in 2002-03 and 18 in 2003-04. 

Among districts that offered Title I choice in 2003-04, 73 percent of small districts had 

no student transfers compared with 3 percent of very large districts (Exhibit 9). A similar 

pattern holds for urbanicity: 67 percent of rural districts that offered Title I choice had no student 

transfers compared with 26 percent of suburban districts and 19 percent of urban districts. 

Exhibit 9 

Percentage of Districts With No Student Transfers Under 

the Title I Choice Option in 2003-04, Among Districts 

That Offered Choice, by District Size 

73

38

14

3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Small Medium Large Very large 

District size

Percentage of districts

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, among small districts that offered Title I 

choice, 73 percent had no student transfers. 

Note: Differences were significant at p< .0001. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

 18
Choice Options 

Most districts that offered Title I choice provided parents with choices among several 

schools in the district not identified for improvement. Fewer options existed in small districts 

and fewer existed at the middle and high school level across districts. 

Two-thirds of districts that offered Title I choice gave parents a choice of all other 

schools in the district at the appropriate grade level that were not identified for 

improvement. Small districts were more likely than large districts to offer parents all other 

schools not identified for improvement. Eighty-five percent of small districts and 74 percent of 

medium districts offered all other schools in the district at the appropriate grade level, compared 

with 39 percent of very large districts and 46 percent of large districts. Other options specified in 

the survey were provided less frequently by districts offering choice: 18 percent offered a subset 

of schools that had been paired with the sending school, 17 percent offered all other schools 

within a certain geographic zone, and 9 percent offered public schools outside the district. Urban 

districts (28 percent) and suburban districts (20 percent) were more likely than rural districts (10 

percent) to offer a subset of schools that had been paired with the sending school. 

In both 2002-03 and 2003-04, the majority of districts (77 percent and 71 percent, 

respectively) were able to provide parents with at least two alternate schools at the 

elementary level. The larger and more urban the district, the more alternate schools were 

available to families at the elementary and middle school grades (see, for example, Exhibit 10). 

Overall, the average number of alternate schools available to families at the elementary level was 

five (the median was two), the average at the middle school level was two (the median was one), 

and the average at the high school level was one (the median was zero). The smaller numbers of 

alternate schools at the upper grade levels are the result of two factors. One is that there are 

fewer middle and high schools than elementary. The other is that proportionately more middle 

and high schools were identified for improvement in 2003-04, compared with all Title I schools 

(GAO 2004). Roughly 24 percent of all schools identified for improvement were middle 

schools, while 16 percent of all Title I schools were middle schools; 11 percent of all schools 

identified were high schools, while 9 percent of all Title I schools were high schools. 

Conversely, 61 percent of all Title I schools identified for improvement were elementary 

schools, where 71 percent of all Title I schools were elementary.10 At the same time, overall, 

more than three-quarters (76 percent) of students who actually transferred schools in 2003-04 

received their first choice of schools. 

 10 The remaining 4 percent are defined as “other” schools, which include ungraded schools (GAO 2004). GAO also

reported that parents of eligible students in their eight case study districts were generally offered fewer transfer 

options for middle and high school students because districts tended to have fewer middle and high schools than

elementary schools.

 19
Exhibit 10 

Average Number of Alternate Elementary Schools Available to 

Parents With Students in Identified Title I Schools in 2003-04, 

Among Districts That Offered Choice, by District Size 

12

6

4

2

6

2 2

5

2

1

* * 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Very large Large Medium Small 

District size

Number of elementary schools

Elementary School Middle school High school

Exhibit reads: Among very large districts that offered Title I choice in 2003-04, the

average number of alternate schools available to families in identified Title I elementary 

schools was 12, compared with six alternate elementary schools in large districts, four in

medium districts, and two in small districts. (See Appendix B for the complete data set.) 

Note: * too few cases to report. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

The school choice options districts provided to parents were not necessarily higher 

performing schools, even in districts that offered all schools not identified. The case study 

districts provided several examples of this phenomenon (Exhibit 11). For example, one district 

offered to parents as options alternate schools that they thought were likely to miss AYP at the 

end of the year because they had few schools to offer as alternatives to identified schools. 

Findings from the GAO report on the implementation of Title I choice in 2003-04 were similar. 

Among the eight case study districts they visited, many schools that districts offered as transfer 

options had not met state performance goals in the prior year, and some were at risk themselves 

of having to offer choice in the following year. Officials from large urban GAO case study 

districts stated that they would have had few schools to offer as choices if they had not offered 

Title I schools that had failed to make AYP for one year (GAO 2004). One of the very large 

TASSIE urban case study districts with 40 percent of its schools identified conducted a capacity 

study in August 2003 and found that there were very few schools to serve as choice options and 

none at the middle school level. 

 20
Exhibit 11 

Options for Parents Not Always an Improvement 

In one large case study district, several parents chose to transfer their children to a newly opened school 

that had lower scores than the sending school and missed AYP its first year. Because the school moved 

into a new facility and changed its name, the clock was restarted for determining school improvement 

status. In another large case study district, parents explained that they preferred to leave their children in 

the identified school because it offered an array of programs not found in the alternate schools,

particularly programs for limited English speaking students. 

Both this study’s case study districts and those of GAO illustrate that as the number of 

identified schools increased, the number of alternate schools decreased. This trend was 

especially acute at the middle and high school level where a higher proportion of schools had 

been identified, coupled with the smaller numbers of secondary schools relative to elementary 

schools. Fourteen percent of districts responded on the district survey that they were unable to 

increase the range of choices available to parents or increase the number of spaces in schools that 

could receive transfers in 2003-04. 

Half of districts offering Title I choice took some steps to increase the options 

available to parents of children in identified Title I schools. The most frequently reported 

approach (22 percent) was to provide supplemental services from state-approved providers at 

schools in the first year of improvement status (Exhibit 12). Still, more than half (51 percent) of 

districts that provided Title I choice did not report taking any steps in 2003-04 to increase the 

range of choices available to parents, given the small number of students that requested transfers. 

Nine percent of districts offering Title I choice reported negotiating agreements with neighboring 

districts. The success of interdistrict choice depends on the feasibility of such transfers, 

including the capacity and willingness of neighboring districts to accept transfers and the 

willingness of parents to have their child transported out of the district. Case study data 

suggested that currently these options are not attractive to receiving districts or parents. 

 21
Exhibit 12 

Steps Taken by Districts to Increase the Range of Choices Available 

to Parents With Children in Identified Schools in 2003-04, Among Districts 

That Offered Title I Choice 

16

1

9

10

22

0 5 10 15 20 25

Other steps

Creating schools within schools to accommodate

students who wish to transfer

Negotiating an agreement with one or more

neighboring districts to accommodate students

who wish to transfer

Adding teachers and/or classrooms to schools

within the district that are not identified for

improvement

Offering supplemental educational services from

state-approved providers to students in Title I

schools in their first year of improvement

Percentage of districts

%

Exhibit reads: Among districts that offered Title I choice in 2003-04, 22 percent of districts offered supplemental 

services from approved providers to students in Title I schools in their first year of improvement. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

Barriers to Providing and Exercising Choice 

Districts consistently reported several challenges in implementing Title I choice, 

including time for implementation, availability of alternatives, and transportation. The 

biggest challenges reported by districts did not change from 2002-03 to 2003-04 nor did they 

differ between districts that implemented choice and those that did not, among all districts 

required to implement choice in those years. Among districts that offered Title I choice, various 

challenges were reported by 26 percent or more districts to exist to a great or moderate extent 

(Exhibit 13). The two challenges cited most frequently concerned space in receiving schools: 50 

percent of districts reported that both lack of space in alternate schools was a great or moderate 

challenge and that creating more space (through adding on classrooms, for example) in alternate 

schools were great or moderate challenges. The adequacy of the required 20 percent set-aside of 

an amount equal to the district’s Title I allocation to provide transportation for Title I choice and 

supplemental services was reported as a minor problem by the most (86 percent) of districts. 

Two challenges—the amount of time needed to set up Title I choice alternatives and the 

lack of transportation to alternate schools—differed by district size and urbanicity. The largest 

 22
districts were more likely to cite the lack of time; for example, 45 percent of very large districts 

reported that the amount of time needed to set up a choice program was a problem to a great 

extent, compared with 24 percent of small, 25 percent of medium, and 23 percent of large 

districts. Small districts were more likely (26 percent) to identify lack of transportation to 

alternate schools as a major challenge, compared with larger districts (7 percent of large and 8 

percent of very large districts). Because very large districts have greater numbers of identified 

schools, their Title I choice programs are larger and more complex than those in other districts. 

Several large TASSIE case study districts established transportation zones to minimize bus 

routes and provided choices within these zones. 

Exhibit 13 

Top Challenges Faced by Districts That Implemented Title I Choice in 2003-04 

Type of challenge Great extent 

Moderate 

extent 

Not at all or 

small extent 

Expanding capacity in alternate schools 

(e.g., by adding classrooms) 37 13 50

Lack of space in alternate schools 30 20 50 

Amount of time needed to set up a choice program* 26 25 49 

No alternate schools within the district 22 8 70 

Lack of transportation to alternate schools* 14 12 74 

Exhibit reads: Among districts that offered Title I choice in 2003-04, 37 percent responded that expanding capacity 

in alternate schools was a challenge to a great extent in implementing school choice, 13 percent to a moderate 

extent, and 50 percent to a small extent or not at all. (See Appendix B for complete list of challenges.) 

*Note: Asterisk indicates significant differences by district size and urbanicity at p < .01.

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

In contrast, for small districts, lack of transportation to alternate schools was a challenge to 

a great extent for 26 percent, compared with 9 percent of medium-sized districts, 7 percent large, 

and 8 percent very large. Similarly, urban districts were more likely (23 percent) to cite time for 

program set-up as a major issue and rural districts were more likely (24 percent) to cite 

transportation as a major issue. Transportation issues are a significant problem for rural districts 

because of their remote location and the long distances between schools. 

Other studies confirm the challenges districts face in devising solutions to lack of readily 

available space in alternate schools.11

• The Council of the Great City Schools conducted a survey of 60 urban districts and 

found that the cities that had the most difficulty accommodating transfers were districts 

with large numbers of schools identified for improvement, small numbers of schools 

eligible to receive transfer students, and in which alternate schools lacked additional 

 11 Districts may not use lack of capacity to deny students the option to transfer but may take capacity into

consideration in deciding which choices to make available to eligible students [34 CFR 200.44(d)]. 

 23
classroom space. This is in contrast to cities with small numbers of identified schools, 

underutilized buildings, and space for portables already owned; 23 of the 46 urban 

districts that responded to the question could not fill all transfer requests in 2003-04. 

Receiving schools faced problems mostly related to overcrowding and increases in 

class sizes that could have a dampening effect on achievement over time. Districts that 

sought transfers to neighboring districts did not receive approvals (Casserly 2004). 

• Half of the eight districts GAO visited in 2003-04 did not grant as many transfers as 

were requested because of constraints on the building capacities of many of their 

schools. GAO found officials struggling to find practical and realistic ways to offer 

choice when classrooms, budgets, and time frames were limited. Some of these 

officials had studied the suggestions offered in the U.S. Department of Education’s 

February 2004 guidance but considered creation of virtual or charter schools to be longterm projects that could not provide capacity in time to meet short deadlines. Cost 

considerations were a major issue in several districts where capacity constraints had 

limited the number of transfers under NCLB. 

Even where space is available in receiving schools, staff must be added if more than a few 

students transfer in. In one case study site, the new staff were moved from the identified school 

to the receiving school. Difficulties related to building capacity are unlikely to diminish in the 

future and could become more pronounced if the number of students eligible to transfer or those 

transferring increases and the number of schools available as potential transfer options decreases. 

Districts that implemented Title I choice for the first time in 2003-04 reported that the 

absence of alternate schools and inadequate information for parents were greater 

challenges than did districts implementing choice in 2002-03 and 2003-04. Among districts 

that offered Title I choice in 2003-04 and not in 2002-03, 60 percent reported that the absence of 

alternate schools within the district was a major challenge compared with 12 percent of districts 

that had a year’s experience. Similarly, among districts that provided choice for the first time in 

2003-04, 41 percent reported that inadequate information for parents about the status of their 

child’s school as identified for improvement was not a challenge at all compared with 85 percent 

of districts with experience implementing choice. Experience appeared to make a difference. 

Another factor is that most (61 percent) of the districts implementing choice for the first time in 

2003-04 were small (and were only 22 percent of districts implementing choice in 2003-04). 

The small proportion (1 percent) of eligible students who requested a transfer to a 

school not identified for improvement in 2003-04 continued to reflect the many 

considerations that go into parents’ choice of schools for their children. Focus groups of 

parents in the case study districts revealed a number of factors other than the identification status 

of a school influenced parents’ decisions to send their children to another school (Exhibit 14). 

These considerations included how well their children were achieving, the availability of special 

programs, and the proximity of alternate schools to their home. Late and inadequate parent 

notification (Exhibit 15) and limited choices among transfer schools, also contributed to low 

participation rates. 

 24
Exhibit 14 

Factors That Influence Parents’ Decisions to Transfer Their Children to Another School 

Across the case study districts in 2003-04, parents offered a number of different reasons for not 

choosing to transfer their children to alternate schools that were not identified for improvement. Below 

are the themes that emerged, along with illustrations. The reasons were quite similar to those heard 

from parents interviewed the previous year. 

Lack of special programs at alternate schools. These range from language programs for limited English 

proficient students to special programs targeted to students struggling to keep up academically with 

their peers. 

Positive relationships with staff of identified school. Parents view teachers as helpful with problems 

inside and outside the school. In cases in which school staff speak the parents’ native language, 

parents are particularly attached to the school. 

Parents don’t blame the school for being in improvement status. A parent at one school in a large 

urban district said: “I don’t feel it’s the school’s fault. We have new families coming every year. That’s 

the hard part.” Another added: “I know they are improving. I know they are working hard.” In another 

urban district school a parent said: “If there’s a problem at this school, we should fix it, not leave.” 

Parents worry that the move would be temporary. The identified school might make AYP next year and 

exit improvement status. One parent said, as others nodded: “If the school improves, we have to bring 

them [our children] back.”12 

Other family arrangements tied to neighborhood school. One very large urban case study district 

requested that parents provide a reason for not exercising their choice option on their 2003-04 choice 

applications. Three reasons were cited most often. One was that children who now walked to school 

would have to ride a bus. The second was that after-school child care was walking distance from their 

neighborhood school and would not be reachable from a school farther away. The third was that

parents wanted younger siblings to stay at the nearby school and did not want to split siblings between 

schools. 

Wealthier parents take advantage of choice. In one school, for example, the principal noted that the 

parents who exercised choice were those from a more affluent neighborhood served by the school who 

did not want their children in a Title I school. 

Other data sources, in addition to the much higher rate of participation in supplemental 

services compared with Title I choice, confirm case study findings that parents continue to prefer 

to provide students extra assistance in their home school rather than transfer their child when a 

school is identified for improvement. A national 2004 poll of the public’s attitudes toward 

public schools indicated that, for schools identified for improvement, 85 percent of public school 

parents would favor keeping students in that school and making additional efforts to help them, 

while 14 percent would favor permitting students to transfer to a school not in need of 

 12 If an eligible student exercises the option to transfer to another public school, a district must permit the students to 

remain in that school until he or she has completed the highest grade in the school. However, the district is no

longer obligated to provide transportation for the student after the end of the school year in which the student’s 

school of origin is no longer identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring [34 CFR 200.44(g)].

 25
improvement (in 2003, the percentages were 74 percent and 25 percent, respectively).13 

Assuming that their child was failing in his or her school, 60 percent of public school parents 

would prefer to have their child tutored by teachers in their home school even though the school 

was identified for improvement, compared with 34 percent who would prefer tutoring to be 

provided by an outside agency (in 2003, the percentages were 54 percent and 42 percent, 

respectively) (Rose and Gallup 2004). 

Another contributing factor may be that parents already exercise choice through other 

choice options that are available to them (U.S. Department of Education 2004a). NCLB choice 

requirements are among a growing number of options that provide parents with choices within 

the public education system. Regions and districts of different sizes vary to a considerable 

degree in the availability and type of public school choice programs they offer (NCES 2003). 

For example, district survey data indicated that about half (49 percent) of districts with and 

without identified schools offered some form of public school choice in 2002-03. Two of the 

case study states offer statewide open enrollment. Public school choice laws in Georgia, 

Oklahoma, and Tennessee allow students in low-performing schools to attend a different school 

within their school districts (ECS 2004). Some states (e.g., Colorado, Florida) and districts are 

looking beyond traditional public schools to offer the necessary choices to students in lowperforming schools, including charter and publicly funded voucher programs. At the same time, 

no states in 2004 offered incentives to encourage districts to accept students transferring from

other districts. 

Exhibit 15 

Other Stumbling Blocks 

In the case study districts, several additional factors created stumbling blocks to implementation of Title I 

choice. Notification of which schools are identified for improvement and therefore required to offer choice 

often occurred well after the beginning of the school year. These delays usually stemmed from late 

receipt of data from the state that made it difficult for districts to complete all the tasks associated with 

offering choice before the school year began. As noted earlier, even though districts may not use lack of 

capacity to deny students the option to transfer, they may take capacity into consideration in deciding 

which choices to make available. In districts with open enrollment, late notification often meant that 

alternate schools were filled by open enrollment decisions that were made before the school year began, 

potentially limiting the number of alternate schools available. 

The 20 percent set-aside for choice and supplemental services also posed challenges to districts that 

often were not able to predict in advance how much funding would be required to meet parents’ requests. 

According to NCLB and subsequent guidance from the U.S. Department of Education, a district may not 

spend less than 5 percent of its Title I, Part A, allocation on supplemental services and no less than 5 

percent on choice-related transportation if demand is sufficient (a district must spend up to an amount 

equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A, allocation or a combination of these services if demand is 

sufficient before using the funding for other purposes). Several case study districts expressed concerns

about having so much money reserved for these services. For most, the small number of parents opting 

for choice meant very little of the transportation funds were used. As a result, district officials expressed 

frustrations with the limit on funds they could carry over, often leaving them pressed to spend leftover 

funds quickly at the end of the year. District staff also pointed out that the carryover funds were not 

allocated to the schools because the school allocations had already been determined, and there was no

guarantee the funds would be available the next year. 

 13 The results for 2004 are similar for the public as a whole. Results are based on a random survey of 1,003 adults in

May and June 2004. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. 

 26
Supplemental Educational Services 

Supplemental services under NCLB, intended to increase the academic performance of 

students in schools identified for improvement, were first required and implemented in the 2002-

03 school year. Students from low-income families who attend Title I schools that are in their 

second year of school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring are eligible for 

supplemental services. 

Implementing the supplemental services provisions of NCLB involves a number of parties. 

State must develop criteria for selecting supplemental service providers, approve providers, 

publish lists of the approved providers, monitor providers, and remove ineffective providers from

state lists. A variety of types of organizations may serve as providers, such as for-profit and 

nonprofit entities, school districts, faith-based organizations, and public or private schools. 

School districts are responsible for coordinating student enrollment in services, including 

notifying parents of their children’s eligibility to receive supplemental services, providing 

parents with adequate information to select providers for their children, and consulting with 

parents and providers to develop specific educational goals for students receiving services. The 

actual service provided must be consistent with the state’s academic content standards as well as 

the instruction provided by the school district and meet certain additional criteria. Findings 

regarding the implementation of these activities are described below. 

Eligibility and Participation 

Between 2002-03 and 2003-04, the number of students eligible for supplemental 

services increased from under 600,000 to about 1.3 million, as did the percent participating 

(from 7 to 19 percent). About the same number and percentage of districts (1,100 districts, or 

11 percent) were required to offer supplemental services in 2003-04 as in 2002-03, but the 

number of schools within these districts with students eligible to receive services increased (from

1,300 to 3,100 schools), as well as the percentage of schools that offered services (from 58 

percent to 83 percent) (Exhibit 16). 

Roughly half of the districts required to offer supplemental services provided services 

in 2003-04 and 2002-03. Among the districts required to offer supplemental services in 2003-

04, 57 percent did so. However, among these districts, 16 percent did not have any students sign 

up for services; thus, less than half of districts (48 percent) required to offer supplemental 

services actually provided services to eligible students, the same percentage as in 2002-03. 

These data are supported by district reports that, among districts not yet providing services in 

2003-04, the primary reason (68 percent) for not providing services was that no parents had 

signed up for services. Other reasons for not providing supplemental services included no 

providers in the area (36 percent) and not having received a list of approved providers from the 

state (14 percent). Despite having less than half of the districts required to provide services 

doing so, the number and percent of students participating increased in 2003-04, particularly in 

the largest districts which had the largest number of identified schools. As was true with Title I 

choice, the average number of schools with students eligible for supplemental services was 

greater (29 schools) in very large districts, compared with four in large districts and two in 

medium districts. 

 27
Exhibit 16 

Districts and Schools Required to Offer Supplemental Services, Those That Offered 

Supplemental Services, and Students Who Participated in 2002-03 and 2003-04 

2002-03 2003-04

Students (among districts that provided services): 

Number eligible 

Number who participated 

Proportion who participated

592,000 

42,000 

 7% 

1,331,000*

258,000*

 19% 

Schools: 

Number where services required 

Number where services offered 

Proportion where services offered 

1,300 

800 

 58% 

3,100 

2,500 

 83% 

Districts:

Number with schools where services required 

Number with schools where services offered 

Proportion where services offered 

1,100 

500 

 48% 

1,100 

600 

 57% 

Exhibit reads: Among districts that provided supplemental services in 2002-03, an estimated 592,000 students

nationwide were eligible for supplemental services; for 2003-04, the estimate is 1,331,000 students. 

*Notes: Asterisk indicates differences were significant at p < .05. The number of students eligible is 

underestimated, and therefore the percent participating is overestimated, because not all districts that should have

provided choice and supplemental services reported providing these options and thus did not provide eligibility data 

(about 15 percent of the 11 percent of districts required to provide services). The estimated 592,000 has a margin of

error of +/- .6 million, and 1.3 million has a margin of error of +/- .34 million. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

The average number of students eligible for supplemental services varied widely by 

district size and urbanicity. For example, urban districts providing supplemental services on 

average reported more than 9,000 students eligible to receive services in 2003-04 (Exhibit 17). 

Overall, 25 percent of districts providing supplemental services reported having on average over 

1,000 eligible students. At the same time, the average percentage of students that received 

supplemental services was similar across districts that provided services. For example, the 

average percentage of eligible students receiving services in urban districts was 22 percent, 

compared with 20 percent in suburban districts and 17 percent in rural districts. 

 28
Exhibit 17 

Average Number of Students in Identified Schools Who Were Eligible 

for Supplemental Services in 2003-04, Among Districts That 

Provided Services, by Urbanicity

437

958

9,119

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Rural Suburban Urban

Type of districts

Number of students

Exhibit reads: Among districts required to provide supplemental services and did so in

2003-04, the average number of students eligible to receive these services in rural districts 

was 437. 

Notes: There were significant differences in the average number of students who were 

eligible for services by district urbanicity at p < .01. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

Among districts that provided supplemental services in 2003-04, half (52 percent) 

made services available to all low-income students because the demand for did not exceed 

the funds available (Exhibit 18). Some districts (23 percent) made services available to all lowincome students even though demand exceeded Title I funding requirements.14 If district funds 

available are insufficient to provide supplemental services to each eligible student whose parent

requests services, the district must give priority to providing services to the lowest-achieving 

eligible students (U.S. Department of Education 2003a). In 2003-04, 20 percent of districts gave 

priority to the lowest-achieving students. The percentage of districts following each of these 

 14 NCLB establishes a joint funding mechanism for choice-related transportation and supplemental education

services. Unless a lesser amount is needed to meet the demand for choice-related transportation and to satisfy all

requests for supplemental services, a district must spend up to an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A, 

allocation before putting any restrictions on its spending for choice-relate transportation, supplemental services, or 

a combination of both. A district may not spend less than 5 percent of its Title I, Part A, allocation on

supplemental services and no less than 5 percent on choice-related transportation if demand is sufficient. 

 29
policies in 2002-03 was not different from those in 2003-04. Six of 48 states reported they also 

required offering supplemental services to students in non-Title I schools identified for 

improvement. 

