U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Evaluation of Title I Accountability

Systems and School Improvement Efforts:

Findings From 2002-03
Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and

School Improvement Efforts:

Findings From 2002-03

Prepared by:

Christine Padilla

Katrina Woodworth

Andrea Lash

Patrick M. Shields

SRI International

Katrina G. Laguarda

Policy Studies Associates

For:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

2005
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

David Goodwin

Director

November 2005

This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the front cover, which is used with permission and

copyright, 2005, Getty Images. Authorization to reproduce this report 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, Evaluation of Title I

Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts: Findings From 2002-03, Washington, D.C., 2005.

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/tassie2 and

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

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

diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-9895 or

(202) 205-8113.
iii

Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................................. ix

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

Background: Accountability Provisions of Title I ............................................................... 2

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

Overview of the Report ...................................................................................................... 6

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

II. School Improvement and District Assistance in Identified Schools ....................................13

State and District Systems of School Support ....................................................................13

Focus of District Assistance and School Improvement Efforts............................................19

School Planning and Use of Data .................................................................................21

Curriculum Alignment .................................................................................................24

New Curricula and School Reform Models ..................................................................25

Professional Development ...........................................................................................28

District and School Capacity to Support Improvement ......................................................31

District Strategies for Targeting Assistance and Support ...................................................35

Public Reporting ...............................................................................................................38

III. Public School Choice and Supplemental Services Under Title I.........................................43

Public School Choice Under Title I....................................................................................44

Supplemental Educational Services ...................................................................................53

State Actions ...............................................................................................................53

District Actions and Student Participation ....................................................................57

Communication With Parents ............................................................................................63

IV. Corrective Actions............................................................................................................69

Corrective Actions ............................................................................................................69

Change Over Time ............................................................................................................73

V. Conclusions........................................................................................................................77

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

Appendix: Method Notes ..................................................................................................... A-1
iv

Exhibits

Executive Summary

Exhibit S1 Title I Schools Identified for Improvement and All Title I Schools

in 2002-03, by District Size, Location and Poverty Distributions ...................... xi

Exhibit S2 Distribution of Identified Title I Schools Across All Districts

and Districts With Identified Title I Schools .................................................... xii

Exhibit S3 School Reports of On-Site Assistance, Among Title I Schools

That Continued to Be Identified for Improvement........................................... xiii

Exhibit S4 Assistance Provided by the District to Identified Schools,

by District Size ............................................................................................... xiv

Exhibit S5 Percent of Districts That Placed a Major Focus on Strategies

for Improving Low-Performing Schools, Among Districts

With Identified Schools ....................................................................................xv

Exhibit S6 Of Continuously Identified Schools Engaged in Different

Improvement Activities, Percent That Emphasized Professional

Development or Received a Minimum Level of Related

District Assistance ......................................................................................... xvii

Exhibit S7 Participation in Title I Choice and Supplemental Services

in 2002-03, Among Districts With Identified Title I Schools......................... xviii

Exhibit S8 School Choice Options Available to Parents of Children Enrolled in

Identified Title I Schools, Among Districts That Provided Choice .................. xix

Exhibit S9 Challenges Faced by Districts That Implemented Supplemental

Services, Among Districts That Provided Services.......................................... xxi

Introduction

Exhibit 1 Summary of Key NCLB Accountability Requirements ..................................... 3

Exhibit 2 Title I Schools Identified for Improvement and All Title I Schools

in 2002-03, by District Size, Location and Poverty Distributions ....................... 8

Exhibit 3 Distribution of Identified Schools Across All Districts and

Districts With Identified Title I Schools in 2002-03 .......................................... 9

Exhibit 4 Demographic Characteristics of Districts With and Without

Identified Title I Schools in 2002-03 ................................................................10

School Improvement and District Assistance in Identified Schools

Exhibit 5 State Reports of Assistance Provided to Identified Schools ..............................14

Exhibit 6 Washington’s Focused Assistance Program .....................................................16
v

Exhibit 7 District Reports of Assistance Provided to Identified Schools,

Among Districts With Identified Schools .........................................................17

Exhibit 8 School Reports of On-site Assistance, Among Schools

That Continued to Be Identified for Improvement ............................................18

Exhibit 9 Percent of Districts Placing a Major Focus on Strategies for

Improving Low-Performing Schools, Among Districts

With Identified Schools ...................................................................................20

Exhibit 10 School Improvement Strategies, Among Schools

That Continued to Be Identified for Improvement ............................................21

Exhibit 11 School Uses of Data .........................................................................................23

Exhibit 12 Challenges of Curriculum Alignment ...............................................................25

Exhibit 13 Of Continuously Identified Schools Engaged in Different

Improvement Activities, Percent That Emphasized Related

Professional Development or Received a Minimum Level of

Related District Assistance ...............................................................................27

Exhibit 14 Program Proliferation .......................................................................................28

Exhibit 15 District Reports of Types of Professional Development Provided

to Identified Schools, Among Districts With Identified Schools .......................29

Exhibit 16 Examples of Additional School-Based Staff to Support

School Improvement ........................................................................................31

Exhibit 17 Assistance Provided by the District to Identified Schools,

by District Size ................................................................................................32

Exhibit 18 District Support to Identified Schools, Other Low-Performing

Schools, and Higher-Performing Schools, Among Districts

That Had All Three Types of Schools ..............................................................37

Exhibit 19 Whether Districts Disaggregated Student Assessment Data on

School Report Cards, Among Districts With School Report Cards

and a Subgroup Enrollment of 10 Percent or More ...........................................40

Public School Choice and Supplemental Services Under Title I

Exhibit 20 Participation in Title I Choice and Supplemental Services

in 2002-03, Among Districts With Identified Schools.......................................44

Exhibit 21 Districts That Offered Choice and Students That Exercised

Choice in 2001-02 and 2002-03 .......................................................................45

Exhibit 22 School Choice Options Available to Parents of Children Enrolled

in Identified Schools, Among Districts That Offered Choice ............................46
vi

Exhibit 23 Distribution of Districts That Offered the Title I School Choice

Option by Number of Participating Students, Among Districts

With Identified Schools in 2002-03...................................................................47

Exhibit 24 Average Number of Students Eligible to Exercise Choice, Among

Districts With Identified Schools and That Offered Title I Choice ....................48

Exhibit 25 Number of Alternate Schools Available to Parents With Students in

Identified Title I Schools, Among Districts That Offered Choice ......................50

Exhibit 26 School Choice in Districts With Few Alternate Schools ...................................50

Exhibit 27 Challenges Faced by Districts That Implemented School Choice,

Among Districts That Offered Choice...............................................................52

Exhibit 28 Supplemental Service Providers in April 2003 ..................................................55

Exhibit 29 State Criteria for Approving and Monitoring Supplemental

Services Providers ...........................................................................................57

Exhibit 30 Districts That Offered Title I Supplemental Services, Among

Districts Required to Offer Services..................................................................58

Exhibit 31 Students in Identified Schools Eligible for and Receiving

Supplemental Services, Among Districts That Reported Having

Identified Schools and Provided Services..........................................................59

Exhibit 32 Distribution of Continuously Identified Schools That Offered

Supplemental Services by Number of Participating Students.............................60

Exhibit 33 Challenges Faced by Districts That Implemented Supplemental

Services, Among Districts That Provided Services ...........................................63

Exhibit 34 Timing of Notification to Parents of Students in Identified Title I

Schools About Eligibility for School Choice, Among Districts

That Offered Choice .........................................................................................64

Exhibit 35 Methods Used by Districts to Communicate School Choice and

Supplemental Services Options to Parents, Among Districts

With Identified Schools and That Offered Title I Choice and

Supplemental Services......................................................................................65

Exhibit 36 Examples of Parent Information on Public School Choice.................................66

Corrective Actions

Exhibit 37 District Actions Taken With Schools Identified for Improvement

in 2002-03, by Number of Years of Identification ............................................71

Exhibit 38 Corrective Actions Taken With Identified Title I Schools ................................72

Exhibit 39 Example of Identified Schools Required to Implement New

Instructional Approach .....................................................................................73
vii

Exhibit 40 District Actions Taken in 2001-02 and 2002-03 With Schools

Identified for Improvement, Among Districts That Had Identified

Schools in Both Years ......................................................................................74

Exhibit 41 District Actions Taken in 2001-02 and 2002-03 With Schools

Identified for Improvement for Three or More Years, Among

Districts That Had Identified Schools in Both Years ........................................75

ix

Executive Summary

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) aims to strengthen state Title I accountability

systems to spur the improvement needed to reach the law’s goals: that all students will reach

proficiency by 2013-14. NCLB requires states and districts to report and act on student test

results in a host of new ways. Among the many actions states and districts must take under

NCLB’s accountability system are identifying schools that repeatedly do not make progress,

providing assistance to schools that need to improve, and offering more choices to parents.

To understand how states, districts, and schools are implementing these accountability

provisions, the U.S. Department of Education commissioned the Evaluation of Title I

Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE) beginning with the 2001-02

school year as a baseline year and continuing for two more years. The study has gathered data

from educators in schools, district offices, and state education agencies through surveys and

interviews and from parents through focus groups. This report covers the 2002-03 school year,

and focuses on how the following key aspects of Title I accountability provisions in NCLB were

carried out during the first year NCLB was in effect: the assistance and interventions provided to

Title I schools identified for improvement, the steps these schools are taking to improve, and

public school choice and supplemental services offered to students in these schools.

States were not required to have everything in place during 2002-03, but they were

expected to implement many key accountability provisions and meet certain benchmarks for

others. Findings from 2001-02 suggested that states, districts, and schools were well positioned

to meet the requirements of NCLB but would need to make substantial changes to fully meet the

challenges of the new law. Findings from 2002-03 show that states and districts were making

progress in implementing accountability systems under NCLB, but 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.

Context for the 2002-03 School Year

The consequences outlined in NCLB for identified schools and districts were to be applied

during the law’s first full year, the 2002-03 school year, making identified schools and districts

in 2002-03 the first to be subject to NLCB accountability requirements. Because states were

developing adequate yearly progress (AYP) definitions following NCLB criteria during 2002-03,

these definitions were not applied to identify schools and districts in that year. Instead, NCLB

laid out transition rules for 2002-03: schools and districts were to be identified based on their

improvement status as of Jan. 7, 2002—the day before NCLB was enacted. For example, a

school in its first year of improvement as of Jan. 7, 2002, was to be identified as a school in its

first year of improvement under NCLB. Similarly, a school in its second year of improvement

as of Jan. 7, 2002, was to be identified as a school in its second year of improvement under

NCLB. The exception to these transition rules was that a school in improvement on Jan. 7 that

had made one year of AYP in 2000-01 and could exit improvement status if it also made AYP

based on its 2001-02 assessment results. States were also permitted to identify schools for
x

improvement in 2002-03 that had missed AYP for the first time based on their 2000-01

assessment results (and thus were not identified for improvement as of Jan. 7, 2002) and also

missed AYP based on their 2001-02 assessment results. Similar transition rules applied to

districts.

Despite the transition rules, case study data indicate that other issues contributed to the

challenge of achieving widespread understanding of which schools were identified in 2002-03,

such as changes in some state assessments, the presence in some states of parallel state

accountability systems that use criteria different from AYP, anticipated changes to state

definitions of AYP under NCLB, and ongoing confusion at the local level about school

identification status. For example, in 30 percent of the study’s Title I schools identified for

improvement in 2001-02 that continued to be identified in 2002-03, the principal was not aware

of the school’s status.

Because of transitional policies that applied for only 2002-03 and new definitions of AYP

under NCLB to be implemented in 2003-04, inferences about trends in numbers of schools and

districts identified for improvement should be made with caution. In addition, because the

incentives underlying NCLB cannot be expected to have their full effect if schools and districts

do not know which schools are identified for improvement, in light of evidence of some

confusion at the local level about which schools were identified, data from 2002-03 should be

considered only a first glimpse into the influence of NCLB. The report for the final year of this

study, 2003-04, will show how implementation of NCLB is changing during its first few years.

Title I Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement

Under NCLB, schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive years must be “identified

for improvement.” The same rule applies to districts.

In 2002-03, 6,000 schools were identified for improvement under Title I, representing

13 percent of all Title I schools nationwide. About 9,000 schools were identified in 2001-02.

Less than half (46 percent) of the Title I schools that had been identified for improvement in

2001-02 continued to be identified in 2002-03. Schools that remained in improvement status did

not differ on factors such as district and school size and poverty level, and school level

(elementary, middle or high school) from schools that were no longer identified. About onethird (approximately 2,000) of the identified schools in 2002-03 were newly identified.

A similar pattern held for districts identified for improvement. In 2002-03, eight states

reported they had identified any of their districts for improvement, and the number of districts

identified for improvement decreased from 15 percent in 2001-02 to 5 percent in 2002-03.

Of roughly 11,200 districts nationwide with Title I schools, 16 percent (around 1,900)

had at least one identified Title I school in 2002-03 compared with 26 percent (around

2,900) in 2001-02—a decline of 10 percent.1 Of the Title I schools identified in 2002-03, a

 1 The district sample is a nationally representative sample of all districts receiving Title I funds. Percentages can

vary from estimated numbers due to rounding of estimates. These estimates are based on data from the TASSIE

Eligibility Dataset and vary slightly from estimates derived from respondents to the district survey due to

rounding (see page xviii).
xi

higher percentage were located in urban and high-poverty districts than in rural and lowerpoverty districts (see Exhibit S1), but almost half (47 percent) were still located in districts with

enrollments under 10,449 students (52 percent in 2001-02).

Exhibit S1

Title I Schools Identified for Improvement and All Title I Schools in 2002-03,

by District Size, Location and Poverty Distributions

Number of

Title I schools

identified for

improvement

Percent of all

Title I identified

schools

Percent of all

Title I schools

Percent of

schools

identified within

categories

District size, by student

enrollment

Small (200 to 3,503) 1,738 29 40 9

Medium (3,504 to 10, 448) 883 15 24 8

Large (10, 449 to 37,740) 1,246 21 17 15

Very large (>37, 740) 2,135 36 19 24

Total 6,002 100 100 13

Location

Rural 1,766 29 42 9

Suburban 1,416 24 32 9

Urban 2,820 47 25 23

Total 6,002 100 100 13

District poverty, by percent of

children living in poverty

Lowest poverty (<11 percent) 701 12 23 6

Middle poverty (11 to 22 percent) 1,682 28 36 10

Highest poverty (>22 percent) 3,618 60 41 18

Total 6,002 100 100 13

Exhibit reads: An estimated 1,738 Title I schools in small districts were identified for improvement in 2002-03,

which represent 29 percent of all identified Title I schools in the nation. Small districts contained an estimated

19,188 Title I schools overall, or 40 percent of all Title I schools. In small districts, an estimated 9 percent of

Title I schools (i.e., 1,738 divided by 19,188) had been identified for improvement.

Most districts with identified Title I schools had very few identified schools overall.

Across all districts with identified Title I schools, the majority (57 percent) had only one school

identified and tended to be small districts with few schools (see Exhibit S2). In terms of

proportions, 39 percent of districts with identified schools had less than a quarter of their schools

identified for improvement and 12 percent had over three-quarters of their schools identified.

Smaller districts were more likely than others to have high proportions of identified schools

because their total number of schools is small.
xii

Exhibit S2

Distribution of Identified Title I Schools Across All Districts

and Districts With Identified Title I Schools

Number of schools

identified for improvement Percent of all districts

Percent of districts

with identified schools

0 84 NA

1 10 57

2 3 15

3-4 2 13

5-12 2 10

13+ <1 2

Exhibit reads: Eighty-four percent of all districts had no Title I schools identified for

improvement in 2002-03. Fifty-seven percent of districts with identified schools had only

one identified school.

School Improvement and District Assistance in Identified Schools

NCLB requires states and districts to have systems of support in place for Title I schools

identified for improvement. States must establish statewide systems of school support and

districts must provide ongoing technical assistance to schools as they 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.

Although most states and districts provided school support teams or distinguished

educators to identified schools in 2002-03, a third of states had not done so, and many

identified schools reported that they had not received either of these forms of assistance.2

Twenty-eight states organized school support teams, distinguished educators, or both to provide

assistance to identified schools. Similarly, nearly two-thirds (61 percent) of districts provided

support teams, principal coaches or mentors, or distinguished educators to identified schools.

This assistance ranged from occasional visits to full-time presence in the school.3

However, nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of principals of schools that continued to be

identified in 2002-03 reported that their schools had not received help from a school support

team, a principal coach or mentor, or a distinguished teacher (see Exhibit S3). The proportion of

schools receiving at least one of these forms of assistance had not improved since the year

before. In fact, assistance from school support teams was received by fewer schools in 2002-03

 2 Identified schools in this section refer to the sample of Title I schools that were identified for improvement in both

2001-02 and 2002-03. In 2001-02, the sample of identified schools was nationally representative. In 2002-03, the

sample is the subset that were continuously identified in both years. 3 Descriptive statements without reference to statistics are based on case studies of 20 schools and their 15 districts.

These data were used to enhance understanding of survey results.
xiii

(28 percent) than the previous year (46 percent). This drop is surprising, since these schools had

been identified for one additional year, and therefore should have been in even greater need of

assistance.

Exhibit S3

School Reports of On-site Assistance, Among

Title I Schools That Continued to Be Identified for Improvement

Percent of identified schools reporting

that they received assistance

School support team 25

Principal mentor or coach 20

Distinguished teacher 13

Any of these forms of assistance (i.e., school support

team, principal mentor, or distinguished teacher) 38

Exhibit reads: Twenty-five percent of all Title I schools that continued to be identified for improvement in 2002-03

reported that they received help from a school support team.

Even when continuously identified schools were located in districts or states that provided

some form of on-site assistance, the proportion reporting that they received that assistance was

still low. Among schools in districts that fielded school support teams, only a third reported that

they received assistance from a team. Similarly, only a third of the continuously identified

schools located in states that fielded support teams reported that they received assistance from a

team. Although 91 percent of schools that continued to be identified for improvement in 2002-

03 were located in districts or in states that reported offering some type of on-site assistance to

identified schools (either school support teams, distinguished teachers, or other types of

assistance), the evidence suggests that these forms of on-site assistance were not available to

every school.

Finally, 9 percent of schools that continued to be identified in 2002-03 were located in

districts where neither the state nor the district offered school support teams, distinguished

teachers, or principal mentors.

Not all districts and schools had the organizational capacity in place—including

staffing, time, and materials—that would enable them to provide and take advantage of

assistance; this was particularly true for small and rural districts. Small and rural

districts—which served roughly a third of all identified schools in 2002-03—had limited staff

and resources to provide assistance to identified schools. Only half (49 percent) of rural districts

provided school support teams, distinguished teachers, principal mentors, or some combination

of the three, to their identified schools, compared with three-quarters of urban districts (75

percent). In contrast, large and urban districts were more likely to provide assistance of various

kinds. For example, only one-fifth (21 percent) of small districts provided additional full-time

staff to support teacher development in identified schools whereas two-thirds (64 percent) of

very large districts provided such assistance (see Exhibit S4).
xiv

Exhibit S4

Assistance Provided by the District to Identified Schools, by District Size

43

6

18

50

33

21

57

25

33

74

52

47

67

27

45

75

53

45

77

24

63

86

66 64

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

School support team Distinguished teacher Principal mentor or

coach 

Any of these forms of

assistance (i.e.,

school support team,

distinguished teacher,

or principal mentor)

More than one FTE

staff member per

identified school

employed by the

district to provide

assistance

Additional full-time

school-based staff to

support teacher

development District size

Percent of districts with identified schools

Small Medium Large Very Large

Exhibit Reads: Among districts with identified schools, 43 percent of small districts, 57 percent of medium

sized districts, 67 percent of large districts, and 77 percent of very large districts provided school support teams

to identified schools in 2002-03.

Schools also need a minimal organizational structure in place—including adequate

staffing—to be able to benefit from assistance that is provided. In case study districts, identified

schools with minimal instructional leadership, limited resources, and high concentrations of poor

children struggled to benefit from district assistance.

School improvement efforts and district assistance focused predominantly on

increasing the use of achievement data, matching curriculum and instruction with standards

and assessments, and undertaking school planning. In their efforts to improve low-performing

schools, 86 percent of districts with identified schools reported placing a major focus on aligning

curriculum and instruction with standards and assessments and 77 percent reported a major focus

on increasing the use of student achievement data to inform instruction and school improvement

(see Exhibit S5).
xv

Exhibit S5

Percent of Districts That Placed a Major Focus on Strategies for Improving

Low-Performing Schools, Among Districts With Identified Schools

86

77

63 61

37

28

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Curriculum

alignment

Use of data School planning

process

Professional

development

New curriculum or

instructional

program

School reform

model

School improvement strategy

Percent of districts

Exhibit reads: Among districts with identified schools, 86 percent reported that matching curriculum and

instruction with standards, assessments, or both is a major focus of district resources for low-performing

schools.

The percentage of continuously identified schools citing the use of student achievement

data as a major focus area for school improvement increased from 75 percent in 2001-02 to 86

percent in 2002-03. However, school uses of achievement data focused more on schoolwide

planning and less on instructional decisions about students. In the case study districts, whether

or not schools used data for instructional decisions about students was related to the availability

of diagnostic data and assistance in determining its implications for instruction. Even uses of

data in planning were limited; for example, although almost all (93 percent) continuously

identified schools developed school plans, only about half (53 percent) monitored progress

toward the plan’s goals at least quarterly.

Curriculum alignment with standards and assessments was reported by districts as a major

focus of school improvement; however, integrating new curricula with existing practices was not

a focus of district or school improvement efforts. Almost one-third (32 percent) of continuously

identified schools adopted new curricula in both language arts and math in the last three years

(i.e., between 2000-01 and 2002-03). In case study districts, schools layered new
xvi

programs on top of existing programs, raising issues of how to cope with multiple new programs

and how best to mesh the new with the old.

Of the continuously identified schools that adopted new reading or mathematics

curricula or school reform models, most reported emphasizing related professional

development or receiving a minimum level of related district assistance; fewer reported

receiving both.4 For example, of the almost six in ten schools (58 percent) that continued to be

identified and reported adopting a new language arts program in the last three years, 85 percent

reported either emphasizing related professional development or receiving a minimum level of

related district assistance (see Exhibit S6). At the same time, less than half (43 percent) reported

receiving both. Similarly, almost three-quarters (71 percent) of schools adopting a new

mathematics curriculum (48 percent) reported either emphasizing related professional

development or receiving a minimum level of related district assistance while 11 percent reported

receiving both.

Districts reported providing professional development to identified schools at higher

rates than schools with adopted improvement strategies reported receiving such support.

Among districts with identified schools, 95 percent reported supporting professional development

in language arts instruction in identified schools. One would expect the highest rates of

professional development for schools adopting new curricula yet only 72 percent of such schools

reported emphasizing related professional development. This represented 42 percent of all

identified schools. A similar pattern held for mathematics. Among districts with identified

schools, 80 percent reported supporting professional development in mathematics instruction in

identified schools, yet only 38 percent of continuously identified schools that had adopted a new

mathematics curriculum reported emphasizing professional development. This represented 18

percent of all continuously identified schools. These differences might be due to the amount (for

example, only one workshop) and quality of the professional development provided by districts,

and whether or not it met the needs of the teachers. If districts provided only minimal or poor

quality training, schools were unlikely to describe it as an area of emphasis. Another reason for

the difference in responses may be that districts supported professional development in some

identified schools but not in others.

Additional school staff without classroom responsibilities (e.g., staff developers,

curriculum specialists) played an important role in school improvement in the case studies. Yet

only a third (33 percent) of districts with identified schools reported that identified schools had

been assigned additional full-time staff whose specific job was to support teacher development.