Exhibit 18 

District Policy Regarding the Provision of Supplemental Services in 

2002-03 and 2003-04, Among Districts That Provided Services 

62

19

14

52

23

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

Priority given to the lowest-achieving

low-income students in eligible schools

because demand exceededs Title I

funding requirements

Available to all low-income students in

eligible schools even though demand

exceeds Title I funding requirements

Available to all low-income students

because demand does not exceed

Title I funding requirements

Percentage of districts

2002-03 2003-04

%

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, among districts that provided supplemental services, 52 percent

made services available to all low-income students because demand did not exceed Title I 

funding compared with 62 percent in 2002-03. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

Providers of Supplemental Services and How They Are Chosen 

Each state is required to develop criteria for selecting providers, maintain a list of approved 

providers and provide school districts with a list of approved providers in their geographic 

locations, monitor provider services, and withdraw approval from providers that do not meet the 

statutory requirements to increase students’ academic achievement over a two-year period. In 

2002-03, states were focused on the process of approving providers, and many states had not 

established systems for monitoring provider performance or a process for standards for 

withdrawing approval from providers. Very few states gave a list of approved providers to 

districts before the beginning of the 2002-03 school year. 

By 2003-04 states had fine-tuned their approval process and more had released lists of 

providers before the start of the school year. In 2002-03, only five states published lists of 

approved providers before September 2002. By September 2003, 19 states reported that they 

 30
released their initial lists of 2003-04 supplemental services providers. States also provided 

districts with initial lists of approved providers at various times during the 2003-04 school year 

and updated their lists at different intervals (for example, 15 states updated annually and 16 

updated as needed). 

State criteria for choosing providers did not change from 2002-03 to 2003-04 in most 

states (Exhibit 19). Ten states added or refined criteria, most around indicators of quality or 

evidence of effectiveness. 

Exhibit 19 

Criteria for Selecting Supplemental Service Providers in 2003-04 

Number of

states 

Criteria based on NCLB and/or nonregulatory guidance 

Services consistent with instruction program of the district and with state 

academic, content, and achievement standards 

48 

Instructional strategies that are high quality, based on research, and designed to 

increase student academic achievement 47 

Financially sound 47 

Services consistent with applicable federal, state, and local health, safety, and 

civil rights laws 46 

Instruction and content secular, neutral, and nonideological 42 

Services provided in addition to instruction provided during the school day 31 

Demonstrated record of effectiveness in improving student achievement 29 

Either a demonstrated record of effectiveness or a high probability of increasing 

student academic achievement 19 

Additional state criteria 

Communication with (1) schools and districts, (2) parents and families 43 

Monitoring student progress 42 

Staff qualifications 42 

Assurance of employee background checks 33 

Assurance or specification regarding the terms of contract with districts 25 

Services in reading must address the findings of the National Reading Panel 21 

Evidence of clear pricing structure 19 

Conditional approval for providers with limited or no record of effectiveness 8 

Ability to serve LEP students and/or disabled students 7 

Exhibit reads: Forty-eight states required services consistent with the instruction program of the district and with 

state academic, content, and achievement standards in their criteria for selecting supplemental service providers for 

2003-04.

Notes: Includes data from 47 states and the District of Columbia. Two states, Florida and Wyoming, did not have 

schools required to provide supplemental services in 2003-04 and as a result, were not required to develop a list of

approved providers in 2003-04. Arizona did not have an online provider application to review. 

Source: TASSIE state survey and review of online state applications. 

In 2003-04, most states had standards and processes for monitoring the quality of 

supplemental services providers, and about half had standards and processes for 

 31
withdrawing approval from providers (Exhibit 20). Thirty-eight reported having standards for 

monitoring providers, up from 20 states in 2002-03. Among the states (29) that described their 

standards and processes for monitoring provider quality, seven indicated that they delegated the 

responsibility to districts. A smaller number states (25) reported that they had established 

standards and processes for withdrawing approval from providers, only slightly more than 22 

states that reported having such standards in 2002-03. Only 12 states included in their standards 

for withdrawing approval the “failure for two consecutive years to contribute to increased 

academic proficiency,” an NCLB criterion for removing providers from state lists. 

Exhibit 20 

State Standards and Process for Monitoring Providers and 

Withdrawing Approval From Providers 

20

22

25

38

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2002-03 2003-04

Number of states

States with standards and processes for monitoring providers

States with standards for withdrawing approval from providers

Exhibit reads: In 2002-03, 20 states had standards and processes in place for monitoring 

supplemental service providers and 22 states had standards in place for withdrawing approval 

from providers. (See Appendix B for the complete list of state standards and processes.)

Source: TASSIE state survey. 

Monitoring supplemental service providers and evaluating their performance 

continued to be a challenge for states. At the end of 2003-04, supplemental services were in 

place for two years, the length of time in which providers must show contributions to improved 

student performance or be removed from state lists. As more and more providers reach this 

period of service provision, the responsibilities for states to evaluate their performance will 

increase. Two case study states reported that they relied heavily on districts for information 

about the performance of providers. Another case study state conducted its own monitoring 

visits, and the remaining two states were still considering ways to monitor provider performance. 

 32
A U.S. Department of Education study of the implementation of supplemental services also 

found several of its case study states relied on districts for information about the performance of 

providers and expressed interest in more technical assistance, especially with assessing provider 

performance in improving student academic achievement (U.S. Department of Education 2005a). 

The number of providers on state lists increased from 2002-03 to 2003-04 in a 

majority of states and few providers were removed. Out of 48 states and the District of 

Columbia, 37 states increased their number of providers between April 2003 and April 2004, 

three states had a decrease in the number of providers (a net loss of 12 providers), 15 and four 

states had no data available in April 2003 on which to base a comparison. Only four states 

reported that providers were removed from state lists (e.g., because financial irregularities were 

discovered). The five case study states illustrate the variety in number of providers and increase 

from 2003 to 2004 (Exhibit 21). 

Exhibit 21 

Supplemental Service Providers in Case Study States in April 2003 and 2004 

Total number of providers operating in the state 

April 2003 April 2004 Difference 

Arizona 27 26 -1

Louisiana 8 14 6

Maryland 2 14 12

Michigan 17 65 48

Washington 13 29 16

Exhibit reads: Arizona had 27 approved providers as of April 2003, and the number of approved providers had 

declined by one by April 2004. 

Sources: Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished database (PPSS 2004), and verified through the TASSIE

state survey. 

Approved providers represented a variety of organizations in 2003-04, but private 

providers (not including private faith-based and online providers) continued to be the 

dominant type of provider (Exhibit 22). As of April 2004, the period of survey data collection, 

69 percent of providers were private providers (e.g., nonprofit private groups or for-profit 

organizations such as Sylvan Educational Solutions, Kaplan Educational Centers, etc.) compared 

with 58 percent one year earlier. Districts and public schools were a smaller portion of all 

providers in April 2004 (24 percent) than in April 2003 (32 percent). In 2003-04, 37 percent of 

districts required to offer supplemental services were providers themselves. This percent 

dropped to 26 percent in 2004-05, reflecting the fact that some districts were identified for 

improvement and therefore unable to be supplemental service providers (CEP 2005). 

 15 Other states may have lost providers because they withdrew their application to provide services, but this did not

impact the net gain in the total number of providers serving these states. 

 33
Exhibit 22 

Supplemental Service Providers in April 2003 and 2004 

April 2003 April 2004 Difference 

Type of provider 

Number of

providers 

Percent 

of total 

Number of

providers 

Percent 

of total 

Number of

providers 

Percent 

of total 

Private: 

• Faith-based 

• Online 

• Other private providers 

 18 

 98 

472 

 2 

 10 

 46 

 96 

 162 

 984 

 5 

 9 

 55 

 78 

 64 

 512 

 3 

-1 

 9 

Districts and public schools 326 32 431 24 105 -8 

Colleges and universities 32 3 38 2 6 -1 

Other or unknown types 71 7 68 4 3 -3 

Total 1,017 100 1,779 100 762 NA 

Exhibit reads: In states that approved supplemental service providers, 18 (2 percent of all approved providers) were 

private faith-based organizations as of April 2003; as of April 2004, 96 (5 percent) were private faith-based 

organizations, a increase of 78 faith-based providers (3 percent more of all approved providers). 

Notes: Includes data from 47 states and the District of Columbia. Two states, Florida and Wyoming, did not have 

schools required to provide supplemental services in 2003-04. Data were not available from Maine. Totals may not

add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Sources: Policy and Program Studies Service, unpublished database (PPSS 2004), and the TASSIE state survey. 

Barriers to Providing and Participating in Supplemental Services 

The most significant challenge to implementing supplemental services, particularly 

for small and medium districts, was a lack of providers available to serve the district. As 

was true in 2002-03, lack of providers in the area, as well as concerns about the appropriateness 

and quality of providers, headed the list of challenges (Exhibit 23). Lack of providers in the area 

was especially problematic for small and rural districts. Forty-two percent of small and medium

districts reported that lack of providers in the area was a challenge to a great extent, compared 

with 15 percent of large districts and very large districts. Whereas a greater percentage of 

suburban districts (23 percent) and urban districts (18 percent) reported that a lack of high 

quality services was a challenge to a great extent compared with 8 percent of rural districts. 

Even providers approved to operate statewide were not available to serve small and rural 

districts in the case study sites. Those that offered online services did not solve the problem

because few families had online access. The U.S. Department of Education study of the 

implementation of supplemental services found that several state coordinators reported the same

problems (U.S. Department of Education 2005a). 

 34
Exhibit 23 

Top Challenges Faced by Districts That Implemented Supplemental Services, Among 

Districts That Offered Services in 2003-04 

Type of challenge Great extent 

Moderate 

extent 

Not at all or 

small extent 

Lack of providers in the area*+ 30 31 39

Lack of approved providers offering services at 

needed grade levels 25 14 61

Lack of approved providers offering services to meet 

the needs of specific student populations

17 23 60

Approved providers did not offer high-quality 

services*

+ 16 17 67

Lack of approved providers in needed subject areas 14 9 77 

Providers have not yet established a reputation with 

parents* 11 28 61

Competition from existing after-school programs 10 26 64 

Exhibit reads: Among districts that had identified schools and offered supplemental services, 30 percent responded

that lack of providers in the area was a challenge to a great extent in implementing supplemental services, 31 percent 

to a moderate extent, and 39 percent to a small extent or not at all. (See Appendix B for the complete list of

challenges.) 

Note: * indicates significant difference by district size in the extent to which a challenge existed (between p < .05 

and p < .0001); +

 indicates significant difference by urbanicity (between p < .05 and p < .01) for this challenge. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

Quality of providers’ services, lack of providers’ reputation with parents, and 

difficulty negotiating contracts with providers also continued to be challenges districts 

faced to a moderate or great extent. Quality of supplemental services proved to be less of a 

problem for small and medium districts than for large and very large districts. Two-thirds (66 

percent) of small and medium districts did not report service quality as a challenge compared 

with one-third of large (36 percent) and very large (31 percent) districts. Negotiating contracts 

also proved more challenging for larger districts. The adequacy of the required 20 percent setaside of an amount equal to the district’s Title I allocation to meet all requests for supplemental 

services and to provide transportation for Title I choice was reported as a minor problem by the 

majority (89 percent) of districts, regardless of size. More than half (51 percent) of the district 

respondents listed “other” challenges, such as inadequate district staff to ensure implementation 

consistent with the law, lack of parent and student interest in a longer school day, and lack of 

transportation home for students after services were provided. 

Among districts providing supplemental services, the extent of challenges did not change 

from 2002-03 to 2003-04. However, districts that provided supplemental services to their 

eligible students reported challenges to a lesser extent than districts who did not offer 

supplemental services to eligible students. For example, 30 percent of districts that provided 

supplemental services reported lack of providers in the area as a major problem (one faced to a 

great extent) compared with 59 percent of districts that did not provide services to eligible 

students. 

 35
The case studies, and the findings of the U.S. Department of Education study of the 

implementation of supplemental services (U.S. Department of Education 2004a), offer insights 

into the role of districts’ experiences in providing supplemental services and the problem of other 

barriers for districts, schools, and parents. Districts in their second year of offering supplemental 

services appeared to have more systems in place for reaching out to parents and negotiating 

contracts with service providers; however, both issues still posed challenges. Districts also 

pointed to the problem of substantial costs associated with communicating with parents and 

working with providers. 

Case study data indicated that communicating with parents often posed challenges because 

many parents of eligible students did not understand English or were not literate. The data also 

showed alternatives to written communication with the potential to reach many eligible parents, 

such as radio and television spots in multiple languages, may be costly and could be ineffective. 

Communicating with parents was also a problem for several districts because they could not get 

sufficient information from the state (Exhibit 24). Case study data also suggested that involving 

school staff in outreach efforts resulted in more effective communication with parents because of 

staff familiarity with parents (i.e., parents’ greater comfort level with school staff) but did not 

guarantee substantial increases in participation rates (see additional information about 

communication methods in Exhibit 28). The U.S. Department of Education’s early 

implementation study found in all nine case study sites that communication between providers 

and parents was also rarely effective. The study found that neither parents nor teachers 

interviewed reported receiving written progress reports, and many teachers did not know which 

of their students were receiving services (U.S. Department of Education 2005a). 

Exhibit 24 

District Challenges in Working With Providers 

One large urban district experienced numerous challenges that arose as a result of inadequate 

information from the state about local providers. Upon receiving the list of providers from the state, 

the supplemental services coordinator contacted all 15 providers that had claimed to operate locally. 

He asked them to send additional, “more user friendly” material that he could make available to 

parents. Only five followed up with information. As a result, parents knew very little about most 

providers, including where they offered services. With insufficient information, parents chose 

providers only to find out later that they provided services an hour away or that they needed a

minimum number of students to sign up for their program and ended up not providing services. In 

some cases, parents identified first and second choice providers, and neither turned out to be viable 

options. 

In another large district, the Title I director expressed concern about the organizational abilities of the 

providers. In the middle of May, with services having begun in February, she was unable to say how 

much supplemental services were costing the districts because, she said: “No one has submitted a bill 

yet, so I don’t know how much it will cost.” She added that this was emblematic of the behavior of the 

providers, whom she described as disorganized and unprepared to serve students.

Communication With Parents Under NCLB

For parents to exercise their options under Title I choice and supplemental services, they 

must know about available opportunities. Districts must send parents with children in identified 

 36
Title I schools, a written notification about the schools’ status and about school improvement 

activities, how they can help to increase their child’s achievement, and about Title I school 

choice and supplemental services, as appropriate. Districts must notify parents with children in 

identified schools about their options for Title I choice before the school year begins so that they 

have time to make informed decisions. Districts should also notify parents as early in the school 

year as possible about supplemental services. Contacting and communicating clearly with 

parents about the availability of choice and supplemental services continued to present 

challenges to districts in 2003-04 and appeared to influence rates of participation. 

A majority of districts did not notify parents of their choice options prior to the 

opening of school. Sixty-five percent of districts with identified Title I schools did not notify 

parents of their public school choice option before the beginning of the 2003-04 school year 

(Exhibit 25). Similarly, 76 percent of districts notified parents about their children’s eligibility 

for supplemental services after the beginning of the 2003-04 school year. There was 

considerable variability in the average number of weeks before and after the beginning of the 

2003-04 school year that notification took place. For example: 

• Among districts that notified parents before the 2003-04 school year about their school 

choice options, the majority (68 percent) did so one to four weeks before school began. 

• Almost half of the districts (46 percent) that notified parents after the beginning of the 

2003-04 school year about their school choice options did so one to four weeks after 

school began. 

Exhibit 25 

Timing of Notification to Parents of Students in Identified Title I Schools 

About Eligibility for School Choice and Supplemental Services in 2003-04, Among 

Districts That Provided Choice and Supplemental Services 

School choice Supplemental services 

When parents were notified 

Percent of 

districts 

Average 

number of 

weeks

Percent of 

districts 

Average 

number of 

weeks

Before the beginning of the 

2003-04 school year 

35 6 23 7

At the beginning of the 2003-04 

school year

38 Not applicable 29 Not applicable 

After the beginning of the 2003-

04 school year 26 7 43 8

District had not notified parents 

as of spring 2004 1 Not applicable 4 Not applicable 

Exhibit reads: Among districts that provided public school choice under Title I in 2003-04, 35 percent notified 

parents of children in identified Title I schools about their eligibility for public school choice before the beginning of

the 2003-04 school year (on average, six weeks before the beginning of the school year). Among districts that

provided supplemental services in 2003-04, 23 percent notified eligible parents about their supplemental services

options before the beginning of the 2003-04 school year (on average, seven weeks before the beginning of the 

school year). 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

 37
Based on the case studies, late parental notification for supplemental services appeared to 

have less effect than for Title I choice because supplemental services usually began well after the 

opening of school and often began again during the second semester. However, both for parents 

and for districts, late notification to choose an alternate school had greater repercussions because 

it meant moving students and staff after the beginning of the school year. 

Many districts were not meeting the mandate of notifying parents before the 

beginning of the 2003-04 school year, often because of late notification by states. States 

were not always providing timely notification to districts regarding whether their schools met 

AYP targets in the previous years’ testing and which schools were identified for improvement. 

Fifteen states provided districts with initial AYP data in June and July 2003, another 18 provided 

initial AYP data in August 2003, and 11 states provided initial AYP data between September 

2003 and January 2004 (four states indicated that they provided the data at multiple times during 

the 2003-04 school year). 

Exhibit 26 

Average Number of Students Who Transferred, by Timing of 

District Notification, Among Districts That Provided Choice in 2003-04 

35

69

15

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

All Notified before

the beginning of

the 2003-04

school year

Notified at the

beginning of the

2003-04

school year

Notified after the

beginning of the

2003-04

school year

A

verage number of students

Exhibit reads: Among districts that provided choice options in 2003-04, the mean number 

of students who transferred was 35. In districts where parents were notified about their 

school choice options before the beginning of the 2003-04 school year, an average of 69

students transferred. In districts where parents where notified at the beginning of the 

school year, an average of 15 students transferred. In districts where parents were notified 

after the beginning of the school year, an average of 12 students transferred. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

 38
The average number of students who transferred, but not the average percentage of 

students, was related to the timing of district notification about choice to parents of 

students in identified Title I schools. In districts in which parents were notified about their 

school choice options before the beginning of the school year, an average of 69 students 

transferred. This compares with an average of 15 students in districts in which notification 

occurred at the start of the year and an average of 12 in districts in which notification took place 

after the start of the year (Exhibit 26). This relationship does not hold for participation in 

supplemental services. On the other hand, there were no significant differences in the average 

percentage of students in a district who transferred based on the timing of notification; for 

example, 5 percent of eligible students in districts providing notice before the beginning of the 

school, compared with 13 percent of eligible students in districts providing notice after the 

beginning of the year. 

Exhibit 27 

Number of Communication Methods Used by Districts in 2003-04 

to Notify Parents About Their Title I Choice and Supplemental Services 

Options, Among Districts That Provided These Options 

16

6

8 31

15

23

21

16

45

19

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Title I choice Title I supplemental

services

Percentage of districts

5 or more

communication methods

4 communication

methods

3 communication

methods

2 communication

methods

1 communication

method

10 10

Exhibit reads: Among districts that provided Title I choice in 2003-04, 19 percent used five 

or more communication methods to notify parents about their choice options. Among 

districts that provided supplemental services in 2003-04, 45 percent used five or more 

communication methods to notify parents about supplemental services. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

Districts took primary responsibility for notifying parents about public school choice 

and supplemental services and most relied on written communication. Eighty-eight percent 

 39
of districts used written communication to notify parents of their choice options, as did 89 

percent of districts when communicating about supplemental services. At the same time, the 

majority of districts used more than one communication approach (Exhibit 27). Communication 

strategies employed by districts included the following: 

• Parent meetings to publicize and discuss school choice options (40 percent) or to 

publicize and discuss supplemental services (62 percent). 

• Public service announcements and news stories in local newspapers or on television 

about choice (17 percent) and supplemental services (37 percent). 

• Enrollment fairs or other events where parents of students in schools identified for 

improvement could learn about alternate schools for transfer options (8 percent) or 

could learn about providers and the services they offer (38 percent). 

• Phone messages to parents and telephone hotlines about choice (5 percent) and 

supplemental services (24 percent). 

• Outreach to parents by school-parent advisory committees about choice (11 percent) 

and about supplemental services (21 percent). 

• Information provided at district enrollment or welcome centers about choice (15 

percent) and supplemental services (9 percent). 

• Announcements at school board meetings about choice (26 percent) and supplemental 

services (25 percent). 

Districts involved school staff in communicating with parents about the school’s 

identification status and their options, particularly about supplemental services. Eighteen 

percent of continuously identified schools in 2003-04 indicated that the district alone 

communicated with parents about Title I choice, and 12 percent indicated that the district alone 

communicated with parents about supplemental services. These are declines from 2002-03, 

when 32 percent of continuously identified schools reported that the district alone handled 

communications with parents about choice, and 31 percent reported that the district alone 

handled communications about supplemental services. In 2003-04, more than half (55 percent) 

of continuously identified schools reported that they held parent meetings to publicize and 

discuss school choice options, and half (50 percent) reported that school staff had discussed 

supplemental services options with parents. 

Contacting and communicating clearly with parents about the availability of

supplemental services still presents challenges to school districts. Case study districts 

struggled to find effective means to communicate with families. In some cases, districts did not 

put much effort into communicating with families. For example, one medium size district did 

not mail out information on providers to parents to save cost, informing parents that they had to 

come to the district office to review the list of providers. In most cases, however, districts 

attempted to reach parents and found that their efforts fell short (Exhibit 28). 

 40
 41

Exhibit 28

District Efforts to Communicate With Parents 

In one large urban district, district staff sent letters to families, including information from the state on

local providers, and set up an orientation for parents, providers, a staff person from the school, and a 

staff person from the Title I office. Each school with eligible students had one of these orientations at 

the school building. School staff reported, however, that these efforts were insufficient to reach the 

families they serve, especially the parents of children who could most benefit from supplemental 

services. For example, the assistant principal characterized the notification process as “spotty but 

earnest.” She added: “With our students and parents if we want them to do something, we have to

do eight things”—that is, use eight different communication strategies. The Title I director was 

optimistic that more families would sign up next year: “My hope for next year is to educate the parents 

a little more so they can take advantage of the service.”

In several case study sites, district staff learned that combining information about Title I choice and

supplemental services in parent information meetings or materials led to misunderstandings among

parents because of the different eligibility requirements for students. Some parents who were 

interested in supplemental services but not choice were surprised to learn that their children were not 

eligible because they were not low income.

State and district report cards are important tools for promoting accountability of schools,

districts, and states by publicizing data about student performance and program effectiveness for 

parents, policymakers, and other stakeholders. The NCLB legislation and U.S. Department of 

Education final guidance issued September 2003 (U.S. Department of Education 2003b) specify 

the content of these report cards and requirements for providing the public with a clear 

understanding of the progress for which schools are being held accountable. State report cards 

provide information about the performance of districts and states as a whole, whereas district 

report cards provide information down to the school level. Data on report cards fall into three 

general categories: assessment data (student performance on tests), accountability data (whether

schools and districts made adequate yearly progress in improving student achievement), and

teacher quality data.

Public Reporting 

Districts must issue report cards annually and may use whatever format they determine to

be most effective in presenting information in a concise, understandable manner. Districts also 

have the flexibility to determine when during the school year they will issue report cards. 

District report cards must include information about assessments, accountability, and teacher 

quality as it applies to the district as a whole and as it applies to each school served by the district

(Exhibit 29). Individual school report cards are not required, but information about each school

must be included in the district report card.

School and District Report Cards
45

55

NA

NA

NA

13

38

28

51

38

50

20

NA

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7

Student performance on statewide academic assessments

School performance on state assessments, comparedwith students in the district and state as a

whole

Student performance on statewide academic assessments compared to the state’s annual

measurable objectives

Most recent two-year trend data of student performance on statewide academic assessments

Percentage of students not tested

Attendance rates

Graduation rates (for high schools)

Whetherthe school has been identified forimprovement under NCLB or number and percentage of

Title Ischools identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring

Names of Title I schools that have beenidentified forimprovement and the length of time identified

Percentage of teachers teaching with emergencyor provisional credentials

Percentage of teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials in high-poverty

compared to low-povertyschools

Percentage of classes not taught byhighlyqualified teachers or percentage of core academic

classes not taught by highlyqualified teachers

Percentage of core academic classes not taught by highly qualified teachers in high-poverty

compared to low-povertyschools

The information included varies by school because schools are responsible for producing report

cards 

Percentage of Title I schoo

Districts w ith district report cardsDistricts w ith school report cards

Exhibit reads: Among all districts that had school report cards, 13 percent reported that the information in school report cards varied schools are responsible for producing report cards. This item is not applicable for district report cards. (All of the elements listed exare required by NCLB; four additional items are required by NCLB for district level data indicated by “not applicable for school.”) 