Even fewer (23 percent) continuously identified schools reported that they had been assigned

such staff by their district or state.

Although districts provided a range of assistance to identified schools, they seldom targeted

assistance and interventions only to schools identified for improvement. Districts typically

provided some kinds of assistance to all of their schools, whether or not they were lowperforming or identified for improvement under Title I. For example, nearly three-quarters (71

 4 The definitions and scales underlying “emphasizing related professional development” and “receiving a minimum

level of related district assistance” are described in the appendix.
xvii

Exhibit S6

Of Continuously Identified Schools Engaged in Different Improvement Activities,

Percent That Emphasized Related Professional Development or Received

a Minimum Level of Related District Assistance

85

71

50

72

38

17

59

47

38

43

11

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

New

reading/language

arts curriculum

New mathematics

curriculum

School reform

model

School improvement activity

Of schools engaged in activity, 

percent that emphasized related 

professional development OR 

received a minimum level of 

related district assitance

Of schools engaged in activity, 

percent that emphasized related 

professional development

Of schools engaged in activity, 

percent that received a minimum 

level of related district assistance

Of schools engaged in activity, 

percent that emphasized related 

professional development AND 

received a minimum level of 

related district assistance

Percent of schools

 

Exhibit reads: Among schools that continued to be identified for improvement in 2002-03 and reported

implementing a new language arts program, 85 percent reported emphasizing related professional development

or receiving a minimum level of related district assistance; 72 percent reported emphasizing related

professional development; 59 percent reported receiving a minimum level of related district assistance; and 43

percent reported emphasizing related professional development and receiving a minimum level of related

district assistance.

Note: See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

percent) of districts helped all their schools write a school improvement plan, including those

that were higher-performing. Only a small number (13 percent) provided such assistance only to

identified schools. Similar ratios held for other types of support. In addition, almost all districts

had the same reading and mathematics curriculum requirements for all schools, whether they

were higher-performing, low-performing, or identified for improvement under Title I. This may

explain why principals of continuously identified schools cited reasons of instructional

consistency (i.e., standardized curricula), not Title I identification, for adopting new reading and

language arts curricula.

Although most districts provided the same kinds of curricula and assistance to all their

schools, some attempted to provide additional resources to their low-performing schools through

targeting external grants or more intensive assistance. However, districts rarely distinguished

between schools identified for improvement and other low-performing schools because, as

observed in case study districts, schools move in and out of identification status and were
xviii

perceived to have similar needs. This helps explain the finding that districts with lowperforming schools, none of which were identified for improvement, provided similar kinds of

support as districts with identified schools.

Public School Choice and Supplemental Services Under Title I

NCLB required districts with identified Title I schools to implement public school choice

under Title I and supplemental services as of the beginning of the 2002-03 school year. All

districts with any Title I school identified for improvement (16 percent of all Title I districts

nationwide or 1,800 school districts)5 were required to provide parents of students attending

identified Title I schools the choice to transfer their child to another public school in the district

not identified for improvement and provide transportation (see Exhibit S7). Districts with Title I

schools in their second year of improvement, corrective action or restructuring (11 percent of

Exhibit S7

Participation in Title I Choice and Supplemental Services in 2002-03,

Among Districts With Identified Schools

School choice Supplemental services

Districts:

Number required to offer option 1,800 1,100

Number where option offered 1,200 500

Percent where option offered 67% 48%

Schools:

Number where option required

Number where option offered

Percent where option offered

6,000

5,100

84%

1,300

800

58%

Students (among districts that

provided options):

Number eligible 1,535,000 592,000

Number that participated 18,000 42,000

Percent that participated 1% 7%

Exhibit reads: Among districts with identified Title I schools, an estimated 1,800 were required to offer school

choice to students enrolled in identified Title I schools and 1,100 districts were required to offer supplemental

services to low-income students in Title I schools identified for two or more years. The data presented in this

exhibit are estimates at the 95 percent confidence interval with 32 degrees of freedom and estimates have been

rounded.

Note: The number of students eligible is underestimated because not all districts that should have provided

choice and supplemental services reported providing these options and did not provide eligibility data. See

Exhibits 21, 30 and 31 for explanations regarding the limitations of these data.

 5 The 1,800 estimate was derived from respondents to the district survey which represented 16 percent of all Title I

districts when rounded. Survey analyses were based on the 1,800 districts with identified schools in 2002-03 (see

the appendix regarding statistical analyses).
xix

districts nationwide or 1,100 LEAs) were required to offer supplemental services (e.g., tutoring)

in addition to school choice. Because Title I school choice and supplemental services were new

requirements for most districts in 2002-03 (though some more limited Title I choice

requirements applied to certain schools in 1999-2000), implementation for most districts in

2002-03 represented their initial efforts to implement these requirements.

The majority of districts required to offer school choice to parents of students

attending a Title I identified school did so in 2002-03. Two-thirds (67 percent) of districts

with identified Title I schools (about 1,200 districts) offered public school choice and 62 percent

of districts with identified schools offered all non-identified schools in the district as an option to

parents of students in Title I identified schools (see Exhibit S8). Districts that provided Title I

choice included approximately 5,100 identified schools or 84 percent of the identified Title I

schools in 2002-03. Districts that did not offer public school choice (33 percent of those

required to do so) were predominantly small, rural, and poor.

Exhibit S8

School Choice Options Available to Parents of Children Enrolled in

Identified Title I Schools, Among Districts That Provided Choice

School choice options provided Percent of districts

with identified schools

All other schools in the district at the appropriate grade

level that are not identified for improvement under Title I 62

A subset of schools that have been paired with the sending

school 19

All other schools within a certain geographic zone 15

Public schools outside the district 5

Other 8

Exhibit reads: Among all districts with identified schools that offered Title I choice, 62 percent

offered all other schools in the districts at the appropriate grade level that were not identified for

improvement as a choice option.

In 2002-03, few parents exercised their option to transfer to a non-identified school.

In the 67 percent of districts that offered choice under Title I, there were an estimated 1.5 million

students eligible to exercise choice because they attended an identified Title I school. About 2

percent (28,000 students) requested a transfer to a non-identified school and about 1 percent

(18,000 students) then transferred to another school. Over three-quarters (77 percent) of districts

with identified schools that offered choice had nine or fewer students transfer out of identified

schools. Eighteen percent had between 10 and 99 students and 5 percent had 100 or more

students transfer out of identified schools.

As was true in 2001-02, districts pointed to lack of space and an inability to create

additional space as the greatest challenges to successful implementation of public school choice

in 2002-03. NCLB does not exempt districts facing these obstacles from the requirement to

offer Title I choice, although districts may take capacity into account when deciding which

schools to offer as transfer options. Small districts were more likely than others to have

responded that no alternate schools existed or that transportation was a serious problem, whereas
xx

suburban districts were more likely than others to have responded that lack of space in alternate

schools was a serious problem. Given the smaller number of middle and high schools compared

to elementary schools in a district, choices for students in the upper grades were far more limited

in all districts and essentially nonexistent in small and rural districts.

About half of the districts required to offer supplemental services in 2002-03 did so;

in those districts, few students received services. Forty-eight percent of districts (an estimated

500 LEAs) required to offer supplemental services provided these services; 62 percent of

districts required to offer supplemental services made the services available to all low-income

students because demand did not exceed funding (i.e., the amount equal to 20 percent of the

district Title I, Part A, allocation). As was true with choice, districts that did not offer

supplemental services were predominantly small, rural, and poor. Of the 592,000 eligible

students in districts that offered supplemental services in approximately 800 identified Title I

schools, roughly 7 percent (42,000 students) received services from an approved provider in

2002-03.6

Approved providers in 2002-03 represented a variety of organizations, but private

providers (e.g., not-for-profit private groups or for-profit organizations) made up the largest

percentage (70 percent), many of which were national providers. Although the numbers of

providers in states continued to increase in 2003, they did not adequately address some local

needs: providers were scarce in rural areas, some did not serve districts with small numbers of

students for financial reasons, and some did not serve students with special needs. These were

among the challenges districts faced in ensuring the provision of supplemental services in 2002-

03 (see Exhibit S9).

Parents faced challenges in understanding their options and in acting on them. Many

districts (55 percent) with identified Title I schools that provided choice missed the deadline to

notify parents of students in these schools of their public school choice option before the

beginning of the 2002-03 school year. One-fifth (21 percent) of districts with eligible students

had not communicated with parents as of spring 2003 regarding their right to receive

supplemental services because the district had not yet begun to provide those services. Delays in

identifying which schools were identified for improvement in 2002-03 and the fact that very few

states (only five) had given a list of approved providers to districts before the beginning of the

2002-03 school year contributed to the delays in notifying parents. Even when parents received

notification materials, they did not necessarily understand the information contained in the

materials and some districts did not clearly communicate the options open to them.

Nevertheless, according to focus groups with parents in identified schools, awareness of

options appeared to be only one factor that influenced parents’ choices. Few parents requested

supplemental services for reasons that included preexisting after-school programs or providers

 6 Only 55 percent of the 11 percent of districts required to offer supplemental services in 2002-03 reported that they

had students eligible to receive supplemental services and, hence, the number of students eligible for

supplemental services is underestimated (but the number of students receiving supplemental services is not since

these data are based on districts actually providing services).
xxi

Exhibit S9

Challenges Faced by Districts That Implemented Supplemental Services,

Among Districts That Provided Services

Type of challenge

Great

extent

Moderate

extent

Small

extent

Not at

all

Lack of providers in the area 48 6 6 41

Lack of an established reputation for providers

with parents 18 27 24 30

Competition from existing after-school programs 16 8 33 44

Inadequacy of an amount equal to 20% of the

district’s Title I allocation for meeting all requests

for services or providing transportation to all

students who request a transfer to alternate

schools

6 3 11 81

Inadequate time for parents to learn about

supplemental services 3 13 22 62

Inadequate information for parents about

supplemental services 1 8 20 71

Exhibit reads: Among districts required to offer and provided supplemental services in 2002-03, 48 percent

responded that a lack of providers in the area was a challenge to a great extent to implement supplemental

services, 6 percent responded that such a lack was a challenge to a moderate extent, 6 percent responded that

it was a challenge to a small extent, and 41 percent responded that it was not a challenge.

located far from the school. Similarly, the small percentage of students that requested a transfer

to a non-identified school were associated with several factors parents considered other than the

school’s identification for improvement. Parent focus groups revealed that parents were

concerned about the performance of their children rather than the school as a whole and

considered factors such as the availability of special programs and services, qualities of

individual staff members, proximity of the school, and a desire to have their children with others

from the neighborhood.

Corrective Actions

NCLB requires districts to take a set of corrective actions with schools that do not make

AYP for two years after being identified for improvement (“corrective action” schools). These

actions range from those that overlap with assistance and support (e.g., requiring a new researchbased curriculum) to those that are clearly interventions (e.g., replacing school staff).

Few districts in 2002-03 had identified schools subject to corrective actions; therefore, the

impacts of NCLB’s corrective actions were not broad. Only about 400 districts (4 percent)

nationwide reported that they had schools identified for improvement for three years or more;

most focused on assistance (i.e., requiring the implementation of a new research-based

curriculum.
xxii

Conclusions

During the first year NCLB was in effect, states, most districts, and schools took actions

consistent with NCLB requirements, but the gap between the expectations of the law and

practice remained large in 2002-03: not all NCLB reporting requirements had been implemented,

two-thirds of identified schools reported no access to certain key forms of state or district on-site

assistance, school improvement efforts were often not accompanied by related professional

development or other supports, a third of districts with identified schools did not provide public

school choice, and half of districts with schools identified for two or more years did not offer

supplemental services. States and districts with more established organizational structures for

supporting school improvement efforts and the staff to carry them out were in a better position to

implement NCLB’s requirements than those with little or no such systems in place. Yet even in

these states and districts with established structures to support school improvement, aligning

existing practices with NCLB was proving to take time. Given the complexity of the NCLB

legislation, findings based on data from the first year of implementation should be interpreted

with caution. The full report provides more detailed 2002-03 data from both the surveys and the

case studies. The next and final report based on this study, which will focus on the 2003-04

school year, will build on findings from 2002-03 to show how NCLB implementation is

changing over time.
1

I Introduction

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) aims to strengthen state Title I accountability

systems to spur the improvement needed to reach the law’s goals: that all students will reach

proficiency by 2013-14. NCLB, the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA), requires states and districts to report and act on student test results in a

host of new ways. Among the many actions states and districts must take under NCLB’s

accountability system are identifying schools that repeatedly do not make progress, providing

assistance to schools that need to improve, and offering more choices to parents.

To understand how states, districts, and schools are implementing these accountability

provisions, the U. S. Department of Education commissioned the Evaluation of Title I

Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE), beginning with 2001-02 as a

baseline year and continuing for two more years. Findings from the 2001-02 school year

suggested states, districts, and schools were well positioned to meet the requirements of NCLB

but would need to make substantial changes to fully meet the challenges of the new law. This

report covers the 2002-03 school year.

The 2002-03 school year was the first year that states and districts that received Title I

funds had to respond to the new accountability requirements in NCLB. States were not required

to have everything in place during 2002-03, but they were expected to implement many key

accountability provisions and meet certain benchmarks for others.

The consequences outlined in NCLB for identified schools and districts were to be applied

during the law’s first full year, the 2002-03 school year, making identified schools and districts

in 2002-03 the first to be subject to NLCB accountability requirements. Schools and districts,

however, were not identified based on definitions of AYP developed under NCLB. Those

definitions did not take effect until the 2003-04 school year. Rather, for 2002-03, schools and

districts maintained the improvement status they held as of Jan. 7, 2002, under the prior

authorization of ESEA. The 2002-03 data in this report thus offer only a first glimpse into the

intended influence of NCLB.

Against this backdrop, districts moved forward with notifying the public about school

performance, provided assistance to identified schools, offered school choice and supplemental

educational services to children in Title I schools identified for improvement (“identified

schools”), and applied interventions to schools that were not sufficiently improving. Similarly,

schools continued to focus on planning for and implementing improvement efforts.
2

The report focuses on the following key issues, tied to the major accountability provisions of

NCLB:

• The characteristics of schools and districts identified for improvement in 2002-03

(Chapter I).

• Support provided to identified schools, the school improvement efforts undertaken by

these schools to increase student achievement, and the ways that states and districts

communicated to parents and the public about school performance (Chapter II).

• Efforts to offer public school choice and supplemental educational services to eligible

students in identified Title I schools (Chapter III).

• Interventions for identified schools—the corrective actions and restructuring or

alternative governance arrangements imposed by districts on schools that continued not

to make adequate yearly progress in 2002-03 (Chapter IV).

Background: Accountability Provisions of Title I

NCLB frames 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 sought to address

the shortcomings and uneven implementation of accountability systems under the previous

reauthorization of Title I.

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

that will be effective in ensuring that all districts and schools make AYP, and to hold those

schools that do not do so accountable. The legislation was designed to help all students reach

proficiency in a specified time period (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 (see Exhibit 1).7 Assessment data are to be disaggregated for students by poverty

level, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency (LEP) 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. To AYP calculations based primarily on state

assessment results in language arts and mathematics, NCLB adds minimum assessment

participation rates of 95 percent, graduation rates for high schools, and at least one other stateselected 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 not

only how well students are doing in regard to meeting standards, but also the progress that

disaggregated groups are making in closing achievement gaps.

 7 NCLB does not require that science assessments be used to determine AYP.
3

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 each measure of school

performance. Participation rate targets must be at least 95 percent.

The criteria must provide for all students reaching proficiency within 12

years, and set annual measurable objectives and intermediate goals.

The baseline must be calculated following a specific formula.

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

students (all, major racial and ethnic groups, economically

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

Districts may use additional criteria to add 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

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

identified for improvement under Title I.

Identification of

schools for corrective

action

Schools that do not make AYP for four years (after two years in

improvement status) must be identified for corrective action.

Identification of

schools for

restructuring

Schools that do not make AYP for five and six years (after three and

four years in improvement status) must be identified for restructuring

(planning for restructuring for one year, then restructuring the following

year).

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.
4

Exhibit 1 (Concluded)

Summary of Key NCLB Accountability Requirements

Topics NCLB requirements

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 two years of

improvement status) must be identified for corrective action under

Title I.

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 scientifically

based research and that have proven effective in addressing the

specific instructional issues that caused the school to be identified.

• Analyze and revise the school budget to allocate 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.

Districts must offer all students in identified schools public school

choice.

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.

Districts must implement one of a series of “corrective actions” defined

in the legislation.

Consequences for

schools identified for

restructuring

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 school improvement plan.

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.
5

Schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive years are identified for improvement

and targeted for assistance and, if they continue to not make AYP, identified for increasingly

rigorous interventions designed to bring about meaningful change in instruction and

performance. In addition to providing more choices for parents of children attending identified

schools, the law mandates corrective actions and, ultimately, the fundamental restructuring of

any school that does not improve over an extended period.

NCLB accountability requirements give parents of children in schools identified for

improvement a new range of options. Parents with children in Title I schools that are identified

for improvement, or corrective action or restructuring, may transfer their children to a nonidentified school, including a public charter school, within their district. If they do so, the

district must provide transportation to eligible students, using up to an amount equal to 20

percent of the district’s Title I, Part A, allocation to pay for the transportation. If funds are not

available to provide transportation to all eligible students, the district must give priority to lowincome low-achieving students, though all students are eligible for transfer. Students from lowincome families in Title I schools that are in their second year of improvement (or corrective

action or restructuring) are also eligible to receive supplemental educational services. Students

in these schools may choose either school transfers or supplemental services. These options are

closely linked to the public reporting provisions that give parents information on which schools

in their community are reaching their goals and which are not. The choice and supplemental

services requirements of the law are intended to help enhance student achievement and provide

an incentive for schools in need of improvement to improve.

Overview of the Study

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

the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA), and includes the first two years in which states,

districts, and schools operate under NCLB. The study is designed to address how states, districts

and schools are implementing accountability provisions under Title I, the alignment between

Title I and state and district accountability systems, the assistance and incentives provided to

Title I schools to help them improve, and student achievement in schools identified for

improvement.

Data collection for the evaluation consists of five components that span the three years of

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

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

approximately 1,300 districts that receive Title I funds. Districts were stratified

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

living in poverty within each district), and geographic region.8

 8 See Exhibit 2 for definitions of size and poverty strata.
6

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

identified for improvement in 2001-02 drawn from the sampled districts. In 2002-

03 the same schools were surveyed; however, since (1) the universe of identified

schools changed and (2) this sample includes some schools that had moved out of

improvement, the sample of identified schools in the analyses are no longer nationally

representative of all identified Title I schools in the nation. However, surveying the

same schools allows for tracking changes in these schools over time.

• Case studies of 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 AYP definition, alignment of Title I and the general state

accountability systems, and the state process for identifying schools in need of

improvement. Within states, three districts were selected: a large urban district, one

suburban district, and one 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).

At each case study site, district and school employees and the parents of students in

identified schools were interviewed.

• State level interviews of state administrators and analyses of state accountability

systems components. Key respondents include state Title I directors and

accountability staff.

The reader should be aware that throughout the report, school survey findings are generally

based on the sample of Title I schools that continued to be identified for school improvement

under Title I in 2002-03 (weighted N = 3,515, unweighted N = 374). The report refers to these

schools as either “schools that continued to be identified” or “continuously identified schools.”

In the few instances where findings apply to a larger set of schools, references to continuing

identification are not made. Statistics are reported only when the unweighted sample was 20 or

more. Moreover, all group differences that are reported as significant are statistically significant

at p<.05. Details on the statistical tests and the standard errors of statistical estimates can be

found in the appendix.

Overview of the Report

The findings for 2002-03 are organized around three topics related to the major

accountability provisions of NCLB: (1) school improvement and the assistance provided to these

schools, (2) public school choice and supplemental services, and (3) corrective actions and

restructuring activities. Title I schools and districts become subject to these provisions when

they are identified for improvement. But the implementation of these NCLB accountability

requirements occurred within a broader accountability landscape that influences which schools

are identified. As a backdrop to the findings presented in Chapters II-IV, the remainder of the

Introduction describes the characteristics of schools and districts identified for improvement

under Title I in 2002-03 as a basis for understanding the nature of the schools and districts that

are the subject of this study.
7

Title I Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement

Under NCLB, schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive years must be identified

for improvement. The consequences outlined in NCLB for identified schools and districts were

to be applied during the law’s first full year, the 2002-03 school year, making identified schools

and districts in 2002-03 the first to be subject to NLCB accountability requirements. Because

states were developing AYP definitions following NCLB criteria during 2002-03, these

definitions were not applied to identify schools and districts in that year. Instead, NCLB laid out

transition rules for 2002-03: schools and districts were to be identified based on their

improvement status as of Jan. 7, 2002—the day before NCLB was enacted. For example, a

school in its first year of improvement as of Jan. 7, 2002, was to be identified as a school in its

first year of improvement under NCLB’s accountability requirements. Similarly, a school in its

second year of improvement as of Jan. 7, 2002, was to be identified as a school in its second year

of improvement under NCLB. The exception to these transition rules was a school in

improvement on Jan. 7 that had made one year of AYP in 2000-01 and could exit improvement

status if it also made AYP based on its 2001-02 assessment results. States were also permitted to

identify schools for improvement in 2002-03 that had missed AYP for the first time based on

their 2000-01 assessment results (and thus were not identified for improvement as of Jan. 7,

2002) and also missed AYP based on their 2001-02 assessment results. Similar transition rules

applied to districts. In some cases, schools were not identified for 2002-03 until after the end of

the 2002-03 school year and this study’s data collection. As a result of these factors, inferences

about trends in numbers of schools and districts identified for improvement should be made with

caution.

Despite the transition rules, case study data at the school and district levels indicated that

other issues contributed to the challenge of achieving widespread understanding of which

schools were identified in 2002-03, such as changes in some state assessments, the presence in

some states of parallel state accountability systems that use criteria different from AYP, and

anticipated changes to state AYP definitions under NCLB.

In 2002-03, 6,000 schools were identified for improvement under Title I, representing

13 percent of all Title I schools nationwide. About 9,000 schools were identified in 2001-02.9

The 6,000 identified Title I schools represent 13 percent of all Title I schools (see Exhibit 2).

The decline in the number of Title I schools identified for improvement in 2002-03 was probably

influenced by some of the factors noted above.

Slightly less than half (46 percent) of the schools that had been identified under Title I

as of 2001-02 continued to be identified in 2002-03. Fifty-one percent were no longer

identified, 2 percent no longer received Title I funds, and a few (fewer than 1 percent) had closed

 9 The first-year report for this study (ED 2004a) reported a smaller estimated number of identified schools for

2001-02. The difference between the earlier estimate and the one above is due to slight differences in the sample

and methods for estimation, with the estimate above drawing on a more complete data set than the earlier

estimate. The differences between the two estimates for 2001-02 are not statistically significant (see appendix

methods notes).
8

or reorganized. Schools that exited improvement status did not differ from those that continued

to be identified on any of the demographic variables examined: district size, school enrollment,

district poverty level, school poverty level, or school level (elementary, middle, or high school).

Among districts with identified schools, a higher percentage of identified schools were

located in urban and high-poverty districts in 2002-03. Sixteen percent of districts had at

least one identified Title I school (see Exhibit 2). Forty-seven percent of identified schools were

located in urban districts, with the remainder split between suburban and rural districts (24

Exhibit 2

Title I Schools Identified for Improvement and All Title I Schools in 2002-03,

by District Size, Location and Poverty Distributions

Estimated

number of Title I

schools

identified for

improvement

Percent of all

Title I identified

schools

Percent of all

Title I schools

Percent of

schools

identified within

categories

District size, by student

enrollment

Small (200 to 3,503) 1,738 29 40 9

Medium (3,504 to 10, 448) 883 15 24 8

Large (10, 449 to 37,740) 1,246 21 17 15

Very large (>37, 740) 2,135 36 19 24

Total 6,002 100 100 13

Location

Rural 1,766 29 42 9

Suburban 1,416 24 32 9

Urban 2,820 47 25 23

Total 6,002 100 100 13

District poverty, by percent of

children living in poverty

Lowest poverty (<11 percent) 701 12 23 6

Middle poverty (11 to 22 percent) 1,682 28 36 10

Highest poverty (>22 percent) 3,618 60 41 18

Total 6,002 100 100 13

Exhibit reads: An estimated 1,738 Title I schools in small districts were identified for improvement in 2002-03,

which represents 29 percent of all identified Title I schools in the nation. Small districts contained an estimated

19,188 Title I schools overall, or 40 percent of all Title I schools. In small districts, an estimated 9 percent of Title I

schools (i.e., 1,738 divided by 19,188) had been identified for improvement.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. The denominator for computing the percentage of schools

identified for improvement in each category (third column) is 6,002 schools (unweighted N = 3,366). The

denominator for computing the percent of all Title I schools in each category (fourth column) is 47,490 schools

(unweighted N = 17,487). The identification rate for schools was computed by dividing the number of identified

Title I schools by the number of all Title I schools in each category. See the appendix for sample sizes and

additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE Eligibility Dataset. Size and poverty designations are initial stratification variables; location was

obtained from the 2000 CCD.
9

percent and 29 percent, respectively). Identified schools were also concentrated in high-poverty

districts (60 percent). However, 44 percent of districts with identified Title I schools were still

located in small and medium districts with enrollments under 10,449 students (52 percent in

2001-02).

Fewer Title I districts had one or more schools identified for improvement under

Title I in 2002-03 than in the previous school year. In 2002-03, 16 percent of Title I districts

nationwide or an estimated 1,900 districts, had at least one identified school, as compared with

26 percent or an estimated 2,900 districts in 2001-02.10

The majority of Title I districts with schools identified for improvement had only one

school identified. Fifty-eight percent of districts with identified schools had only one Title I

school identified for improvement in 2002-03 (see Exhibit 3).

Exhibit 3

Distribution of Identified Schools Across All Districts and Districts With

Identified Title I Schools in 2002-03

Number of identified

schools in districts Percent of all districts

Percent of districts with

identified schools

0 84 Not applicable

1 10 58

2 3 15

3-4 2 13

5-12 2 10

13 or more <1 2

Exhibit reads: Eighty-four percent of districts nationwide had no Title I schools identified for

improvement in 2002-03; 16 percent therefore had identified Title I schools. Among all districts, 10

percent nationwide had only one identified school; among districts with identified Title I schools, 58

percent had just one identified school.

Note: The percent of all districts is based on an N of 11,197 districts and the percent of districts with

identified schools is based on an N of 1,824 districts. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to

rounding.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Among the districts that had at least one Title I school identified for improvement in 2002-

03, 39 percent had less than a quarter of their schools identified, 26 percent had 25 to 50 percent

of their schools identified, 23 percent had 50 to 75 percent of their schools identified, and 12

percent had over three-quarters of their schools identified. When measuring the concentration of

identified schools within districts, it should be noted that districts with small numbers of schools

 10 The first-year report for this study (ED 2004a) reported a smaller estimated percentage of identified schools for

2001-02. The difference between the earlier estimate and the one above is due to slight differences in the sample

and methods for estimation, with the estimate above drawing on a more complete data set than the earlier

estimate. The difference in the two estimates for 2001-02 are not statistically significant (see appendix methods

notes).
10

are more likely to have higher concentrations of identified schools if they have any schools at all

identified for improvement. That is, a small district that has one of its two schools identified for

improvement is in the same category as a large district in which 50 of its 100 schools are

identified (i.e., both have 50 percent of their schools identified).

Districts with identified Title I schools in 2002-03 were more likely to be poor and

urban than districts without identified schools but no different in their total enrollments.

Districts with identified schools were more likely than districts without identified Title I schools

to have a high percentage of students from low-income families (see Exhibit 4). (Forty-two

Exhibit 4

Demographic Characteristics of Districts With and Without

Identified Title I Schools in 2002-03

Districts with identified

Title I schools

Districts without

identified Title I schools

Number

Percent of

total Number

Percent of

total

District size, by student

enrollment

Small (200 to 3,503) 1,035 57 7,503 80

Medium (3,504 to 10,448) 434 24 1,507 16

Large (10,449 to 37,740) 283 16 342 4

Very large (>37,740) 72 4 54 1

Location

Urban 268 15 276 3

Suburban 590 32 2,457 26

Rural 967 53 6,672 71

District poverty, by percent of

children living in poverty

Lowest poverty (<11 percent) 345 19 3,627 39

Middle poverty (11 to 22 percent) 718 39 3,643 39

Highest poverty (>22 percent) 761 42 2,135 23

Total 1,824 100 9,405 100

Exhibit reads: The estimated number of districts nationwide with one or more identified Title I schools that

were small districts was 1,035 which represented 57 percent of all Title I districts that had an identified

Title I school in 2002-03. An estimated 7,503 districts nationwide without any identified Title I schools

were small districts which represented 80 percent of all districts that did not have an identified Title I

school.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: TASSIE Eligibility Dataset. District size and poverty designations are initial stratification

variables; location was obtained from the 2000 CCD.
11

percent of districts with identified Title I schools compared with 23 percent of districts without

identified Title I schools had a high percentage of students, greater than 22 percent, from lowincome families.) Districts with identified Title I schools were more likely than districts without

identified schools to be located in urban areas (15 percent vs. 3 percent) and less likely to be

located in rural areas (53 percent vs. 71 percent). Districts with identified Title I schools did not

differ from other districts in their total enrollment. At the same time, a high percentage of

districts with identified Title I schools are small (59 percent) and located in rural areas (52

percent).

Across the nation, few districts were identified for improvement in 2002-03. Statelevel interviews indicated that 33 states had a process for identifying districts in place, seven

states had not yet established such processes, three state respondents were unsure of the status of

Title I district identification, and data were unavailable in seven states regarding district

identification.11 Of the states with identification systems in place, only eight had identified

districts for improvement under Title I in 2002-03.

• About two-thirds (64 percent) of districts reported that their state had begun to review

the progress of districts towards achieving AYP (similar to the percentage in 2001-02);

19 percent of districts were not sure whether or not the state was doing so.

• Of districts in states reviewing district AYP, the majority (84 percent) reported that

their district had made AYP in 2002-03; 9 percent reported not making AYP; and 7

percent did not know whether or not they had done so.

The number of districts identified for improvement decreased from 2001-02 to

2002-03. Among the 64 percent of districts that reported that their state had begun to identify

districts for improvement, only 5 percent (an estimated 373 districts nationwide) reported that

they had been identified for improvement under Title I, compared with 15 percent in 2001-02.

Identification for improvement did not vary by district poverty level, but there were significant

differences by district size. While the total percentage of districts identified for improvement

was 5 percent, among very large districts 11 percent were identified, among large districts 5

percent were identified, among medium districts 3 percent were identified, and among small

districts 6 percent were identified. This is the reverse of what happened in 2001-02, when

significant differences were noted in regard to district poverty level but not district size.

For accountability systems to be effective, local educators must understand the

accountability criteria and must be aware of whether or not their schools have been

identified for improvement, and in 2002-03 educators’ and the public’s understanding of

what it meant to be identified for improvement was not always clear. A central principle

underlying the Title I accountability system is that local educators have a clear understanding of

the process used to hold schools accountable. Without such an understanding, accountability

systems cannot be expected to have an impact.

 11 Hawaii is a unique case in that the SEA is also the district, and no system was in place for the SEA to identify

itself. (The same is true of the District of Columbia, although it is not a state.)
12

In 2002-03, just over three-fourths (76 percent) of district administrators reported that they

understood all or most of the elements of the AYP definition for Title I schools. However,

principals’ reports on their schools’ improvement status were not always consistent with the

state’s or district’s categorization of the school.

• In 30 percent of the continuously identified Title I schools, principals were not aware

that their schools were identified for improvement in 2002-03. In 2001-02, 41 percent

of principals in identified Title I schools reported that they were not identified for

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

• In 19 percent of schools that were no longer identified, principals reported that the

school was still identified for improvement in 2002-03. (This was not an issue in 2001-

02 since all of the schools responding to the survey were identified for improvement.)

Case study data provided some examples of the confusion caused by pending transitions to

new AYP definitions under NCLB and assessment systems as they existed in 2002-03. For

example, Maryland allowed districts to apply local criteria to assess schools’ AYP as the state

transitioned to a new AYP formula so the definitions were not consistent across districts. In

addition, the state’s transition from one assessment to another also caused some confusion about

AYP measures. In two large districts in Maryland, most school staff in identified schools

generally knew that their school had been identified, but they were less certain about AYP

elements and how the school could exit improvement status. When asked about the school’s

performance target, one principal stated, “Who knows what it is. ... We don’t know what

measure we are going to be judged on...at some level it doesn’t really matter, we know what we

need to do.”
13

II School Improvement and District Assistance in Identified Schools

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 in need of 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, 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.

In 2002-03, schools in the study sample that continued to be identified for improvement

under Title I (“continuously identified schools”) were engaged in multiple improvement

activities, and many districts and states provided technical assistance to help these schools meet

their goals. However, during the 2002-03 school year not all states and districts had school

support systems in place, as called for under NCLB, and only a fraction of identified schools

reported receiving such assistance.

As in 2001-02, both identified schools and their districts emphasized school planning,

looked at achievement data, and matched curriculum to standards and assessments in 2002-03.

These activities are consistent with those promoted by NCLB and they lay the groundwork for

changes inside classrooms, but they do not substitute for such changes. Many schools had begun

new programs, especially in reading, but far fewer had received professional development and

support for their efforts. Improvement efforts to this point were due primarily to continuing state

and district efforts that (1) began before 2002-03, the year that NCLB went into effect, and (2)

applied to all schools or all low-performing schools, not just those formally identified for

improvement. The majority of districts were providing some form of assistance to identified

schools, but many, especially small districts, did not provide any additional assistance or

dedicate extra staff to support school improvement. 

This section elaborates on these findings regarding systems of support, looking first at

which entities provided and received support and then at the focus of assistance and

improvement under which findings on planning and data use, new curricula, and professional

development are described. The last two subsections report how districts targeted assistance and

support and the variations in assistance efforts by district characteristics.

State and District Systems of School Support

NCLB assigns responsibility to both states and districts for supporting improvement

activities in identified schools. The law requires that states develop systems of school support

that provide assistance to schools identified for improvement and schools in corrective action
14

and restructuring status. These support systems must include school support teams that work

with identified schools to design, implement, and monitor school improvement plans, as well as

with distinguished teachers and principals recruited from schools that have been especially

successful in improving student achievement. Because districts also have special responsibility

for providing assistance to identified schools under NCLB, they are another important source of

support and assistance.

Most states provided some type of assistance to their identified schools in 2002-03;

however, more than a third of the states had not organized support teams or distinguished

educators to provide assistance to identified schools as required under NCLB. Twentythree of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia reported that they were operating school

support teams, as required under NCLB (see Exhibit 5). Typically, these school support teams

assisted schools by conducting needs assessments, developing school improvement plans, and

monitoring the implementation of those plans. Nineteen of 51 states reported that they had

assigned distinguished educators to schools. Like school support teams, distinguished educators

typically assisted with the development of school plans but sometimes worked closely with

teachers on improving instruction. Twenty-eight states provided assistance to identified schools

either through school support teams, or through distinguished teachers, or through both. In more

than a third of states (19), however, these two types of assistance were not available to any

schools.

Exhibit 5

State Reports of Assistance Provided to Identified Schools

Number of states reporting

Assistance

provided

Assistance not

provided Data not available

School support team 23 24 4

Distinguished educator 19 26 6

Other types of

assistance 39 6 6

Exhibit reads: Twenty-three states reported that they assigned school support teams to at least some

identified schools. Twenty-four states reported that they did not provide this type of assistance. In four

states, these data were not available because the respondent did not know or the state did not respond to

requests for an interview. Sample includes 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Source: TASSIE state survey.

Thirty-nine states reported that they also provided other types of assistance to their

identified schools (see Exhibit 5). These other types of assistance most often included technical

assistance to identified schools, professional development, and assistance from regional

agencies. Typically this assistance was offered via phone consultation or in regional training

events, rather than in-person and on-site, as was the case with school support teams and

distinguished educators. For example, Arizona’s state department of education hosted a threeday workshop on using test score data to develop school improvement plans for school

improvement teams from across the state. Maryland offered two training sessions on closing the

achievement gap for minority students to teams from identified schools.
15

NCLB requires that, at a minimum, school support teams, distinguished educators and

other types of assistance be provided to identified schools in each state. Though most states (46)

had in place at least one of the required elements of a statewide system of support in 2002-03,

very few had all of the required elements in place. Twelve states reported that they had provided

assistance to identified schools via all three elements: school support teams, distinguished

educators, and other forms of assistance.

The fraction of identified schools receiving assistance from school support teams and

distinguished educators in 2002-03 varied across states, as did the intensity of support

provided which in part was based on the level of school need. Only 16 of the 23 states that

had school support teams reported on the number of schools served. In seven states, either the

state did not keep records of the number of schools served or the respondent did not have access

to this information. Of those states that did report on the number of schools served, 11 indicated

that school support teams reached all or nearly all of the identified schools in the state (between

75 and 100 percent). Five states reported, however, that their school support teams reached

fewer than half of identified schools. Distinguished educators appear to have reached a smaller

fraction of schools in many states. Specifically, 6 of 11 states reported that distinguished

educators reached fewer than half of identified schools. Five states reported that distinguished

educators reached more than half of identified schools. In 6 of the 19 states that had

distinguished educators, information about the number of schools served was not available.

In some states, school support teams and distinguished educators were assigned to

identified schools to provide intensive support and assistance in developing, implementing, and

monitoring schools’ improvement plans; in other states, support from these sources was more

limited. In Louisiana, for example, the state worked with districts to select and train District

Assistance Teams (DATs), which visited schools throughout the year to provide assistance with

planning, monitor the implementation of the plan, and provide quarterly status reports to the

district and state. Louisiana supplemented DATs with curriculum specialists who spent up to a

semester in identified schools, and distinguished educators who spent a full year in corrective

action schools. Washington’s Focused Assistance Program supported a facilitator in each

participating school who worked one-third time with the school to develop and implement an

improvement plan (see Exhibit 6). In other states, for example, Arizona, external evaluators

helped with the development of school plans, but made fewer trips and spent much less time in

schools.

In 2002-03, grant programs funded by Title I school improvement allocations and other state

and federal funding streams were another key element in state systems of school support. The

majority of districts with identified schools (57 percent) reported that their state provided

identified schools with grants for school improvement. For example, Michigan allocated Title I

school improvement funds to its lowest-performing Title I schools, known within the state as

“intensive” schools. Schools applied for grants, which were limited to spending on professional

development. Identified schools in one large urban district in Michigan received $75,000-95,000

in funding for new professional development. Other states encouraged identified schools to apply

for Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) and Reading First funds to secure additional resources

for improvement activities.
16

Exhibit 6

Washington’s Focused Assistance Program

In Washington during the 2002-03 school year, the Focused Assistance program provided intensive

support for school improvement planning and implementation to schools identified for improvement

under Title I. First, an educational audit team visited participating Title I identified schools for three to

four days to conduct a needs assessment. The audit teams were made up of five to six people

including: a team leader (typically a former administrator selected for writing and communication

skills), a superintendent, a staff member from the local education service district, an experienced audit

team member, and a district or state staff person who has experience with the student population at the

school. This visit concluded with the presentation of a written assessment of the schools strengths and

weaknesses. Second, the state provided a facilitator to work with the school to develop a school

improvement plan based on the findings of the audit team. Facilitators were paid for 78 days during the

year, most of which were spent at the school site; schools also received money for professional

development through the program. Participation in the program was voluntary and was limited to

schools that had been identified for improvement under Title I. As of 2002-03, the program had

reached 38 of the 50 identified schools in the state, in 31 districts.

Although some states had established mechanisms for providing support to identified

schools, many identified schools turned first to districts for assistance in mounting meaningful

improvement efforts. District assistance to Title I identified schools included placing additional

staff in schools to support teacher development; and various kinds of consultants, similar to the

school support teams and distinguished educators operated by states, who provided consultation

and other support for data analysis, planning, and budgeting.

Assigning additional school-level staff to identified schools was a key district strategy for

supporting school improvement reported in 2002-03. Most districts with identified schools

reported that they provided those schools with some form of additional staffing, in addition to the

standard complement of classroom teachers. For example, nearly three-quarters of districts with

identified schools reported that they assigned additional staff to support instructional

improvement, and the same number of districts reported that they assigned additional staff to

provide additional instruction to students. One third of districts with identified schools reported

that they assigned those schools additional full-time staff whose primary responsibility was to

support teacher professional development. The majority of districts (70 percent) also reported

that they provide Title I identified schools with additional professional development or special

access to professional development resources.

Among continuously identified schools, 21 percent reported that they had been assigned

full-time school-level staff to support teacher development. Just over half (58 percent) reported

that they had received additional professional development or special access to professional

development resources. A description of district-sponsored professional development and of the

role of these special school-based staff follows in the section on professional development below.

Most, but not all, districts provided on-site assistance to their identified schools in the

form of school support teams, distinguished teachers, or principal mentors. Like some

states, some districts had assigned teams of administrators and teachers to assist identified

schools with the development of school improvement plans, use of data, and other activities

related to instructional improvement. Slightly more than half of districts (52 percent) reported
17

that they had fielded school support teams for identified schools. Nearly a third (29 percent)

reported that they had assigned a principal coach or mentor to identified schools; 15 percent of

districts had assigned distinguished teachers (see Exhibit 7). Overall, nearly two-thirds of

districts reported that they provided identified schools with at least one of these forms of on-site

assistance. In addition, districts reported that they provided school support teams, distinguished

teachers, and principal mentors to identified schools much more often than states did.

Exhibit 7

District Reports of Assistance Provided to Identified Schools,

Among Districts With Identified Schools

Percent of districts reporting assistance provided

Assistance provided by district Assistance provided by state

School support team 52 32

Principal mentor or coach 29 10

Distinguished teacher 15 8

Any of these forms of

assistance (i.e., school

support team, principal

mentor, or distinguished

teacher)

61 39

Exhibit reads: Among districts with identified schools, 52 percent of districts reported that they provided

school support teams to identified schools; 32 percent reported that the state provided school support team to

identified schools in the district.

Note: See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

District-sponsored on-site assistance could include a wide range of activities. For example,

one large suburban district assigned an instructional specialist to visit each Title I school once a

week to monitor school improvement plans, conduct parent outreach, and monitor the use of

Title I funds at the school. In Louisiana, the DATs described above visited schools at least

quarterly to help with gathering and interpreting of data to create a school improvement plan,

using tools developed for this purpose by the state.

Other case study districts assigned district staff to work with identified schools, in addition

to their regular responsibilities. For example, one rural district assigned each of its curriculum

specialists to serve on the school improvement team of one school in the county. Other districts

created new lines of reporting and supervision for principals of low-performing and identified

schools. Principals and school improvement team members from these schools met once or

twice a month with district leadership teams, assistant superintendents, or chief academic

officers, to review school improvement plans and progress on implementation of those plans.

Reports from case study schools suggest wide variations in how much assistance schools

received as well as whether the assistance was perceived as helpful by school staff.
18

Many continuously identified schools had no access to state or district on-site

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

states or districts did not serve all of their identified schools. Among schools that continued

to be identified for improvement in 2002-03, one-quarter reported that they had received help

from a school support team within the last year and fewer still reported help from a principal

mentor or coach or from a distinguished teacher (see Exhibit 8). Altogether, slightly more than a

third of continuously identified schools reported that they received one or more of these forms of

assistance, whereas nearly two-thirds reported that they had received none.

Exhibit 8

School Reports of On-site Assistance,

Among Schools That Continued to Be Identified for Improvement

Percent of schools reporting that they received assistance

All schools

Schools in districts

where the district

provides assistance

Schools in districts

where the state

provides assistance

School support team 25 35 32

Principal mentor or coach 20 39 4

Distinguished teacher 13 2 **

Any of these forms of

assistance (i.e., school

support team, principal

mentor, or distinguished

teacher)

38 48 37

Exhibit reads: Twenty-five percent of all schools that continued to be identified for improvement in 2002-03

reported that they received help from a school support team. Where the district provided school support teams, 35

percent of schools reported that they had received help from one. Where the state provided school support teams,

32 percent of schools reported receiving help from one.

Notes: ** indicates there are too few cases in the cell to generate a reliable estimate. See the appendix for sample

sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE school survey.

Even when continuously identified schools were located in districts or states that provided

some form of on-site assistance, the proportion reporting that they received that assistance was

still low. Among schools in districts that fielded school support teams, only a third reported that

they received assistance from a team (see Exhibit 8). Similarly, only a third of the continuously

identified schools located in states that fielded support teams reported that they received

assistance from a team. Although a majority of districts and states offered school support teams,

distinguished teachers, and principal mentors to at least some of their identified schools, the

evidence suggests that these forms of on-site assistance were, in many cases, not available to

every identified school. In several case study sites, districts or states had targeted on-site

assistance to a subset of the lowest-performing identified schools, or to a group of schools that
19

had volunteered to participate in a school improvement initiative. In states or districts like these,

some identified schools did not receive the assistance that was provided to others.

A small number of identified schools had no access to school support teams, distinguished

teachers, or principal mentors because they were located in jurisdictions where neither the

district nor the state provided these types of support for school improvement. For example, 17

percent of identified schools had no access to school support teams because neither their district

nor their state provided them. Thirty-four percent of principals had no access to mentors

because neither the district nor the state provided them. Nine percent of identified schools were

located in districts where neither the state nor the district offered any of these forms of

assistance.

Assistance from school support teams was provided to fewer continuously identified

schools in 2002-03 than the previous year. In 2002-03, slightly more than a quarter (28

percent) of the principals in continuously identified schools in the longitudinal sample reported

that they had received help from a school support team, down from 46 percent in 2001-02. This

drop is surprising, because these schools had been identified for one additional year, and

therefore should have been in even greater need of assistance. The percentage of principals

reporting that they had received help from a mentor or coach remained unchanged, but low, as

did the percentage reporting that they had received help from a distinguished teacher. In several

case study sites, increasing budget deficits and pressure to trim expenditures by cutting central

office staff had forced districts to cut both the number of staff assigned to serve identified

schools and the number of schools served.

Focus of District Assistance and School Improvement Efforts

School improvement efforts and district assistance focused overwhelmingly on

increasing the use of achievement data and matching curriculum and instruction with

standards and assessment. Consistent with NCLB’s expectation that schools and districts use

data to identify students who are not on track to reach standards and to assess the effectiveness

of existing instructional programs, 77 percent of districts with at least one identified school

reported a major focus on increasing the use of student achievement data to inform instruction

and school improvement (see Exhibit 9). NCLB also holds districts and schools accountable for

student achievement on assessments that are aligned with academic content standards. Eightysix percent of districts with identified schools placed a major focus on aligning curriculum and

instruction with standards and assessments.
20

Exhibit 9

Percent of Districts Placing a Major Focus on Strategies for Improving Low-Performing

Schools, Among Districts With Identified Schools

86

77

63 61

37

28

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Curriculum

alignment

Use of data School planning

process

Professional

development

New curriculum or

instructional

program

School reform

model

School improvement strategy

Percent of districts

Exhibit reads: Among districts with identified schools, 86 percent reported that matching curriculum and

instruction with standards, assessments, or both, was a major focus of district resources for low-performing

schools.