Information Included in School and District Report Cards, Among Districts That Had Sch

District Report Cards in 2003-04 

Exhibit 29 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

42 
Though not required under NCLB, most districts also reported preparing school 

report cards. Eighty-seven percent of Title I districts reported preparing school report cards in 

2003-04, up from 81 percent in 2002-03 but down from 93 percent in 2001-02. The data 

provided most frequently on school report cards were similar to the data included in district 

report cards. In 2003-04, school report cards more commonly included data on whether a school 

was identified for improvement (69 percent of Title I districts with school report cards), up from

35 percent in 2002-03. 

Among districts that had school report cards in 2003-04, assessment data were 

provided most often. Districts must report on the percentage of students tested, their 

proficiency level, comparisons with statewide data, and most recent two-year trend data in 

student achievement by grade level in at least reading and mathematics. Ninety-nine percent of

Title I districts provided student performance on state tests, and 84 percent provided comparative

district and state data (Exhibit 29). 

By 2003-04, more districts were including accountability data and teacher quality data—

but not all districts were doing so in a manner consistent with NCLB requirements. There was 

some improvement in the degree to which school report cards were providing information 

outlined in NCLB (Exhibit 29). 

Districts with school report cards increased their reporting of accountability data 

substantially from 2002-03 to 2003-04, but almost one-third still did not provide schoollevel accountability data. NCLB requires three types of accountability data: overall and 

subgroup data comparing student achievement to state objectives, data on additional state 

indicators (e.g., attendance, graduation rates) used in AYP determinations, and information on 

the district and schools making AYP (U.S. Department of Education 2003b). In 2003-04, 

accountability data were included in school report cards in 69 percent of Title I districts with 

report cards and in 75 percent of districts with identified schools and report cards. 

In 2003-04, more than 70 percent of Title I districts that prepared school report cards

included school assessment data for student subgroups for five of the six categories (all except 

migrant status) specified in NCLB—between 71 and 84 percent of districts with a subgroup 

enrollment of 10 percent or more (compared with 60 percent in 2002-03).16 Over 80 percent of 

districts with school and district report cards included attendance and graduation rates (for high 

schools) (Exhibit 29). 

Teacher quality data were the least likely of the three types of data to be reported in 

2003-04. Each district must provide, for the district as a whole and for each school within the 

district, information on the professional qualifications of all public school teachers, the 

 16 A threshold of 10 percent per subgroup was established for analysis to exclude districts with very small subgroup

populations (i.e., districts where the subgroup population was too small to be included on report cards). This

threshold does not necessarily reflect the district’s actual minimum number of students per subgroup for reporting 

purposes as defined in each state accountability plan. There was very little difference in the percentage of 

districts that provided information on school report cards among districts with identified schools that had school

report cards, compared with all Title I districts that prepared school report cards. 

43
percentage of all teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage 

of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers (as the term is defined in NCLB). Among 

Title I districts providing school report cards in 2003-04, 55 percent included information on the 

percentage of teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and 45 percent 

included information on the percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers; an 

improvement over 43 percent and 32 percent, respectively, in 2002-03. In 13 percent of districts 

with school report cards, the information included varied by school because schools are 

responsible for producing their own report cards. 

As was true with school report cards, not all Title I districts prepared district report 

cards in 2003-04: more than two-thirds (70 percent) of Title I districts prepared district report 

cards, and 81 percent of districts with identified schools did so in 2003-04.17 A higher 

percentage of Title I districts with identified schools (93 percent), compared with all Title I 

districts (87 percent), made school report cards available in 2003-04. 

The results for district reporting were similar to those for school report cards—

assessment data were most often reported, along with attendance and graduation rates; 

assessment data were also broken down by student subgroups (Exhibit 30). For example, 99 

percent of districts that prepared district report cards included student performance on statewide 

academic assessments, 86 percent compared their districts’ performance with state averages, and 

90 percent included district attendance rates. District report cards also included school 

assessment data broken down by student subgroups. More than 70 percent of districts that 

prepared district report cards included district assessment data for student subgroups for five of 

seven categories specified in NCLB (except migrant and Title I eligibility status): between 73 

and 89 percent of districts with a subgroup enrollment of 10 percent or more. 

Only half (50 percent) of district report cards included the number and percentage of Title I 

schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the district. District 

report cards were no more likely than school report cards to include teacher quality data. 

State Reporting 

States have the responsibility for producing and distributing state report cards and may, as 

is the case in many states, prepare and produce district report cards on behalf of their districts. 

State report cards must include information related to assessments, accountability, and teacher 

quality for all districts in the state. The assessment data required is similar to that for districts: 

(1) information on the percentage of students tested, (2) information on student achievement at 

each proficiency level, and (3) the most recent two-year trend data in student achievement in 

each subject and for each grade. The accountability data required on the state report card is also 

similar to that for districts: a comparison between actual student achievement levels and the 

state’s annual measurable objectives in reading or language arts and mathematics overall and by 

subgroup, data on student performance on the state’s additional academic indicators used in 

making AYP determinations, and information on the districts and schools making AYP. 

 17 Data on the content of district report cards were not collected in previous years. 

44
The majority of states made state-level, district-level, and school-level assessment 

data disaggregated by student subgroups publicly available. An analysis of state Web sites 

in May-June 2004 found that the majority of states (44) made state-level data disaggregated by 

student subgroups publicly available on their state Web site.18 The majority of states also made 

district-level (41 states) and school-level data (43 states) disaggregated by student subgroups 

available on their state Web sites. 

In 2003-04, 40 states publicly reported the improvement status of all their schools, 

including non-Title I schools.19 These data suggest that a fifth of states (10) had yet to comply 

with NCLB accountability data reporting requirements. In addition to the NCLB-required 

components of the report cards, some states include additional information, such as data about 

school climate; 27 states provide information about the school safety category, such as number 

of student suspensions or expulsions (Olson 2004). 

Reporting of school performance varied widely from state to state in 2003-04 (ECS 2004), 

taking the form of one or more of the following: (1) a statewide list of schools that did not make 

AYP, (2) a list of only Title I schools that did not make AYP, (3) a list of schools that did not 

make AYP based on 2002-03 test results only, (4) a list of schools that did not make AYP in 

previous years, and (5) a list of schools that did not make AYP or schools “identified for 

improvement” (the only group required by NCLB). 

Although providing information to the public is an important tool for promoting school 

accountability, case study data suggested that a critical issue was the manner in which 

information was presented: data provided in multiple forms did not necessarily make the data 

more understandable. Some states provided report cards that were simply hard to read. Multiple 

report cards and data sources for each school were also confusing, as were the multiple ratings 

that schools received in states with accountability initiatives that operated in tandem with the 

NCLB system. This problem went beyond the case study states. Education Week reported that 

19 states have more than one report card per school and 16 states have separate report cards 

designed specifically to address the requirements in NCLB (Olson 2004). 

Summary

In 2003-04, parents continued to take advantage of supplemental services at a higher rate 

than Title I choice. The percentage of eligible students participating in Title I choice remained at 

1 percent from 2002-03 to 2003-04, while participation in supplemental services increased from

 18 Online state data was reviewed as one measure of public availability of state report card data since the nonregulatory guidance suggests that states disseminate their report cards in multiple ways such as state Web sites. 

Disaggregated student subgroup data were not always easily located on the state Web site (i.e., regarding statelevel subgroup data in four states, district-level subgroup data in two states, and school-level subgroup data in two 

states). 19 Title I of NCLB requires states that receive Title I funds to report schools “identified for improvement” before the 

beginning of the school year [Section 1111(h)(1)], but delays in making initial and final AYP calculations 

prevented a number of states from reporting on identified schools before the beginning of the 2003-04 school

year. As of early October 2004, 20 states had not yet released school report cards with achievement data for 

2003-04 (Olson 2004). 

45
7 to 19 percent. For a host of reasons, parents preferred supplemental services their child could 

receive at their neighborhood schools over the school transfer option. 

Two-thirds of the districts offering Title I choice gave parents a choice among all other 

schools in the districts not identified for improvement. Of the one-third of districts required to 

offer choice that did not do so, most were small with limited or no alternate schools from which 

to choose. As identified schools became more concentrated in large urban districts, these 

districts also found it difficult to identify alternatives, especially at the middle and high school 

levels. Already large urban districts were providing alternatives that were not always higher 

performing than the sending school. 

The biggest challenges in implementing Title I choice included the availability of

alternatives, the time it took to set up the transfer program, and transportation. Time to set up 

the transfer program and transportation were particularly challenging to large districts that had 

on average 30 schools with eligible students. Lack of available providers in the area was 

especially acute for small and rural districts. Half the districts that offered Title I choice did not 

take steps to increase choice options to expand choice available to parents because parent 

demand for Title I choice was low. When districts did take such steps, choosing supplemental 

services was the most commonly mentioned option (by one-fifth of such districts). 

In both 2002-03 and 2003-04, roughly half the districts required to offer supplemental 

services did so. Still, the increase in the number of eligible and participating students was 

substantial. Much of the increase was in urban and very large districts that had an average of 

9,000 and 16,000 eligible students in 2003-04, respectively, reflecting the concentration of 

identified schools in these districts. 

Supplemental services providers were primarily non-faith-based and non-online private 

providers. Lack of providers was the biggest barrier to implementation, especially in small and 

medium districts. States and districts appeared to get better at the mechanics of offering Title I 

choice and supplemental services although they struggled with communicating well with 

parents, and neither states nor districts had figured out how to adequately assess the performance 

of providers. 

Districts fell short on notifying parents about their choice options prior to the opening of 

school, often because states had not provided timely notification on the AYP status of schools. 

At the same time, more districts (69 percent) provided parents with information about school 

performance on school report cards, although many of the report cards did not meet all the NCLB

requirements for content. For example, teacher quality data was generally reported less often 

than school assessment data. 

46
IV. School Improvement and District Assistance 

To achieve the goal that all students reach proficiency by 2013-14, NCLB calls for greater 

accountability, coupled with increased assistance to schools in which too many children are not 

meeting state standards for proficiency in reading and mathematics. NCLB lays out specific 

steps that states and districts must take to assist schools identified for improvement. States must 

establish statewide systems of support that provide assistance directly to schools. Districts must 

provide ongoing technical assistance as schools develop and implement their school plans. In 

particular, districts must help schools analyze student achievement data and develop plans for 

improvement, revise their budgets so that resources are effectively allocated to the activities 

most likely to increase student academic achievement, implement professional development, and 

put in place instructional practices that have shown evidence of effectiveness. Schools, in turn, 

are expected to develop and implement two-year plans that provide road maps for their efforts to 

improve curriculum and instruction and raise student achievement. 

Both the survey and case study data indicate that most schools and districts were taking 

action to implement the requirements of NCLB and taking specific steps to raise the achievement 

of all their students. Schools were engaged in a range of improvement strategies, and in many 

areas, those schools continuously identified for improvement from 2001-02 through 2003-04 

were more likely to be taking steps to promote school improvement. Similarly, almost all 

districts were providing identified schools with some types of assistance on school improvement

tasks. Both school and district activities showed little change over the three years of the study. 

By 2003-04, more states, but still not all, were providing the kinds of assistance to identified 

schools required under NCLB (e.g., 36 states in 2003-04 compared with 23 states in 2002-03 had 

school support teams). In spite of these efforts to provide schools with support, many identified 

schools did not receive assistance specified in NCLB. 

This chapter elaborates and supports the findings on the implementation of NCLB school 

improvement strategies. The first section describes schools’ actions to improve. This is 

followed by a discussion of districts’ and states’ actions to help schools, including a look at 

whether the neediest schools were receiving the most assistance. Finally, an analysis of the 

factors associated with changes in improvement status is presented. 

School Actions 

This section highlights differences between continuously identified schools and those 

schools no longer identified in 2003-04,20 looking both at schools’ actions in 2003-04 and 

 20 The “continuously identified” schools were roughly 40 percent of a nationally representative sample of 589 

schools identified for improvement in 2001-02 that responded to the principal survey in 2003-04. These schools 

were representative of schools identified for improvement in 2001-02 and still identified for improvement in

2003-04. Those schools “no longer identified” were representative of schools identified for improvement in

2001-02 that later exited improvement status. The two groups of schools were quite different in their 

demographic profiles: the continuously identified schools were poorer and tended to be in larger and more urban 

districts than schools no longer identified. Neither sample was representative of the population of identified

schools in 2003-04, the final year of the study and two years into the implementation of NCLB. 

47
patterns of change, or lack thereof, over the three years of the study. The section focuses on 

school improvement activities and support for them drawing on the principal survey and case 

studies. 

Overall, continuously identified schools were more likely to engage in improvement

strategies and somewhat more likely than schools no longer identified to engage in certain types 

of professional development. Changes from 2001-02 to 2003-04 were not dramatic, either for 

the whole sample or for continuously identified schools, although some interesting exceptions 

are noted below. 

Continuously identified schools were more likely to report that they implemented 

four of seven improvement strategies analyzed, than schools no longer identified (Exhibit 

30). For example, 53 percent of continuously identified schools reported having adopted a 

mathematics curriculum within the last three years, compared with 35 percent of those no longer 

identified. 

Exhibit 30 

Engagement in Improvement Strategies in 2003-04, 

by School Identification Status 

100

95

60

53

89

76

41

35

0 20 40 60 80 10

Having a written

school plan

Using student

achievement data to

inform school

improvement efforts

Adoption of a new

reading/language arts

curriculum

Adoption of a new

mathematics

curriculum

Percentage of Title I schools

0

Continuously identified No longer identified

%

Exhibit reads: Fifty-three percent of continuously identified Title I schools had adopted a new 

mathematics curriculum within the last three years, compared with 35 percent of Title I schools no

longer identified. 

Notes: Differences significant at p < .05. (See Appendix B for the complete list of strategies.) 

Source: TASSIE principal survey. 

48
There were no statistically significant differences between continuously identified schools 

and schools no longer identified with respect to teacher collaboration,21 aligning curriculum and 

instruction with standards and assessments, and use of a school reform model. 

Although significantly higher percentages of continuously identified schools reported 

engaging in four of the seven strategies, the rank order of the strategies engaged in was 

almost identical for both sets of schools in 2003-04. The three most commonly used strategies 

for both groups were having a written school plan (93 percent), using student achievement data 

to inform school improvement efforts (83 percent), and teacher collaboration (82 percent). 

The remainder of this discussion of school improvement activities focuses on the use of 

two sets of strategies outlined under NCLB: (1) school planning, data use, curriculum adoption 

and alignment; and (2) professional development, school-based assistance, and access to 

resources. 

Planning, Data Uses, New Curricula, and Curriculum Alignment 

NCLB expects schools, with assistance from their districts, to create plans based on data to 

guide their improvement efforts and to put in place curricula that will lead to students’ reaching 

standards. By 2003-04, almost all schools (both continuously identified and those no longer 

identified) had school improvement plans in place, with the vast majority of principals reporting 

that they used state assessment data to create their plans and used research-based improvement 

strategies to implement them. Many schools reported adopting new curricula as a major 

improvement strategy, especially those schools continuously identified for improvement. Both 

continuously identified schools and schools no longer identified reported adopting their new 

curricula because their district required it and because the new curricula was aligned with state 

or district standards or assessments. 

Almost all schools reported having school improvement plans and relying on test 

score data in a variety of forms to prepare or revise their plans in 2003-04. These findings 

hold for continuously identified schools and those no longer identified. However, the frequency 

with which school plans were used varied considerably (Exhibit 31). For example, just over half 

of schools (53 percent) reported that they monitored their school plans at least quarterly, and 

one-in-five (20 percent) reported monitoring their plans only once per year. 

 21 Types of teacher collaboration included on the TASSIE principal survey were: (1) teacher work groups to discuss 

student assessment data to make decisions about instruction, (2) teacher work groups to analyze samples of

students work, (3) teacher work groups to develop teaching materials or activities for particular classes, and (4) 

teachers’ observations in other teachers’ classrooms to offer feedback and ideas. 

49
Exhibit 31 

Variations in Uses of School Plans in Case Study Schools 

Case study schools varied in (a) the extent to which faculty were involved in the development of the 

school plan, (b) the extent to which faculty were aware of the contents of the plan, and (c) whether 

faculty used the plan as a guide and point of reference beyond annual plan development or updates. 

In only a few case study schools was the plan used as a touchstone in regular faculty or team 

meetings. In these exceptions, the plan was referred to as “basically our bible” and “it is what really 

drives the bus.” In 2003-04, several schools adopted new curricula as a result of district mandates or 

a Reading First grant. In these cases, adoption of a new curriculum did not mesh with its school plan, 

which marginalized the role of the plan. For example, in some schools that had both a Reading First 

implementation plan and a school improvement plan, attention shifted away from the school 

improvement plan in favor of the Reading First plan. 

Overall, the percentage of schools reporting a major focus on the school planning process 

declined, from 52 percent in 2001-02 to 42 percent in 2003-04 (although this was not the case 

for the subset of continuously identified schools). In contrast, however, the percentage of 

schools reporting a major focus on the use of student achievement data increased (from 76 

percent to 83 percent); for the subset of continuously identified schools, the increase was greater 

(from 76 percent to 95 percent). 

Exhibit 32 

Sources of Information Used by Schools to Inform Their Planning Process 

in 2003-04 and 2002-03, Among Schools With a Written School Plan 

77

83

97

65

71

91

0 20 40 60 80 100

Student performance on state test, disaggregated

by student demograhic characteristics (e.g.,

poverty, race/ethnicity, and gender)

Student performance on state test, disaggregated

for special student populations (e.g., special

education, LEP, and migrant students)

Overall student performance on state test

Percentage of Title I schools 2003-04 2002-03

%

Exhibit reads: Among schools that had a written school plan in 2003-04, 97 percent used overall

student performance on the state test to inform the school planning process, compared with 91

percent in 2002-03. 

Notes: Differences significant at p < .05. (See Appendix B for the complete data set.) 

Source: TASSIE principal survey. 

50
Use of student assessment data increased from 2002-03 to 2003-04. Overall, more 

principals reported using state assessment data to inform their school planning process in 2003-

04 than 2002-03 and more reported using assessment data disaggregated by special student 

populations and student demographic characteristics (Exhibit 32). The case studies also suggest 

that schools were paying more attention to data. In particular, they were doing more diagnostic 

testing and making use of the results, for example, by regrouping students for instruction 

(Exhibit 33). 

In 2003-04, nearly two-thirds of principals (66 percent) of continuously identified 

schools reported placing a major focus on using research to inform decisions about 

improvement strategies. This percentage is up from 2002-03 and 2001-02 when only 44 and 

43 percent, respectively, of identified schools reported placing a major focus on using research 

to inform instruction. This finding suggests that identified schools are increasingly aware of 

NCLB provisions regarding the use of research-based improvement strategies. Most principals 

(71 percent), regardless of their identification status in 2003-04, also reported that their district 

provided useful assistance identifying research-based improvement strategies. 

NCLB also calls upon schools to analyze their budgets to ensure that resources are 

allocated effectively. Overall, 41 percent of schools reported placing a major focus in this area

in 2003-04; there were no significant changes in this percentage over the course of the study. 

Exhibit 33 

Trends in Data Use in Case Study Schools 

In 2003-04, evidence from case study schools reflects more attention to data than in prior years, 

consistent with the survey findings. This attention took two forms. One was looking at state test data 

annually as the basis for schoolwide and grade-level planning. The other was examining more 

frequently administered diagnostic assessments intended to inform instruction directly. Use of 

diagnostic data appeared to be increasing, often tied to the adoption of new curricular programs with 

embedded assessments (and integral to Reading First, for example) or to district quarterly 

assessments. 

Whether teachers were able to use the data to help focus their instruction appeared to be related to 

their perceptions of the usefulness of the assessment. Curriculum-embedded assessments were 

more often described as more useful to instruction than districtwide assessments designed to be 

reported to the district. In addition, teachers were more likely to use assessment data when they had 

immediate and user-friendly electronic access to it. 

Teachers also varied widely in their reported abilities to make sense of data, depending largely on 

whether the principal or other school leader or staff developer had the skills to help teachers with this 

task. A district director noted: “I’m not sure when teachers give the [district benchmark assessment] 

at fourth grade that they know how to take that information from the test to plan instruction for kids in 

that class.” In another district, a teacher said: “We have learned to look at data, and each year we are 

getting better and better at it. We have learned what kind of data to look at and how it can help our 

teaching.” In another school, a teacher described how helpful their staff developer had been: “[Our 

staff developer] conducted a training with examples on how we can use the data and how to translate 

results into strategies.” 

51
Continuously identified schools were more likely to have adopted new curricula—

both reading or language arts and mathematics—than schools that were no longer 

identified. In 2003-04, 60 percent of continuously identified schools had adopted a new reading 

or language arts curriculum within the last three years, compared with 41 percent of schools that 

were no longer identified. Similarly, 53 percent of continuously identified schools had adopted a 

new mathematics curriculum within the last three years; this compares to 35 percent of schools 

that had exited improvement status. 

Reasons given for adopting new curricula did not differ between continuously identified 

and no longer identified schools, with one exception: continuously identified schools were more 

likely to report that they adopted a new curriculum because they were identified for 

improvement. However, only 30 percent of continuously identified schools cited this reason for 

adopting a reading or language arts curriculum, and only 20 percent of continuously identified 

schools cited it for adopting a new mathematics curriculum. Other reasons were chosen by 

larger percentages of schools. Half or more of both sets of schools reported that adoption 

occurred because the district required it (57 percent of continuously identified schools and 49 

percent of those no longer identified in reading or language arts) and that it was consistent with 

state or district standards or assessments (71 percent in mathematics and 74 percent in reading or 

language arts, respectively). 

The percentage of schools using a school reform model decreased from 47 percent in 

2001-02 to 31 percent in 2003-04. However, among continuously identified schools, there was 

no change over time in the percentage reporting using a school reform model (that is, the 

proportion of identified schools using school reform models remained in the 40 to 50 percent 

range). 

Most schools reported several efforts to align their curricula with standards and 

assessments. In addition to adopting new curricula in support of curricular alignment, 85 

percent of principals reported that the majority of educators at their schools participated in 

professional development aimed at ensuring that their curricula and instruction are consistent

with standards and assessments. These actions are consistent with the finding that nearly threefourths (72 percent) of schools reported that a major focus of their school improvement efforts 

was matching curriculum and instruction with standards and assessments. There were no 

differences between continuously identified schools and those no longer identified. 

Schools received assistance from states and districts in their efforts to align curricula 

and instruction with standards. Seventy-five percent of principals reported that the district or 

state supported the alignment of curriculum and instruction with state or district standards by 

analyzing available student achievement data to identify specific strengths and weaknesses 

related to the attainment of standards (see Exhibit 34). Similarly, two-thirds of principals 

indicated that the state or district published detailed curriculum guides with standards, 

frameworks, and pacing sequences. Fewer than half of principals responded that the state or 

district had developed classroom-embedded assessments with a standard scoring rubric to 

monitor progress. 

52
Exhibit 34 

Principal Reports of District or State Support for Curriculum Alignment 

75

70

67

57

54

48

40

0 20 40 60 80 100

Analyzed available student achievement data to identify

specific strengths and weaknesses related to the attainment

of standards

Developed local content standards that provide more useful

guidance to teachers than state content standards

Published detailed curriculum guides with standards,

frameworks, and pacing sequences

Mapped out the alignment of required textbooks and

instructional programs with standards and assessments

Conducted regular checks of standards implementation in

classrooms (e.g., by requiring lesson plans or students’

work to be submitted, or by conducting walk-throughs)

Developed classroom-embedded assessments with a

standard scoring rubric to monitor progress

Developed model lesson plans based on standards

Percentage of Title I schools

%

Exhibit Reads: Among Title I schools identified for improvement in 2001-02 (that may or may not continue to be

identified), 75 percent reported that the district or the state supported the alignment of curriculum and instruction

with state or district standards by analyzing available student achievement data to identify specific strengths and 

weaknesses related to the attainment of standards. 