Note: See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Continuously identified schools generally relied on the same improvement strategies

in both 2001-02 and 2002-03. The vast majority of schools had a written school improvement

plan (93 percent), used data to inform their improvement efforts (85 percent), took steps to align

curriculum to standards and assessments (80 percent), and reported some teacher collaboration

(75 percent).12 Smaller percentages of schools reported adoption of new curricula and reform

models because a given school was more likely to adopt only one of these (see Exhibit 10).

Compared with 2001-02, more schools used data to inform their improvement efforts in 2002-03

(85 percent compared with 75 percent); otherwise, use of strategies did not change.

The following subsections elaborate the above findings on: school planning and uses of

data, curriculum alignment, new curricula and school reform models, and professional

development.

 12 The definition of “teacher collaboration” as a school improvement strategy is described in the appendix.
21

Exhibit 10

School Improvement Strategies,

Among Schools That Continued to Be Identified for Improvement

93

85

80

75

58

48

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

School plan for

current year

Using data Aligning

curriculum

Some teacher

collaboration

New reading/

language arts

curriculum

New math

curriculum

School reform

model

School improvement strategy

Percent of districts

Exhibit Reads: Among schools that continued to be identified for improvement in 2002-03, 93 percent reported

having a written school plan.

Note: See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE school survey.

School Planning and Use of Data

NCLB requires the development or revision of school improvement plans designed to

address the problems that caused the school to be identified. In addition to requiring school

plans, NCLB calls for districts to assist schools in: (1) analyzing student achievement data; (2)

identifying research-based professional development and instructional strategies; and (3)

allocating their resources more effectively. 

Almost all continuously identified schools developed school improvement plans and

received district assistance consistent with NCLB requirements; however, only about half

of those schools monitored progress toward their plans’ goals in 2002-03. Consistent with

NCLB requirements, nearly all districts with identified Title I schools reported supporting

schools in the development of school plans. Districts reported that they assigned staff to provide
22

Title I schools identified for improvement with three specific types of assistance called for under

the law: help with analyzing data (94 percent); help with identifying research-based

improvement strategies (89 percent); and help with allocating resources more effectively (72

percent). In addition, most districts had provided other types of support for school planning and

data use, including help identifying research-based strategies, additional data analysis, and help

with monitoring progress toward goals.

In many cases, the range of assistance provided by districts with regard to planning and

data use was extensive. Nearly half (44 percent) of districts with identified schools reported that

they provided schools with technical assistance in all 10 of the areas related to data use and

planning included in the TASSIE district survey.13 Only 13 percent of districts reported that

they provided assistance on 5 of those 10 items or fewer.

As required under NCLB, most continuously identified schools (93 percent) had written

school improvement plans for the 2002-03 school year. Many schools made frequent reference

to their improvement plan and used data to monitor progress toward goals and to revise the plan

on a regular schedule, while others did not. For example, slightly more than half of principals

(56 percent) reported that educators at their school were monitoring progress toward goals

established in their school plans at least quarterly in 2002-03—a reduction from 75 percent in

2001-02. About a quarter (23 percent) reported monitoring progress two or three times a year

and another 23 percent reported monitoring their progress annually or once every two years.

Almost all (96 percent) continuously identified schools reported using their improvement

plans to design or choose professional development, 83 percent reported using their plan to

select and implement new curricula and instructional programs, and 51 percent reported using

their plan to select and implement a school reform model. However, case study schools suggest

these figures likely reflected post-hoc rationales for choices about professional development and

curriculum. In these schools, both school plans and decisions about professional development

and curriculum were influenced by the same forces, such as district mandates and eligibility

requirements for grants.

The extent to which the development and use of the school plan were collective activities

also varied by school. In some of the case study schools, all educators were aware of the school

plan and the actions being taken to accomplish its goals. For example, the schools in one urban

district had school improvement teams and committees that met monthly, looked at data, and

revised plans accordingly. In others, only a few teachers were aware of the contents of the plan.

A majority of continuously identified schools had access to disaggregated

achievement data, but most principals did not identify disaggregated data as among the

most influential sources of data for school planning. NCLB requires schools to be held

accountable for the performance of subpopulations of students; as a result, access to

disaggregated student achievement data is needed. Roughly two-thirds of principals of identified

schools reported access to data disaggregated by special populations such as limited English

 13 Survey items about district support for planning and data use were based on two questions that asked about the

types of technical assistance provided to schools and whether professional development addressed topics about

data use. The 10 items in these two questions are listed in the appendix.
23

proficient and special education students, or disaggregated by demographic characteristics such

as poverty level and race or ethnicity. However, only about a quarter of these principals reported

that these data had served as among the most influential sources of data for school planning in

2002-03.

Schools that continued to be identified for improvement in 2002-03 were increasingly

focused on the use of student achievement data to inform instruction and school

improvement. The absence of attention to written school plans did not signify lack of attention

to data. The percent of schools reporting that they placed a major focus on the use of student

achievement data rose from 75 percent in 2001-02 to 86 percent in 2002-03. This increase was

consistent with districts’ continuing focus on the use of data (see Exhibit 9). As the case study

schools illustrated, schools were using data in multiple ways, from schoolwide and grade-level

planning, to diagnosing the needs of individual students; however, diagnostic uses received less

attention.

The case study schools suggest that the use of diagnostic data for instructional decisions

occurred but required a set of conditions that were not widespread: the availability of useful

diagnostic assessments, district leadership and support, and the knowledge of how to tailor

instruction on the basis of the results of the data (see Exhibit 11 for a case of exemplary data

use). NCLB calls on districts to administer assessments that are useful in assessing the progress

of low-achieving students and in diagnosing their learning needs. Most districts and a majority

of schools reported availability of assessments other than annual tests:

• Principals at more than half (56 percent) of the schools that continued to be identified

reported that they had been provided with classroom-embedded assessments that

aligned with state standards.

• Most districts with identified schools (88 percent) reported administering local

assessments.

• Of these districts, 89 percent reported doing so in order to identify students who needed

tutoring or other special interventions, and 92 percent reported doing so in order to

inform instructional decisions.

Exhibit 11

School Uses of Data

One case study school in a suburban district with overall low poverty exemplified extensive use of data.

In fact, the school’s primary improvement strategy rested on close attention to many types of

assessment data: classroom assessments, quarterly district assessments, the state assessment, and a

nationally normed standardized test. Teachers identified students performing below grade level and

matched those students with interventions (usually additional instruction) designed to address their

particular weaknesses. Grade level teams met quarterly with resource teachers and the reading and

math support teachers to go over data for each child. With only a small percentage of low-performing

students, they were able to discuss each student who was not making progress and determine whether

a new intervention strategy was needed. Behind this activity was a district requirement that schools

develop individual student support plans for every student below grade level. The recordkeeping was

helped by the district’s decision to give networked laptop computers to teachers who used them to

keep progress reports and student support plans, as well as grade books.
24

Curriculum Alignment

Aligning curriculum with academic content standards and assessments was an

increasingly common focus of district assistance and school improvement. In addition to

focusing on the use of student achievement data to inform improvement efforts, most districts

also reported that matching curriculum and instruction with standards, assessments, or both, was

a major focus of district resources in 2002-03 (see Exhibit 9). In fact, among districts

responding to the survey in both years, the percent characterizing curriculum alignment as a

major focus area rose in 2002-03 (to 86 percent, from 73 percent in 2001-02). Similarly, 80

percent of principals of continuously identified schools reported a major focus on curriculum

alignment in 2002-03, similar to reports from the previous year.

Consistent with this focus, almost all districts (91 percent) reported that they had sponsored

professional development for identified schools on the topic of ensuring alignment between

curriculum and instruction and standards (see Exhibit 15). Similarly, 79 percent of principals of

continuously identified schools reported providing professional development aimed at ensuring

alignment, and 55 percent of these principals identified curriculum alignment as one of three key

areas for professional development.

Districts and schools also pointed to a range of support provided by districts on curriculum

alignment, in addition to professional development (see below):

• Sixty-nine percent of continuously identified schools reported that their state or district

had provided curriculum guides with standards, frameworks, and pacing sequences.

• Fifty-five percent of continuously identified schools reported that they had been

provided with documents mapping out the alignment of required textbooks and

instructional programs with standards.

• A majority of districts provided each of the following kinds of support for alignment of

curriculum and instruction with state or district standards: professional development

on aligning curriculum with state or district standards and assessments, local content

standards, curriculum guides, model lesson plans, aligning textbooks and instructional

materials with standards and assessment, and regular checks of standards

implementation in classrooms. Twenty-nine percent of districts reported that they

provided all or nearly all of the types of support for alignment included on the TASSIE

district survey (at least 9 out of 10 items).14 Nearly three-quarters of districts (73

percent) provided at least a moderate range of support for curriculum alignment (at

least 6 out of 10 items).

In the case study schools, teachers cited benefits from curriculum alignment, but many

reported inadequate time and support for translating alignment efforts into instructional change

(see Exhibit 12). In addition, educators struggled with the need to align their curriculum with

 14 Survey items about district support for curriculum alignment were based on two questions that asked about the

types of technical assistance provided to schools and whether professional development addressed topics about

curriculum alignment. The 10 items in these two questions are listed in the appendix.
25

multiple sets of standards and assessments. Some schools operated under both district and state

standards, and their students took a combination of state and nationally normed tests as well.

Exhibit 12

Challenges of Curriculum Alignment

Efforts to align curriculum and instruction with standards and assessments pose challenges to districts

and schools. In Washington, for example, schools aligned to the state standards, the state’s criterionreferenced assessment, and a norm-referenced test. One district created documents available on CDROMs using commercial software that were described as linking every competency and objective at

every grade level to one or more of these standards and assessments. However, few teachers used

these materials—in large part because they were implementing highly structured reading programs that

left little room to make adjustments. Another reason alignment documents and activities were limited in

their effect on instruction was that they were not accompanied by adequate support. In another district,

a teacher noted the difference between general discussions of alignment at the district level versus

knowing how to meet the objectives: “Last week a district person was out talking about standards and

how to meet them with different parts of the curriculum, but it’s more helpful to have that conversation

in a grade level meeting. We need more supports to facilitate conversations about how to reach our

objectives.”

New Curricula and School Reform Models

NCLB charges districts with assisting schools in identifying and implementing

instructional strategies that will strengthen the core academic subjects in the school and that have

proven effective in addressing the issues that caused the school to be identified. School plans

and curriculum alignment represent first steps on the path to instructional improvement in the

classroom. Adopting new instructional programs and providing related professional

development are additional strategies that are often used to make changes that are one step closer

to the classroom and student learning.

In 2002-03, many schools were adopting new curricula, using school reform models or

adding a variety of new supplemental instructional programs. Almost three-fifths of

principals (58 percent) reported they had adopted a new language arts curriculum in the previous

three years, and close to half (48 percent) of continuously identified schools had adopted a new

mathematics curriculum in the previous three years. In many cases, these adoptions had been in

response to district requirements that increasingly required all schools to adopt specific language

arts or mathematics programs. In fact, 53 percent of districts reported requiring identified

schools to adopt a new language arts curriculum and 40 percent required adoption of a new

mathematics curriculum.

The case study sites and school survey data suggest a trend among districts in centralizing

decisions about curriculum and professional development to ensure alignment with state

standards and assessments—decisions that previously had been delegated to individual schools

during a decade characterized by school-site management. For example, one urban district

leader characterized the district as recentralizing in order to provide low-performing schools

with “higher yield strategies” (e.g., research-based instructional strategies) and to ensure

common curriculum and assessments across schools. Of those schools implementing a new
26

language arts or mathematics curriculum, half (51 percent and 49 percent, respectively) reported

that their district required them to do so.

Many schools that continued to be identified (45 percent) were also using school reform

models. Use of a school reform model was rarely (19 percent) prompted by a district

requirement.

Principals of identified schools cited reasons of instructional consistency for adopting

new curricula, not Title I identification. Taking NCLB’s call for aligned state standards,

assessments, and accountability systems one step further, schools were adopting new curricula as

a means of aligning their curricula with academic content standards and assessments and of

standardizing curriculum across classrooms. As the reason for new curriculum adoptions,

roughly three-fourths of principals in identified schools that adopted new language arts or

mathematics curricula cited the need to support instruction consistent with state or district

standards and assessments and to establish consistency across classrooms and/or grade levels. In

contrast, fewer than one-fourth reported that Title I identification played a role in adopting new

language arts or mathematics curricula.

Of the continuously identified schools that adopted new reading or mathematics

curricula or school reform models, most reported emphasizing related professional

development or receiving a minimum level of related district assistance; fewer reported

receiving both.15 For example, of the almost 6 in 10 schools (58 percent) that continued to be

identified and reported adopting a new language arts program in the last three years (i.e.,

between 2000-01 and 2002-03), 85 percent reported either emphasizing related professional

development or receiving a minimum level of related district assistance (see Exhibit 13). At the

same time, less than half (43 percent) reported receiving both. Similarly, almost three-quarters

(71 percent) of schools adopting a new mathematics curriculum (48 percent) reported either

emphasizing related professional development or receiving a minimum level of related district

assistance while 11 percent reported receiving both.

Although fewer than half of the continuously identified schools reported implementing

new mathematics curricula and only two in five of those reported emphasizing related

professional development, the frequency with which schools reported emphasizing professional

development in mathematics increased significantly in 2002-03. The percentage of principals

who reported placing emphasis on professional development in mathematics started low in 2001-

02 (35 percent of those who reported that educators participated in mathematics professional

development) but increased to 52 percent in 2002-03. In contrast, in both 2001-02 and 2002-03,

the percentage of principals who reported emphasizing professional development in language

arts was high (78 and 80 percent, respectively).

The gap between the percent of schools implementing new curricula and those receiving

related professional development, assistance, or both, suggests that schools may not have had

access to all the help they needed to put new instructional programs in place. Adopting a new

curriculum can be an important step; unless the instructional strategies and materials embodied

 15 The definitions and scales underlying “emphasizing related professional development” and “receiving a minimum

level of related district assistance” are described in the appendix.
27

in the curriculum are put into practice, however, the curriculum is not likely to be effective. The

case studies indicate the importance of multiple sources of assistance (including professional

development, on-site support, and other district or state assistance) to fully implement new

curricula.

Exhibit 13

Of Continuously Identified Schools Engaged in Different Improvement Activities,

Percent That Emphasized Related Professional Development or Received

a Minimum Level of Related District Assistance

85

71

50

72

38

17

59

47

38

43

11

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

New

reading/language

arts curriculum

New mathematics

curriculum

School reform

model

School improvement activity

Of schools engaged in activity, 

percent that emphasized related 

professional development OR 

received a minimum level of 

related district assitance

Of schools engaged in activity, 

percent that emphasized related 

professional development

Of schools engaged in activity, 

percent that received a minimum 

level of related district assistance

Of schools engaged in activity, 

percent that emphasized related 

professional development AND 

received a minimum level of 

related district assistance

Percent of schools

Exhibit reads: Among schools that continued to be identified for improvement in 2002-03 and reported

implementing a new language arts program, 85 percent reported emphasizing related professional development or

receiving a minimum level of related district assistance, 72 percent reported emphasizing related professional

development; 59 percent reported receiving a minimum level of related district assistance; and. 43 percent reported

emphasizing related professional development and receiving a minimum level of related district assistance.

Note: See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE school survey.

Many continuously identified schools adopted more than one new program and often

layered them on top of existing programs, raising issues of how to cope with multiple new

programs and how best to mesh the new with the old. Educators at identified schools were

dealing with many new initiatives at the same time. In addition to learning to use data to inform

instruction and aligning instruction with academic content standards, teachers were also faced

with adopting more than one new curriculum simultaneously, often in addition to a school

reform model. Thirty-two percent of schools that continued to be identified had adopted both

new language arts and new mathematics programs in the last three years, and 48 percent of

schools had been implementing either two new instructional programs (in mathematics and
28

language arts) or a new instructional program (mathematics or language arts) in combination

with a school reform model.

Often, in the case study sites, new programs were added to existing programs rather than

replacing them, unless it was a new district adoption or a program supported by a major grant.

In some cases, mandated new programs conflicted with programs already in place. For example,

schools in one urban district had been implementing Success For All for five years, when the

district asked the schools to implement its new reading framework representing a different

approach. The case studies also showed that some schools chose to forego grants to support new

programs to avoid such conflicts. For example, two case study schools in different districts and

states declined opportunities for Reading First grants because they were committed to other

reading programs.

The case study schools provided many examples of schools implementing multiple new

core and supplemental programs at the same time. As Exhibit 14 illustrates, a school can be

overburdened by multiple new initiatives that may run at cross-purposes. When schools try to

launch many programs, they can lose focus and do a poor job with all of them, instead of

focusing on a major strategy directed to the most important problem. Standards-based reform

and NCLB intend to help focus school improvement efforts but, under pressure for solutions,

districts and schools often attempt to solve problems by adding more and more programs.

Exhibit 14

Program Proliferation

In the quest to help low-performing schools improve, an unintended consequence is a proliferation of

instructional programs in schools, each with its own training and materials. One of several examples

encountered in the case studies was a school in a large urban district which, under a Comprehensive

School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) grant, had been implementing a self-paced skills training

program in language arts and mathematics which the district was obligated to continue for two years in

order to continue the grant. The school was also implementing the district-adopted curriculum in

reading (Harcourt Brace) and in mathematics (Quest). In addition, the district had asked the school to

choose between Success For All and Direct Instruction for next year—a requirement for all schools that

might be designated Corrective Action. The school was also implementing Project READ, another

district supported reading program and DEEP, a hands-on approach to mathematics. During the past

year, third- and fourth-grade teachers also received InTech training for using computers in the

classroom.

Professional Development

As part of providing technical assistance, districts are expected to help identified schools

select and implement professional development. They do this through districtwide professional

development sessions and through allocating resources to the school site including the provision

of on-site assistance designed to support teacher development.

Almost all districts provided identified schools with some type of professional

development in 2002-03; however, the amount of that professional development, its

relevance to instructional improvement, and its quality varied greatly across districts and

even schools within districts. As Exhibit 15 illustrates, among districts with identified schools,
29

95 percent reported that they supported professional development in language arts instruction in

identified schools. High percentages were also reported for aligning instruction with standards

(91 percent), analyzing achievement data (84 percent), and mathematics instruction (80 percent).

Exhibit 15

District Reports of Types of Professional Development Provided to Identified Schools,

Among Districts With Identified Schools

95

91

84

80

72

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reading/language

arts 

Ensuring instruction

is consistent with

standards

Analyzing

achievement data

Mathematics Instructional

strategies for special

populations 

School reform model

Professional development topic

Percent of districts

Exhibit reads: Among districts with identified schools, 95 percent reported that they supported professional

development in reading/language arts instruction in identified schools.

Note: See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Principals of continuously identified schools reported similar figures: 95 percent reported

receiving professional development in language arts instruction, 80 percent in analyzing

achievement data, 79 percent in aligning curriculum with standards, and 74 percent in

mathematics instruction. However, these figures do not reflect the amount of professional

development, its relevance, or its quality.

Among case study sites, districts differed in the amount and quality of professional

development they provided as perceived by teachers. In one case study school, the district had

assigned a full-time staff developer to the school with considerable expertise in mathematics

curriculum and instruction. Her formal and informal professional development for teachers,
30

including after-school sessions and feedback in the classroom, was deemed highly valuable. In

contrast, in another case study school, professional development on the school’s new reading

curriculum was provided each Friday afternoon by two resource teachers who had no particular

expertise in the curriculum. Teachers judged the sessions as poorly organized and ineffective.

The case study schools also suggest a positive relationship between the intensity and quality of

professional development and support for instructional change on the one hand, and teachers’

enthusiasm for and commitment to making changes.

In general, additional full-time staff assigned to schools to support teacher development

was a highly valued resource in the case study schools. Nationwide, only a third (33 percent) of

districts with identified schools reported that such schools had been assigned such support staff.

Although these staff play an important role in school improvement, fewer than a quarter (23

percent) of continuously identified schools had been assigned full-time staff whose specific

job was to support teacher development. 

These additional staff went by a variety of names—improvement facilitators, instructional

support teachers, literacy coaches, mentor teachers—and assisted in a variety of ways to develop

and implement school improvement plans and to support instructional improvement. They

worked with school staff to collect and analyze student achievement data, implemented new

curricula or instructional strategies, and organized teacher professional development (see Exhibit

16 for examples from the case study sites). These additional school staff typically worked halftime or more in each identified school, with no classroom responsibilities of their own.

Having extra school-based staff can help build the knowledge and skill of the faculty to

improve instruction, but those extra staff need skills and knowledge of their own to carry out that

role effectively. The case study schools varied in regard to how qualified and helpful they found

the extra staff to be. In several examples, the staff designated to provide professional

development focused on evaluating staff instead. In other cases, the skills of the additional staff

were not well-matched to the needs of the school. For example, one large district that assigned

curriculum facilitators to schools did so without regard to the specific needs of the teachers;

hence, it was accidental whether the match was a good one.

In case study schools, coaches or specialists, who provided regular, on-site professional

development, were often paid out of Title I finds. This use of funds is consistent with NCLB’s

requirement that schools identified for improvement under Title I must allocate 10 percent of

their Title I budget to professional development. As was true in 2001-02, a majority but not all

districts with identified schools reported requiring their identified schools to allocate a

minimum percentage of their Title I budget to professional development. Seventy-nine

percent of districts reported making this requirement; these districts serve 77 percent of the

nation’s identified schools.
31

Exhibit 16

Examples of Additional School-Based Staff to Support School Improvement

A large urban district assigned central office curriculum specialists (most of whom were literacy

specialists) to work full-time in low-performing schools, including schools identified for improvement

under Title I. These improvement specialists helped principals and teachers disaggregate and analyze

state and local achievement data, developed an annual instructional calendar that emphasized skills

and content areas where students were weak, developed and administered formative school-based

assessments, and reviewed the results of these assessments on weekly early-release days. Teachers

praised the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues during this time in planning instruction. The

specialists provided professional development to teachers both formally on the early-release days and

informally as teachers requested it.

In one mid-size suburban district all schools worked with a half-time literacy coach from a local college.

Literacy coaches provided professional development for teachers, did classroom observations,

modeled lessons, and met with teachers regularly. In one school that was identified for improvement

under Title I, the literacy coach attended the upper and lower elementary team meetings, observed

each classroom once every three weeks, and held voluntary grade level meetings before school. His

major goals included making sure that teachers understood the new English and language arts

standards and helping teachers learn to use running records and literacy circles.

One large suburban district assigned all low-performing (including schools identified for improvement

under Title I) schools reading and mathematics support teachers. Support teachers were district

employees who worked four days a week at a targeted school under the supervision of the district

reading and math directors; on the fifth day they worked out of the central office. They helped to

administer and score diagnostic and interim assessments, created and maintained a schoolwide

database on student performance, participated in extended planning with grade level teams, mentored

first and second year teachers (who were required to meet with the support teachers once a week),

demonstrated lessons, and maintained libraries of instructional materials. Instructional support

teachers relieved classroom teachers of much of the paperwork burden associated with scoring and

tracking district assessment results.

District and School Capacity to Support Improvement

Districts vary enormously in their capacity to design and implement interventions and

support school improvement efforts. Some schools also require greater levels of support and

assistance than do others. Some of this variation can be explained by local context (e.g., the level

of need and the proportion of low-performing schools and children to be served); some can be

explained by the number of administrators and staff in central offices and schools.

In 2002-03, large and urban districts were more likely to provide assistance of various kinds

to identified schools; small districts—serving roughly a third of all identified schools—provided

many kinds of assistance less often. Support for planning and data use—a key district

responsibility under NCLB—was more likely to include a wider array of activities in larger

districts and urban districts than in smaller districts and rural districts. For example, 71 percent of

very large districts reported that they provided an extensive range of support for planning and data

use (meaning that they provide all 10 of the types of support included in the TASSIE survey),16

compared with 50 to 52 percent of large and medium districts, and 37 percent of small districts.

 16 See the appendix regarding the 10 types of support.
32

Larger districts and urban or suburban districts were also more likely to report that they

provided identified schools with assistance from school support teams, distinguished teachers, or

principal coaches. For example, 77 percent of very large districts reported that identified schools

received help from school support teams, compared with 43 percent of small districts (see

Exhibit 17). Forty percent of rural districts with identified schools provided those schools with

assistance from school support teams, compared with 66 and 68 percent of suburban and urban

districts. Overall, only half of small and rural districts with identified schools provided any

of these forms of assistance (school support teams, distinguished teachers, or principal

mentors) in 2002-03.

Exhibit 17

Assistance Provided by the District to Identified Schools, by District Size

43

6

18

50

33

21

57

25

33

74

52

47

67

27

45

75

53

45

77

24

63

86

66 64

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

School support

team

Distinguished

teacher

Principal mentor

or coach 

Any of these forms

of assistance

(i.e., school support

team, distinguished

teacher, or principal

mentor)

More than one FTE

staff member per

identified school

employed by the

district to provide

assistance

Additional full-time

school-based staff

to support teacher

development

District size

Percent of districts with identified schools

Small Medium Large Very Large

Exhibit Reads: Among districts with identified schools, 43 percent of small districts, 57 percent of medium sized

districts, 67 percent of large districts, and 77 percent of very large districts provided school support teams to

identified schools.

Note: See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Larger districts and urban or suburban districts were more likely to assign additional schoolbased staff to identified schools to support teacher professional development, and they provided

greater support for professional development more generally. For example, nearly two-thirds (64

percent) of very large districts provided identified schools with additional full-time staff to
33

support teacher professional development. This practice was far less common among small

districts, with only one-fifth of such districts reporting that they assigned additional staff (see

Exhibit 17). Similarly, about half of urban and suburban districts assigned additional full-time

staff to identified schools for teacher professional development, compared with just 15 percent of

rural districts. Larger districts and urban districts were also more likely to report that identified

schools received additional professional development or greater access to professional

development resources.

Finally, larger districts and urban districts were more likely to centralize decisions about

curriculum and to support the alignment of curriculum with academic content standards and

assessments. For example, larger districts were more likely to have required schools to adopt new

reading and mathematics curricula than smaller districts (72 percent of very large districts had a

required reading curriculum, compared with 53 percent of small districts). Larger districts also

tended to provide schools with a greater range of support for curriculum alignment. For example,

more than half (57 percent) of very large districts provided an extensive range of support for

curriculum alignment, including local content standards, detailed curriculum guides, model lesson

plans, and other tools to improve alignment. (Districts providing an “extensive” range of support

engaged in at least 9 of the 10 activities identified in the TASSIE district survey.)17 Only onequarter of small districts with identified schools provided the same extensive range of support for

curriculum alignment. The same pattern also held true for urban districts, compared with

suburban and rural districts.

Not all districts had the staffing necessary to provide assistance to their identified

schools; this was particularly true in small districts. Nationwide, nearly half of districts with

identified schools (45 percent) reported that they employed no staff who were specially charged

with providing support for teacher development in identified schools. Smaller districts were less

likely to employ staff with special responsibility for providing assistance to identified schools,

and when they did, they tended to have fewer of these staff per identified school than larger

districts. Larger districts had more of these staff available to provide assistance. This was true

both in absolute terms (because larger districts had larger central offices and employed more

staff) and relative to the number of identified schools in the district. For example, two-thirds of

very large districts employed more than one full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff member per

identified school to provide assistance to those schools, compared with one-third of small

districts (see Exhibit 17). Only 6 percent of very large districts reported that they employed no

special staff at all, compared with 27 percent of large districts, 38 percent of medium districts,

and 55 percent of small districts.

Survey data also showed that districts with more FTE staff available per identified school

were more likely to have provided those schools with distinguished teachers, principal mentors,

additional professional development, and school-based teacher development. These patterns

suggest that adequate staffing is a key element of district capacity to provide assistance to lowperforming schools.

The case study sites illustrated the range of staffing resources available to different types of

districts. At one end of the spectrum, an affluent suburban county system was able to assign a

 17 See the appendix regarding the 10 support activities.
34

full-time professional development teacher, a full-time reading specialist, and a mentor teacher

to each school in the county. In addition, the Title I office assigned an instructional specialist to

each Title I school. At the other end of the spectrum, a small rural district had four central office

staff members in total and no reading resource teachers in any of its schools. This district and

several other case study districts like it relied exclusively on state and federal funding streams

for needed resources for schools.

Some districts had reorganized their central offices to free staff to work with lowperforming schools. As described above in Exhibit 16, one large urban district had reassigned

central office curriculum staff to work full-time in schools as improvement facilitators. In

another large urban district, Title I coordinators based in the central office worked as school

improvement team leaders in one or two schools each. Other districts had reorganized their

central office staff into teams to oversee school improvement efforts.

Districts often relied on special funding streams to provide essential support for

additional staff positions, although special federal funds reached a relatively small

proportion of schools that continued to be identified for improvement. In case study schools

where new staff were assigned to identified schools to provide support, funding for those

positions frequently came from federal sources, such as the Reading First, Title I, and the

Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program, or from state school improvement funds.

Rarely were these positions funded locally. In a small district, for example, Reading First funds

paid for the services of a literacy coach, the only additional support position in the school. In

Louisiana, identified schools were encouraged to apply for CSR grants, in part because those

grants bring additional staff and resources to schools.

Although federal funding streams were an important resource for some schools and

districts, they reached only a minority of all identified schools nationwide. Fourteen percent of

schools that continued to be identified for improvement in 2002-03 received support through the

Reading First program. Similarly, 17 percent of all continuously identified schools reported that

they had received funds through the CSR program.

The amount and intensity of assistance provided by districts depended both on the

staffing and other resources available to the district and on the number of schools to be

served. Of the estimated 1,800 districts that had identified schools nationwide in 2002-03,

nearly three-quarters (73 percent) had just one or two schools identified for improvement in

2002-03 (see Exhibit 3 in the introduction to this report). The majority of these districts,

however, were small, with no more than three Title I schools overall—the districts least likely to

have adequate staffing and other resources available to meet the needs of even the small number

of Title I identified schools they were required to serve. In fact, the smallest districts in the case

study sample—with the smallest numbers of identified schools—had few staff and very few

options for mounting meaningful improvement efforts. These districts depended most heavily

on their states and on outside sources of assistance to serve their identified schools. By contrast,

large districts in the case study sample had the necessary staff and expertise in their central

offices to organize effective support to schools, and where the number of schools to be helped

was relatively small, these districts had the option of concentrating resources where they were

needed most. As a result, large case study districts with a small fraction of all their schools that
35

were chronically low-performing were able to mount relatively intensive assistance efforts. In

other large districts, local resources could be stretched thin because of overwhelming need. In

one urban district, for example, all 11 of the middle schools in the district were identified for

improvement. The district was investing substantial resources in turning those schools around,

although the challenge of producing improvements in student achievement in 11 middle schools

simultaneously was a formidable one.

Schools differed in their organizational structures and capacity and therefore in their

ability to launch effective improvement efforts and to take advantage of assistance and

intervention. The case studies suggest that schools also need a minimal organizational structure

in place to be able to benefit from assistance that is provided. Several schools had new

principals—new to the school and new to the job. Others had experienced principals who

simply were not strong leaders as judged by the lack of coherence and direction in the school’s

improvement efforts. Similarly, schools varied in the proportion of inexperienced teachers on

their staff and the rate of faculty turnover. Analogous to districts, schools with a small

proportion of students achieving below grade level were better able to concentrate on those

students, compared with schools in which virtually all students are low-performing. These

differences among schools often reflected quite different needs in terms of the assistance and

support required for principals and teachers.

District Strategies for Targeting Assistance and Support

NCLB assumes that states and districts will provide schools identified for improvement

under Title I with the resources and assistance needed to improve instruction to make AYP and

exit school improvement status. States and districts can respond to these provisions in NCLB by

organizing assistance that is specially targeted to identified Title I schools or by ensuring that

identified Title I schools are included in assistance efforts targeted to low-performing schools

more generally.

As shown earlier, most districts in 2002-03 were actively engaged in providing support of

various kinds to identified Title I schools. The majority of districts with identified Title I schools

(59 percent) were small, with enrollments under 3,500. Nearly a third of districts with identified

schools (31 percent) had three or fewer schools in the district (Title I and non-Title I). These

districts had little need to consider options for targeting assistance to their Title I identified

schools, and little reason to differentiate the assistance they provided identified schools from the

assistance they provided to others. Larger districts that served identified schools, schools that

were low-performing but not identified, and higher-performing schools had to make choices

about which schools to serve and whether identified Title I schools would receive more or

different kinds of assistance. The analyses presented in this section include only districts with

each of these three types of schools (36 percent of districts with identified schools), and so

exclude a large number of smaller districts where all schools are low-performing or identified for

improvement.

Districts typically provided most kinds of assistance to all of their schools, whether or

not they were low-performing or Title I identified. Most districts with low-performing

schools, of which Title I identified schools are a subset, and other higher-performing schools

provided most forms of assistance to all their schools, including assistance with planning,
36

analyzing budgets, and implementing research-based improvement strategies. Only a small

percent of these districts provided such assistance only to identified Title I schools. For

example, almost all of these districts identified research-based strategies for all their schools.

Similarly, nearly three-quarters of these districts helped all types of schools—including those

that were higher performing—write a school improvement plan. A small number of these

districts—13 percent—helped identified Title I schools write or revise improvement plans, but

did not provide that assistance to other kinds of schools. Similar ratios held for other types of

support (see Exhibit 18).

Almost every district had the same reading and mathematics curriculum

requirements for all schools in the district, whether or not they were higher-performing,

low-performing, or identified for improvement under Title I. Fewer than 5 percent of

districts that had adopted programs reported that they had adopted a new curriculum or set of

instructional materials in reading or mathematics for their Title I identified schools only. This

may explain why principals of continuously identified schools cited reasons of instructional

consistency, not Title I identification, for adopting new reading and language arts curricula.

An exception lies in the area of principal mentors or coaches. A majority of districts with

identified schools, other low-performing schools, and higher-performing schools that assigned

principal mentors or coaches had restricted them to Title I or low-performing schools, rather than

making them available to all types of schools in the district. Similarly, among districts that

required the adoption of school reform models for at least some of their schools, about a third

targeted that requirement to their low-performing and Title I identified schools (see Exhibit 18).

Districts with low-performing schools, none of which were identified for improvement

in 2002-03, offered the same kinds of support to those schools as districts with identified

schools. In most respects, districts with identified Title I schools that were required respond to

NCLB provisions regarding school support did not appear to act differently from other districts

with schools they classified as low-performing but that were not identified for improvement. For

example, districts with low-performing schools, none of which were identified under Title I,

were just as likely to provide those schools with school support teams as districts with identified

schools. The same held true for distinguished teachers and principal mentors, as well as for

various kinds of support for planning. NCLB specifically requires that districts help identified

schools develop an improvement plan, review the school budget, and identify research-based

improvement strategies. Districts with low-performing schools, but without Title I identified

schools, undertook these steps as often as districts with identified schools did.

Districts provided the same kinds of assistance to schools in corrective action as they

did to schools that had been identified more recently for improvement. Districts with both

types of schools provided all types of assistance to schools identified for just one or two years

just as often as they did to schools identified for three years or more. This pattern held true for

all types of on-site assistance, additional staffing in schools, professional development, and

support for planning and data use.
37

Exhibit 18

District Support to Identified Schools, Other Low-Performing Schools, and HigherPerforming Schools, Among Districts That Had All Three Types of Schools

To all types of

schools, including

higher-performing

schools, lowperforming

schools, and Title I

identified schools

To all types of lowperforming

schools, including

Title I identified

schools, only

To Title I identified

schools only

Identify research-based improvement

strategies 87 7 2

Write or revise a school improvement

plan

71 8 13

School reform model adoption, among

districts that require at least some of

their schools to adopt a model

66 11 22

Analyze and revise the school’s budget

so that school resources are effectively

allocated

56 13 9

School support team 45 9 9

Extensive range of support for planning

and data use 25 15 11

Extensive range of support for

professional development

24 4 4

Distinguished Teacher 20 3 6

Principal mentor or coach 10 22 12

Exhibit reads: Among districts with Title I identified schools, other low-performing schools, and higher-performing

schools, 87 percent of districts identified research-based improvement strategies for all three types of schools.

Seven percent of districts reported that they provided this form of assistance only to low-performing schools,

including Title I identified schools. Two percent of districts reported that they provided this kind of assistance only

to schools identified under Title I.

Note: See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Some districts provided more intensive assistance to schools identified for

improvement for three years or more than to those identified for one or two years. For

example, nearly half of districts (46 percent) reported that schools identified for three years or

more received more intensive support from school support teams or other technical assistance

providers. The same number of districts reported that these schools received larger school

improvement grants. Half of districts reported that schools identified for three years or more
38

received greater monitoring and oversight from the district, compared with other schools

identified for improvement.

Districts with identified schools targeted schools for assistance and interventions on

the basis of considerations other than or in addition to Title I program improvement status.

Although considerable improvement activity was under way in schools and among districts,

much of that activity in 2002-03 was occurring as a result of state and local accountability

systems. Across the case study sites, district strategies for providing assistance included:

providing the same services to all schools, targeting all low-performing schools, targeting all

Title I schools, or targeting a particular subset of “problem” schools. In general, districts

provided many supports to all their schools. In some of the case study sites, districts argued the

need to help all schools because all were low-performing and therefore in need of assistance. In

other cases, in which low-performing schools were a subset of all schools, districts provided

extra assistance to all their low-performing schools.

In addition to singling out high-need schools for assistance, several case study districts

provided “preemptive” assistance to all of their Title I schools, including those that had not yet

been identified for improvement, aiming to ensure that these schools did not lapse into

improvement status. Case study districts that targeted assistance to all low-performing schools

explained that because these schools moved in and out of official Title I identification, those that

had moved out continued to need assistance.

Districts could encounter problems if they provided some schools, but not others, with

resources and assistance. For example, one suburban district with many high-achieving schools

formed a School Improvement Unit to provide additional resources and oversight for the

district’s lowest-performing schools. The districts’ well-regarded mathematics and reading

supervisors and other central office staff worked only with schools in the School Improvement

Unit, prompting complaints from parents at other schools in the district. The district director of

instruction said, “It’s a challenge to reallocate the time and attention of central office staff. The

community doesn’t want higher-performing schools to suffer.” Similarly, a large urban district

retreated from its major reallocation of central office resources to low-performing schools as a

result of pressure from the communities of the other schools.

Public Reporting

Another central principle underlying the Title I accountability system is that parents and

the public have a clear understanding of the progress for which schools are being held

accountable—the progress of school improvement efforts and the progress toward achieving the

goal of all students reaching proficiency. NCLB has strengthened the reporting provisions of

Title I by specifying that states and districts receiving Title I funds must issue “report cards”

with state assessment results and lists of schools identified for improvement. NCLB also

requires that state assessment results for student subgroups and the Title I improvement status of

a school be reported, along with information about teacher quality. 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. NLCB identified the requirements for state and

district report cards. ED published final guidance on how states and districts should prepare

their annual report cards in September 2003 (ED 2003a).
39

Although most districts made school report cards available to the public in 2002-03,

the number of districts that did so had declined. In 2002-03, 81 percent of districts made

school report cards available to the public, down from 93 percent in the previous school year.

Possible reasons for this decline may have been due to states’ and districts’ transitioning to new

reporting formats as seen in case study sites. For example:

• Louisiana did not provide school report cards during 2002-03—in contrast with

previous years when two types of school report cards were issued—because the state

was revising the format of these report cards to comply with NCLB requirements by

2003-04. (School performance data were available in other formats.)

• Michigan no longer generated school report cards, instead leaving the preparation of

school report cards up to districts, which had varied capacity in 2002-03 to generate

data in the form required by NCLB (the SEA posted a checklist on its Web site with the

items that schools and districts had to include in their public reports).

• Maryland and Washington revamped their Web sites to provide 2002-03 school report

card data, but not all of the data required by NCLB was readily available. Some

districts in these states had not used the data available on the state Web site to update

school report card information for 2002-03, whereas others made data available on their

district Web sites.

School report cards were most likely to include assessment data, but those data were

not always disaggregated by all of the subgroups identified in NCLB. Information on (1)

student performance data on statewide academic assessments, and (2) student performance at the

school on state assessments compared with all students in the district and state were provided in

school report cards in 97 percent and 89 percent of districts, respectively. The percentages were

very similar for districts with Title I schools identified for improvement—98 percent and 88

percent, respectively.

In 2002-03, more than 60 percent of districts that prepared school report cards reported

school assessment data for student subgroups for five of the six categories specified in

NCLB—between 62 and 68 percent of districts with a subgroup enrollment of 10 percent or

more (see Exhibit 19).18 Frequently, states and districts did not include assessment information

about migrant students in their school report cards as is now required under NCLB (only 50

percent of districts did). Little change occurred in public reporting for student subgroups,

compared with 2001-02 (5 percent or less) except for migrant status (18 percent more).

 18 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.
40

Exhibit 19

Whether Districts Disaggregated Student Assessment Data on

School Report Cards, Among Districts With School Report Cards

and a Subgroup Enrollment of 10 Percent or More

Percent of districts

By racial/ethnic group 68

By limited-English-proficient status 63

By special education status 65

By economically disadvantaged status 62

By gender 63

By migrant status 50

Exhibit reads: Among Title I districts that enrolled 10 percent or more racial or ethnic

groups and produced school report cards, 68 percent disaggregated student assessment

data by racial or ethnic group.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

The U.S. Department of Education’s nonregulatory guidance on report cards under Title I

of NCLB specifies that individual school report cards are not required, but information about

each school must be included in the district report card (ED 2003a). Education Week reported in

its Quality Counts 2003 issue that of the 47 states and the District of Columbia requiring school

report cards, 19 did not include or require disaggregated student performance data. (Two

additional states made disaggregated data available on the Web or in other published reports; one

state required school report cards beginning in 2003-04.) A review of state Web sites by the

study team indicated that 37 states made some form of disaggregated student assessment data

available online for the 2002-03 state report card which also suggest that some states were

providing these data for schools in their state.

NCLB calls for districts to provide information on student performance on the state’s

additional academic indicators used in making AYP determinations. At the secondary level this

includes the graduation rate for high schools. In 2002-03, among Title I districts that prepared

school report cards, 81 percent included information on high school graduation rates (the

percentage was the same for districts with identified Title I schools).

New reporting requirements under NCLB were being met less frequently than data

that had traditionally been reported. Although most states and districts had been providing

information on school and student achievement and attendance rates to the public for years,

some of this data did not meet NCLB reporting requirements (e.g., the method used to calculate

high school graduation rates). Other information, such as school improvement status and teacher

quality required under NCLB, was often not reported previously. In 2002-03, only 35 percent of

Title I districts that prepared school report cards (42 percent of districts with identified Title I

schools) included information about Title I improvement status in their report cards as required;

in 2001-02, 31 percent of districts that prepared school report cards did so (47 percent of districts

with identified Title I schools). Yet schools and districts often used other means to communicate
41

this information, such as letters to parents, parent information sessions, school newsletters, and

state and district Web sites. District survey data indicated that among districts with identified

schools, 94 percent sent written notification to the homes of parents that their child’s school had

been identified for improvement. In some cases, states imposed additional requirements

regarding parent notification of schools identified for improvement. For example, Arizona’s

state accountability system required districts to meet with parents about school status.

Education Week in its “Quality Counts 2003” issue also reported that 22 states required

that school or district report cards include information about teacher characteristics, such as the

percent with emergency credentials. Just four states publicly reported teacher qualifications

disaggregated by school type in 2002-03. Only California, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, and

Tennessee provided parents with information about the credentials of every public school

teacher on a Web site. TASSIE survey data indicated that 43 percent of districts included

information on the percentage of teachers teaching with an emergency credential or provisional

credential and 32 percent include information on the percentage of classes taught by highly

qualified teachers in their 2002-03 school report cards.

43

III Public School Choice and Supplemental Services Under Title I

In addition to keeping parents informed about the performance of their child’s school,

NCLB calls for districts to provide parents with children in schools identified for improvement

under Title I with additional options. 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 children to another public school in the district

that has not been identified for improvement. If a school does not make AYP for three years

(one year after being identified), low-income parents of children in these schools also must be

provided with the option of requesting supplemental educational services from state-approved

providers for their child. NCLB requires that districts make available an amount equal 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.

Parents are also to be notified about these options before the school year begins so that they have

time to make informed decisions. Because Title I school choice and supplemental services were

new requirements for most districts in 2002-03 (though some more limited Title I choice

requirements applied to certain schools in 1999-2000), implementation for most districts in

2002-03 represented their initial efforts to implement these requirements.

In 2002-03, few parents transferred their child to schools not identified for

improvement or received supplemental services and few districts were required to provide

these options. In 2002-03, 16 percent of districts (1,800 LEAs) nationwide had 6,000 Title I

schools identified for improvement and corrective action that were therefore required to provide

Title I choice; 11 percent of districts (1,100 LEAs) had Title I schools in their second year of

improvement and were required to provide supplemental services (see Exhibit 20). About 7

percent of students in districts that offered supplemental services received services in 2002-

03, whereas 1 percent of students in districts that offered choice transferred to another

school. A number of factors emerged from parent focus groups that may have contributed to

low participation in Title I choice and supplemental services, including parents not wanting to

move their children if they were doing well in the identified school, late and inadequate parental

notification, and transportation issues.

Districts did not report challenges associated with the procedural requirements to

implement choice and supplemental services to be major barriers to implementation in 2002-03,

although they did report other challenges whose magnitude varied significantly by district type.

For example, half of all districts with eligible students cited lack of providers in the area as a

major challenge to implementing supplemental services and almost half of small districts with

eligible students cited no alternate schools as a serious challenge to implementing Title I choice.

Districts that did not provide parents with children in identified schools with choice or

supplemental services were predominantly small, rural, and poor. Their ability to meet these

requirements are challenged by the long standing issues that these types of districts have faced

(e.g., limited numbers of schools, long distances between schools and neighboring districts,

limited access to outside services).
44

These findings are elaborated on below in three parts: public school choice, supplemental

services, and communication with parents.

Exhibit 20

Participation in Title I Choice and Supplemental Services in 2002-03,

Among Districts With Identified Schools

School choice Supplemental services

Districts:

Number required to offer option 1,800 1,100

Number where option offered 1,200 500

Percent were option offered 67% 48%

Schools:

Number where option required

Number where option offered

Percent where option offered

6,000

5,100

84%

1,300

800

58%

Students (among districts that

provided options):

Number eligible 1,535,000 592,000

Number that participated 18,000 42,000

Percent that participated 1% 7%

Exhibit reads: Among districts with identified Title I schools, an estimated 1,800 were required to offer school

choice to students enrolled in identified schools and 1,100 districts were required to offer supplemental services

to low-income students in schools identified for two or more years. The data presented in this exhibit are

estimates at the 95 percent confidence interval with 32 degrees of freedom and estimates have been rounded.