Source: TASSIE Principal Survey 

Professional Development, School-Based Assistance, and Other Resources 

Ultimately higher achievement rests on improving teaching practices. This, in turn, 

requires opportunities for teachers to learn about and get help with implementing new ways of 

teaching. Hence, NCLB addresses the need for professional development and school-based 

assistance and schools took advantage of it in a number of ways. Improving reading and 

mathematics instruction, aligning curriculum and instruction with standards and assessments, 

and analyzing student achievement data continued to be frequent topics for professional 

development. Classroom-based coaching, assistance from school-based professional 

development staff, and help from district or state school support teams were far more common in 

continuously identified schools than in schools no longer identified. However, more than half of 

continuously identified schools reported receiving no assistance from school support teams or 

school-based staff developers and principals reported receiving little support and assistance for 

themselves. Finally, continuously identified schools, more than schools no longer identified for 

improvement, reported receiving a variety of special funding for their improvement efforts, with 

the trend moving toward more schools receiving Reading First grants and fewer receiving other 

funds. 

53
Principal reports of the content of professional development provided to teachers did 

not change from 2001-02 to 2003-04. In each of these years, the majority of teachers at more 

than 80 percent of schools identified for improvement in 2001-02 received professional 

development in reading or language arts instruction, matching curriculum and instruction to 

standards and assessments, and analyzing student achievement data. Nearly 70 percent of 

principals reported that that the majority of educators at their school participated in professional 

development in mathematics. This was true of continuously identified schools and schools that 

were no longer identified in 2003-04. 

In 2003-04, principals of schools identified in 2001-02 (both those that had remained 

identified and those that had since exited improvement) most frequently reported that they 

emphasized reading instruction, mathematics instruction, and curriculum alignment in the 

professional development provided to teachers (i.e., the majority of teachers in the school 

received these types of professional development) (Exhibit 35). There were no significant 

differences between continuously identified schools and schools that had exited improvement, 

except schools that were no longer identified were somewhat more likely to report professional 

development that emphasized differentiated instruction based on student assessment data (39 

percent vs. 23 percent). 

Exhibit 35 

Types of Professional Development Emphasized in Schools in 2003-04 

33

34

41

41

60

63

85

0 20 40 60 80 100

Differentiating instruction based on student

assessment data

Instructional strategies for specific student

subgroups

Monitoring individual students' progress toward

learning goals

Analyzing and interpreting reports of student

achievement data

Ensuring that curriculum and instruction are

consistent with standards and assessments

Mathematics instruction

Reading/language arts instruction

%

Percentage of Title I schools reporting that

topic is one of three emphasized

Exhibit reads: Among Title I schools identified for improvement in 2001-02 in which the majority of 

educators received professional development in reading or language arts instruction, 85 percent reported that 

reading or language arts instruction was one of three professional development topics emphasized in 2003-04. 

Source: TASSIE principal survey. 

54
Interestingly, fewer than half of the schools reported emphasizing professional 

development in several areas closely related to increasing student achievement. These included 

monitoring individual student progress toward learning goals (41 percent); differentiating 

instruction based on student assessment data (33 percent); and instructional strategies for 

specific student subgroups (e.g., LEP, low achieving, and special education) (34 percent). 

Continuously identified schools were twice as likely as no longer identified schools to 

report that they had been assigned staff charged with providing school-based professional 

development and instructional support to teachers. This study defines such staff as “schoolbased staff developers;” at the local level, these staff are often called facilitators, coaches, 

curriculum specialists, distinguished teachers, or something else. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) 

of continuously identified schools reported that they had been assigned such staff, compared 

with 33 percent of schools that were no longer identified (Exhibit 36). 

Exhibit 36 

School Reports of Assistance Received From 

School-Based Staff Developers and School Support 

Teams in 2003-04, by School Identification Status 

63

43

33

11

0 20 40 60 80 100

Assistance

received from

school support

team

Assistance

received from

school-based

staff developer

Percentage of Title I schools

Continuously identified No longer identified

%

Exhibit reads: Sixty-three percent of continuously identified Title I 

schools received assistance from a school-based staff developer, 

compared with 33 percent of Title I schools that were no longer 

identified in 2003-04. 

Note: Differences significant at p < .05. 

Source: TASSIE principal survey. 

Continuously identified schools were also more likely to report that they had received 

assistance from district or state school support teams. Nearly half (43 percent) of 

continuously identified schools reported that they had received such assistance, compared with 

55
only 11 percent of schools no longer identified (Exhibit 36). This study defines school support 

teams broadly as a team of educators who provide school-based assistance. These teams are 

typically comprised of a group of educators, each with a particular area of expertise, and are 

often charged with conducting needs assessments and supporting school planning processes. 

Compared to school-based staff developers, school support teams typically spend fewer days 

working with an individual school. At the local level, school support teams go by a variety of 

different names. As shown later in this chapter, larger districts were more likely than smaller 

districts to provide assistance to schools via school support teams, and, in fact, schools in larger 

districts were more likely to report receiving help from support teams. 

These findings suggest that continuously identified schools may have had access to more 

intensive and more school-based professional development. Another possible explanation 

observed in case study sites is that schools lost their school-based staff developers when they 

exited improvement status. 

Still, over half (57 percent) of the continuously identified schools did not receive 

assistance from a school support team, and a third (37 percent) did not receive assistance 

from a school-based staff developer (Exhibit 36). Although more continuously identified 

schools received more of these types of school-based assistance than their no longer identified 

counterparts, substantial numbers of identified schools did not receive such help and, among 

schools receiving school-based assistance, the levels of support varied. 

Overall, one-quarter of schools (26 percent) reported relatively high levels of assistance 

from school-based staff, amounting to one additional full-time-equivalent staff member or more. 

The intensity of assistance provided by school-based staff developers was relatively modest in 

many other schools, however. All told, school-based staff developers spent less than 45 days per 

year (one day per week or less) in more than a third of schools. Seventeen percent of schools 

received fewer than 10 days of assistance per year. 

Case study data offer examples of a wide variety of activities and a range of capabilities of 

school-based staff developers (Exhibit 37). According to principal surveys, the most common 

activities of school-based staff developers were: professional development (coaching and 

workshops), helping improve reading or language arts instruction, and analyzing student 

achievement data. 

56
Exhibit 37 

Case Study Examples of Staff Developer Activities 

School-based staff developers were present in the majority of the case study schools, although their 

roles and their titles varied considerably. For example, these staff developers: 

• Held training sessions for teachers. 

• Managed materials and tracked student progress. 

• Provided support to teachers on curriculum implementation. 

• Helped teachers develop units. 

• Worked with teachers on test preparation sessions for students. 

• Reviewed assessment results to determine which students needed tutoring support. 

• Covered classes for teachers so that they could do peer observations (some also covered for 

absent teachers when substitutes were not available). 

• Modeled lessons for teachers. 

In most case study schools, school-based staff developers focused primarily on helping teachers 

improve their instruction. The role of the Reading First coach in one school was typical: she described 

her job as working with teachers on instructional strategies, holding “data meetings” with teachers, and 

doing walk-throughs daily to observe fidelity to the program and provide helpful feedback. In contrast, 

the school-based staff developer in another school reported that she spent much of her time teaching a 

math class and running practice test sessions for students, although these types of activities were the 

exception, rather than the rule in the case studies. 

In addition to playing a variety of roles, staff developers were described along a range from extremely 

skilled and well received to unhelpful. Among the case study sites, most teachers reported that their 

school-based staff developers provided valuable guidance and support. As one teacher said:

“One of the big supports for me has been the professional development coach from 

[the district].” 

In a minority of case study schools, the teachers were less positive about the assistance they received

from school-based staff developers. One commented: 

“Sometimes district support people end up being a bother in that they are not familiar with the

school or they’re not from the classroom.” 

Continuously identified schools reported that higher percentages of teachers had 

participated in classroom-based coaching than schools no longer identified (an average of 

56 percent of teachers vs. 41 percent in reading or language arts, and 36 percent vs. 21 percent in 

mathematics). Additionally, continuously identified schools reported higher teacher 

participation rates in a series of reading or language arts workshops or multiday institutes than 

no longer identified schools (Exhibit 38). In math, the average percentage of teachers 

participating in a series of workshops or multiday institutes did not differ for continuously 

identified schools and no longer identified schools; overall, however, the average percentage of 

teachers participating was lower (36 percent) in math than in reading or language arts. 

57
Exhibit 38 

Average Percentage of Teacher Participation in Each of Three Types of 

Professional Development in 2003-04, by School Identification Status 

68

56

36

56

41

21

0 20 40 60 80 100

Teachers who participated in a series of

workshops or a multiday institute as

reading/language arts professional

development

Teachers who participated in classroombased coaching as reading/language arts

professional development

Teachers who participated in classroombased coaching as mathematics

professional development

Mean percentage of teachers

Continuously identified No longer identified

%

Exhibit reads: Among Title I schools continuously identified for improvement since 

2001-02, a mean of 36 percent of teachers participated in classroom-based coaching in

mathematics, compared with 21 percent in Title I schools no longer identified. 

Note: Differences significant at p < .05.

Source: TASSIE principal survey. 

Principals reported receiving little support and assistance for themselves. Only 14 

percent reported receiving help from a mentor or coach, 25 percent reported that they met 

regularly with other principals of low-performing schools, and 6 percent said they had special 

supervision or reporting requirements. Principals of continuously identified schools were more 

likely than principals of schools no longer identified to report attending regular meetings or 

study groups with other principals of low-performing schools (40 percent vs. 19 percent) to work 

collaboratively to problem solve; there were no differences for the other types of support. 

Continuously identified schools were more likely to receive special funding than those 

no longer identified, suggesting that states and districts were successfully targeting Title I 

identified schools for additional financial support. In 2003-04, continuously identified 

schools were more likely than schools that had exited improvement to report receiving each of 

four types of special funding (Exhibit 39). For example, continuously identified schools were 

far more likely to have received a special grant to support school improvement (55 percent vs. 25

percent) and to have received additional Title I funding earmarked to support school 

improvement (66 percent vs. 25 percent) than schools no longer identified. Interestingly, middle 

schools were more often the recipients of funds from these sources (based on the whole school 

sample), with the exception of Reading First subgrants, which are targeted to elementary 

schools. 

58
Exhibit 39 

Title I Schools Receiving Four Types of Special Funding in 2003-04, 

by School Identification Status 

66

55

28

24

25

25

10

16

0 20 40 60 80 100

Comprehensive School Reform (CSR)

program

Reading First

Special grant to support school

improvement

Additional Title I funding, earmarked to

support school improvement

Percentage of Title I schools

Continuously identified No longer identified

%

Exhibit reads: Sixty-six percent of Title I schools that continued to be identified for 

improvement in 2003-04 received additional Title I funds earmarked for school

improvement, compared with 25 percent of Title I schools that were no longer identified. 

Note: Differences significant at p < .05. 

Source: TASSIE principal survey. 

Overall, increasing percentages of schools were receiving Reading First grants, while 

decreasing percentages were receiving special grants to support school improvement. 

Among all elementary schools identified for improvement in 2001-02, those reporting receiving 

Reading First grants increased from 12 percent in 2001-02 to 18 percent in 2003-04. In contrast, 

the percentage of schools receiving special grants to support school improvement decreased 

from 58 percent to 35 percent over the three years. However, the percentage of continuously 

identified schools receiving special grants to support school improvement (55 percent in 2003-

04) did not change from 2001-02 to 2003-04. 

Sources of funding for specific school improvement strategies, such as professional 

development and school-based assistance, can be difficult to pinpoint. For example, in one case 

study district the school used a school improvement grant to pay for professional development 

services. Here the district did not directly deliver or pay for the services; however, the district 

was instrumental in helping the school obtain the grant (Exhibit 40). 

59
Exhibit 40 

Funding for School-Based Staff Developers in Case Study Schools

Case study schools illustrated different ways in which schools obtained extra staff to provide schoolbased professional development and instructional support. Although some schools had such staff 

assigned by the district, others used grants to the school to fund school-based staff developers. For 

example, schools participating in Reading First used this grant money to hire full-time staff developers, 

called reading coaches in those districts. One such school also had a state-funded reading specialist 

who visited the school once a week. Another school in a large, decentralized district chose to allocate 

a portion of its budget to hire two full-time curriculum specialists to support teachers’ development in

reading and mathematics. In several cases where school-based staff developers were supported by 

district funds, decreases in district budgets led to the removal or reduction in time of these support 

staff, whether or not the school was identified for improvement. 

District Assistance 

NCLB requires districts to provide identified schools with basic assistance related to 

managing their school improvement efforts. Districts must help schools analyze student 

achievement data to determine why they were identified for improvement, write an improvement 

plan, revise their budgets so that resources are effectively allocated to the activities most likely 

to increase student achievement, implement professional development, and put in place practices 

that have shown evidence of effectiveness. Because these tasks are closely related to the core 

functions of the district central office (e.g., financial management and management of 

information systems, professional development, curriculum adoption), it is not surprising that 

districts reported that these tasks were a major focus of their technical assistance to identified 

schools. 

Planning, Data Use, and Curriculum Alignment 

For the most part, priorities for district assistance to schools have remained the same since 

the implementation of NCLB in 2002-03. Districts with identified Title I schools continued to 

help schools use achievement data, match curriculum and instruction with standards and 

assessments, and plan improvements in order to raise student achievement. Only a small 

percentage reported not doing this. 

Increasing the use of student achievement data and matching curriculum and 

instruction with standards and assessments continued to be top priorities for district 

assistance in all three years of the study (Exhibit 41). Improving the school planning process 

and increasing the quantity and quality of professional development also continued to be a major 

focus of district assistance all three years. 

60
Exhibit 41 

Percent of Districts Placing a Major Focus on Strategies for Improving 

Identified Schools, 2001-02 to 2003-04 

50

54

35

28

75

76

45

64

51

37

32

28

77

86

61

63

45

59

54

79

36

23

26

76

0 20 40 60 80 100

Selecting and/or implementing a school reform

model

Increasing monitoring and district oversight*

Selecting and/or implementing a new curriculum or

instructional program

Using research to inform decisions about

improvement strategies

Improving the school planning process

Increasing the quality and quantity of teacher and

principal professional development*

Matching curriculum and instruction with standards

and/or assessments

Increasing the use of student achievement data

Percentage of districts

2003-04 2002-03 2001-02

%

Exhibit reads: In 2001-02, 79 percent of districts with identified schools reported that increasing the use of

student achievement data to inform classroom instruction was a major focus of district assistance. 

Note: An asterisk indicates that the difference between 2001-02 and 2003-04 is statistically significant at p < 

.05. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

District priorities for assistance have not changed a great deal in the years since NCLB

went into effect, with two exceptions. In 2003-04, more districts with identified Title I schools 

reported that improving the quantity and quality of teacher professional development was a 

major focus of district assistance than in 2001-02 (64 percent vs. 54 percent of districts with 

identified Title I schools). In addition, more districts with identified Title I schools reported that 

increasing district monitoring and oversight was a major focus of district assistance (35 percent 

vs. 23 percent), although the number of districts reporting monitoring and oversight as a major 

focus remained low overall. 

In 2003-04, consistent with their reported priorities, nearly all districts with identified 

Title I schools continued to assist those schools with tasks related to school improvement 

planning, as they had in previous years. For example, 98 percent of districts reported that they 

61
helped their identified Title I schools write or revise a school improvement plan; 92 percent of 

districts with identified Title I schools reported the same assistance in 2001-02, the year before 

NCLB went into effect. Similarly, 91 percent of districts reported that they helped schools 

analyze student achievement data to identify specific academic problems that caused the school 

to be identified; 98 percent of districts reported the same assistance two years earlier. 

Nearly three-quarters of districts assisted their identified Title I schools with 

analyzing and revising their budgets so that school resources are used more effectively, as 

required under NCLB. The percentage of districts providing this type of assistance to their 

identified Title I schools had not changed in three years, since the law was first enacted. 

Seventy-one percent of districts reported that they provided this assistance to their identified 

Title I schools in 2003-04, compared with 72 percent in 2002-03 and 74 percent in 2001-02. 

More than one-quarter (29 percent) of districts with identified Title I schools still did not provide 

this assistance in 2003-04. In that same year, just over half of all principals (54 percent) of 

schools reported that their district provided them with useful assistance in analyzing and revising 

their school budget; the other half of schools either did not receive this type of assistance or did 

not find the assistance useful. 

By the end of the second year of NCLB implementation (2003-04), more than a third of 

districts with identified Title I schools provided these schools with assistance on all of the 

following tasks related to data analysis and planning: 

• Review data to be sure identification is valid. 

• Analyze student achievement data to identify specific academic problems that caused 

the school to be identified. 

• Identify research-based improvement strategies. 

• Provide additional data analysis, e.g., additional disaggregation or analysis of 

diagnostic assessments. 

• Analyze and revise the school’s budget so that school resources are allocated 

effectively. 

• Write or revise the school’s improvement plan. 

• Monitor progress throughout the school year toward goals established in the school 

improvement plan. 

Districts with identified Title I schools also continued to support the alignment of 

curriculum with academic content standards and assessments, reporting similar levels of 

activity in 2003-04 as in previous years. For example, nearly all districts with identified Title I 

schools (90 percent) reported providing teachers with professional development on aligning 

curriculum and instruction with standards and assessments. A majority of districts with 

identified Title I schools reported that they produced detailed curriculum guides with standards, 

frameworks, and pacing sequences for use by teachers (65 percent), local content standards (59 

percent), and classroom assessments with a standard scoring rubric to monitor progress (58 

percent). Just over three-quarters (76 percent) reported that they conducted regular checks of 

standards implementation in classrooms. 

62
Fewer than 10 percent of districts with identified Title I schools reported that they 

provided no support of any kind to those schools with tasks related to analyzing 

achievement data, planning for improvement, and aligning curriculum with standards. 

Nearly all districts provided their identified schools with at least some of these types of 

assistance. In 2003-04, only 11 percent of identified schools were located in districts that 

provided no assistance of any kind with planning and data use; fewer than 3 percent were located 

in districts that provided no assistance of any kind with curriculum alignment. 

Professional Development, School-Based Assistance, and Other Resources 

NCLB requires that districts help identified schools to secure adequate professional 

development for teachers and to adopt instructional practices that have shown evidence of 

effectiveness in raising student achievement. Districts did so, with reading or language arts 

instruction the most widespread professional development topic. However, while districts 

increasingly required identified schools to spend 10 percent of their Title I allocation on 

professional development, fewer than half assigned professional development staff, school 

support teams, or principal mentors to these schools, leaving a significant number of schools 

with no such support. As in previous years, large districts were more likely to provide all of 

these kinds of assistance than did smaller ones. 

In 2003-04, districts with identified Title I schools continued to offer professional 

development on topics related to their school improvement priorities, with slightly less 

attention paid to aligning curriculum and instruction to standards and assessments in 

2003-04 than the year before. Reading or language arts instruction, data analysis, curriculum

alignment, and strategies for specific student subgroups continued to be the most commonly 

reported topics of district-sponsored professional development in districts with identified schools 

(Exhibit 42). The percentage of districts with identified Title I schools offering professional 

development on curricular alignment dropped from 97 percent in 2002-03 to 86 percent in 2003-

04. Percentages on other topics remained unchanged. 

63
Exhibit 42 

Topics Addressed by District-Sponsored Professional Development in 2003-04 

95

88

86

86

80

75

65

44

0 20 40 60 80 100

Implementation of a school reform model

Differentiating instruction based on student

assessment data

Monitoring individual students' progress toward

learning goals

Mathematics instruction

Improving instruction for specific

student subgroups

Aligning curriculum and instruction with

standards and assessments 

Analyzing and interpreting student

achievement data

Reading/language arts instruction

Percentage of districts

%

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, 95 percent of districts with identified Title I schools offered district-sponsored

professional development to teachers on the topic of reading or language arts instruction. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

In 2003-04, traditional forms of professional development—workshops, institutes, 

and conferences—were more universally supported by districts with identified Title I 

schools than other kinds, including classroom-based coaching, teacher work groups of 

various kinds, or classroom observations. Nearly all districts with identified Title I schools 

(95 percent) reported that they provided professional development workshops or institutes for 

teachers; 83 percent of districts sent teachers to conferences. Principals confirmed this pattern in 

their reports of the types of professional development teachers participated in. The majority of 

continuously identified schools received assistance in the form of one-time workshops or a series 

of workshops (Exhibit 43). 

64
Exhibit 43 

Percent of Teachers in Continuously Identified Schools That Participated in Three 

Types of Professional Development in 2003-04 

Reading or language arts Mathematics

One-time workshops or conferences 65% 42% 

A series of workshops or a multiday 

institute 68% 40%

Classroom-based coaching 56% 36% 

Exhibit reads: Among all Title I schools identified for improvement in 2001-02 and that continued to be 

identified in 2003-04, an average of 65 percent of teachers participated in one-time workshops or conferences 

related to reading or language arts teaching in 2003-04. An average of 42 percent of teachers in this type of 

school participated in one-time workshops or conferences related to mathematics teaching. 

Source: TASSIE principal survey. 

Although traditional forms of professional development were somewhat more common, 80 

percent of districts with identified schools also reported that they provided release time, stipends, 

or other support for some type of in-class coaching or mentoring for teachers (support for teacher 

work groups and structured observations was somewhat less common). These forms of 

professional development appeared to reach fewer teachers, however, with principals reporting 

that, on average, only 56 percent of teachers received classroom-based coaching in reading or 

language arts.

The proportion of districts requiring their identified Title I schools to spend at least 

10 percent of their Title I allocation on professional development, an NCLB requirement, 

increased steadily over the three years of the study. In 2003-04, 89 percent of districts 

reported that they required this level of spending on professional development by their identified 

schools, compared with 79 percent of districts in 2002-03 and 60 percent in 2001-02. In 2003-

04, 90 percent of identified schools were located in districts that required this level of spending 

on professional development, compared with 77 percent of identified schools in 2002-03.

Districts’ increased attention to this 10 percent requirement is a notable exception to the general 

finding that districts’ treatment of identified Title I schools did not change in the first two years 

after the implementation of NCLB. Although the law requires that all identified Title I schools 

invest 10 percent or more of their Title I funds in professional development for teachers (in 

2003-04 at least 10 percent of schools and districts had yet to meet this requirement), this finding 

suggests that districts are increasingly aware of NCLB school improvement requirements. 

In 2003-04, more than half of districts with identified Title I schools (61 percent) 

assigned staff to their Title I identified schools to provide school-based professional 

development and instructional support for teachers (Exhibit 44). As described earlier, this 

study refers to such staff as “school-based staff developers;” at the local level, they may have 

titles such as instructional facilitator, coach, or curriculum specialist. In 2003-04, 43 percent of 

districts with identified Title I schools had assigned school-based staff developers to work halftime or more in a single identified Title I school, meaning that the assigned school became the 

central focus of that person’s work. In addition, 39 percent of districts with identified Title I 

schools assigned other school-based staff developers (e.g., distinguished teachers or other 

consultants) to work in those schools less than half-time, providing similar professional 

65
development and instructional support. As a group, the study refers to all of these types of staff 

as “school-based staff developers.22 In total, 61 percent of districts assigned staff to their 

identified Title I schools to serve the function of school-based staff developers, either half-time 

or more, or less frequently. 

Exhibit 44 

District-Sponsored Staff Assistance for Identified Title I Schools in 2003-04 

62

25

36

61

0 20 40 60 80 100

At least one of these types of

assistance (school-based staff

developers, principal mentors,

or school support teams)

School support teams

Principal mentors

School-based staff developers

(professional staff charged

with providing school-based

professional development and

instructional support)

Percentage of districts

%

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, 61 percent of districts reported that they assigned staff to identified Title I 

schools to provide school-based professional development and instructional support.

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

School-based staff developers were a key resource for school improvement efforts in the 

case study sites (see Exhibit 37 for a description of the roles these staff play in identified 

schools). As described earlier in this chapter, 63 percent of continuously identified schools—

those who are arguably most in need of such assistance—reported receiving assistance from

school-based staff developers. However, a significant number of these schools (37 percent) 

reported no such support. 

 22The TASSIE district survey asked questions about school-based staff developers in two strands: (1) staff assigned 

to a single school half-time or more to provide professional development and instructional support, and (2) staff

assigned to schools less than half-time to serve as distinguished teachers or other consultants. Distinguished 

teachers and other consultants working at a school half-time or more were reported by districts in response to the 

first strand of questions, because these staff also provide professional development and instructional support

(according to survey items on the role of these staff). 

66
In addition to school-based staff developers, just over a third of districts with identified 

Title I schools assigned principal mentors to those schools and one-quarter of districts assigned 

district-sponsored school support teams to identified Title I schools. As described earlier, school 

support teams consist of teams of educators who typically assist schools with conducting needs 

assessments and supporting school planning processes. Compared with school-based staff 

developers, school support teams typically spend fewer days working with an individual school. 