Note: The number of students eligible is underestimated because not all districts that should have provided

choice and supplemental services reported providing these options and did not provide eligibility data. See

Exhibits 21, 30 and 31 for explanations regarding the limitations of these data.

Source: TASSIE district survey and Eligibility Dataset.

Public School Choice Under Title I

In 2002-03, 16 percent of all districts had identified Title I schools and therefore were

required to provide public school choice, but only two-thirds (67 percent) of these districts

did so. The districts providing choice accounted for about 5,100 identified schools or 84 percent

of the 6,000 Title I schools identified for improvement in 2002-03. The percentage in 2002-03 is

an increase over the 2001-02 rate when 54 percent of districts with identified schools offered

some form of choice (note that all districts with identified Title I schools were not required to

offer Title I choice in 2001-02). However, this percentage increase did not translate into more

districts offering Title I choice in 2002-03 because Title I choice requirements in 2002-03 under

NCLB are different from those in place in 2001-02 under IASA (see Exhibit 21). For Title I

under IASA, Congress added requirements in 1999 and 2000 that school choice be offered to

students in certain Title I identified schools (i.e., districts with identified schools that also

received school improvement reserve funds), but the choice options did not necessarily meet the
45

current criteria specified under NCLB (i.e., that parents be notified of choice options before the

start of the school year and that transferring students be provided with transportation to nonidentified schools).

Exhibit 21

Districts That Offered Choice and Students That Exercised Choice

in 2001-02 and 2002-03

2001-02 2002-03

Districts:

Number required to offer choice

Number where choice offered

Percent where choice offered

2,300

1,200

54%

1,800

1,200

67%

Schools:

Number where option required

Number where choice offered

Percent where choice offered

9,000

Not available

Not available

6,000

5,100

84%

Students (among districts that provided

choice):

Number eligible

Number that participated

Percent that participated

Not available

Not available

Not available

1,535,000

18,000

1%

Exhibit reads: In 2001-02 there were an estimated 2,300 districts nationwide with identified Title I schools

(this number may be overestimated because not all districts with identified Title I schools were required to

offer choice under IASA as described in the text). There were an estimated 1,800 districts with identified

Title I schools in 2002-03 that were required to offer public school choice to students. The data presented in

this exhibit are estimates at the 95 percent confidence interval with 32 degrees of freedom and hence the

numbers may have been higher or lower than indicated.

Note: All numbers have been rounded. Percentages of districts and schools were calculated by dividing the

number that provided choice by the number required to offer choice. The number of students eligible for

choice is underestimated because a third (33 percent) of the 16 percent of districts required to offer choice

reported that they did not offer choice and did not provide data on the number of eligible students.

Additionally, the estimates of the number of students eligible and participating in choice in 2002-03 has a 95

percent confidence interval of 932,000 to 2,138,000 eligible students and a 95 percent confidence interval of

9,000 to 28,000 students participating in choice. See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical

information.

Source: TASSIE district survey and Eligibility Dataset.

Districts required to implement choice under NCLB, but that did not do so in 2002-03,

were predominantly small, rural, and poor. This finding reflects, in part, that the majority (over

half, see Exhibit 4) of districts with identified Title I schools were small rural districts and, in

part, the limitations on choice in small rural districts.

Some of the lack of implementation of Title I choice may have been due to lack of

clarity at the local level about which schools choice options for students were required. For

example, districts in one state were advised not to apply interventions, including choice and
46

supplemental services, if it appeared an identified school would make AYP in 2002-03 (based on

2001-02 test scores). Some schools in these states that offered choice in 2001-02 continued to do

so in 2002-03; schools that appeared as if they might make AYP for a second consecutive year

did not. In another state, uncertainty over how to implement Title I school choice in schools in

districts operating under desegregation orders complicated implementation. For instance, many

districts in Louisiana delayed implementing choice provisions (including parent notification)

pending discussions with the U.S. Department of Education over issues related to desegregation

orders that affected more than 70 percent of the districts. At the same time, in 2002-03,

Louisiana schools that continued to miss their growth targets after having been identified for

improvement had to provide school choice options to parents under the state accountability

system.

The most common choice option available to parents of children enrolled in Title I

schools identified for improvement was transferring to any other school in the district at

the appropriate grade level that was not identified for improvement (see Exhibit 22), but the

options varied significantly on the basis of district size and locale. Small (71 percent) and

medium (72 percent) districts were more likely than others to respond that parents could choose

among all schools in the district at the appropriate grade level, whereas urban (28 percent) and

very large (50 percent) districts were more likely to have offered parents a subset of schools that

had been paired with a sending (identified) school. As seen in large case study districts, the need

to minimize transportation logistics played a part in explaining these differences (see example

below).

Exhibit 22

School Choice Options Available to Parents of Children Enrolled in

Identified Title I Schools, Among Districts That Offered Choice

School choice options provided Percent of districts with identified schools

All other schools in the district at the appropriate grade

level that are not identified for improvement under Title I* 62

A subset of schools that have been paired with the

sending school* 19

All other schools within a certain geographic zone 15

Public schools outside the district 5

Exhibit reads: Among districts with identified schools that offered Title I choice in 2002-03, 62 percent offered, as

a school choice option, all other schools in the district at the appropriate grade level that were not identified for

improvement under Title I.

Note: As noted in the text, there were significant differences by district size for the two options with an asterisk (*);

there was also a significant difference by urbanicity for the option of “a subset of receiving schools that were

paired with a sending school.” See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Among the 67 percent of districts with identified Title I schools that provided choice

in 2002-03, there were an estimated 1.5 million students eligible to exercise choice because

they were in an identified Title I school; about 2 percent of these students requested a

transfer from an identified school and about 1 percent then transferred to another school.
47

Of the estimated 1.5 million eligible students, 28,000 requested a transfer to a non-identified

school, and about 18,000 or 1 percent of eligible students actually transferred because their

school was identified for improvement (Exhibit 21).19

• The median number of eligible Title I students in a typical district offering choice in

2002-03 was 500 (the average was 2,000). In 56 percent of districts with identified

Title I schools where choice was offered, no students transferred. In the remaining 44

percent of districts where choice was offered and some students elected to transfer

schools, the median number of students that transferred was 10 (the average was 55).

• Similarly, 67 percent of identified Title I schools with students eligible to transfer (in

districts where choice was offered) reported that no students transferred. In the

remaining 33 percent of identified Title I schools where students elected to transfer

schools, the median number of students that transferred to another school was eight (the

average was five).

There was a great deal of variability among districts offering school choice. So, for example, 20

percent of districts had less than 100 students eligible to transfer and 30 percent of districts had

1,000 or more eligible students. Exhibit 23 illustrates the distribution across districts in the

number of students that actually transferred in 2002-03.

Exhibit 23

Distribution of Districts That Offered the Title I School Choice Option by Number

of Participating Students, Among Districts With Identified Schools in 2002-03

Number of students who transferred out of an identified

Title I school using the Title I school choice option:

Percentage of districts

offering Title I choice

None 56

1 to 9 students 21

10 to 99 students 19

100 or more students 5

Exhibit reads: Among districts with identified Title I schools that offered choice in 2002-03, 56 percent had

no students transfer.

Note: See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

 19 The number of students eligible to exercise choice is underestimated because a third (33 percent) of the 16 percent

of districts that had at least one Title I school identified for improvement indicated that they did not offer choice

under Title I and did not provide this information. Any estimates of the number of students who requested a

transfer and then transferred to non-identified schools include data only from districts that offered school choice

to students in identified Title I schools.
48

The location (urbanicity) and size of a district was related to the number of students

eligible for Title I choice; there were significant differences by district size and locale in the

number of students eligible to exercise choice and the number of students who requested a

transfer. As might have been expected, averages were highest in districts with the highest

number of identified Title I schools—very large, urban districts (see Exhibit 24). Thus, for

example, in two very large urban case study districts, the number of students eligible for public

school choice was about 12,000, contrasted with a very large suburban case study district and a

small rural case study district both with around 300 students eligible for choice.

Exhibit 24

Average Number of Students Eligible to Exercise Choice, Among Districts

With Identified Schools and That Offered Title I Choice

District size All

districts Small Medium Large Very large

2,200 500 600 1,900 15,000

District urbanicity

Urban Suburban Rural

2,200 6,200 1,100 500

Exhibit reads: Among districts with identified Title I schools that offered choice, the average

number of students eligible to exercise school choice in 2002-03 was 2,200. In small districts

with identified schools that offered Title I choice, the average number of students was 500;

the average number was 600 students in medium districts; 1,900 in large districts; and 15,000

in very large districts.

Note: Numbers rounded to the nearest hundred. See the appendix for sample sizes and

additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

The number of students that requested a transfer to a non-identified school may

reflect the many considerations that go into a parent’s choice of schools for their child such

as how well their child is achieving, the quality of the school staff, the availability of special

programs, and the proximity to their home, as described in parent focus groups. Late and

inadequate parent notification and limited choices for alternate schools, described later in this

section, may have also contributed to low parent participation. In addition to the identification

status of a school, research at the case study sites indicated that other factors influenced a

parent’s decision in selecting a school.

• One parent in an identified school in a very large urban district indicated her reasons

for not transferring her child to a non-identified school, even though her child’s school

was identified: “I did my own research and knew about it [identification]...but I liked

the principal and loved the kindergarten teacher. I like the K-3 program and that we

have school uniforms. Plus, it’s the neighborhood school, my husband went here, and

his father went here.” She added: “Test scores are not just [the] school’s

responsibility—I’ll put in the effort too. It’s a well-rounded community, I’m very

happy here and my child is doing amazing work.”
49

• Another parent explained her decision to stay as follows: “As a parent, you have the

option to pull your kid out or to stay with the promise of school improvement and the

transformation plan. You stay because this is your community.”

• Some parents in a small rural district indicated that they had selected their child’s

school because, as a small school with small class sizes, it afforded more personalized

attention: “I can call our principal at home. It’s like that with the teacher also, if I need

something I can call her at home.” In schools that serve limited English proficient

(LEP) students, the availability of bilingual staff who can communicate with parents is

a strong incentive for parents to keep their children at the school.

• Proximity to home and ease of access were also important considerations.

In districts with choice policies that predated NCLB, parents who had already exercised

choice may have reduced the number of students exercising choice in 2002-03. Three case study

states—Arizona, Michigan, and Washington—have open enrollment policies, and parents had

already selected the school they wanted their child to attend.20 Unlike some other choice

policies, NCLB requires that transportation be provided to students in identified Title I schools

who choose to attend a non-identified school.

Data from other sources also suggest that many parents did not immediately think of

transferring their child when a school was identified for improvement in 2002-03. A national

2003 poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools indicated that, for schools identified

for improvement, 74 percent of parents preferred to have additional efforts made in their child’s

school, 25 percent preferred to transfer their child to a non-identified school, and 1 percent had

no opinion. The poll also showed that the public was divided in regard to whether parents in the

community had enough information to choose another school for their children to attend if their

current school was identified for improvement; 48 percent of public school parents believed

parents in their community had enough information, and 50 percent believed they did not

(2 percent did not know) (Lowell and Gallup 2003).

At the same time, more than half of the districts (53 percent) that offered choice

reported that no students received their first choice of schools when transferring to a nonidentified school—a fact that may have influenced the final decision about whether to

transfer to another school or not. Nationwide, of the students that requested a transfer in

2002-03, an estimated 17,000 (or 62 percent of those requesting a transfer) received their first

choice of schools. Differences by district size in the number of students who received their first

choice of schools when transferring were also significant. Students in small districts were less

 20 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. Additionally, districts experienced in developing options

may have been better prepared to carry out the NCLB choice requirements. An analysis by the National Center

for Education Statistics, Trends in the Use of School Choice 1993 to 1999, showed that the decrease in assigned

public school enrollment had almost completely been offset by an increase from 11 to 14 percent in parentally

chosen public school enrollment (NCES 2003). TASSIE 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;

this compares with 41 percent in 2001-02.
50

likely to have received their first choice of schools because there were fewer schools to choose

from compared with medium and large districts.

The number of non-identified schools available as alternatives can influence the

extent to which parents choose to send their children, at all grade levels, to non-identified

schools. The number of schools was also linked to the size of the district, but the availability of

alternative schools at the middle and high school levels was limited across all districts (see

Exhibit 25). For example, although having no alternate schools available at the elementary level

was less likely, more than half of districts with identified schools reported they had no alternate

high schools for parents to choose and over a third had no alternate middle schools. There were

also significant differences by district size in the average number of alternate schools available to

families in identified schools, with very large districts having the largest numbers of alternate

schools (e.g., 17 at the elementary level). But having more alternate schools did not necessarily

guarantee more choice as seen in some of the case study districts (see Exhibit 26).

Exhibit 25

Number of Alternate Schools Available to Parents With Students

in Identified Title I Schools, Among Districts That Offered Choice

Mean number of

schools

Alternate schools for children in elementary grades 3

Alternate schools for children in middle grades 1

Alternate schools for children in high school grades 0

Exhibit reads: Among districts with identified schools and that offered choice in 2002-03, the

mean number of alternate schools available to parents with students in identified Title I

elementary schools was three.

Note: See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Exhibit 26

School Choice in Districts With Few Alternate Schools

A very large urban case study district had more than 11,000 students eligible for Title I choice in 37

schools but had very few alternative schools to choose from. (At the middle school level, it had none

because they were all identified for improvement.) To try to provide improved services to students in

the lowest performing schools, the district drew on additional resources such as increased support staff

and funding as an alternative. To minimize transportation logistics, the district limited choices by

pairing identified schools with two to four non-identified schools from which parents could choose. Two

other case study districts, one medium and one small, had only one alternate elementary school that

was not identified for improvement. In one of these districts, the school available to serve as an

alternate was quite small and in a rural area of the county.
51

Districts were taking steps to increase the options available to parents of children in

identified schools. ED draft non-regulatory guidance that was available in 2002-03 stipulated

that a district had the flexibility under NCLB to determine which schools, among those not

identified for improvement, would comprise the range of alternates to which eligible students

could transfer. However, Title I regulations (cited in the guidance) also noted that capacity

constraints were not allowable reasons for not offering students the transfer options, although

districts may take capacity into account when deciding which schools to offer as transfer options.

In addition, the guidance suggested that in situations where no schools were available as choice

options (e.g., only one school in the district), districts, to the extent practicable, must establish a

cooperative agreement with other districts in the area or could offer supplemental educational

services (ED 2002). Some districts (5 percent) added teachers or classrooms to schools within

the district that had not been identified for improvement—a higher percentage of very large and

urban districts (15 percent and 14 percent, respectively) took this approach. A few districts (4

percent) attempted to negotiate agreements with neighboring districts, but they were not

successful.

• One medium size case study district tried to establish an agreement with a neighboring

district, but the other district declined the request to place students in one of its nonidentified schools. The first district was waiting to hear from other nearby districts

about their willingness to accept its students. One reason for the lack of interest from

neighboring districts was the policy the sending district had established: if parents

opted to enroll their children at schools outside the district, the district “would rank

students, giving priority [for transportation] to the lowest performing students.”

• Other case study data indicated that districts were offering additional services to

students in identified schools (e.g., before- and after-school programs, academic

tutoring), particularly if the district was faced with difficulties in expanding capacity

and where sending students to a neighboring district was not possible (i.e., the nearest

district was too far away or would not serve students from another district).

Similar examples were provided in another national study of NCLB implementation which

included visits to 15 school districts in 2002-03. They reported that school choice had been

difficult to implement in some districts because they had few or no potential receiving schools

that could serve the right grade levels and were not in school improvement themselves. Districts

had also met with only limited success in persuading neighboring districts to accept out-ofdistrict transfer students. Some districts had to offer supplemental services to students instead of

choice in schools in their first year of school improvement (Center on Education Policy 2003).

The challenges to the successful implementation and use of public school choice for

students in identified schools generally follows the same pattern in 2002-03 as that for

2001-02; again, the magnitude of the problems associated with procedural requirements

were generally not large, but some challenges varied significantly by district type. Overall,

only a small portion of districts were greatly affected by these challenges, with difficulties in

expanding capacity (39 percent) and lack of space (33 percent) identified most frequently (see

Exhibit 27). Districts reported that issues such as no alternate schools in the district (72 percent),

lack of transportation to alternate schools (76 percent), and inadequate funding for choice-related
52

transportation and supplemental services (86 percent) were generally not a problem or posed

only a small problem in 2002-03. The extent to which these issues remain a minimal barrier to

implementation may depend on the extent of growth in the number of identified schools within a

district and in parent demand for both choice and supplemental services (e.g., high demand may

exceed funding from the 20 percent set-aside).

Exhibit 27

Challenges Faced by Districts That Implemented School Choice,

Among Districts Required to Offer Choice

Type of challenge

Great

extent

Moderate

extent

Not at all or

small extent

Expanding capacity 39 12 49

Lack of space in alternate schools 33 22 45

No alternate schools within the district 17 12 72

Lack of transportation to alternate schools 14 10 76

Inability to negotiate agreements with other

districts to receive students who wish to transfer 12 9 79

Inability to meet the needs of LEP students in

alternate schools 10 13 77

Inability to meet the needs of special education

students in alternate schools 9 16 75

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

9 6 86

Inadequate information for parents about school

choice options 3 2 94

Inadequate information for parents about the

status of their child’s school as identified for

improvement under Title I

3 3 94

Exhibit reads: Among districts that were required to offer choice and made choice options available in 2002-03,

39 percent responded that expanding capacity was a challenge to a great extent, 12 percent responded that it

was a challenge to a moderate extent, and 49 percent responded that it was not a challenge or a challenge to a

small extent to implementing school choice.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. See the appendix for sample sizes and additional

statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

On the other hand, some differences in the severity of challenges by district size and locale

were significant. For example, small districts (42 percent) were more likely than others to have

responded that no alternate schools in the district presented a serious challenge to implementing

choice; small districts (30 percent) were more likely than others to have responded that lack of
53

transportation to alternate schools presented a serious challenge; and suburban districts (44

percent) were more likely to have responded that lack of space in alternate schools was a serious

challenge. Small (88 percent) and rural (75 percent) districts made up the majority of districts

required to implement choice but that did not do so in 2002-03.

Supplemental Educational Services

Under NCLB, states and school districts were required to implement the supplemental

educational services provisions at the beginning of the 2002-03 school year. The non-regulatory

guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education in December 2002 provided states and

districts with additional information about how to implement these provisions in 2002-03.

Specifically, NCLB requires that supplemental services be consistent with the state’s academic

content standards and with the instruction provided by the school district. In addition, services

must be provided outside the regular school day. School districts, in consultation with parents

and providers, must develop specific educational goals for each student. Supplemental service

providers must measure the student’s progress regularly and report regularly on that progress to

teachers and parents. Supplemental services may be provided by a variety of agencies, including

for-profit and nonprofit entities, approved school districts, faith-based organizations, and

approved public or private schools. Data gathered through the state level interviews, district and

principal surveys and site visits to the sample of case study districts provided a look at the early

implementation of supplemental services as defined by NCLB.

Implementation of the supplemental services provision was generally slow and uneven

in 2002-03. States were slow to publish lists of approved providers, districts were slow to

organize services, and few parents signed their children up for additional supplemental

educational services.

State Actions

Each state is required to develop criteria for selecting providers, maintain a list of 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 in two years.

Very few states gave a list of approved providers to districts before the beginning of

the 2002-03 school year. Only five states published lists of approved providers before

September 2002. By Jan. 2003, 21 more states posted lists and 41 states plus the District of

Columbia posted lists by the end of June 2003. Most state education agencies (SEAs) launched

their provider identification process in 2002-03, but some time was required to generate an

adequate list of providers. For example, Maryland had approved two providers at the beginning

of the 2002-03 school year, but had added 12 more by spring 2003.

States have flexibility in developing a provider approval process. At the same time, NCLB

calls for selection criteria that promote participation by the maximum number of providers to

ensure that parents have as many choices as possible. Data from state sources (e.g., state
54

policies, state interviews) indicate that states with identified providers by April 200321 often

employed a rubric or template to evaluate provider applications for 2002-03. The rubrics were

based on the requirements established in NCLB and listed in the Department of Education’s nonregulatory guidance. Many states also used the criteria outlined in the Council of Chief State

School Officers (CCSSO) SEA Toolkit on Supplemental Services in the NCLB Act of 2001,

which in turn was based on NCLB criteria as well as additional measures (CCSSO 2002).

Elements adopted from the Toolkit other than those specified in NCLB included: (1) evidence of

highly qualified staff (with some states requiring criminal background checks as required by

state law for teacher licensure or public school-related employment regulations); (2) letters of

reference offering information about positive program results as part of a demonstrated record of

effectiveness; (3) adequate organizational resources to meet consumer demand; and (4)

conditional approval of newly developed programs.

Finally, some states also added state-developed criteria that included: (1) supervision of

services by a certified teacher; (2) evidence of highly qualified paraprofessionals; (3) evidence of

interactions with students if the providers used a Web-based program or specific technology

requirements; (4) a designated pricing structure; (5) a defined service area; and (6) independence

from district or school resources (e.g., the district or school was not required to provide space or

resources).

In 2002-03, the number and services of state-approved providers did not adequately

match local needs. As discussed later in this section, many districts cited lack of providers as a

major challenge to implementation. By April 2003, 43 states and the District of Columbia had

approved a total of 1,017 providers, for an average of 23 per state (the same number as in June

2003); however, the approved providers were not evenly distributed across states. Thirty-one

states had between one and 20 providers each, six states had between 21 and 30 providers, four

states had between 45 and 100 providers, and two states had over 100 providers (Policy and

Program Studies Service 2003 and state interviews).

Among districts that provided supplemental services, the average number of supplemental

service providers available to students by spring 2003 (April-May) was five per district (a

median of three).

Even though it may have appeared that there were providers statewide, many

providers did not serve rural areas or districts with small numbers of students or students

with special needs. In other areas, providers lacked the capacity to meet the demand for

their services. A Title I director in a small rural case study district stated: “We don’t have

Sylvan up here. There is not a single provider who wants to come up here because we don’t

have enough students.” In addition, online providers had not been available to some rural

communities where Internet access and computer equipment were limited or unavailable. In one

high-poverty case study district that offered online services, parents needed to have computers

 21 Two states, Florida and Wyoming, had no identified schools in their second year of improvement and, as a result,

were not required to develop a list of approved providers in 2002-03. Spring 2003 (April-May) was the study’s

data collection time frame for state-level and provider information on supplemental services to coincide with

district and school survey data collection. State-level policies and practices after this time period would have

little impact on 2002-03 local-level implementation of supplemental services.
55

and Internet access to have used providers’ services, a luxury that many parents in the district

could not afford. According to local respondents, without hands-on assistance, only higher

functioning students had the discipline to participate in a distance-learning program, thereby

excluding some of the students most in need—younger students, students whose English

proficiency was limited, and those who were disabled.22

In some cases, providers found themselves having to restructure their programs because

they were unable to hire enough staff due to districts’ inability to provide sufficient notice

regarding the number of students that signed up for services; others had to turn students away

because of insufficient staff. For example, a large urban case study district had 6,000 eligible

students, but the eight approved providers could serve only 1,300 students or 22 percent of those

eligible. Some providers interviewed indicated that they needed to serve a minimum number of

students for their businesses to be viable. Meeting that threshold was difficult for small districts

(ED 2004b).