The proportion of districts providing district-sponsored school support teams to identified 

Title I schools had not increased significantly since 2001-02. The proportion of districts 

reporting that they assigned a mentor to the principals of identified Title I schools increased, 

from 21 percent in 2001-02 to 36 percent in 2003-04. 

Nearly all of the districts that sponsored principal mentors and school support teams for

identified Title I schools provided those schools with assistance in the form of school-based staff 

developers as well. In 2003-04, 62 percent of districts with identified Title I schools provided 

those schools with one or more forms of staff assistance—either school-based staff developers, 

principal mentors, or school support teams (Exhibit 44). More than a third of districts with 

identified Title I schools (38 percent) provided none of these types of assistance to their 

identified schools. 

In 2003-04, about a fifth of identified Title I schools were located in districts that did 

not provide any of the types of school-based assistance described above. That is, 21 percent 

of identified Title I schools were located in districts that provided no school-based staff

developers, principal mentors, or school support teams to their identified Title I schools. Data 

from the 15 case study districts suggest that lack of resources, both financial and human, may 

help explain why many districts did not provide these types of assistance (Exhibit 45). 

Exhibit 45 

Case Study District Resource Constraints 

All but two of the 15 case study districts reported that declining budgets and limited staff had limited 

their capacity to help their identified schools. Several districts had experienced declining budgets for 

several years; several more districts reported budget pressures in 2003-04. As a result, districts had 

fewer funds available to support teacher professional development. One superintendent noted that 

people are paid to be trained in the business world, but, he said, “Here we don’t have money for per 

diem or weekends or summer, so we have to do [training] during the workday. But if we pull 

[teachers] out for training, the kids lose a whole day of instruction.” In addition, districts in 2003-04 

had fewer staff in the district office who could work with schools than in previous years. The smallest 

districts had no staff to play that role. 

Even districts with staff available to work in the schools were concerned that those staff did not have 

the skills and knowledge needed to provide school-based staff development and instructional support. 

Districts pointed particularly to lack of staff with the skills and knowledge to address the needs of LEP 

students, both in the district office and in schools. The smallest districts mentioned lack of cultural 

awareness of Latino and Native American students among district and school staff and lack of

materials and computers. Even the largest districts reported lack of capacity to provide school-based 

staff development. One district official said, “We don’t have the people with the necessary expertise.” 

67
Nearly all school-based staff developers and school support teams deployed by 

districts with identified Title I schools focused their work on the same general goals: 

improving reading or language arts instruction, providing professional development to 

teachers, and supporting the analysis of student achievement data. Consistent with reported 

district priorities for school improvement, each of these types of staff focused on reading or 

language arts more often than on mathematics instruction, and each worked with teachers on 

analyzing and using student achievement data to inform instruction (Exhibit 46). Districts 

reported that school-based staff developers assigned half-time or more to a single school were 

more likely to provide teacher professional development in the form of coaching or workshops 

than those assigned to the school less than half-time (school-based staff developers working halftime or more provided teacher professional development in 89 percent of districts, compared 

with 65 percent of districts for school-based staff developers working less than half-time). 

School support teams paid particular attention to helping schools develop improvement plans, 

with 74 percent of districts reporting that this was a focus of their work. School-based staff 

developers and school support teams worked on curriculum mapping or alignment in only about 

half of districts. 

Exhibit 46 

Focus of Assistance Most Commonly Provided by School-Based Staff Developers 

and School Support Teams in 2003-04 

77

79

85

74

77

85

0 20 40 60 80 100

Developing a school improvement plan

Reading/language arts instruction

Analyzing and interpreting student achievement data

Providing teacher professional development

(e.g., coaching, workshops)

Analyzing and interpreting student achievement data

Reading/language arts instruction

Percentage of districts

School support teams

School-based staff developers

%

Exhibit reads: Eighty-five percent of districts where school-based staff developers operated reported that

improving reading or language arts instruction was a focus of their work. (See Appendix B for the complete 

data set.) 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

68
School-based staff developers assigned by districts to provide teachers with 

professional development and instructional support represented a significant investment in 

staff resources for identified Title I schools. Among the 43 percent of districts that provided 

identified schools with school-based staff developers half-time or more, identified Title I schools 

received an average of 1.7 full-time equivalent (FTE) additional staff members per school. 

Close to a third of districts reported that distinguished teachers and other consultants (who 

worked in the school less than half-time, serving the same function as school-based staff 

developers) spent more than 25 days each year in each of the schools they served (Exhibit 47). 

School support teams spent much less time in each Title I identified school. Sixty percent 

of districts reported that school support teams spent 10 days or fewer in each of the schools they 

served (Exhibit 47). Nearly a third of districts reported that school support teams spent five days 

or fewer. 

Exhibit 47 

Time Spent in Identified Schools by School Support Teams and Distinguished 

Teachers/Other Consultants (Those Sponsored by Both Districts and States) in 2003-04 

16

32

24

28

21

25

31

13

6 4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of districts where

school support teams operate

Percent of districts where

distinguished teachers/other

consultants are assigned to

school less than half-time

Percentage of districts

Don't know

More than 25 days

11-25 days

6-10 days

1-5 days

100 100

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, 6 percent of districts where school support teams operated reported that they did not

know the number of days those teams spent in each identified school; 4 percent of districts where distinguished 

teachers and other consultants operated reported that they did not know the number of days these staff spent in 

each identified school. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

69
In 2003-04, larger districts were more likely than other districts to provide assistance 

to their identified Title I schools, as was true in previous years. Larger districts consistently 

reported higher levels of support for identified Title I schools in most areas tracked by the study: 

support for planning and data use, district-sponsored professional development, support for 

curriculum alignment, school-based staff developers, and other forms of staff assistance 

(principal mentors and school support teams) (Exhibit 48). In addition, the gap between smaller 

and larger districts did not change over the three years of the study. Larger districts were more 

likely to provide identified schools with an extensive range of assistance on topics related to 

planning, data use, and curriculum alignment. They were also more likely to sponsor 

professional development on an extensive range of topics. 

Exhibit 48 

District Assistance to Identified Title I Schools in 2003-04, by District Size 

44

51

63

64

65

89

57

23

27

14

14

11

57

40

39

24

24

11

69

50

53

44

33

33

0 20 40 60 80 10

Extensive range of assistance with curriculum

alignment

Extensive range of assistance with professional

development

District-sponsored school support teams

Special supervision or lines of reporting for

principals

Extensive range of assistance with planning and

data use

School-based staff developers

Percentage of districts

0

Small Medium Large Very large

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, 89 percent of very large districts provided identified Title I schools with schoolbased staff developers, compared with 69 percent of large districts, 57 percent of medium districts, and 57

percent of small districts. (See Appendix B for complete data set.) 

Note: Variation by district size is statistically significant at p < .05. (See Appendix A for a description of

the indices shown in this table (e.g., “extensive range of assistance with planning and data use”), pages A-6 

to A-13.) 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

70
Small districts of fewer than 3,000 students—serving roughly a fifth of all identified schools in 

2003-04 (Exhibit 2)—provided assistance of all kinds less often. In fact, only a minority of 

small districts provided their identified schools with the kinds of assistance that were 

commonplace among very large districts. About a third (35 percent) of small districts, for 

example, provided identified schools with school-based staff developers who were assigned to 

the school more than half-time, compared with three-quarters (74 percent) of very large districts. 

Just over a half (57 percent) of small districts provided identified schools with any type of

school-based staff developer, compared with 89 percent of very large districts (Exhibit 48). 

Similarly, only 14 percent of small districts offered on-site assistance in the form of school 

support teams, compared with 63 percent of very large districts. 

For their part, continuously identified Title I schools in larger districts were more 

likely to report that they had received assistance from school-based staff developers and 

school support teams than continuously identified schools in smaller districts. For example, 

74 percent of continuously identified Title I schools in very large districts reported that they had 

received assistance from school-based staff developers, compared with 58 to 60 percent of 

continuously identified schools in large and medium districts, and 34 percent in small districts. 

Similarly, 49 percent of continuously identified schools located in very large districts reported 

that they had received assistance from a school support team, compared with 35 to 39 percent of 

continuously identified schools in medium and large districts, and 29 percent in small districts. 

In some cases, larger districts also provided more intensive assistance to identified 

schools than smaller districts. For example, school support teams sponsored by smaller 

districts spent fewer days, on average, in each identified school than those sponsored by large 

districts and very large districts. Very large districts assigned more full-time-equivalent (FTE) 

school-based staff developers to each identified school, on average, than smaller districts. 

Larger districts were also more likely to report that identified Title I schools had access to 

special funding streams to support school improvement activities, such as Reading First funds, 

Comprehensive School Reform funds, special grants to support school improvement, and Title I 

funds specially earmarked to support school improvement. 

Targeting of Assistance to Schools Within Districts

In 2003-04, approximately 300 districts nationwide served three different types of schools: 

identified Title I schools, schools that had missed AYP for just one year, and higher-performing 

schools. These districts were faced with choices about targeting assistance to their Title I 

identified schools, and differentiating the assistance they provided identified schools from the 

assistance they provided to other schools with strong records of student achievement. They had 

to make choices about which schools to serve and whether identified Title I schools would 

receive more or different kinds of assistance. Although they represented a small number of 

districts, these districts served a relatively large number of identified Title I schools—

approximately 1,800, or a third (31 percent) of identified Title I schools nationwide. 

In 2003-04, districts that served schools with varying levels of performance continued to 

assist all of their schools, not just those identified for improvement under Title I, although some

provided more staff resources and more intensive assistance to their identified Title I schools 

than to schools not identified. Districts with schools identified for improvement generally 

71
reported carrying out assistance required under NCLB more than did districts with no identified 

schools. 

In 2003-04, districts typically provided most kinds of assistance to all schools, whether 

the schools were higher-performing, lower-performing (having missed AYP), or an 

identified Title I school. A minority of districts with all three types of schools chose to target 

specific efforts to identified Title I schools only (Exhibit 49). For example, 44 percent required 

Exhibit 49 

Districts That Provided Assistance to Identified Title I Schools Only, Among Districts 

That Provided Assistance and Had Identified Title I Schools, Schools That Missed AYP,

and Higher-Performing Schools in 2003-04 

23

23

18

6

42

35

24

44

3

15

0 20 40 60 80 100

Assistance identifying research-based improvement

strategies

Assistance writing or revising the school’s improvement plan

Requirement that Title I schools spend at least 10 percent of

their Title I allocation on professional development

Assistance analyzing and revising the school’s budget so

that school resources would be effectively allocated

Mentor or coach for the principal

District-sponsored school support teams

Special supervision or lines of reporting for principals

New mathematics curriculum or instructional program

New reading curriculum or instructional program

School reform model

Percentage of districts targeting assistance to identified Title I schools only

Adoption Requirements

Additional Staffing or External Assistance

Assistance with School Improvement Planning

%

Exhibit reads: Among districts that required the adoption of school reform models and that had identified Title I 

schools, schools that had missed AYP for one year only, and higher-performing schools, 44 percent required the

adoption of school reform models of their identified Title I schools, but not for the other types of schools. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

72
the adoption of a school reform model in identified Title I schools only; fewer districts required 

new curriculum adoption only by identified Title I schools (15 percent in reading, 3 percent in 

mathematics). 

Some districts provided more staff resources and more intensive assistance to their 

identified Title I schools than to those not identified. For example, of those districts that 

assigned school-based staff developers and were faced with choices about how to allocate those 

staff among higher-performing, lower-performing, and identified schools, 30 percent reported 

that identified Title I schools received more full-time-equivalent staff developers than schools 

that were not identified. Of districts that assigned schools additional teachers to reduce class 

size and faced choices about how to allocate those staff, 30 percent reported that identified 

schools received more teachers than schools that were not identified. Some districts with 

identified Title I schools also provided greater monitoring and oversight of their identified Title I 

schools. For example, 42 percent of districts reported that they established special supervision 

or lines of reporting for principals of identified Title I schools. 

Districts with identified Title I schools were more likely to report that they had 

undertaken assistance activities specifically required under NCLB than were districts 

without identified schools. To explore whether districts with identified Title I schools might 

provide more or different types of assistance than districts that were not responsible for 

implementing NCLB school improvement requirements, the study compared assistance provided 

by districts with identified Title I schools and assistance provided by districts whose schools had 

missed AYP for one year only (and that had no experience with identified schools during the 

entire study period). Districts with identified schools were more likely than other districts to 

report that they helped their schools with writing or revising a school improvement plan or with 

analyzing a school budget (Exhibit 50). Districts with identified schools also were more likely 

to report that they required their identified schools to spend at least 10 percent of their budget on 

professional development, as required under NCLB, than districts with schools that had not been 

identified. Although not specifically required under NCLB, districts with identified schools were 

also more likely to report that they assigned school-based staff developers to identified Title I 

schools. These differences between the two district samples are large and consistent across 

many different types of assistance, as well as within districts of the same size. Although larger 

districts are more likely to have identified schools and are also more likely to offer various kinds 

of assistance, large districts with identified Title I schools were still more likely to provide 

assistance of various kinds than districts of a similar size with Title I schools that had not been 

identified. These findings suggest that districts required to engage in school improvement 

efforts under NCLB for identified schools were more likely to do so than districts with schools 

that had missed AYP for the first time. 

73
Exhibit 50 

District-Sponsored Assistance Among Districts With Identified Title I 

Schools in 2003-04, Compared With Districts Whose Schools Had 

Missed AYP for One Year Only

1

21

34

49

60

76

30

45

50

71

89

98

0 20 40 60 80 100

Required adoption of a school reform model

Required adoption of new reading/language arts

curricula

Required Title I schools to spend at least 10

percent of Title I allocation on professional

development

Percentage of districts

Districts with Title I Identified Schools

Districts with schools that missed AYP for one

%

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, 98 percent of districts with identified schools reported that they helped those schools 

write or revise a school improvement plan, compared with 76 percent of districts with schools that had missed 

AYP for one year only.

Notes: Differences significant at p < .05. (See Appendix B for complete data set.) 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

State Organization of Support to Identified Title I Schools 

Although districts are the most immediate source of assistance for identified Title I 

schools, states are responsible for providing resources—both human and financial—to districts 

and schools identified for improvement. Specifically, states are responsible for establishing a 

“statewide system of intensive and sustained support” centered around a network of school 

support teams, distinguished educators and other technical assistance. In addition, during the 

period covered by this study, NCLB required states to set aside 2 percent of their Title I, Part A, 

funds to support school improvement activities (this required amount increased to 4 percent in 

2004-05). States were required to pass 95 percent of the school improvement reserve to districts 

to support schools, but states were allowed to reserve up to 5 percent to pay for state-level school 

improvement activities. 

74
Statewide Systems of School Support 

NCLB requires that all states organize school support teams and cadres of distinguished 

principals and teachers to serve as the focal point of their system of support for identified Title I 

schools. As required under NCLB, school support teams must include some or all of the 

following: principals and teachers from higher-performing Title I schools (known as

“distinguished teachers” and “distinguished principals”), pupil services personnel, parents, 

higher education representatives, state education agency staff, representatives of federal regional 

assistance centers, and outside consultants. School support teams work with identified Title I 

schools to review school operations, design a school improvement plan, and monitor the 

implementation of the plan. They also provide feedback to states and districts on the 

effectiveness of school personnel. In 2003-04, more states had school support teams and 

distinguished educators in place than before. Despite this increase in state-supported assistance, 

however, less than half the districts with identified Title I schools reported that their identified 

Title I schools had received such state-sponsored assistance. 

More states had systems of school support in place in 2003-04 than in 2002-03. Of the 

50 states and the District of Columbia, 36 states reported having school support teams in place in 

2003-04, compared with 23 the year before (Exhibit 51). Twelve states reported that they did 

not have school support teams in place (an additional three states did not answer the question 

because they did not have identified Title I schools in 2003-04 or because the appropriate 

respondent could not be reached). Of those 12, three reported that they were in the process of 

organizing teams, and eight reported that they had no plans to organize teams because they were 

already providing schools with services through other means (for example, through individual 

state education agency staff). Although NCLB requires that all states organize school support 

teams to provide assistance to identified schools, some states maintain that they can provide 

these services more efficiently through other mechanisms. 

States took a wide variety of approaches to organizing and deploying school support teams. 

In two-thirds of states with school support teams, the state education agency has primary 

responsibility for recruiting and training team members, assigning support teams to schools, and 

supervising with work of support teams. Regional or intermediate education agencies in 10 

states took primary responsibility for activities such as staffing, training, assigning, and 

supervising support teams. In seven states, districts played a role either in staffing teams, 

assigning them to schools, or supervising their work. 

School support team members had a variety of professional backgrounds. Most often (in 

about half of states), they were district administrators with experience in working with lowperforming schools. Fourteen of the 36 states with school support teams assigned distinguished 

teachers to those teams (i.e., teachers from higher-performing Title I schools), and 11 assigned 

distinguished principals (also from higher-performing schools). States also used staff from

regional education agencies, retired teachers, college and university faculty, current classroom

teachers, and state education agency staff to make up school support teams. Most states operated 

multiple teams, depending on the number of schools to be served, and teams had an average of 

five members each. 

75
Exhibit 51 

Elements of a Statewide System of School Support in 2003-04 

23

19

39

12

36

30

41

23

0

10

20

30

40

50

School support

teams

Distinguished

educators

Other types of

assistance

All three

elements of a

school support

system in

place

Number of states

2002-03 2003-04

Exhibit reads: Twenty-three states had organized school support teams to serve

identified Title I schools in 2002-03, compared with 36 states in 2003-04.

Note: Based on data from 46 states. 

Source: TASSIE state survey. 

In addition to school support teams, 30 states had identified distinguished educators to 

serve identified schools (Exhibit 51). In some states, these distinguished educators served on 

school support teams, and in other states, they worked independently with identified Title I 

schools. Forty-one states offered other types of assistance, including technical assistance from

state education agency staff, professional development, assistance from regional centers, or 

additional funding. Nearly half of all states had all three elements of a school support system in 

place, compared with 12 states the year before (Exhibit 51). 

State systems of school support served a larger proportion of identified schools than 

they had the year before. The majority of states reported they served all or nearly all of their 

identified Title I schools through school support teams, distinguished educators, and other types 

of assistance. Despite these reports from states, only 46 percent of districts with identified Title 

I schools reported that those schools received any type of assistance from the state (i.e., school 

support team, distinguished teacher, or other consultants; see Exhibit 52). These districts served 

45 percent of all identified Title I schools in 2003-04. About a quarter of districts (24 percent) 

with identified Title I schools reported that those schools received assistance from a statesponsored school support team, 7 percent reported that they received assistance from a statesponsored distinguished teacher, and 27 percent of districts reported that their identified schools 

received assistance from other consultants sponsored by the state. 

76
Exhibit 52 

District Reports of State-Sponsored Assistance to Identified Title I 

Schools in 2003-04 

24

7

27

46

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

School support

team

Distinguished

teacher

Other

consultants

Any form of

state

assistance

Percent of districts reporting assistance

Exhibit reads: Twenty-four percent of districts with identified Title I schools reported

that those schools received assistance from state-sponsored school support teams. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

In contrast to districts, most states appeared to target the work of school support 

teams and distinguished educators exclusively on identified Title I schools. Of the 36 states 

that fielded school support teams in 2003-04, only a quarter (9 states) reported that non-Title I 

schools had received assistance from those teams. Fifteen states reported that identified nonTitle I schools were not eligible for assistance from their school support teams, and respondents 

in 12 states did not know if identified non-Title I schools had received assistance. Similarly, of 

the 30 states sponsoring distinguished teachers for identified schools, only five reported that 

identified non-Title I schools had received assistance from a distinguished teacher. Six states 

reported that identified non-Title I schools were not eligible for assistance from distinguished 

teachers, 12 states did not know whether identified non-Title I schools had received assistance, 

and seven states reported that they did not track information about distinguished teachers 

because distinguished teachers operated as part of school support teams. 

Use of School Improvement Reserve Funds 

School improvement funding available to districts to support identified Title I schools 

varied by state, and in some states by the number of years schools had been identified, school 

size, or other formula. Most states restricted the use of these funds to the implementation of 

school improvement plans. 

77
In 2003-04, school improvement reserve funds totaled $228 million across the 50 

states (McClure 2005). Of those states reporting on their methods for allocating school 

improvement funds to districts with identified schools,23 10 reported that each district received 

the same allocation for each identified school, seven reported that districts with schools in later 

years of identification received more funding, four reported that districts with larger schools 

received greater allocations, and six reported that they used other formulas for allocating funds. 

In 2003-04, 23 states imposed restrictions on the use of school improvement funds.24 Of 

those states, 18 required that districts use them to support school activities described in the 

school improvement plan, six required that they be used to fund teacher professional 

development activities at the school, and three states required that school improvement funds be 

used to hire an external evaluator or to fund professional development activities at the school. 

In 2003-04, seven of 36 states reported that they passed all of the school improvement

funds set aside by states directly through to districts to support school improvement activities. 25 

Twenty-four of 36 states reported that they reserved the full 5 percent allowed under the law to 

support the state’s own school improvement activities. The remaining five states reserved 

between 1 and 2.5 percent to support the state’s own school improvement activities. 

Factors Associated With Changes in Improvement Status 

On the surface, the finding that large districts were more likely to provide assistance to

identified schools than small districts (Exhibit 48) appears to conflict with the finding that 

schools in small districts were more likely to exit improvement status than schools in large 

districts in 2003-04 (Exhibit 4). The explanation appears to be that there is a strong relationship 

between school contextual factors and school improvement status, irrespective of district 

assistance or school improvement activities. Put another way, district size and school poverty 

were better predictors of whether a school would exit improvement status than any of the school 

improvement activities measured for this study. The one school improvement activity that 

contributed to schools exiting improvement status was the alignment of curriculum and 

standards supported by professional development in this area. 

To better understand the relationship between school improvement strategies, demographic 

context, and exiting improvement status, an analysis was conducted using data from 2002-03 to 

explain school improvement status in 2003-04. Focusing on elementary schools that were 

identified for improvement in 2002-03, school improvement strategies and demographics (school 

poverty, school size, district size, district urbanicity) were used to develop models for predicting 

 23 In 21 states, the respondent did not know or the appropriate respondent could not be reached. 24 In 13 states, the respondent did not know or the appropriate respondent could not be reached. Nine states reported 

that the state had no role in directing the use of school improvement funds by schools, or in imposing restrictions 

on the use of those funds. Six states reported that they did not impose restrictions on the use of funds. 25 In 15 states, the respondent did not know or the appropriate respondent could not be reached. 

78
whether or not a school exited improvement the following year.26 (In order to exit improvement 

status, schools must make AYP for two consecutive years. As such, schools that had exited 

improvement status by 2003-04 had to have made AYP based on 2001-02 and 2002-03 school 

performance.) The model—or group of variables—that was the most predictive of school 

improvement status in 2003-04 included school poverty (low, medium, high), district size (small, 

medium, large), and the use of the school improvement strategy of aligning curriculum with 

standards and assessments, combined with a professional development emphasis in this area (see 

background information on regression analysis in Appendix A). 

Overall, school poverty and district size were more predictive of a school’s exiting 

improvement status in 2003-04 than whether it focused on aligning curriculum and 

emphasized professional development in this area in 2002-03. One possible explanation for 

this finding is that low-poverty schools and schools located in smaller districts had fewer 

subgroups for which they had to meet student performance standards in order to make AYP and 

exit improvement status. Other researchers have documented that schools with more subgroups 

are less likely to make AYP (see, for example, Novak and Fuller 2003), and preliminary 

analyses conducted as part of this study indicate a similar relationship. Overall, the data suggest 

that the contextual characteristics of schools and the relationship between demographics and 

subgroup accountability relate to whether schools exited improvement or remained identified. 

Of the improvement strategies and supports analyzed, the only strategy that 

contributed over and above context factors to the prediction of schools’ exiting 

improvement status in 2003-04 was aligning curriculum and standards with a professional 

development emphasis in this area. To illustrate the key findings, examples are presented for 

four types of identified schools (Exhibit 53). Comparing examples 2 and 4, where in both cases 

schools were focused on aligning curriculum and emphasized professional development in this 

area, the probability of exiting improvement status was predicted to be much higher for lowpoverty schools located in small districts (.96) than for high-poverty schools located in large 

districts (.05). 