Approved providers represented a variety of organizations. As of April 2003 (the

period of survey data collection), the bulk of providers were private providers (e.g., not-for-profit

private groups or for-profit organizations such as Sylvan Educational Solutions, Kaplan

Educational Centers, Kumon Math and Reading Centers). A third (32 percent) of approved

providers were school districts and schools (see Exhibit 28). The make up of providers remained

similar through the end of the 2003-04 school year (June 2003).

Exhibit 28

Supplemental Services Providers in April 2003

Type of provider

Number of

providers

Percent of

total

Private: Faith-based 18 2

Private: Online 98 10

Other private 472 46

Districts and public schools 326 32

Colleges and universities 32 3

Other or unknown types 71 7

Exhibit reads: Among states that approved supplemental services providers, 18 were

faith-based organizations or 2 percent of all approved providers as of April 2003.

Note: Information on the types of approved providers was available from 43 states and the

District of Columbia. Totals may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. See the

appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: Policy and Program Studies Service unpublished database and TASSIE state

interviews.

 22 In cases where there are no approved providers available to supply supplemental services to disabled or limited

English proficient students, the district is required to provide supplemental services, either directly or through a

contract.
56

While states were focused on the process of approving providers for services in 2002-

03, many states did not establish systems for monitoring provider performance or a process

for withdrawing providers from an approved list.23 Twenty-two states completed standards

for monitoring providers and 20 states completed standards for withdrawing providers in 2002-

03. Alternatively, 20 states that provided data on the development of standards for monitoring

providers reported that they had not yet established systems for monitoring performance, and 23

states reported that they were still developing a process for withdrawing approval of providers.

Most of the states that had developed or were working on their monitoring process planned to

rely on reports from one or multiple outside sources (e.g., districts, schools, providers, parents),

and two states reported that they were using an outside entity (their regional education

laboratory) to evaluate provider performance.

• The majority of states that began addressing monitoring issues emphasized the

gathering of student performance data (primarily on assessments) as part of their

proposed monitoring process, but they also identified other sources of data to be

collected (e.g., reports on attendance and the number of dropouts, parent and school or

district satisfaction surveys).

• In five states, the frequency of provider monitoring differed, depending on the

provider’s approval status (e.g., full vs. conditional approval).

• Of the 20 states that established standards for withdrawing provider approval, eleven

states reported that they adopted only the criteria for withdrawal outlined in

NCLB—failure to improve student achievement over a period of two years, failure to

comply with eligibility requirements, and assurances and responsibilities of providers

specified in NCLB. Another eight states reported that they were using student

achievement data for a period of less than two years (e.g., for providers with only

provisional approval), some form of parent and district satisfaction data, monitoring

data, and evaluation data from forms completed by providers and districts.

Case study states reflected the range of implementation that existed in 2002-03: Louisiana

had developed a systematic approach to provider identification and monitoring (see the

description in Exhibit 29), whereas Maryland and Arizona had yet to consider monitoring.

Michigan had approved 24 providers and was planning to collect district summaries of student

progress (however measured) and look at state assessment results; Washington formed a review

committee that met periodically to review applications and to establish a monitoring tool.

 23 Data were not available for six states regarding standards for monitoring providers and for five states regarding

the establishment of standards for withdrawal of provider approval (these states did not respond to the request for

an interview).
57

Exhibit 29

State Criteria for Approving and Monitoring Supplemental Service Providers

Louisiana’s SEA hired an outside firm that had worked with CCSSO to develop its Toolkit to assist the

SEA in developing the state’s supplemental services provider application and to train reviewers. In

addition, district staff from districts with students eligible to receive services were interviewed to develop

criteria for approving providers. The resulting Supplemental Education Services Model used three

criteria against which the qualifications of providers were assessed:

(1) Was there a diagnostic assessment, or an appropriate process, that would be used by the provider to

identify student weaknesses and achievement gaps, as well as to measure gains in student

achievement (the latter for the purposes of provider accountability)? The diagnostic tool had to be

tied to the curriculum of the provider, which should in turn be tied to state content standards.

(2) Was targeted remediation or instruction aimed at addressing the individual skill gaps revealed during

the assessment and based on an individual learning plan?

(3) Was there a post-assessment to determine whether or not student gains occurred and a plan either

for reteaching skills or for identifying new skill sets for instruction?

Prospective providers were asked to complete a three-step review process. The first step was to have

them complete the provider application, which included the requirements outlined in NCLB (e.g., has a

demonstrated record of effectiveness, is financially sound). In the second step, providers were asked to

provide information related to the model’s three requirements—the providers’ diagnostic processes (how

instruction would be individualized) and their methods for delivering services. Face-to-face interviews

were also conducted to assess provider qualifications.

The state was also working on designing a monitoring process for providers that went beyond self-report

data. As part of the state’s larger effort to monitor after-school providers, the state had established an

online database in January 2003 that providers used to submit data on each child receiving services.

The database generated reports for the user as well as the state. The SEA was planning to add more

information requirements to the existing system for supplemental service providers such as achievement

data collected by providers. The data would allow the SEA to also look at a student’s progress on state

tests.

District Actions and Student Participation

School districts are responsible for notifying parents of their children’s eligibility to receive

supplemental services and for providing parents with adequate information to select providers for

their children. Parents can select any approved provider in the area served by the school district

or within a reasonable distance of the school district. School districts must make arrangements

to reimburse providers directly for the services they provide to eligible students.

Few districts were required to offer supplemental services in 2002-03; of those that

were, roughly half did so. Only 11 percent of Title I districts nationwide, or approximately

1,100 LEAs, had Title I schools in their second year or more of school improvement where

students were eligible to receive supplemental services (see Exhibit 30). But just under half of

the districts (48 percent or 500) that had identified schools required to offer supplemental

services were implementing services by spring 2003 (these districts contained about 800

identified schools or 58 percent of the Title I schools required to offer supplemental services).
58

Districts not providing supplemental services in 2002-03 were predominantly small and rural,

with medium to high poverty.

Exhibit 30

Districts That Offered Title I Supplemental Services,

Among Districts Required to Offer Services

2002-03

Districts:

Number required to offer services

Number where services offered

Percent where services offered

1,100

500

48%

Title I schools:

Number where services required

Number where services offered

Percent where services offered

1,300

800

58%

Exhibit reads: In 2002-03, there were an estimated 1,100 districts required to offer

supplemental services (regardless of the provision of services) to low-income students

because they had Title I schools identified for improvement for more than one year. The data

presented in this exhibit are estimates at the 95 percent confidence interval with 32 degrees of

freedom and hence the numbers may have been higher or lower than indicated.

Note: The numbers are estimates based on district survey responses. Percentages were

calculated by dividing the number required to offer services by the number offering services.

See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Nationwide, an estimated 1,300 identified Title I schools were required to offer

supplemental services in 2002-03 (regardless of whether they actually provided services). The

number of schools and students in 2002-03 affected by supplemental services requirements was

not large either, whereas district size and location significantly influenced whether there were

students eligible for services. As defined by respondents to the district survey, these are the

Title I schools identified for two or more years. The median number of schools in a district with

students eligible to receive services was one (the average was four), but there were significant

differences by district size and location with very large and urban districts having the highest

numbers of schools (13 and 7 schools, respectively). The median reflects the composition of

districts with identified schools; that is, more than half (59 percent) of districts with schools

identified for improvement were small and medium districts that averaged very few identified

schools (e.g., the average number of Title I schools that had eligible students was two in medium

districts compared with 13 in very large districts).

Nationwide, roughly 7 percent of eligible students in districts that offered

supplemental services received services from an approved provider. Among districts that

reported they had schools required to offer supplemental services in 2002-03, there were an

estimated 791,000 students from low-income families eligible to receive supplemental services.
59

In districts that actually offered services, an estimated 592,000 students were eligible and 42,000

of those students (7 percent) received services from an approved provider (see Exhibit 31).

Exhibit 31

Students in Identified Schools Eligible for and Receiving Supplemental Services,

Among Districts That Reported Having Identified Schools and Provided Services 24

2002-03

Estimated number of students eligible to receive services in districts

providing services 592,000

Number of students that received services from an approved provider

in districts providing services 42,000

Percent of eligible students 7%

Exhibit reads: Among districts that offered services, an estimated 592,000 students were eligible to receive

supplemental educational services in 2002-03 because their schools were identified for improvement under

Title I for more than one year. The data presented in this exhibit are estimates based on a 95 percent

confidence interval with 32 degrees of freedom and estimates have been rounded.

Note: The percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students who received services by the number

of students eligible for services in districts that provided services. The numbers are estimates based on

districts that provided services. The estimates of the number of students eligible for and that received

supplemental services in 2002-03 has a 95 percent confidence interval of 111,000 to 1,073,000 eligible

students and a 95 percent confidence interval of 23,000 to 61,000 students that received services. The

estimates of the number of students who received services are based on the 48 percent of districts with

schools that were required to offer and provided supplemental services to students in identified Title I

schools; this is also true of the estimated number of low-income students eligible to receive supplemental

services in districts offering these services (see footnote below regarding these estimates). See the appendix

for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

• The median number of students eligible to receive services per district that provided

supplemental services was 500 (the average was 2,400). In 40 percent of the districts

with identified Title I schools where supplemental services were offered, no students

received services. In the remaining 60 percent of districts with identified Title I

schools where some students received services during the 2002-03 school year, the

median number that received supplemental services was 80 students (the average was

200).

 24 The 791,000 students eligible to receive supplemental services included students in all districts with Title I

schools identified for two or more years that reported they had Title I schools required to offer supplemental

services to students, regardless of whether or not the district offered services. The numbers are underestimated

for all students eligible for services because 46 percent of districts required to offer supplemental services

reported they did not have schools required to provide supplemental services and did not provide any data on

numbers of students. The estimates of the number of students who received services are based on the 48 percent

of districts with schools required to offer supplemental services and provided supplemental services to students in

identified Title I schools; this is also true of the estimated number of low-income students eligible to receive

supplemental services in districts offering these services (hence the number of students receiving services is a

more accurate estimate).
60

• Another 14,000 students (2 percent) in districts that offered supplemental services

received services from providers that were not approved by the state (e.g., delays in

states identifying approved providers or a lack of approved providers in the area

encouraged some districts to begin providing some sort of supplemental services to

help students before approved providers became available).

Again, there were significant differences at the district level in the number of eligible students by

district size and location, and by district size in the number of students receiving supplemental

services. So, for example, the average number of eligible students in suburban districts that

provided supplemental services was around 1,500, but in urban districts the average was around

7,200 students. The average number of students that received supplemental services in medium

districts was 94, whereas the average number of students was 535 in very large districts. At the

school level there was also some variation (see Exhibit 32).

The number of Title I students that received supplemental services varied

considerably across schools. The average number was higher in schools with higher poverty

levels. More than a third (37 percent) of continuously identified Title I schools had none or

fewer than 10 students receiving services as of spring 2003 (see Exhibit 32). However, 16

percent had more than 100 of their students receiving services. As a result, the median number

of students who received supplemental services in Title I schools that continued to be identified

in 2002-03 (in districts that provided services) was 24 whereas the average was 64.

Exhibit 32

Distribution of Continuously Identified Schools That Offered

Supplemental Services by Number of Participating Students

Number of students who received Title I

supplemental services:

Percentage of schools where

supplemental services offered

None 22

1 to 9 students 15

10 to 99 students 47

100 or more students 16

Exhibit reads: Among Title I schools in districts that offered supplemental services, 22

percent had no students receive supplemental services in 2002-03.

Note: See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE principal survey.

Several considerations influenced parents’ decisions when offered supplemental

services for their children, and transportation issues were a deciding factor for many

parents. Parents often chose providers more for logistics and convenience than for educational

concerns as revealed in parent focus groups. How far children had to travel for services was a

critical issue for parents. In a small rural district, for example, parents did not want to bus their

children 20 miles after school to receive services, particularly because the identified school was
61

offering programs similar to supplemental services taught by teachers they knew. (Alternatively,

parents in a large district indicated that they would have definitely taken advantage of

supplemental services if they were available because they felt that the after-school programs onsite were more like homework clubs than targeted intervention.) A large urban district tried to

minimize travel logistics by recommending providers that were nearest identified schools. In

addition, parents of eligible students interviewed generally said they liked and trusted their

children’s schools and teachers, even though the schools were identified for improvement.

Parents often based their judgment of a school on the accessibility and personality of the teacher

(e.g., if he or she was caring or not) and the school environment. In some cases, inadequate

parent information about supplemental services, as discussed later in this section, may have

affected parents’ decisions as well.

Parent focus group data were reflected in the results of a 2003 national poll of the public’s

attitudes toward public schools, where 54 percent of public school parents indicated they would

have preferred tutoring provided by teachers in their child’s school, and 42 percent would have

preferred tutoring provided by an outside agency if their child had been in a school identified for

improvement (four percent did not know) (Lowell and Gallup 2003). Case studies of 15 districts

conducted in a 2002-03 study of the implementation of NCLB reported similar findings (Center

on Education Policy 2003). Officials in several of these case study districts attributed low

participation in tutoring services to “the limited number of approved providers available in some

areas, the late start for initiating this requirement, difficulties in managing and administering the

program, and the need to change families’ concepts of ‘school’ to encompass a longer learning

day in a variety of settings” (p. 5).

Among districts that provided supplemental services, 62 percent made these services

available to all students from low-income families because demand did not exceed Title I

funding requirements. Case study data from 2002-03 suggest that districts were taking various

approaches to determine how to prioritize services when demand exceeded resources.25 A large

urban case study district prioritized services to the lowest achieving low-income students

because demand exceeded resources, but this was not the situation in other districts. Before

determining whether services needed to be targeted or prioritized, several districts in a separate

set of case studies considered the number of students attending identified schools and the amount

of Title I dollars available to fund supplemental services. Other districts determined whether or

not it was necessary to assign priority for services on the basis of the initial response they

received from the letters sent to parents of eligible students regarding the availability of

supplemental services (ED 2004b).

As noted above, more than half (52 percent) of districts required to offer supplemental

services (primarily small, rural, and medium- to high-poverty districts) were not implementing

supplemental services in 2002-03. The most frequent reason districts cited for not having

provided services was that no parents had signed up for services (47 percent), but a quarter of the

districts (24 percent) were still notifying parents and setting up services, and 17 percent had not

 25 According to ED’s non-regulatory guidance, all students from low-income families who attend Title I schools

identified for the second year or more of school improvement are eligible to receive supplemental services.

However, if available district funds are insufficient to provide supplemental educational services to eligible

students, the school district must give priority to the lowest-achieving students (ED 2003b).
62

yet received a list of providers from the state.26 According to focus groups with parents,

awareness of options appeared to be only one factor that influenced their choice of services.

Few parents requested supplemental services for reasons that included preexisting after-school

programs or providers located far from the school.

Fewer than half the principals of schools required to offer supplemental services

reported that they had eligible students. In Title I schools that continued to be identified in

2002-03 (i.e., identified for at least two years), 44 percent reported that they had students eligible

to receive supplemental services. Because NCLB requires that students in low-income families

in Title I schools in their second year of improvement be offered supplemental services, these

numbers suggest that principals did not understand this requirement. Other explanations were

suggested by the case study sites, including the transitional nature of AYP definitions. In two

case study states, districts were told by their states to delay offering supplemental services in

schools that might be identified for two consecutive years until new AYP definitions were in

place. Both Michigan and Washington were changing their AYP definitions, and thus defining a

school’s status during the 2002-03 school year was subject to considerable confusion. As a

result, the number of schools that offered supplemental services in these states may have been

less than expected, and principals’ knowledge about the requirement to offer supplemental

services to their students may have been compromised.

Lack of providers in the area was the most significant challenge to districts in 2002-03.

Districts with identified schools that provided services reported that the most significant

challenge they faced in implementing supplemental services in 2002-03 was the lack of providers

in the area (48 percent). Sixty-one percent of districts cited serious challenges not listed on the

survey (see Exhibit 33). These challenges included not having been provided a list of service

providers by the state, services offered by providers that did not match local needs (e.g., services

available online but parents had no computers, no services for grades one to four), the inadequate

quality of providers available, and service contract issues such as responsibility for students with

poor attendance—reasons similar to those reported by districts that had not yet begun providing

services. The survey data reflected the experiences of case study districts and the issues

considered by parents in selecting services as described in parent focus groups.

 26 Districts may be granted a waiver to not provide supplemental services if no approved providers make services

available in the general geographic location served by the district or via distance learning and if the district

provides evidence that it cannot provide services (ED 2003b). But case study data suggest that parents may

define “a reasonable distance” within or outside the boundaries of a district differently than the district does.
63

Exhibit 33

Challenges Faced by Districts That Implemented Supplemental Services,

Among Districts That Provided Services

Type of challenge

Great

extent

Moderate

extent

Small

extent Not at all

Lack of providers in the area 48 6 6 41

Lack of an established reputation for

providers with parents 18 27 24 30

Competition from existing after-school

programs

16 8 33 44

Inadequacy of an amount equal to 20% of

the district’s Title I allocation for meeting all

requests for services or providing

transportation to all students who request a

transfer to alternate schools

6 3 11 81

Inadequate time for parents to learn about

supplemental services 3 13 22 62

Inadequate information for parents about

supplemental services 1 8 20 71

Other 61 19 7 13

Exhibit reads: Among districts that provided supplemental services in 2002-03, 48 percent responded that a lack of

providers in the area was a challenge to a great extent to implementing supplemental services, 6 percent responded

that such a lack was a challenge to a moderate extent, 6 percent responded that it was a challenge to a small extent,

and 41 percent responded that it was not a challenge at all.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. See the appendix for sample sizes and additional

statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Communication With Parents

A majority of districts with identified Title I schools missed the deadline for notifying

parents of their public school choice option before the beginning of the 2002-03 school year.

NCLB calls for districts to notify parents about eligibility for public school choice before the

beginning of the school year (the first day of school), but some leeway was granted for the 2002-

03 school year (i.e., by the beginning of the 2002-03 school year) as outlined in the U.S.

Department of Education's non-regulatory guidance (ED 2002). As shown in Exhibit 34,

45 percent of districts with identified Title I schools that offered choice notified parents about

their option for Title I public school choice before the beginning of the 2002-03 school year; on

average seven weeks before school began. Notification continued through the school year (on

average 10 weeks into the school year).
64

Exhibit 34

Timing of Notification to Parents of Students in Identified Title I Schools

About Eligibility for School Choice, Among Districts That Offered Choice

When parents were notified

Percent of

districts

Average

number of

weeks

Before the beginning of the 2002-03 school year 45 7

At the beginning of the 2002-03 school year 23 NA

After the beginning of the 2002-3 school year 42 10

Exhibit reads: Among districts with identified schools that offered choice options, 45 percent notified

parents of children in identified Title I schools about their eligibility for public school choice before

the beginning of the 2002-03 school year. The average timing of notification was seven weeks before

the school year began.

Note: Percentages add to more than 100 percent because some districts notified parents more than

once. See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Both districts and schools had taken part in the notification process regarding public

school choice and supplemental services, with most having relied on written

communication. Almost all districts sent written notices to parents; just slightly fewer than half

held parent meetings (see Exhibit 35). Twelve percent of districts surveyed reported that they

used other means (other than those listed in Exhibit 35) to communicate with parents about their

school choice options, including local newspapers, local cable television, the district Web site,

newsletters, computerized phone messages to parents, parent and community or church network

group phone hot lines, and the district welcome or enrollment center. Many districts (87

percent) used more than one method to communicate with parents regarding school choice and a

little more than half (57 percent) of districts had used more than one method to communicate

with parents regarding supplemental services. Case study data also suggest that more than one

form of communication was often used in 2002-03.

About a third of continuously identified schools (32 percent) reported that the district alone

handled communication regarding school choice, and a similar percentage reported that the

district alone handled communication regarding supplemental services. However, schools were

involved in other activities such as collecting information on eligible students and responding to

parents’ questions about the information sent by the district or to questions about the types of

services that were going to be offered. The role the schools played in communicating with

parents was critical as seen in some case study districts. For example, in a very large urban case

study district, parents felt a close connection only to school staff and therefore looked to them

for information about the status of the school and their school choice options. In a separate set

of case studies on supplemental services parents reported frequently relying on their children’s

teachers and schools to help them make decisions about service providers (ED 2004b).
65

Exhibit 35

Methods Used by Districts to Communicate School Choice and Supplemental Services

Options to Parents, Among Districts With Identified Schools and That Offered

Title I Choice and Supplemental Services

Percent of districts

with identified Title I schools

Communication method

About

school

choice

About

supplemental

services

Written notification sent home to parents about school

choice options or supplemental services available to them 89 99

Parent meetings to publicize and discuss school choice

options or supplemental services 45 43

Discussions with parents held by classroom teachers,

principals, and other school staff about supplemental

services options

NA 50

Individual meetings with interested parents NA 40

Public service announcements 22 32

Enrollment fairs or other events where parents of

students in schools identified for improvement can learn

about alternate schools or about providers and the

services they provide

8 13

Open houses in alternate schools for parents of students

in schools identified for improvement 6 NA

Other methods 12 6

Exhibit reads: Among districts with identified Title I schools, 89 percent that offered choice used written

notification to communicate with parents about the school choice options available to them in 2002-03, and 99

percent that offered supplemental services used written notification to communicate with the parents of eligible

students about supplemental services.

Note: See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Parents did not necessarily understand the information contained in notification

materials. Case study data indicated that both language barriers and confusing terminology

contributed to the lack of understanding. In two urban districts, the need to translate letters into

multiple languages to communicate with non-English speaking parents was a problem. One of

these districts had the resources to deal with this issue, hiring bilingual staff and translating

information for parents into 10 languages. The other district reported inadequate staff and funds

to address this issue, and letters informing parents of students in identified schools of the option

to transfer their children to non-identified schools were sent out only in English, even though the

district serves a population speaking 36 languages. Sometimes confusion stemmed from the

presence of state accountability initiatives that operated in conjunction with their Title I

accountability systems under NCLB. In Arizona, for example, the different ratings given to a
66

school under the state initiative (AZ LEARNS) versus the state’s accountability system for

NCLB has caused considerable confusion among parents because the various labels used sound

contradictory. The new state labeling process had in essence created a dual accountability

system because a school could receive a “maintaining” or “improving” label from the state but

still be considered in school improvement under NCLB.

Some districts downplayed the information provided to parents on Title I choice,

whereas others had taken a number of steps to inform parents about their choice options.

In some cases, district notices focused on the benefits offered at identified schools and

downplayed the information on choice (see Exhibit 36).

Exhibit 36

Examples of Parent Information on Public School Choice

Parents in case study districts reported receiving varying amounts of information about

their supplemental service provider options. Some parents received nothing but a letter from the

district informing them of the supplemental services provisions of NCLB. Other parents had

been invited to district- or school-sponsored meetings held to clarify their options for

supplemental services. Some parents indicated that they found out about providers and services

through the news media. In other cases, parents indicated that they had received very little

information on the topic, if any, in 2002-03.

Some districts went beyond the basic requirements in the law regarding parent notification

to generate parent interest in supplemental services. For example, a district in a separate set of

case studies hosted vendor fairs at the identified schools, used Title I district parent involvement

funds to pay teachers to call parents to encourage them to apply for tutoring services, and

encouraged principals and other school staff to conduct home visits to invite parents to take

advantage of the supplemental services opportunity. Nevertheless, despite its carefully planned

efforts to encourage parent participation, the district did not succeed in filling all the slots it

expected to fund for supplemental services (ED 2004b).

In one case study district, the letters sent to parents in October 2002 never directly used the term

“identified school.” Instead, the district notified parents that their school had been “designated to

receive Title I School Improvement Funds this year...to be used in our intensive school improvement

activities” and that the school qualified for these funds because of “past achievement scores.” It was

not until the third paragraph that parents were told that the district “offers you choices in which school

your child attends” and that the school would be “delighted to work with you regarding the options that

exist.” As one respondent noted, the letters read as though the school had just won something.