 26 Various models were tested. Some considered whether or not schools were engaged in each of seven school

improvement efforts (school planning, use of student achievement data, curriculum alignment, adoption of a new 

reading or language arts curriculum, adoption of a new mathematics curriculum, use of a school reform model,

and teacher collaboration). Some also took into account whether professional development was emphasized in 

specific areas; others incorporated whether the district provided adequate support in these areas. Models were 

tested with and without context variables and with various combinations of context variables. (See Appendix A 

for more information.) 

79
Exhibit 53 

Expected Probability of Exiting Improvement Status in 2003-04 

for Four Types of Identified Schools 

.96

.85

.05

.01

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Example 4: Low school poverty, small district

size, with curriculum alignment and a

professional development emphasis

Example 3: Low school poverty, small district

size, without curriculum alignment/professional

development emphasis

Example 2: High school poverty, large district

size, with curriculum alignment and a

professional development emphasis

Example 1: High School poverty, large district

size, without curriculum alignment/professional

development emphasis

Probability

Exhibit reads: A high-poverty school located in a large district and not focusing resources on curriculum alignment 

and related professional development in 2002-03 (Example 1) had an expected probability of .01 of exiting

improvement status in 2003-04. In other words, the expected likelihood that a school with these characteristics 

would exit improvement in 2003-04 was one in 100. 

Notes: Probabilities range between 0 and 1 and communicate the expected likelihood that, in this case, a school of

a specified type would exit improvement the following year. The closer a probability is to 1, the more likely a 

school with the stated characteristics is to exit improvement status; similarly, the closer a probability is to 0, the 

less likely a school with the stated characteristics is to exit improvement status. (See Appendix A for additional

information.) 

Source: TASSIE District and School Database and principal survey. 

Summary

In 2003-04, more states had systems of school support in place, including school support 

teams and assigning distinguished educators or consultants to identified schools than in previous 

years. Moreover, states reported that their systems of support were serving a larger proportion of 

identified schools than they had the year before. The majority of states reported that they served 

all or nearly all of their identified Title I schools via school support teams, distinguished 

educators, and other types of assistance. 

In 2003-04, almost all districts provided identified schools with some type of assistance on 

basic school improvement tasks, such as writing an improvement plan and analyzing data, as 

they had in prior years and as they provided to all their schools. Moreover, districts continued to 

offer professional development on topics related to their school improvement priorities. In 

80
general, district activity in these areas had not changed since 2001-02, the year before NCLB

went into effect. 

To improve their students’ performance, many identified schools increased attention to 

achievement results, adopted new curricula, used school reform models, or added new

supplemental instructional programs. Continuously identified schools were more likely to 

engage in certain improvement strategies and types of professional development than schools no 

longer identified. 

At the same time, many continuously identified schools—those identified for improvement 

in 2001-02 that remained identified for improvement in 2003-04—still reported no access to 

state- or district-sponsored school support teams, or school-based staff developers, either 

because they were in districts and states that did not provide that assistance or because states or 

districts could not serve all of their identified schools. Principals of both continuously identified 

and no longer identified schools reported receiving very little support and assistance for 

themselves. 

Schools identified for improvement in 2001-02 were more likely to have exited 

improvement by 2003-04 if they were located in smaller districts (a corollary to the finding that 

in recent years Title I schools have been increasingly concentrated in large urban districts). 

School poverty and district size were strong predictors of whether a school would exit or remain 

identified for improvement. Once these demographic features were accounted for, the presence 

or absence of various school improvement activities in a school had little effect on the 

probability that a school would exit improvement. Of the seven improvement strategies and 

supports analyzed, only curriculum alignment—combined with an emphasis on professional 

development in this area—contributed to predicting whether a school would exit improvement, 

over and above demographic factors. 

81

V. Corrective Actions and Restructuring 

Planning and support are intermediate steps under NCLB that districts take with identified 

schools, along with offering parents the options of public school choice and supplemental 

services for their children. If schools do not make AYP for four years or more and so are in their 

third year or more of being identified for improvement, districts are required to impose more 

severe interventions. The combination of support to identified schools and consequences for 

continued poor performance are key elements of NCLB accountability requirements intended to 

drive school improvement by creating incentives for educators to improve their practice. 

With schools in their third year of Title I improvement status, NCLB requires that districts 

take at least one of the following six corrective actions (consistent with state law): (1) implement 

a new research-based curriculum, (2) significantly decrease the management authority at the 

school level, (3) appoint an outside expert to advise the school, (4) extend the school day or year, 

(5) restructure the internal organization of the school, or (6) replace the school staff relevant to 

the failure to make AYP. With schools in their fifth or later year of improvement status, districts 

are expected to take one of the following restructuring efforts, as part of a restructuring plan for 

improving the school: (1) replace all or most of the school staff, (2) reopen the school as a public 

charter school, (3) contract with a private management company to operate the school, (4) turn 

operation of the school over to the state, or (5) implement any other major restructuring of the 

school’s governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms. Some states also take 

responsibility for all or part of the imposition of corrective actions and restructuring efforts. 

In 2003-04, only a few districts reported that they had schools for which they were 

required to take corrective actions—approximately 700 districts or 6 percent of districts 

nationwide. This compares to approximately 400 districts or 4 percent of Title I districts 

nationwide reported in 2002-03. Similar to 2002-03, principals in Title I schools identified for 

three or more years reported that the most common corrective actions taken by states and 

districts with them was to require the implementation of a new research-based curriculum (79 

percent of schools identified for three years, 76 percent of schools identified for four or more 

years). About 200 or the 700 districts reported having schools in their fourth year of 

improvement status and thus eligible for restructuring; and only a minority of districts actually 

imposed restructuring efforts. 

These findings are presented in greater detail in this chapter. The first section describes the 

actions districts were taking, followed by a section characterizing state-level interventions. The 

final section describes district and state-level actions from the school perspective. 

District Actions 

Forty-three percent of districts with identified schools in 2003-04, around 700 

districts, reported that they had schools in corrective action, accounting for an estimated 

2,000 schools. More than two-thirds of these districts (69 percent) had only one school in 

 83
corrective action (Exhibit 54). The number of districts with schools in corrective action in 2002-

03 was approximately 400. 

Exhibit 54 

Distribution of the Number of Schools in Corrective Action 

in 2003-04, Among Districts With These Schools 

8 4

69

13

5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1 2 3-4 5-10 >10

Number of corrective action schools

Percentage of districts

Exhibit reads: Among districts with schools in corrective action, 69 percent had 

one corrective action school, 13 percent had two such schools, 8 percent had 

three to four schools, 5 percent had five to 10, and 4 percent had more than 10. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

In 2003-04, the most common actions taken by districts with schools in corrective 

action were appointing an outside expert to advise the school and requiring the 

implementation of a new research-based curriculum (Exhibit 55). These are the same

corrective actions that were most common in 2001-02 and 2002-03 and, as noted in previous 

years, these more commonly used corrective actions are similar to many of the support activities 

described in Chapter IV.

 84
Exhibit 55 

Corrective Actions Taken in 2003-04, 

Among Districts With Schools in Corrective Action 

58

55

34

28

13

12

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Replacing school staff relevant to failure

to make AYP

Significantly decreasing management

authority at the school

Reassigning or demoting the principal*

Restructuring internal organization

of the school

Extending school day or year

Requiring the implementation of new

research-based curriculum

Appointing outside expert to advise

the school

Percentage of districts

%

Exhibit reads: Among districts with schools in corrective action, 58 percent appointed an

outside expert to advise the schools. (See Appendix B for the complete list of actions taken 

with schools in corrective action and restructuring.) 

* Not a corrective action specified in NCLB. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

Case study data also support the recurring finding that the most common district-level 

corrective actions taken with schools are viewed as supportive by school staff. For example, in a 

large urban case study district, the corrective action of implementing a new research-based 

curriculum was implemented in all schools regardless of their status. In another large urban case 

study district, implementing a new curriculum was also the focus (in terms of resource 

investment). Other corrective actions were put on hold until late spring, when the district 

received state improvement funds, which the district planned to spend on placing turnaround 

specialists in schools in corrective action. Another very large suburban case study district did 

not have schools in corrective action status in 2003-04 but began preparing for schools to reach 

this phase of accountability by taking several interventions (including instituting new reading 

and math curricula and a summer program for students, decreasing management authority of 

principals by dictating how the majority of Title I funds should be spent, and hiring a consultant 

to help schools use data to improve student performance). Because the state was requiring that 

the actions be taken in the year schools enter into corrective action, the district may have had to 

prescribe additional actions if schools in the district formally entered corrective action status the 

following year. Other case study districts took more substantial actions with schools in 

corrective action, such as changing principal leadership, reassigning staff, and reorganizing 

schools. 

 85
Few districts with schools in restructuring status in 2003-04 had undertaken the 

specific restructuring efforts outlined in NCLB but many continued to take NCLB

corrective actions. Among the small group of districts (about 200) with schools that had been 

identified for improvement for four or five years, 9 percent had developed plans to carry out 

alternative governance arrangements for a school (the first step in the restructuring process), and 

4 percent had replaced all or most of a school’s staff (Exhibit 56). Only 1 percent of these 

districts reported that the remaining three restructuring strategies specified in NCLB were 

employed.27 More districts reported taking corrective actions with schools in restructuring. 

Exhibit 56 

Restructuring Efforts Taken in 2003-04, 

Among Districts With Schools In Restructuring 

9

4

 1

 1

 1

0 2 4 6 8 10

State takeover

Contract with private management

company to operate the school

Developing plans for alternative

governance arrangements for the school

Percentage of districts

%

Exhibit reads: Among districts with schools in restructuring, 9 percent required schools to begin 

development of plans for alternative governance arrangements. (See Appendix B for the 

complete list of actions taken with schools in corrective action and restructuring.) 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

Districts with schools in their third year (or more) of Title I improvement status were, 

however, more likely to focus resources on the monitoring and oversight of schools 

compared with districts with schools that had less tenure in the accountability system. 

Fifty-two percent of districts with schools that had been identified for improvement for at least 

three years reported placing a “major” focus on increasing their monitoring and oversight of 

schools, compared with 26 percent of districts with Title I schools identified for improvement in 

their first or second year only and 24 percent of districts with schools that missed AYP but had 

no schools identified for improvement. 

 27 NCLB also specifies that districts may count as restructuring any other major restructuring of a school’s 

governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms. 

 86
State Actions 

School districts have primary responsibility for taking corrective actions, but if the state 

determines that the district has not carried out its responsibilities, then the state takes the 

corrective actions deemed in compliance with state law. State law may also allow the state to 

take corrective actions with schools or undertake school restructuring irrespective of district 

actions (this occurred in several case study states). In addition, states may take corrective 

actions with any district that has been identified for improvement but must do so with any 

district that fails to make AYP for two years after being identified for improvement. The 

corrective actions specified for districts under NCLB are similar to those for identified schools 

(Section 1116(c)(10)(B)). 

Of the states that had schools in corrective action in 2003-04 (29 of the 45 states for 

which information was available),

28 18 took at least one corrective action with schools in 

this phase of Title I improvement. Thirteen of these 18 states took two or more corrective 

actions, the most common ones being implementing a new research-based curriculum and 

appointing an outside expert to advise the school on its progress toward making AYP (Exhibit 

57). Other actions taken included a prescriptive or negotiated school improvement plan, a 

district support team developed to work with the school, and an outside expert brought in to 

report on the state of the school. 

Exhibit 57 

Corrective Actions Taken by States With Title I Schools in Corrective Action in 2003-04 

Corrective action 

Number of

states 

State does not take corrective actions with schools 11 

Implemented a new research-based curriculum 12 

Appointed an outside expert to advise the school on its progress toward making AYP 

in accordance with its school plan 12 

Replaced school staff responsible for the continued failure to make AYP 7 

Reorganized the school internally 7 

Significantly decreased management authority at the school level 5 

Extended the school day or year 5 

Other interventions 7 

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, 12 states (out of the 18 that had taken one or more corrective actions with Title I schools) 

reported that they implemented a new research-based curriculum in these schools. 

Source: TASSIE state survey. 

 28 Sixteen of the 45 states reported that they had no Title I schools in corrective action; three state respondents 

indicated that they did not know if the state had taken any actions, and three states provided no information. 

 87
Very few states indicated that they had any Title I schools identified for 

restructuring. Twelve states of the 47 states for which data were available reported having 

schools that required these efforts.29 Eight of these 12 states reported that they did not undertake 

restructuring activities with schools, while four reported that they did (Exhibit 58).30 

Exhibit 58 

Restructuring Efforts Taken by States With Title I Schools in Restructuring in 2003-04 

Restructuring action 

Number of

states 

State does not take restructuring actions with schools 8 

Replaced all/most of the staff, including the principal 2 

Turned operation of a school over to the state education agency 1 

Reopened a school as a public charter 1 

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, eight states with schools in restructuring reported not taking any restructuring actions 

with schools. Two states reported that they replaced all or most of the staff, including the principal. (In 2003-04, 12

states out of 47 reported that they had schools identified for restructuring; of these, four reported having undertaken

restructuring efforts with Title I schools.) 

Source: TASSIE state survey. 

Among the eight states (of the 47 from which data were available) that reported having 

districts identified for improvement, five took at least one corrective action with these districts. 

Case study data reflect this variation across states in the corrective actions and restructuring 

efforts taken with schools and districts (Exhibit 59). 

 29 Thirty-five of the 47 states reported that they had no Title I schools identified for restructuring; one state 

respondent indicated that they did not know if the state had taken any restructuring actions, and three states 

provided no information. 30 Of the 47 states from which information was available in 2003-04, 13 took the same corrective actions with Title I 

and non-Title I schools, four took some of the same actions, and nine took a completely different set of actions. 

 88
Exhibit 59 

Examples of Variation in State Interventions With Identified Schools and Districts 

• Louisiana appoints an outside expert (distinguished educator) to advise schools that miss 

AYP for four or more years, and it applies the same set of corrective actions to all schools in 

the state. In schools in the one Louisiana district that was identified for improvement in 

2003-04, the state conducts classroom observations and professional development on lesson

planning, along with ongoing support from regional staff. 

• Arizona operates under a layered system of accountability, and not all schools labeled as 

Underperforming under the state system are labeled as identified schools under Title I. For 

any school in Arizona designated as Underperforming for three consecutive years, the state 

visits and reviews its plan for improvement; these schools may also be classified as Failing to 

Meet Academic Standards, in which case they are assigned a solutions team of three people,

including some combination of master teachers, fiscal analysts, and curriculum and 

assessment experts. The team is trained to visit the school site and conduct interviews, 

classroom observations, and focus groups with the objective of identifying school-specific

needs; findings are presented to school staff, accompanied by support to facilitate school 

improvement. 

• In Washington, some Title I schools in corrective action participate in the state’s Focused 

Assistance program, through which they receive a needs assessment and are provided a 

School Improvement Facilitator to work with them for 78 days per school year for three years. 

The facilitator supports the development and implementation of an improvement plan. 

• In Michigan, one of the first states to have schools enter the restructuring phase of NCLB, 

it is the responsibility of districts to provide support to identified schools; the state provides

funding. The most common type of restructuring to occur has been staff replacement (CEP 

2004c). For schools in restructuring, the state places state-trained coaches in schools for at 

least 100 days to oversee the restructuring process. The state also requires that restructuring

be an individualized process—that is, that each school’s plan be designed to target its 

specific weaknesses (CEP 2004). 

Schools’ Reports of District and State Actions 

Continuously identified schools were more likely than schools that were no longer 

identified in 2003-04 to report that the state or district took corrective actions with them. 

Comparisons between these two types of schools were made to assess the extent to which actions 

were being taken as a result of identification status. Continuously identified schools were more 

likely to be required to implement a new curriculum, to receive an outside expert, to extend the 

school day or year, to restructure the internal organization of the school, or to replace staff 

(Exhibit 60). There were no significant differences between the two groups of schools in 

principals’ reports of restructuring activities taken with them by the state or district (though this 

situation may change when more schools reach the restructuring phase of the NCLB

accountability system). 

The majority (86 percent) of schools that reported they were in corrective action indicated 

that they experienced at least one of the six corrective actions specified in NCLB (27 percent 

reported one corrective action, 37 percent reported two corrective actions, and 22 percent 

reported three or more corrective actions had been taken). The most frequently reported 

corrective actions taken with these schools were similar to those reported by continuously 

 89
identified schools not in corrective action: the requirement to implement a new research-based 

curriculum (75 percent) and the appointment of an outside expert to advise the school (25 

percent). 

Exhibit 60 

Principals’ Reports of Corrective Actions Taken by the State or District, 

by School Identification Status in 2003-04 

2

3

11

5

21

7

12

27

31

62

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Replacing school staff relevant to failure to

make AYP

Restructuring internal organization of the

school

Extending school day or year

Appointing outside expert to advise the

school

Requiring the implementation of new

research-based curriculum

Percentage of Title I schools

Schools identified in 2003-04 and 2001-02

Schools not identified in 2003-04, were identified in 2001-02

%

Exhibit reads: Among Title I schools that were identified for improvement in 2003-04 and in 2001-02, 

62 percent of principals responded that the state or district required the implementation of a new 

research-based curriculum; 21 percent of principals in Title I schools no longer identified did so. 

Notes: Differences significant at p < .05. (See Appendix B for the complete list of actions taken.) 

Source: TASSIE principal survey. 

Among the small group of schools that reported having been identified for 

improvement for four or more years (i.e., likely candidates for restructuring), very few had 

experienced any interventions associated with restructuring.

31 The most common 

restructuring effort reported by principals was replacement of all or most of the school staff by 

the state or district (12 percent). Two others interventions, planning for alternative governance 

 31 Schools reported on how many years they had been identified for improvement, rather than on their improvement 

status. Schools that continue to miss AYP for three years after identification enter restructuring status; schools 

that remain identified but make AYP, may not enter restructuring status. As a result, schools in this study that 

were identified for four or more years were likely, but not necessarily, in restructuring status. 

 90
arrangements and reopening the school as a charter school, were cited by 8 percent of principals 

of schools identified for improvement for four or more years. Only one percent of this small 

group of principals indicated that their state or district had entered into a contract with a private 

management company to operate the school, and less than one percent of these principals 

reported that operation of their school had been turned over to the state. 

Since 2001-02, there have been significant increases in the percentage of principals of 

identified schools who indicated that the state or district had taken specific corrective 

actions (Exhibit 60). These corrective actions included: requiring the implementation of a new 

research-based curriculum (62 percent in 2003-04 vs. to 21 percent in 2001-02), appointing an 

outside expert to advise the school (31 percent vs. 1 percent), and extending the school day or 

year (27 percent vs. 11 percent). These changes likely reflect the fact that this group of Title I 

schools had been identified for improvement since at least 2001-02 and thus may have been in 

corrective action by 2003-04. There have been no significant changes over the past three years 

in state- or district-led restructuring activities reported by principals of identified schools, 

perhaps reflecting the fact that relatively few schools were identified for restructuring. 

Summary

In 2003-04, only 6 percent of districts (about 700) had Title I schools in corrective action. 

The majority of districts with identified schools (57 percent) did not serve any schools in 

corrective action. Of those that did, most were dealing with only one school in corrective action 

status. The most common actions taken by districts and states with schools in corrective action 

were: appointing an outside expert to advise the school and requiring the implementation of a 

new research-based curriculum—interventions which were seen as supportive by school 

principals in our case study sites. 

Few districts and states indicated that they had any Title I schools identified for 

restructuring. The most common restructuring intervention among districts (only 9 percent) was 

to make a plan for alternative governing arrangements at the school. For states, the most 

common action taken with schools was not to intervene with restructuring interventions. Among 

the small group of schools identified for four or more years (and so eligible for restructuring), 

very few had experienced any interventions associated with restructuring. 

 91

VI. Conclusions 

The Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts tracked 

changes from 2001-02, the year during which No Child Left Behind became law, through its 

second full year of implementation in 2003-04. From 2001 to 2004 states and districts took steps 

to align their accountability systems with new federal requirements and to improve student 

achievement in Title I schools that did not meet required standards for performance. During this 

period, states and districts made progress in some areas and faced challenges from new 

requirements in others. Five themes capture the trends observed over the duration of the study. 

Each has implications for the future of NCLB and is elaborated on below. 

• Title I schools identified for improvement in small districts were more likely to exit 

improvement status than those in large districts; thus, identified schools became more 

concentrated in large districts. If this trend continues, it will increase the demands on large 

urban districts to provide support and assistance. 

The trend toward increasing concentration of identified schools in large districts is 

consistent with the finding that schools with diverse student bodies were more likely to miss 

AYP (Novak and Fuller 2003). It is also consistent with the research that indicates many of the 

schools troubled with chronic low achievement and students with the greatest needs are found in 

large urban districts (see, for example, David and Shields 2001). Given the finding that some

identified schools were receiving little or no assistance in 2003-04, large districts could find 

themselves stretched even further beyond their capacity to provide support and assistance to their 

schools. 

• More students were eligible for choice and supplemental services in 2003-04 than in 2002-

03; however, the proportion of parents exercising Title I choice remained at 1 percent,

compared with 19 percent participating in supplemental services in 2003-04, an increase 

over the 7 percent participating the previous year. Parents appear to have a preference for 

tutoring over changing schools. 

The expansion of Title I choice faces two major challenges. First is the challenge of 

having enough transfer options for those families wishing to transfer their children. Even with 

only 1 percent of eligible students exercising choice, districts were not always able to provide 

satisfactory options. If the trend of increasing concentration of identified schools in large 

districts continues, these districts will have an increasingly difficult time providing transfer 

options, especially at the middle and high school levels. Small rural districts were already 

having trouble finding options. The other challenge is the hesitancy of parents to move their 

children to a school outside the neighborhood. Some of the apparent reluctance may also be due 

to lack of information and understanding about the options they have and districts’ late or 

unclear notices. Several data sources also point to the preferences of parents to have their 

children nearby and the appeal of tutoring in their home school. Wider acceptance of choice will 

require more emphasis on creating viable alternatives for parents. 

 93
Supplemental services, especially when they were provided at the neighborhood school, 

were more attractive to parents. However, districts face three challenges if supplemental 

services are to reach more eligible students, beyond the 19 percent currently participating. First, 

small and rural districts need access to providers. Case study data indicate online providers were 

not a solution for many students because the students did not have access to the necessary 

technology. Second, states and districts need help in figuring out how to monitor and assess the 

effectiveness of providers. States indicated that having sample data collection instruments and 

criteria for judging effectiveness would benefit states in their oversight role. Third, districts 

need help in streamlining procedures for managing the provision of services and in 

communicating effectively with parents. If the number of parents requesting supplemental 

services increases substantially, large urban districts with thousands of eligible students will 

need help to be able to manage an effective system of providers. 

• More states, but not all, were helping identified schools, and most districts were providing a 

range of assistance in 2003-04 similar to what they provided in 2001-02 and 2002-03; 

however, many identified schools did not receive assistance specified in NCLB. 

In spite of state and district efforts to help schools, many schools were not receiving the 

kind of intensive assistance they needed to make progress. Fifty-seven percent of districts did 

not assign at least a half-time person to provide school-based professional development or 

instructional support. Forty-three percent of districts did not provide school support teams, 

principal mentors, distinguished teachers, or other consultants. Eleven percent of identified 

schools were in districts that provided no assistance with planning and data use as specified in 

NCLB. 

The finding that districts made few changes in their provision of assistance and tended to 

provide the same support to all schools suggests that districts were more able to carry out the 

kinds of things they have always done: assistance with planning and traditional professional 

development. To the extent that helping most or all schools serves as a strategy to keep schools 

from becoming identified, districts might be encouraged to continue this approach. Districts are 

less able to help schools with the core work of instructional improvement to raise student 

achievement through the efforts of school support teams, coaches, or other forms of intensive 

support. They will need help figuring out how to work more strategically and intensively with 

schools that continue to miss AYP. Similarly, state capacity to deliver assistance needs to be 

bolstered. Large districts are often delegated state tasks and need to carry out those as well as 

their direct responsibilities under NCLB. 

• School improvement strategies remained similar across the three years, although schools 

that were still identified in 2003-04 engaged in more improvement activities than schools no 

longer identified. The lack of change suggests that schools, like districts, were implementing 

the activities with which they are familiar: planning and assessment. 

 94
Compared to their counterparts who had exited improvement status as of the end of the 

2002-03 school year, the finding that higher proportions of continuously identified schools were 

engaged in most of the improvement and support activities measured raises several issues. That 

they were conducting greater numbers of improvement activities and yet remained identified 

suggests three explanations. First, because continuously identified schools tend to be urban and 

poor, it is likely that they will still be identified in spite of all their activities because they are 

working with some of the most educationally disadvantaged populations: poor minority urban 

youths, many of whom are just learning English. The second possible explanation is the related 

finding that schools with more diverse populations are more likely to miss AYP (a finding 

supported by other research). The third, supported strongly by the case studies, is that schools 

are grabbing at solutions—programs and strategies they think will increase scores quickly. As a 

result, they are doing many activities but not taking the kinds of coherent and sustained 

approaches that have the potential for a long-term payoff. Leadership by principals could play a 

role here; very few reported receiving support or assistance for themselves. 

• School poverty and district size better predicted exiting improvement status than the 

improvement strategies undertaken by the schools. 

The finding that school poverty and district size better predicted exiting improvement

status than the improvement strategies undertaken by the schools is consistent with the historical 

relationship between family poverty and test scores (see Coleman et al. 1966; Jencks 1972; 

Jencks and Phillips 1998). Given the relative contribution of improvement activities to schools 

exiting improvement, it appears likely that the schools that continue to be identified will need 

much more intensive assistance and more time to implement improvement strategies than they 

have had thus far. 

 95

References

Casserly, M. (January 2004). “No Child Left Behind: A status report on choice and 

supplemental services in America’s great city schools.” Paper presented at Leaving No

Child Behind? Options for Kids in Failing Schools, a meeting held in Washington, D.C., 

sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. 

Center on Education Policy (CEP). (September 2004). My school didn’t make adequate yearly 

progress: So what does that mean? Test Talk Issue 3. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

Center on Education Policy (CEP). (March 2005). From the capital to the classroom: Year 3 of 

the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfield, F. D., 

and York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education. 

David, J. L. and Shields, P. M. (August 2001). When theory hits reality: Standards-based 

reform in urban districts. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International. Report prepared for The 

Pew Charitable Trusts. 

Education Commission of the States (ECS). (July 2004). ECS report to the nation: State 

implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Denver, Colo.: Author. 

Education Week. (Dec. 8, 2004). AYP status. Education Week, 24(15). 

Forte Fast, E. and Erpenhach, W. J. (2004). Revisiting statewide educational accountability 

under NCLB. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers. 

Jencks, C. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. 

New York, N.Y.: Basic Books. 

Jencks, C. and Phillips, M. (eds.) (1998). The black-white test score gap. Washington, D.C.: 

Brookings Institution. 

McClure, P. (March 2005). School improvement under No Child Left Behind. Washington, 

D.C.: Center for American Progress. 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2003). Trends in the use of school choice 

1993 to 1999: Statistical analysis report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. 

Novak, J. R. and Fuller, B. (December 2003). Penalizing diverse schools? Policy Brief 03-4. 

Berkeley, Calif.: PACE Publications. 

Olson, L. (Dec. 8, 2004). Taking root. Education Week, 24(15). 

Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS). (October 2003). Demographic characteristics of 

Title I schools in need of improvement. Unpublished data from the U.S. Department of 

Education. 

Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS). (2004). Summary of supplemental services 

providers lists on state Web sites April 5-7. Unpublished data from the U.S. Department of 

Education. 

 R-1 
Rose, L. C. and Gallup, A. M. (September 2004). The 36th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll 

of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 41-56. 

U.S. Department of Education. (August 2003a). Supplemental educational services: Nonregulatory guidance. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2003b). Report cards, Title I, Part A: Non-regulatory 

guidance. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2004a). Creating strong district school choice programs. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Innovation and Improvement. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2004b). Public school choice: Non-regulatory guidance. 

Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2005a). Case studies of supplemental educational services 

under the No Child Left Behind Act: Findings from 2003-04. Washington, D.C.: Policy and 

Program Studies Service. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2005b). Evaluation of Title I accountability systems and school 

improvement efforts: 2002-03 findings. Washington, D.C.: Policy and Program Studies 

Service. 

U.S. General Accountability Office. (Dec. 10, 2004). No Child Left Behind Act: Education 

needs to provide additional technical assistance and conduct implementation studies for 

school choice provision. (GAO-05-7). Washington, D.C.: Author. 

 R-2 
Appendix A 

Method Notes 

 A-1

Data Collection Methods 

The evaluation consists of five related, longitudinal components: 

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

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

districts was developed using information from the 1999 Common Core of Data (CCD) 

and the 2000 Quality Education Data (QED) database. Districts were stratified 

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

living in poverty within each district), and geographic region32 The stratification by 

geographic region was done to facilitate selection of an over sample from three states 

that were the focus of the analysis of school performance. Districts were selected using 

a simple random sample without replacement within each stratum. All very large 

districts were sampled; approximately equal numbers of districts were selected from

the other size strata. Each poverty stratum includes approximately one-third of all 

children in the sampling frame. The key respondent is the district Title I director. 

Survey topics for the 2003-04 district survey included state and local accountability 

systems, school and district identification, district support for school improvement, 

public reporting, public school choice, supplemental services, and interventions taken 

with identified schools. The 2003-04 response rate was 91 percent of the eligible 

districts in the sample (N=1,179); in 2003-04, six districts were found to be no longer 

receiving Title I funds. The 2002-03 response rate was 89 percent of eligible districts 

(N=1,161); the 2001-02 response rate was 88 percent of eligible districts (N=1,298). 

• A survey of principals in a national sample of 739 Title I schools identified as in 

need of improvement in 2001-02. The sampling frame for schools in need of 

improvement in 2001-02 was developed in a two-stage process. First, lists of the 

schools in each of the sampled districts were developed from the 1999 CCD and the 

2000 QED databases. Schools eligible for the sample were classified as regular, but 

not charter, in the CCD and served a grade range that could be classified as elementary, 

middle, or high school. In the second stage, sampled districts were asked in fall 2001 

to provide a list of Title I schools in need of improvement for 2001-02. In states where 

Title I schools in need of improvement were identified by the state education agency 

(SEA), the list of schools identified for 2001-02 (on the basis of 2000-01 assessment 

data) was requested. Only Title I schools identified for improvement for student 

achievement in reading, mathematics, or both subjects were included in the original 

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

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

poverty level, and geography. The sample was a nationally representative sample of 

Title I schools identified for improvement in 2001-02; over the three-year course of the 

study, portions of those schools remained identified, exited improvement status or 

stopped receiving Title I funds. Topics for the 2003-04 principal survey included 

accountability systems, public school choice supplemental educational services, school 

improvement activities, and interventions taken with the school. 

 32 See Appendix B for definitions of size and poverty strata. 

 A-3
Surveys were mailed to those 701 schools verified through updated district lists of 

Title I schools to be eligible for the 2003-04 survey. Responses were received from

601 schools, for a response rate of 86 percent. Through the district school verification 

process, it was determined that 12 of the 601 respondent schools were no longer 

receiving Title I funds and thus were not eligible for analysis. Thus 589 Title I schools 

constituted the school sample in 2003-04 (weighted N=7,883). Of those 589 schools, 

234 (40 percent) were still identified for improvement in 2003-04. The 2002-03 

response rate was 85 percent of schools still operating and receiving Title I funds 

(N=686); the 2001-02 response rate was 86 percent (N=739).33 

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

five states. Case study schools were selected through a multiple-stage process in which 

states, then districts within those states, and then schools within those districts were 

chosen. Three critical dimensions for state sample selection were identified: state AYP 

definition, alignment of Title I accountability within the state and the general state 

accountability systems, and the state process for identifying schools in need of 

improvement. States were sorted along these three dimensions and selected through an 

iterative process to represent the actual variation. Within each of the five states, in 

consultation with the state Title I director, a large urban district was selected as well as 

one suburban and one rural district. Within each urban district, two elementary schools 

identified for improvement were selected in consultation with the district Title I 

coordinator. In the rural and suburban districts, one elementary school was chosen (often 

the only identified school in those districts). Interviews in 2003-04 were conducted with 

district and school staff and covered topics similar to those on the district and principal 

surveys. Parents of students in the identified case study schools were also interviewed 

about public reporting, public school choice, and supplemental services. 

• Interviews of state Title I administrators. These interviews addressed topics 

including timing of identification information to districts, corrective actions for schools 

and districts, supplemental services, the statewide system of support, and state 

reporting. Respondents included state Title I directors and accountability staff. 

Tabulations of state data are based on interviews conducted with staff in 48 states and 

the District of Columbia; two states did not respond to the telephone survey. 

Weights for Statistical Analyses 

TASSIE district and school samples are both stratified, random samples in which the 

probability of selection into the sample varies across strata. To estimate population parameters, 

the sampled districts or schools are weighted so that the total of the weights within a stratum

equals the number of districts or schools in that stratum in the sampling frame. 

Survey respondents are a portion of the full sample. To estimate population parameters 

from the survey respondents, the weights assigned to respondents within any stratum were 

modified to absorb the weights that would otherwise accrue to nonresponding schools in the 

 33 To view the TASSIE district and principal surveys, see http://www.TASSIEonline.org or

http://www.sri.com/policy/cep/edreform/title1.html. 

 A-4
stratum. Thus respondents’ weights were adjusted to sum to the total number in the stratum. 

The analysis for 2003-04 required a new set of weights based on 2003-04 respondents. These 

weights were used to estimate parameters for the total population of districts and schools from

respondents to the 2003-04 surveys. The longitudinal estimates presented in this report use the 

analysis weights assigned for the 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04 respondent pools, respectively. 

Reconciling Differences in Population Estimates From Different Data Sources 

National estimates for the total number of districts with identified schools, the total number 

of identified schools, the demographic distribution of schools and districts have inherent 

variation based on the source of the estimate. The TASSIE study made use of several data 

sources, and in this report, text and exhibit notes are used to clarify the source for the estimate. 

For example, based on the TASSIE District and School Eligibility Database,34 the total number 

of Title I districts is 11,091. Estimates based on district survey data reported in the context of 

district assistance to schools sum to a slightly lower number of districts (11,060), as those 

estimates are based on respondents to the district survey. The estimate of identified Title I 

schools is also derived from the TASSIE District and School Eligibility Database. The school 

sample is not used in this report to estimate the number of identified schools. 

Estimates of the Number of Students and Schools Regarding Title I Choice and 

Supplemental Services 

Estimates below are based on the data from districts providing Title I choice or 

supplemental services for the 2002-03 school year. 

2002-03

Estimate 

Standard 

Error* 

Low

Estimate 

High 

Estimate 

Title I choice

Number of students eligible for choice 1,535,426 295,588 932,426 2,138,426

Number of students requesting a transfer 27,788 5,261 17,056 38,520 

Number of students that transferred 18,078 4,693 8,691 27,464

Number of students that received their first 

choice of schools when transferred 17,270 4,650 7,784 26,756

Supplemental services 

Number of students eligible for supplemental 

services 791,370 233,367 315,301 1,267,439

Number of students that received services 56,452 15,513 24,805 88,099 

Number of schools with students eligible to 

receive supplemental services

1,314 174 959 1,669

* Estimates at the 95 percent confidence interval with 32 degrees of freedom +/- 2.04 x Standard Error based on

responses to the TASSIE district survey. 

 34 The TASSIE District and School Eligibility Database provides a source of data about the full sample of districts 

and the full sample of schools in the TASSIE study. When appropriately weighted in the analysis, this database

provides national estimates of the status of the district and school populations. 

 A-5
As noted above, the estimates of the number of schools with students eligible to exercise 

Title I choice vary depending on the source. The estimate of the number of schools with 

students eligible to exercise Title I choice based on the district survey is 5,225 (Standard 

Error=414), while the estimate of the number of schools based on the TASSIE District and 

School Eligibility Database is 6,032 (Standard Error=604). (An estimate of the number of 

schools with students eligible to receive supplemental services could not be derived from the 

TASSIE District and School Eligibility Database.)

Estimates below are based on the data from districts providing Title I choice or 

supplemental services for the 2003-04 school year. 

2003-04 

estimate 

Standard 

Error* 

Low

estimate 

High 

estimate 

Title I choice

Number of students eligible for choice 2,751,896 345,343 2,061,210 3,442,582

Number of students requesting a transfer 86,676 32,983 20,710 152,642 

Number of students that transferred 31,803 7,871 16,061 47,545

Number of students that received their first 

choice of schools when transferred 24,126 4,474 15,178 33,074

Supplemental services 

Number of students eligible for supplemental 

services 1,330,898 171,855 987,188 1,674,608

Number of students that received services 257,925 98,771 60,383 223,334

Number of schools with students eligible to 

receive supplemental services

3,061 402 2,257 3,865

* Estimates at the 95 percent confidence interval with 64 degrees of freedom +/- 2.00 x Standard Error based on

responses to the TASSIE district survey. 

As noted above, the estimates of the number of schools with students eligible to exercise 

Title I choice vary depending on the source. The estimate of the number of schools with 

students eligible to exercise Title I choice based on the district survey is 4,624 (Standard 

Error=878), while the estimate of the number of schools based on the TASSIE District and 

School Eligibility Database is 5,565 (Standard Error=550). (An estimate of the number of 

schools with students eligible to receive supplemental services could not be derived from the 

TASSIE District and School Eligibility Database.)

Minimum Sample Size 

Parameter estimates are reported when they are based on unweighted sample sizes of 20 or 

more. Because of this standard, it is sometimes not possible to report statistics for every cell in a 

cross-tabulation. 

Creation of Summary Measures for District Assistance per District Survey

To summarize district activity in support of school improvement efforts, a set of four 

aggregate measures of district assistance to identified schools were developed. They include 

 A-6
district support for planning and data use, professional development, curriculum alignment, and 

intensity of assistance. 

Each measure is made up of dichotomous items, scored 1, 0, or missing. For items that 

asked respondents to report activity for corrective action schools, identified schools, lowperforming schools, and all other schools, a “1” was accepted in either of the first two columns 

(corrective action schools and identified schools) as a “1” for the purposes of developing the 

measure. A mean score for each district was computed by summing up the number of 1s across 

items and dividing by the number of items. The resulting scores ranged from 0 to 1. 

Only districts that had identified schools and had answered all of the items included in the 

measure were considered in this analysis. Thus, the largest possible N for each measure is 419 

unweighted, 1,721 weighted. The descriptions that follow show the items included in each 

strand and descriptive statistics for district scores on the measure (the mean score, standard 

deviation, and quartiles). The descriptive statistics also include a measure of the internal 

consistency of the aggregates. Because the items that make up each scale are dichotomous, a 

Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient was calculated as a measure of internal consistency, which is 

comparable to Cronbach’s alpha for continuous measures. 

In addition, categories that were developed to report district scores on these aggregate 

measures are presented. Districts that reported providing support on all of items included in the 

measure were characterized as providing an extensive range of assistance to identified schools. 

Districts that reported providing support on half or fewer of the items included in the measure 

were characterized as providing a limited range of support. Districts in the middle were 

characterized as providing a moderate range of support. 

It is important to note that the category “extensive” means only that the district provides 

many different types of assistance with many different purposes. It does not mean that the 

assistance is more intensive, or that the district reaches a larger number of schools. 

District Support for Planning and Data Use 

Items Included in 2003-04 

D20. Does the district provide technical assistance with data analysis or planning to identified 

schools? The district assigns staff to work directly with individual schools to... 

1. Review data to be sure identification is valid (0,1) 

2. Analyze student achievement data to identify specific academic problems that caused 

the school to be identified (0,1) 

3. Identify research-based improvement strategies (0,1) 

4. Provide additional data analysis, e.g., additional disaggregation or analysis of 

diagnostic assessments (0,1) 

5. Analyze and revise the school's budget so that school resources are effectively 

allocated (0,1) 

6. Write or revise a school's improvement plan (0,1) 

7. Monitor progress throughout the school year toward goals established in the school 

improvement plan (0,1) 

 A-7
D22. Which of the following topics were addressed in the professional development supported 

by the district in identified schools? 

8. Monitoring individual students’ progress toward learning goals (0,1) 

9. Analyzing and interpreting student achievement data (0,1) 

10. Differentiating instruction based on student assessment data (0,1) 

Descriptive Statistics: 2002-03 

Internal Proportion of Items Circled

Consistency 

Coefficient 

Mean Standard

Deviation 

25th 

Percentile 

50th 

Percentile 

75th 

Percentile 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted 

N 

0.79 0.83 0.21 0.80 0.90 1.00 1,593 345

Descriptive Statistics: 2003-04 

Internal Proportion of Items Circled

Consistency 

Coefficient 

Mean Standard

Deviation 

25th 

Percentile 

50th 

Percentile 

75th 

Percentile 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted 

N 

0.70 0.85 0.18 0.80 0.90 1.00 1,503 372

Categories Developed for Reporting: 2002-03 

Category

Proportion of 

Items Circled 

Percent of 

Districts 

Standard 

Error 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted

N 

Extensive range of 

assistance

1.00 43.57 4.52

Moderate range of 

assistance

0.51 - 0.99 43.30 4.82 

Limited range of 

assistance

0-0.50 13.14 4.63

1,593 345

Categories Developed for Reporting: 2003-04 

Category

Proportion of 

Items Circled 

Percent of 

Districts 

Standard 

Error 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted

N 

Extensive range of 

assistance

1.00 35.92 5.22

Moderate range of 

assistance

0.51 - 0.99 58.70 5.19 

Limited range of 

assistance

0-0.50 5.38 1.91

1,503 372

 A-8
Cases Included in Analysis 

Only districts that have identified schools and responded to all 10 items in the planning and data 

use strand were included in the measure. 

District Support for Professional Development 

Items Included in 2003-04 

D23. Does the district provide additional staffing, teacher stipends, release time, or other 

resources to support any of the following teacher professional development activities in 

identified schools?

1. Teacher work groups to analyze samples of student work (0,1) 

2. Teacher work groups to develop teaching materials or activities for particular classes 

(0,1) 

3. Observations in other teachers’ classrooms to offer feedback and/or learn new ideas 

(excluding observation for purposes of formal evaluation) (0,1) 

4. Teacher work groups to discuss student assessment data to make decisions about 

instruction (0,1) 

5. In-class coaching or mentoring (0,1) 

6. Conferences (0,1) 

7. Professional development workshops or institutes (0,1) 

8. College/University Courses (0,1) 

Descriptive Statistics: 2002-03 

Internal Proportion of Items Circled

Consistency 

Coefficient 

Mean Standard

Deviation 

25th 

Percentile 

50th 

Percentile 

75th 

Percentile 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted 

N 

0.63 0.73 0.24 0.57 0.86 1.00 1,571 344

Descriptive Statistics: 2003-04 

Internal Proportion of Items Circled

Consistency 

Coefficient 

Mean Standard

Deviation 

25th 

Percentile 

50th 

Percentile 

75th 

Percentile 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted 

N 

0.70 0.72 0.24 0.63 0.75 0.88 1,680 406

 A-9
Categories Developed for Reporting: 2002-03 

Category

Proportion of 

Items Circled 

Percent of 

Districts 

Standard 

Error 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted

N 

Extensive range of 

assistance

1.00 25.71 4.33

Moderate range of 

assistance

0.51 – 0.99 52.35 5.17 

Limited range of 

assistance

0-0.50 21.95 4.53

1,571 344

Categories Developed for Reporting: 2003-04 

Category

Proportion of 

Items Circled 

Percent of 

Districts 

Standard 

Error 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted

N 

Extensive range of 

assistance

1.00 21.67 3.42

Moderate range of 

assistance

0.51 – 0.99 54.90 5.27 

Limited range of 

assistance

0-0.50 23.43 4.15

1,680 406

Cases Included in Analysis 

Only districts that have identified schools and responded to all eight items in the professional 

development strand were included in the measure. 

District Support for Aligning Curriculum With Standards and Assessments 

Items Included in 2003-04 

D33. Has the district taken any of the following steps to assist schools in ensuring consistency 

of curriculum and instruction with state or district standards? 

1. Developed local content standards that provide more useful guidance to teachers than 

state content standards (0,1) 

2. Published detailed curriculum guides with standards, frameworks, and pacing 

sequences (0,1) 

3. Developed classroom-embedded assessments with a standard scoring rubric to 

monitor progress (0,1) 

4. Developed model lesson plans based on standards (0,1) 

5. Conducted regular checks of standards implementation in classrooms (e.g., by 

requiring lesson plans or students’ work to be submitted, or by conducting walkthroughs) (0,1) 

6. Mapped out the alignment of required textbooks and instructional programs to 

standards and assessments (0,1) 

 A-10
7. Analyzed available student achievement data to identify specific strengths and 

weaknesses related to the attainment of standards (0,1) 

Descriptive Statistics 2002-03 

Internal Proportion of Items Circled

Consistency 

Coefficient 

Mean Standard

Deviation 

25th 

Percentile 

50th 

Percentile 

75th 

Percentile 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted 

N 

0.71 0.69 0.23 0.50 0.70 0.90 1,663 352

Descriptive Statistics 2003-04 

Internal Proportion of Items Circled

Consistency 

Coefficient 

Mean Standard

Deviation 

25th 

Percentile 

50th 

Percentile 

75th 

Percentile 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted 

N 

0.65 0.65 0.26 0.43 0.71 0.86 1,661 402

Categories Developed for Reporting 2002-03 

Category

Proportion of 

Items Circled 

Percent of 

Districts 

Standard 

Error 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted

N 

Extensive range of 

assistance

1.00 29.42 4.79

Moderate range of 

assistance

0.51 - 0.99 43.54 4.86 

Limited range of 

assistance

0-0.50 27.04 4.82

1,663 352

Categories Developed for Reporting 2003-04 

Category

Proportion of 

Items Circled 

Percent of 

Districts 

Standard 

Error 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted

N 

Extensive range of 

assistance

1.00 17.14 3.38

Moderate range of 

assistance

0.51 - 0.99 49.92 4.52 

Limited range of 

assistance

0-0.50 32.93 3.38

1,661 402

Cases Included in Analysis 

Only districts that have identified schools and responded to all seven items in the curriculum

alignment strand were included in the measure. 

 A-11
Intensity of Assistance

Items Included in 2003-04 

D36. On average, how many full-time equivalent (FTE) staff are assigned by the district to a 

typical in each of the following categories? 

a. Professional staff charged with providing school-based professional development and 

instructional support (e.g., instructional facilitators, coaches, staff developers) 

(1=number of FTEs greater than zero in identified schools, 0=number of FTEs equal 

to zero)

c. Other staff (1=number of FTEs greater than zero in identified schools, 0=number of 

FTEs equal to zero) 

D38. In the current school year (2003-04), has the district provided additional on-site 

assistance to any of the following types of schools?

a. School support teams (1=provided to identified schools, 0=did not provide to 

identified schools) 

b. Distinguished teachers (1=provided to identified schools, 0=did not provide to 

identified schools) 

c. Other consultants (1=provided to identified schools, 0=did not provide to identified 

schools) 

D39. In the current school year (2003-04), has the state provided any of the following types of 

on-site assistance to any of the following types of schools?

a. School support teams (1=provided to identified schools, 0=not provided to identified 

schools) 

b. Distinguished teachers (1=provided to identified schools, 0=not provided to identified 

schools) 

D41. How many days total will the school support team spend at each of the schools that 

receive the greatest amount of support, on average (or at a typical school, if all schools 

receive approximately the same amount of support)? (Please consider assistance 

provided since the end of the last school year (2002-03), including summer, as well as 

assistance planned through the end of the 2003-04 school year.) 

(1=number of days greater than the median category, i.e., 11 days or more; 0=number of 

days equal to or less than the median category, i.e., 10 days or less) 

D43. How many days total will distinguished teachers and/or other consultants spend at each 

of the schools that receive the greatest amount of support, on average (or at a typical 

school, if all schools receive approximately the same amount of support)? (Please 

consider assistance provided since the end of the last school year (2002-03), including 

summer, as well as assistance planned through the end of the 2003-04 school year.) 

(1=number of days greater than the median category, i.e., 26 days or more; 0=number of 

days equal to or less than the median category, i.e., 25 days or less) 

 A-12
D44. Does the district provide any of the following types of support for principals in the 

following types of schools?

a. Mentor or coach assigned to principal (1=provided to identified schools, 0=not 

provided to identified schools) 

c. Special supervision or lines of reporting for principals of low-performing schools 

(1=provided to identified schools, 0=not provided to identified schools) 

Descriptive Statistics 

Proportion of Items Circled Internal 

Consistency 

Coefficient 

Mean Standard 

Deviation 

25th 

Percentile 

50th 

Percentile 

75th 

Percentile 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted 

N 

.10 .29 .45

33rd 

Percentile 

67th 

Percentile .70 .30 .23

.17 .40

1,365 354

Categories Developed for Reporting 

Category

Proportion of 

Items Circled 

Percent of 

Districts 

Standard 

Error 

Weighted 

N 

Unweighted N 

Higher-intensity 0.40 - 1.00 28.04 4.65 

Moderate intensity 0.17-0.40 36.33 4.07 

Lower-intensity 0 - 0.17 35.63 5.67 

1,365 354

Cases Included in Analysis 

All districts that responded to at least six of the 11 items in the intensity index were included in 

the measure. 

Background Information on Regression Analysis 

To better understand the relationship between school improvement strategies, demographic 

context, and exiting improvement status, the analyses presented below use data from 2002-03 to 

explain school improvement status in 2003-04. Focusing on elementary schools that were 

identified for improvement in 2002-03, school improvement strategies and demographics (school 

poverty, school size, district size, district urbanicity) were used to develop models for predicting 

whether or not a school exited improvement the following year. Various models were tested. 

Some considered whether or not schools were engaged in each of seven school improvement 

efforts: school planning, use of student achievement data, curriculum alignment, adoption of a 

new reading or language arts curriculum, adoption of a new mathematics curriculum, use of a 

school reform model, and teacher collaboration. Some also took into account whether 

 A-13
professional development was emphasized in specific areas; others incorporated whether the 

district provided adequate support in these areas. Models were tested with and without context 

variables and with various combinations of context variables. 

The model was selected by using several criteria, including Akaike’s Information Criterion 

(AIC) and Schwartz’s Criterion (SC), both of which take into account the number of parameters 

or variables in the model. In addition to these statistics, parsimony was considered in assessing 

models in this analysis. The model—or group of variables—that was the most predictive of 

school improvement status in 2003-04 included school poverty (low, medium, high),35 district 

size (small, medium, large),36 and the school improvement strategy of aligning curriculum with 

standards and assessment, combined with a professional development emphasis in this area. 

Regression coefficients (labeled “b” in the table below) provide one way to examine the 

expected probability of schools’ exiting improvement status based on the model. To calculate 

the probability of a school exiting improvement status, the regression coefficients from this 

model define the following equation: 

logit (out of improvement) = 1.44 (curr align) + 2.37 (low sch pov) + 1.26 (med sch 

pov) + 3.72 (small dist size) + 2.50 (med dist size) – 4.39; 

probability of getting out of improvement = elogit(out of improvement)

/(1 + elogit(out of 

improvement)). 

Thus, the probability presented in Example 1 of Exhibit 54 (for a school with high 

poverty, in a large district , without curriculum alignment) was calculated as follows: 

logit (out of improvement) = 1.44(0) + 2.37(0) + 1.26(0) + 3.72(0) + 2.50(0) – 4.39 

= -4.39; 

probability of getting out of improvement = e-4.39/(1 + e-4.39) = 0.01. 

 35 Categories of school poverty: low (0 to <35 percent of students), medium (35 to <75 percent), high (75+ percent). 36 Categories of district size: small (200 to 3,503 students), medium (3,504 to 37,740 students), large (>37,740

students). 

 A-14
Predictors of Exiting Title I Need of Improvement Status in 2003-04 

Independent variable b* 

Standard 

Errorb

Curriculum/standards alignment with professional development emphasis 1.44 0.70 

School poverty—lowa 2.37 0.67

School poverty—mediuma 1.25 0.86

District size—smallc 3.72 1.10

District size—mediumc 2.50 0.99

Intercept -4.39 0.75

Weighted N = 2,743; Unweighted N = 292. 

*All regression coefficients were statistically significant except the medium level of school poverty. 

Standard Errorb = standard error of the coefficient. a High school poverty is the contrast level of the variable (i.e., it has a regression coefficient of 0). 

c

 Large district size is the contrast level of the variable (i.e., it has a regression coefficient of 0). 

 A-15

Appendix B 

Additional Exhibits37

 37 The exhibits in this section provide additional data for selected exhibits in the report. For the complete dataset 

based on 2003-04 and longitudinal analyses, see Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School

Improvement Efforts (TASSIE): Third-Year Technical Appendix (SRI International 2005). 

 B-1 

Exhibit B-1 

Exhibits 2 and 3 in the Report (2003-04) 

Estimated 

number of 

Title I schools 

identified for

improvement 

Percent of all 

identified 

Title I schools 

Percent of 

Title I schools 

in each 

demographic 

category

Percent of 

Title I schools 

identified 

within each 

demographic 

category

District size,* by student enrollment 

Small (200 to 3,503) 1,067 19 40 6 

Medium (3,504 to 10,448) 864 16 23 8 

Large (10,449 to 37,740) 1,378 25 17 16 

Very large (>37,740) 2,256 41 19 24 

Total 5,565 100 100 

Location* 

Urban 2,948 53 26 24 

Suburban 1,406 25 32 9 

Rural 1,212 22 42 6 

Total 5,565 100 100 

District poverty,* by percent of children living in poverty

Highest poverty (>22 

percent) 4,029 73 41 20 

Middle poverty (11 to 22 

percent) 1,239 22 36 7 

Lowest poverty (<11 

percent) 297 5 23 3 

Total 5,565 100 100 

Exhibit reads: Of the estimated 5,565 identified Title I schools in 2003-04, 1,067 (or 19 percent) were located in

districts with 200 to 3,503 students. Small districts accounted for 40 percent of Title I schools overall. Six percent 

of Title I schools in small districts were identified for improvement in 2003-04. 

Notes: * indicates 2003-04 Title I status (identified, not identified) was significantly associated with district size, 

location, and poverty at p < .01; only the distribution of identified schools in shown in the exhibit. The denominator

for computing the percentage of all Title I schools in each category (third column) is 47,971 schools (unweighted

N=18,045). The identification rate for schools in each demographic category (fourth column) was computed by 

dividing the number of identified Title I schools by the number of all Title I schools in each category. The standard 

error for the estimate of number of identified schools was 550 schools. 

Source: TASSIE District and School Database. Size and poverty designations were initial stratification variables;

location was obtained from the 2000 Common Core of Data, National Center for Education Statistics. 

 B-3 
Exhibit B-2 

Exhibit 4 in the Report 

Characteristic 

Percent of schools 

identified 

in 2001-02 

Percent of schools 

still identified 

in 2003-04 

Percent of schools no 

longer identified 

in 2003-04 

District size/enrollment* 

Small (200 to 3,503) 32 12 40 

Medium (3,504 to 

10,448) 20 14 23

Large (10,499 to 

37,740) 21 25 19

Very large (>37,740) 27 49 19 

Total 100 100 100

District location* 

Rural 34 16 41

Suburban 27 29 27

Urban 39 55 32

Total 100 100 100

School poverty* 

Low (<34.9%) 24 8 28 

Medium (35 to 49.9%) 20 17 20 

High (50 to 74.9%) 26 25 28 

Very high (>75%) 31 50 24 

Total 100 100 100

School enrollment* 

Small (<300) 26 15 29 

Medium (300 to 499) 31 20 38 

Large (500 to 749) 23 29 19 

Very large (750 or 

more) 21 35 15

Total 100 100 100

Respondent N 577 234 355 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-two percent of the identified Title I schools in the TASSIE survey sample that responded in

2001-02 were located in small districts; the percentage of Title I schools still identified that responded in 2003-04

and were located in small districts was 12 percent; 40 percent of schools identified in 2001-02 and that were no

longer identified in 2003-04 were located in small districts. 

Note: * indicates 2003-04 Title I status (identified, not identified) was significantly associated with district size, 

district location, school poverty, and school enrollment at p < .01. 

Source: This exhibit depicts the demographic distribution of schools in the TASSIE school sample that responded to

the school survey in both 2001-02 and 2003-04 or either year. District size was determined by number of students 

enrolled in the district. School poverty was defined by the percentage of students who were eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunches.

 B-4 
Exhibit B-3 

Exhibit 6 in the Report 

2002-03 2003-04

Number of

identified 

schools in the 

districts 

Percent of all 

Title I districts 

Percent of 

districts with 

identified 

schools 

Percent of all 

Title I districts 

Percent of 

districts with 

identified 

schools 

0 84 85 

1 10 58 8 53

2 3 15 3 17 

3-4 2 13 2 15 

5-12 2 10 2 11 

13 or more <1 2 1 4 

Exhibit reads: In 2002-03, 84 percent of districts nationwide had no Title I schools identified for improvement; 16

percent therefore had identified Title I schools. In 2003-04, 85 percent of districts nationwide had no Title I schools 

identified for improvement; 15 percent had identified Title I schools. 

Source: TASSIE 2003-04 district survey. 

Exhibit B-4 

Exhibit 8 in the Report (2003-04) 

4

1

2

12

1

2

4

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Small districts

Medium districts

Large districts

Very large districts

All districts

Rural districts

Suburban districts

Urban districts

Mean number of schools required to offer choice

District location District size

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, the average number of schools with students eligible to exercise choice 

in urban districts that were required to provide choice and did so was 12. 

Notes: For district size, there were significant differences in the mean number of schools across all 

size categories. For district location, there were significant differences between urban and 

suburban and rural, and between suburban and rural.

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

 B-5 
Exhibit B-5 

Exhibit 10 in the Report (2003-04) 

Alternate schools for 

children in elementary

grades*

Alternate schools for 

children in middle

grades*

Alternate schools for 

children in high school 

grades*

All districts 5 2 1 

District size 

Small 2 -- --

Medium 4 2 1

Large 6 2 2

Very large 12 6 5 

District location 

Rural 2 1 -- 

Suburban 5 2 1

Urban 10 4 3

Exhibit reads: Among districts that had identified schools and offered choice in 2003-04, the average number of 

alternate schools available to families in identified Title I elementary schools was five, two alternate schools in

middle grades, and one alternate high school.

Notes: * indicates there were statistically significant differences by district size and district location in the average 

number of alternate schools available to families at all grades (between p < .05 and p < .0001). -- indicates there 

were too few cases in the cell to generate a reliable estimate. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

 B-6 
Exhibit B-6 

Exhibit 13 in the Report (2003-04) 

Type of challenge Great extent 

Moderate 

extent 

Not at all or 

small extent 

Expanding capacity in alternate schools 37 13 50 

Lack of space in alternate schools 30 20 50 

Amount of time needed to set up a choice program*+ 26 25 49

No alternate schools within the district 22 8 70 

Lack of transportation to alternate schools*+ 14 12 74

Inability to negotiate agreements with other districts 

to receive students who wish to transfer 12 9 79

Inability to meet the needs of special education 

students in alternate schools* 8 16 76

An amount equal to 20% of the district’s Title I 

allocation is not adequate to provide transportation to 

all students who request a transfer to alternate 

schools or supplemental services

6 8 86

Inability to meet the needs of LEP students in 

alternate schools*+ 3 8 89

Inadequate information for parents about the status 

of their child’s school choice options

2 2 96

Inadequate information for parents about the status 

of their child’s school as identified for improvement 

under Title I* 

1 4 95

Exhibit reads: Among districts that had identified schools and offered Title I choice in 2003-04, 37 percent 

responded that expanding capacity in alternate schools was a challenge to a great extent in implementing school 

choice, 13 percent to a moderate extent, and 50 percent to a small extent or not at all.

Notes: * indicates statistically significant difference by district size in the extent to which a challenge existed at p <

.01; +

 indicates statistically significant difference by district location for this challenge at p ≤ .01. Larger districts 

were more likely than small districts to report that the amount of time needed to set up a choice program, the 

inability to meet the needs of special education and LEP students in alternate schools, and inadequate information

for parents about the status of their child’s school as identified for improvement under Title I was a serous challenge 

to implementing Title I choice. Smaller districts were more likely than larger districts to report that the lack of

transportation to alternate schools was a serious challenge to implementing Title I choice. Urban and suburban 

districts were more likely than rural districts to report that the amount of time needed to set up a choice program and 

the inability to meet the needs of LEP students in alternate schools presented a challenge to implementing Title I 

choice, whereas rural districts were more likely to report that lack of transportation to alternate schools was an

implementation challenge. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

 B-7 
Exhibit B-7 

Exhibit 20 in the Report 

Number of

states in 

2003-04 

Number of

states in 

2002-03 

Standards and processes for monitoring the quality of providers 38 22 

Analysis of achievement data from participating students, measure 

unspecified 5 

Evidence of student progress toward proficiency on state 

assessments

 7 

Evidence of growth on achievement measures used by providers 7 

Participation measures (e.g., number of students served, attendance 

rates, number of students dropping out, number of tutoring sessions) 5 

Parent satisfaction survey (survey results or other forms of feedback) 6 

School and/or district satisfaction (survey results or other forms of 

feedback) 5 

State monitoring to ensure that providers are conforming to 

assurances and eligibility criteria in their applications

 4 

Districts have primary responsibility for monitoring quality and 

reporting to the state 7 

Standards and processes for withdrawing approval from providers 25 20 

Failure to comply with the terms of service contracts or failure to 

comply with the assurances in provider application (some states also 

require providers to reapply for approval each year) 

13 

Failure for two consecutive years to contribute increased academic

proficiency for students receiving services

12 

Results of district evaluation reports, district reports on student 

progress, or district feedback 8 

Parent complaints or poor results from parent satisfaction surveys will 

trigger an investigation by the state and possible withdrawal 6 

Majority of students (50 to 90 percent) make academic progress, as 

measured by supplemental services provider assessments 3 

Analysis of state assessment results for students receiving services 2 

Outside evaluation 1 

Exhibit reads: Five states reported that they used analyses of achievement data on an unspecified measure to 

monitor the quality of the services offered by supplemental services provider. 

Notes: In 2003-04, for 29 out of 38 states that reported having standards and processes for monitoring provider 

quality the criteria used were available, nine states had no standards or processes in place and in 11 states the 

respondent did not know the information. In 2003-04, 25 states had criteria for withdrawing approval from

providers, 19 states did not and in five states the respondent did not know the information. In 2002-03, 22 states 

had established monitoring standards and 20 states reported being in the process of developing monitoring

standards. In 2002-03, 20 states had standards for withdrawing approval from providers and 23 states reported

being in the process of developing criteria. Two states had no schools required to provide supplemental services in

2002-03 and 2003-04. 

Source: TASSIE state survey. 

 B-8 
Exhibit B-8 

Exhibit 23 in the Report (2003-04) 

Type of challenge Great extent 

Moderate 

extent 

Not at all or 

small extent 

Lack of providers in the area*+ 30 31 39

Lack of approved providers offering services to meet 

the needs of specific student populations

17 23 60

Approved providers did not offer high-quality 

services*

+ 16 17 67

Providers have not yet established a reputation with 

parents* 11 28 61

Competition from existing after-school programs 10 26 64 

An amount equal to 20% of the district’s Title I 

allocation is not adequate to meet all requests for 

services or provide transportation for choice 

8 3 89

Difficulty negotiating contracts with service 

providers*+ 6 19 75

Inadequate time for parents to learn about 

supplemental services 3 10 87

Inadequate information for parents about

supplemental services*+ 1 6 93

State did not provide a list of supplemental services 

providers who operate in the area+ 1 2 97

Exhibit reads: Among districts that had identified schools and offered supplemental services in 2003-04, 30 percent

responded that lack of providers in the area was a challenge to a great extent in implementing school choice, 31

percent to a moderate extent, and 39 percent to a small extent or not at all. 

Notes: * indicates statistically significant difference by district size in the extent to which a challenge existed

(between p < .05 and p < .0001); +

 indicates statistically significant difference by district location (between p < .05 

and p < .01) for this challenge. Small and medium districts were more likely than larger districts to report that lack 

of providers in the area presented a serious challenge to implementing supplemental services. Larger districts were

more likely than smaller districts to report that approved providers did not offer high-quality services, providers had

not yet established a reputation with parents, difficulty negotiating contracts with service providers, and inadequate 

information for parents about supplemental services were implementation challenges. Rural districts were more 

likely than urban and suburban districts to report that lack of providers in the area and inadequate information to 

parents about supplemental services was a serious challenge to implementing supplemental services. Urban and

suburban districts were more likely than rural districts to report that approved providers did not offer high-quality 

services, and difficulty negotiating contracts with service providers were a serious implementation challenge. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

 B-9 
Exhibit B-9 

Exhibit 30 in the Report (2003-04) 

82

82

93

31

41

48

72

95

83

100

40

53

60

79

82

89

27

35

41

68

76

0 20 40 60 80 100

Using student achievement data to inform school

improvement efforts*

Aligning curriculum to standards and

assessments

Adoption of a new reading/language arts

curriculum in the last three years

Adoption of a new mathematics curriculum in the

last three years

Using a school reform model

Having a written school plan*

Teacher collaboration

All Identified Not Identified Percentage of Title I schools

%

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, 82 percent of all Title I schools identified for improvement in

2001-02 engaged in teacher collaboration, compared with 82 percent of Title I schools no 

longer identified and 83 percent of continuously identified schools. 

Note: * indicates differences were statistically significant at p < .05. Continuously

identified schools were more likely to engage in improvement strategies than schools no

longer identified.

Source: TASSIE principal survey. 

 B-10 
Exhibit B-10 

Exhibit 32 in the Report 

Percent of Schools Year 3 – Year 2 Comparison

 

Source of Information 2003-04 2002-03 Difference T-statistic P-value

% 97.39 90.66 6.73

Overall student performance on state test 

SE 1.16 2.40 2.81

2.40 0.02

% 90.80 85.40 5.40 Student performance on state test, disaggregated by

grade level SE 1.95 3.57 3.56

1.52 0.13

% 70.35 67.95 2.40 Student performance on state test, disaggregated by

classroom SE 2.91 4.12 4.21

0.57 0.57

Student performance on state test, disaggregated for % 82.71 70.90 11.81

special student populations (e.g., special education, 

LEP, and migrant students) SE 3.30 4.53 5.59

2.11 0.04

Student performance on state test, disaggregated by % 76.85 64.95 11.90

student demographic characteristics (e.g., poverty, 

race/ethnicity, and gender) SE 3.81 4.66 5.43

2.19 0.03

% 69.65 68.25 1.40

Subtest or item-cluster scores on state test 

SE 3.39 3.36 3.66

0.38 0.70

% 60.93 59.29 1.64

Item-by-item review of state test results 

SE 3.33 4.22 3.91

0.42 0.68

% 79.89 75.95 3.94

School reports showing trends over multiple years

SE 2.66 2.82 2.57

1.53 0.13

% 81.25 69.87 11.38

Student performance on district assessments 

SE 2.87 3.48 3.98

2.86 0.01

Student performance on school-level assessments % 80.93 73.64 7.29

(e.g., common writing prompts, math tasks, or reading 

assessments) SE 2.51 3.39 3.75

1.94 0.06

% 45.56 35.69 9.86

Inventories of instructional practices 

SE 3.30 4.59 4.62

2.13 0.04

Weighted N 6,805 7,013 

Unweighted N 523 546 

Exhibit reads: Among schools that had a written school plan, there is a statistically significant difference between 

2003-04 and 2002-03 in the percentage that used overall student performance on the state test to inform the school

planning process: 97.39 percent in 2003-04 and 90.66 percent in 2002-03. 

Note: SE = standard error.

Source: Year 2 Principal Survey Item P26; Year 3 Principal Survey Item P18. 

 B-11 
Exhibit B-11 

Exhibit 46 in the Report (2003-04) 

49

69

66

77

72

85

50

73

74

50

0

55

52

49

58

79

65

73

58

63

36

0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Observing/evaluating teacher performance

Curriculum mapping/alignment

Implementation of the school improvement plan

Improving instruction for specific student subgroups

Developing a school improvement plan

Identifying research-based interventions

Administering/analyzing diagnostic assessments

Mathematics instruction

Providing teacher professional development (e.g., coaching,

workshops)

Analyzing and interpreting student achievement data

Reading/language arts instruction

Distinguished teachers and other consultants

School support teams

Percentage of districts with identified schools and 

school support teams/distinguished teachers

Exhibit reads: Nearly all districts (97 percent) reported that school-based coaches and instructional facilitators 

focused on improving reading or language arts instruction as part of their work, compared with 77 percent of

districts that reported that reading or language arts instruction was a focus for school support teams and 79

percent of districts that reported it was a focus for distinguished teachers and other consultants. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

 B-12 
Exhibit B-12 

Exhibit 48 in the Report (2003-04) 

42

11

24

14

21

14

27

23

57

40

11

20

24

26

24

39

40

57

21

33

41

33

37

44

50

53

69

13

44

50

51

58

63

64

65

89

0 20 40 60 80 1

Low-intensity assistance

provided by the district

Extensive range of

assistance with curriculum

alignment

High-intensity assistance

provided by the district

Extensive range of

assistance with professional

development

Additional teachers to lower

class size

District-sponsored school

support teams

Special supervision or lines

of reporting for principals

Extensive range of

assistance with planning and

data use

School-based staff

developers

Percentage of districts

00

Small Medium Large Very large

%

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, 89 percent of very large districts provided identified Title I schools with school-based staff 

developers, compared with 69 percent of large districts, 57 percent of medium-size districts, and 57 percent of small

districts. 

Notes: All differences shown were statistically significant at p < .05. See Appendix A for a description of the indices

shown in this table (e.g., “extensive range of assistance with planning and data use,” “high-intensity assistance”). 

Very large districts were more likely to provide assistance of all types compared with small districts. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

 B-13 
Exhibit B-13 

Exhibit 51 in the Report (2003-04) 

76

76

60

49

30

38

24

18

8

5

14

5

98

93

87

72

62

51

46

35

32

25

23

19

0 20 40 60 80 100

State-sponsored school support teams

District-sponsored school support teams

State-sponsored other consultants

Required adoption of a school reform model

Additional teachers to lower class size

Required adoption of new mathematics curricula or

instructional programs

Required adoptions of new reading/language arts curricula

or instructional programs

Assigned school-based staff developers

Analyzed and revised the school's budget so that school

resources would be effectively allocated

Required Title I schools to spend at least 10 percent of their

Title I allocation on professional development

Monitored progress throughout the year toward goals

established in the school improvement plan

Wrote or revised the school's improvement plan

Percentage of districts

Districts with identified Title I schools

Districts with schools that missed AYP, but no history of identified schools

%

Exhibit reads: In 2003-04, 98 percent of districts with identified schools reported that they helped those schools write

or revise their school improvement plan, compared with 76 percent of districts with schools that had missed AYP but

were not yet identified for improvement. 

Note: All differences shown were statistically significant at p < .05. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

 B-14 
Exhibit B-14 

Exhibits 55 and 56 in the Report (2003-04) 

1

1

1

4

9

5

22

10

21

28

55

36

2

5

12

12

13

28

34

55

<1

<1

<1

58

0 20 40 60 80 100

Reopening school as public charter school

Contract with private management company to operate the

school

State takeover

Replacing all or most school staff

Developing plans for alternative governance arrangements

for the school

Replacing school staff relevant to failure to make AYP

Significantly decreasing management authority at the school

Reassigning or demoting the principal

Restructuring internal organization of the school

Extending school day or year

Requiring the implementation of new research-based

curriculum

Appointing outside expert to advise the school

Percentage of districts

Districts with schools in corrective action

Districts with schools in restructuring

Exhibit reads: Among districts with schools in corrective action in 2003-04, 58 percent appointed an outside 

expert to advise schools in corrective action, and among districts with schools in restructuring in 2003-04, 36

percent did so with schools in restructuring. 

Source: TASSIE district survey. 

 B-15 
Exhibit B-15 

Exhibit 60 in the Report (2003-04) 

2

3

0

0

1

24

4

33

0

0

0

36

1

12

20

22

25

43

46

<1

8

54

<1

79

18

27

16

7

5

<1

8

8

76

0 20 40 60 8

State takeover

Contracting with private

management company to

operate the school

Planning for alternative

governance arrangement for

the school

Reopening school as public

charter school

Replacing all or most school

staff

Significantly decreasing

management authority at the

school

Replacing school staff

relevant to failure to make

AYP

Extending school day or year

Restructuring internal

organization of the school

Appointing outside expert to

advise the school

Requiring the implementation

of new research-based

curriculum

Percent of schools

0

Schools Identified for 4 or more years as of 2003-04

Schools identified for 3 years as of 2003-04

Schools identified for 1 to 2 years as of 2003-04

Exhibit reads: Among Title I schools that were identified for four or more years in 2003-04, 76 percent of 

principals responded that the state or district had required the implementation of a new research-based curriculum;

79 percent of principals in schools identified for three years and 54 percent of principals in schools identified for 

one to two years gave the same response. 

Source: TASSIE principal survey. 

 B-16