At an identified elementary school in another district, the principal held parent meetings to discuss the

school’s status. She stressed the additional resources that had become available as a result of the

school having moved up to the next level of identification under the state’s system—“I made the status

positive.” A combination of state and federal funds supported the addition of a social worker, a parttime nurse and curriculum specialist, two additional teachers, a vice-principal, more resources for

professional development and materials, and a parent center. In this case, only five parents chose

another school, and parent involvement generally increased.
67

Roughly a fifth of districts with eligible students in 2002-03 had not yet communicated

with parents regarding their right to receive supplemental services. Twenty-one percent of

districts with eligible students had not yet communicated with parents as of spring 2003 because

the district had not yet begun to provide supplemental services. (Reasons for the delays in

service delivery were discussed earlier in this chapter.)

69

IV Corrective Actions

Planning and support are intermediate steps that districts take with low-performing

schools, along with offering parents the option of school choice and supplemental services. If

schools do not make AYP for four years, districts are required to impose more intense

interventions. The combination of support to identified schools and consequences for continued

poor performance are key elements of NCLB and state accountability systems, and are intended

to drive school improvement by creating incentives for educators to improve their practice.

The data in 2002-03 suggest that the impacts of corrective actions had not been broad. The

data also indicate that the pattern of interventions did not change under NCLB

requirements—the pattern of interventions most frequently employed by districts with identified

schools was similar to that in 2001-02 before the implementation of NCLB.

Corrective Actions

If Title I schools continue not to make AYP for two years after initial identification (i.e., do

not make AYP for four years), NCLB requires districts to take a least one of a series of six

corrective actions defined in the law and consistent with state law, Section 1116(b)(7): (1)

requiring the implementation of a new research-based curriculum or instructional program, (2)

significantly decreasing the management authority level at the school level, (3) appointing an

outside expert to advise the school, (4) extending the school day or year, (5) restructuring the

internal organization of a school, or (6) replacing school staff who are relevant to the failure to

make AYP.

Because only a few districts reported that they had schools identified for

improvement for three years or more in 2002-03, few were required to take the corrective

actions specified under NCLB. Approximately 400 districts, or just 4 percent of all districts

nationwide, reported that they had Title I schools identified for improvement for three years or

more. However, because of rules under IASA and transition rules under NCLB regarding school

status in 2002-03, as discussed in Chapter I, not all schools identified for improvement for three

years in 2002-03 were in corrective action status. Thus the number of districts required to take

corrective action may have been even lower in 2002-03. At the same time, some districts were

unable to report how long some of their schools had been identified for improvement, meaning

that the number could also be underestimated. About a third of the districts with identified

schools in 2002-03 were unable to provide information about how long those schools had been

identified for improvement.

The corrective actions most frequently taken in 2002-03 could be characterized as

assistance rather than interventions—a pattern similar to that in 2001-02 before the

implementation of NCLB. Corrective actions taken ranged from those that overlap with

assistance and support (e.g., requiring a new research-based curriculum) to those that are clearly

interventions (e.g., replacing school staff). The expectation that the pattern of interventions

would change with the mandates of NCLB was not supported by this study’s 2002-03 data.

Under IASA, districts were not required to take corrective actions if their states did not yet have
70

an assessment system approved under Title I, and only 21 states had these final assessment

systems in place as of October 2002. Because NCLB requires districts to impose corrective

actions no matter what the approval status of their state’s assessment and accountability systems,

it was predicted that these stronger consequences would occur more frequently under NCLB.

Given the small number of districts with schools identified for improvement for three years or

more (or subject to corrective actions) in 2002-03, this pattern might change in the future.

Exhibit 37 compares interventions taken by districts with schools identified for different

numbers of years to assess whether or not districts with schools identified for a longer period of

time (three or more years in this case) were taking different types of corrective actions compared

with districts that had schools identified for only one or two years. The data indicated that the

most common corrective actions taken in 2002-03 were requiring implementation of a new

research-based program, appointing an outside expert, and extending the school day or year

regardless of the number of years of identification. Far fewer districts applied interventions such

as replacing the school staff who were relevant to the failure to make AYP.

In 2002-03, districts with schools identified for improvement for three years or more

were no more likely to take corrective actions with their identified schools than districts

that had schools identified for only one or two years. Compared with districts that only had

schools identified for one or two years, districts with schools identified for three years or more

were equally likely to require curriculum adoption, appoint an outside expert, decrease school

management authority, or take any of the other corrective actions in NCLB. These data are

consistent with district assistance findings regarding targeted support for school improvement

(see Exhibit 18 in Chapter II) that showed that districts tended to provide some form of support

(e.g., revising the school improvement plan, on-site assistance) to all their schools, particularly

identification of research-based strategies. In addition, a majority of identified schools had

adopted new curricula. In this context, it was not surprising that actions taken with schools

identified for three or more years were similar to those taken with other identified schools.

• Some districts required schools in corrective action to undertake more intensive and

systematic planning activities for instructional improvement, as well as increased

monitoring of school activities (see Exhibit 38).

• In some districts, actions such as replacing the principal—a common occurrence in

urban districts—were not called corrective actions, thereby mitigating the roles of some

corrective actions as incentives to improve school performance.

• At the school level, some principals did not emphasize corrective actions because they

believed it was more beneficial to stress improvements. For example, a principal in an

identified school indicated she was more focused on making improvements by bringing

school staff along through professional development and participation in the school

reform model rather than emphasizing potential corrective actions. A coach at the

school commented: “We hear about corrective action, but people are working too hard,

we can’t focus on it. We’re trying to be more effective.” A principal in another

elementary school stated: “I try to keep these things [AYP definitions, program

improvement status] away from teachers. The hammer is being held over my head, so I
71

don’t need to hold it over my teachers’ heads. They are working very hard. I try to

keep them insulated. I tell them not to worry about it.”

Exhibit 37

District Actions Taken With Schools Identified for Improvement in 2002-03,

by Number of Years of Identification

Interventions

Percent of

districts with

schools

identified 1 or 2

years only

Percent of

districts with

schools

identified for 3

or more years

only

Percent of all

districts with

schools

identified for 3

or more years

Requiring the implementation of a new

research-based curriculum/instructional

program

53 56 55

Significantly decreasing management

authority level at the school level 7 11 15

Appointing an outside expert to advise the

school 45 30 41

Extending the school day or year 34 61 54

Restructuring the internal organization of the

school 20 8 8

Replacing school staff who are relevant to

the failure to make AYP 4 9 5

Reassigning or demoting the principal 8 17 13

Replacing all or most of the school staff 2 4 2

Reopening the school as a public charter

school 1 0 0

Entering into a contract with a private

management company to operate the school 1 1 1

Having the state take over the school 1 1 1

Exhibit reads: Among districts with schools identified for one or two years only, 53 percent required identified schools

to implement a new research-based curriculum or instructional program, whereas 56 percent of districts with schools

identified for three or more years only (and not one or two years) required these schools to take this action. Among all

districts with schools identified for three or more years, 55 percent required these schools to take this action.

Note: See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.
72

Exhibit 38

Corrective Actions Taken With Identified Title I Schools

A large urban district focused attention on seven Title I schools identified by the state as “intensive

schools” and identified for corrective action under Title I. In these “intensive schools,” fewer than 25

percent of students scored satisfactory or above on the state assessment during the 2001-02 school year

in at least two of the three content areas of mathematics, reading, and science, nor did the school make

AYP for two years in a row in the same content area in which performance had been low. The state

provided these schools with grants from its school improvement reserve funds27 ($95,000 per school

initially), and the district required these schools to adopt research-based instructional approaches and

receive advice from outside experts (in this case, district specialists), along with intensified district

monitoring of the use of school budgets and classroom activities. In total, the district required these

schools to carry out both school improvement activities and corrective actions: (1) revise their school

improvement plans to incorporate research-based “high-yield strategies” suggested by district staff (e.g.,

specific instructional strategies, ongoing collaboration and support among staff, use of data or diagnostic

assessments to guide instruction); (2) write a grant application for the state school improvement reserve

funds that reflected the goals and activities in their school plans; (3) attend meetings twice a month with

the core district academic staff, including Title I staff, and once a month with the other intensive schools;

(4) develop indicators of student progress against goals in the school improvement plans; and (5) have

the principals and assistant principals conduct walk-throughs of classrooms to observe implementation of

instructional strategies.

Survey data supplied by principals supported district reports regarding the types of

corrective actions taken with identified schools. Principals in schools that continued to be

identified in 2002-03 (identified for at least two years) reported that the three most frequent

corrective actions taken with their schools were: requiring the implementation of a new researchbased curriculum or instructional program (82 percent); extending the school day or year (56

percent); and appointing an outside expert to advise the school (51 percent). Except with regard

to the implementation of a new research-based curriculum or instructional program, there were

no significant differences in the interventions imposed on schools identified for two years or

more, compared with schools identified for at least three years.

Even though much of the curriculum adoption carried out in districts applied to all schools

as described in Chapter II, some identified schools were also required to implement specific

curricula or instructional practices to address low performance as seen in case study districts (see

Exhibit 39).

 27

 Section 1003 of NCLB requires that each state reserve 2 percent of the amount the state receives under Subpart 2,

Part A, of Title I funds for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and 4 percent of the amount received for fiscal years 2004

through 2007 to carry out the state education agency’s school improvement responsibilities (e.g., establishing a

statewide system of technical support for districts with identified schools).
73

Exhibit 39

Example of Identified Schools Required to Implement New Instructional Approach

In a very large urban district, identified schools that had not made AYP for three years and might move

up to the next level of interventions under the state accountability system were required to implement

one of two school reform models that specified a particular instructional approach—Success for All or

Direct Instruction; the schools were also required to implement the district’s new reading and language

arts curriculum. To assist with the implementation of these programs, staff received five days of

professional development at the beginning of the 2003-04 school year, displacing the three days of

preservice professional development that teachers normally received. The professional development

was customized to address the problems related to reading achievement at each school. During the

school year, staff received four to five more training sessions at their schools through their schoolbased facilitators. An outside consultant made visits on a periodic basis to monitor implementation and

answer questions. In this state, as part of the state’s accountability system, schools that do not make

AYP for three or more years must also receive the services of a full-time distinguished educator.

Due to the transition rules described in Chapter I, for 2002-03, there was no requirement

that schools be identified for restructuring status. At the same time, some districts took actions

with identified schools that are included in the five interventions outlined in NCLB for school

restructuring: (1) replacing all or most of the school staff, (2) reopening the school as a public

charter school, (3) entering into a contract with a private management company to operate the

school, (4) having the state take over the school, or (5) other major restructuring initiative.

Districts that took these actions most frequently reported replacing all or most of the staff (see

Exhibit 37).

Change Over Time

The most frequent corrective action taken in both 2001-02 and 2002-03 with Title I

schools identified for improvement was the requirement to implement a new curriculum or

instructional program. The next most frequent actions were appointing an outside expert to

advise the school and extending the school day or year. As noted above, the expectation was

that the pattern of interventions would change with the requirements of NCLB. In general, the

expectation was that, because NCLB now required districts to take specific corrective actions

with schools that did not make AYP for two years after being identified, changes would occur in

the types of interventions taken with these schools. To test this hypothesis, the corrective actions

taken by districts that had identified schools in 2001-02 and 2002-03 were compared. Exhibit 40

illustrates the actions taken by districts that had identified schools in both 2001-02 and 2002-03.

None of the differences across years were statistically significant.
74

Exhibit 40

District Actions Taken in 2001-02 and 2002-03 With Schools Identified for

Improvement, Among Districts That Had Identified Schools in Both Years

Interventions 2001-02 2002-03

Requiring the implementation of a new research-based

curriculum/instructional program 46 57

Significantly decreasing management authority level at

the school level 17 12

Appointing an outside expert to advise the school 35 49

Extending the school day or year 40 40

Reassigning or demoting the principal 6 12

Replacing all or most of the school staff 4 1

Entering into a contract with a private management

company to operate the school <1 <1

Having the state take over the school <1 <1

Exhibit reads: Among districts that had schools identified in both years, 46 percent reported that

they had required identified schools to implement a new research-based curriculum or instructional

program in 2001-02, and 57 percent reported that they imposed this requirement on identified

schools in 2002-03.

Note: There were no statistically significant differences across years among these interventions.

See the appendix for sample sizes and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Several factors may have contributed to the lack of shifts in the types of corrective actions

taken by districts as illustrated by case study data. As noted earlier, because some districts were

in states that were revising their AYP definitions, they had not imposed the corrective actions on

schools that they might otherwise have done. Case study districts used a combination of

corrective actions and additional resources or technical assistance to improve all low-performing

schools. Staff interviews suggest that a focus on interventions without assistance could generate

negative responses from school staff. Together, assistance and corrective actions encouraged

staff to reexamine current practices, to place more focus on instruction, and to place a greater

urgency on making reforms.

Nonetheless, compared with 2001-02, there was a significant increase in the

percentage of districts with identified schools reporting that they were increasing their

monitoring and district oversight of identified schools, as illustrated in the case study

examples provided above and in comparisons of survey data. In 2001-02, 23 percent of districts

with identified schools (regardless of the number of years of identification) reported increasing

monitoring and district oversight of identified schools; in 2002-03, 34 percent of districts with

had identified schools in both years reported taking this action with their identified schools. In

addition, a higher percentage of districts with schools identified for three years or more in both

2001-02 and 2002-03 reported that these schools had been given less discretion over school-level
75

spending and had less autonomy in selecting school improvement strategies compared with other

schools identified for improvement (see Exhibit 41).

Exhibit 41

District Actions Taken in 2001-02 and 2002-03 With Schools Identified for

Improvement for Three or More Years, Among Districts That Had

Identified Schools in Both Years

Percent of districts

reporting “to a great

extent” Compared with other schools identified for

improvement, schools identified for improvement for

three or more years... 2001-02 2002-03

Have less discretion over school-level spending 4 24

Have less autonomy in selecting school improvement

strategies 4 29

Exhibit reads: Among districts with corrective action schools or schools identified for improvement

for three or more years responding in both years, 4 percent of districts reported in 2001-02 that those

schools had less discretion over school-level spending to a great extent compared with other schools

identified for improvement. By comparison, 24 percent of districts in 2002-03 reported these

actions.

Note: Differences were statistically significant for both actions. See the appendix for sample sizes

and additional statistical information.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

77

V Conclusions

Findings of the Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts

(TASSIE) capture the first full year of implementation of the accountability provisions of No

Child Left Behind. They show that states, districts, and schools were making progress in meeting

NCLB requirements. States and districts were taking steps to create new accountability systems,

to measure and communicate about schools’ progress, and to devise strategies to improve schools.

Schools created plans and adopted new instructional programs. However, progress was uneven,

and a big gap remained between the existing systems of accountability and the vision embodied in

NCLB to create systems that support all schools and students to attain high standards.

Data from 2002-03 offer a first glimpse into the influence of NCLB on improving school

performance. Identified schools and districts in 2002-03 were the first to be subject to many

NLCB accountability requirements, and 2002-03 was the first year many related NCLB

requirements at the state and district levels were in effect. Declines by about a third in both the

number of identified schools (from 9,000 to 6,000) and the number of districts with at least one

such school (from 2,900 to 1,900) from 2001-02 to 2002-03 directly affected which schools and

districts were subject to NCLB accountability requirements. Because of transitional policies that

applied for only 2002-03 and new definitions of AYP under NCLB to be implemented in 2003-

04, inferences about trends in numbers of schools and districts identified for improvement

should be made with caution. Similarly, case study data suggest that some confusion about how

NCLB accountability provisions applied may have hampered full implementation in 2002-03.

With the implementation of new AYP definitions under NCLB following 2002-03 and growing

understanding of NCLB accountability provisions over time, the effect of NCLB likely will

become more visible.

Nevertheless, educators at all levels of the education system were responding to NCLB’s

accountability requirements. For each major provision, many policymakers and practitioners

took action to build accountability systems that complied with NCLB and made sense in their

own jurisdictions. At the same time, findings from 2002-03 show that some substantial

improvements in implementation were needed in order for states, districts, and schools to be

fully implementing NCLB accountability requirements. Highlights of 2002-03 included:

• Most states and districts reported on student and school assessment results and made

the information available to the public through multiple channels, but not all of NCLB

reporting requirements had been implemented.

• Many states and districts provided technical assistance, additional staff and

professional development to schools identified for improvement. Yet two-thirds of

continuously identified schools reported no access to certain key forms of state or

district on-site assistance (e.g., full-time staff to support teacher development), 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.
78

• To improve their students’ performance, many identified schools gave increased

attention to achievement results, adopted new curricula, used school reform models or

added new supplemental instructional programs. At the same time, the adoption of new

curricula or school reform models was often not accompanied by related professional

development and other supports.

• Some districts and schools had organizational structures in place that could provide and

take advantage of assistance; but many—especially small and rural districts—did not.

• An increasing percentage of districts offered students in identified schools the choice of

moving to other public schools that were not identified. However, a third of the

districts with schools identified for improvement did not provide public school choice

in 2002-03.

• Some districts began to provide access to supplemental educational services, but half of

the districts with schools identified for two or more years did not offer supplemental

services.

• Even where public school choice and supplemental services were offered, only a small

fraction of parents of eligible students exercised these options.

The study’s survey and interview data suggest broad support for the goals of NCLB and

serious attempts to implement the new accountability provisions. Moving forward, however,

states and districts faced significant challenges in 2002-03 in meeting the law’s goal of changing

instructional practices in ways that will ensure that no child is left behind.

Among these challenges was a shortage of capacity in the broadest sense of the word:

enough people with the knowledge and skills to serve as distinguished educators or school

support team members or mentors to help schools improve; enough supplemental service

providers to meet the need, especially in rural schools; enough translators and staff to adequately

inform all parents of their options. Staff in districts with large numbers of identified schools

were already stretched to the limits to provide sufficient help to all eligible schools, and smaller

districts lacked the professional staff to provide the help required. As more Title I schools are

identified for improvement, this challenge will likely increase both for districts and state

departments of education whose staff are similarly stretched thin. District and school staff also

need access to greater expertise in curriculum, instruction, assessment and professional

development, both within and outside the district. Such expertise will be especially important if

district and school staff are to move beyond support for planning and alignment to help schools

make the classroom-level changes that will help students reach proficiency.

Although the 2002-03 school year was the first full year of implementation of NCLB, the

general lag between the passage of a new law and the time when schools and their communities

grasp its implications suggests that the 2003-04 school year, the final year of this study, will

show how implementation is changing over time.
R-1

References

Center for Education Policy. (2003). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington,

D.C.: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers and Education Quality Institute. (2002). SEA Toolkit on

Supplemental Educational Services in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Version 1.3).

Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Education Week. (Jan. 9, 2003). Quality counts 2003: If I can’t learn from you. Education

Week, XXII(17).

Lowell, C. R., and Gallup, A. M. (September 2003). The 35th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup

poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan. Retrieved 

Sept. 3, 2003, from http://www.pdkintl.org.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Trends in the use of school choice 1993 to

1999: Statistical analysis report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Shields, P. M., Laguarda, K. G., Lash, A., Padilla, C., Winter, N., Woodworth, K., Uperesa, L.,

and Javitz, H. (2004). Evaluation of Title I accountability systems and school improvement

efforts (TASSIE): First year technical appendix. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International.

U.S. Department of Education. (Dec. 4, 2002). Public school choice draft nonregulatory

guidance. Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2003). Summary of

supplemental services providers lists on state Web sites April 28-30. Unpublished data from

the U.S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Education. (Sept. 12, 2003a). Report cards Title I, Part A, nonregulatory

guidance. Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (Aug. 22, 2003b). Supplemental educational services draft final

non-regulatory guidance. Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004a). Evaluation of Title I accountability systems and school

improvement efforts (TASSIE): First-year findings. Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004b). Early implementation of the supplemental educational

services provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act: Year 1 report. Washington, D.C.:

Author.
R-2
A-1

Appendix

Method Notes

Sampling Information

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 region.28 The stratification by

geographic region was done to facilitate selection of an oversample from three states

that are the focus of the analysis of school performance. Districts were selected using a

simple random sample without replacement within each stratum. All very large

districts were sampled; approximately equal numbers of districts were selected from

the other size strata. Each poverty stratum includes approximately one-third of all

children in the sampling frame. The key respondent is the district Title I director.

Survey topics for 2002-03 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.

Response rates in 2002-03 were 89 percent.

• 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 to provide a

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

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

education agency (SEA), the list of schools identified on the basis of 2000-01

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

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

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

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

geography. The sample was a nationally representative sample of Title I schools

identified for improvement in 2001-02, but because schools continue to be surveyed for

three years even if they move out of improvement, the sample is not a nationally

representative sample over time (i.e., in 2002-03 and 2003-04 or the second and third

years of data collection). Survey topics for 2002-03 included accountability criteria,

public school choice, supplemental educational services, school improvement

 28

 See Exhibit 2 for definitions of size and poverty strata.
A-2

activities, and interventions taken with the school. Response rates in 2002-03 were 85

percent.

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

in five states. Case study schools were selected through a multiple-stage process in

which states, then districts within those states, and then schools within those districts

were chosen. Three critical dimensions for state sample selection were identified: state

AYP definition, alignment of Title I and the general state accountability systems, and

the 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 states, in consultation with the state Title I director, the largest

urban districts were targeted 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).

Respondents include district staff (e.g., Title I director, superintendent, assessment

director, professional development staff), school staff (e.g., principal, specialists,

classroom teachers, parent coordinators), and parents. Interviews in 2002-03 were

conducted with district and school staff and covered topics similar to those on the

surveys. Parents of students in the identified case study schools were also interviewed

about public reporting, public school choice, and supplemental services.

• Analyses in three of the case study states of school performance data for all schools

in the state that serve elementary students. Eligible schools were those classified as

regular, but not charter, schools, in CCD. The analysis contrasts scores of Title I

schools in need of improvement, other Title I schools, and non-Title I schools for each

state.

• State level interviews and analyses of state accountability components: grades and

subjects in the state assessment systems, elements of the AYP formula, when

identification information was provided to districts, corrective actions for schools and

districts, supplemental services, the statewide system of support, and state reporting.

Key respondents included state Title I directors and accountability staff.

Weights for Statistical Analyses

TASSIE district and school samples are 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, as customary in survey analyses, to “absorb” the weights that would otherwise accrue to

non-responding schools in the stratum. Thus respondents’ weights were adjusted to sum to the

total number in the stratum.
A-3

The Year 1 technical appendix29 for TASSIE describes in detail the method used to select

the samples and the methods used to derive weights for the first year analysis. The analysis for

Year 2 required two new sets of weights for each survey. The first is the set of weights used to

summarize Year 2 data. These weights were constructed to estimate parameters for the total

population of districts (and schools) from respondents to the 2002-03 survey. A second set of

weights were computed for the longitudinal analyses that examine responses from schools and

districts that completed the survey in 2001-02 and 2002-03.

Reconciling Differences in Population Estimates From Different Data Sources

National estimates for the total number of districts and schools and for the number in certain

categories, may differ slightly depending on whether the estimate is derived from the TASSIE

Eligibility file or the TASSIE 2002-03 district survey. For example, an estimate of the total

number of Title I districts is reported to be 11,230 based on the Eligibility file, while it is 11,197

(sum of 1,824 and 9,373) based on the survey respondents. An estimated 1,873 districts (16.6

percent) had at least one identified Title I school in 2002-03 based on the TASSIE Eligibility

dataset; the estimate is 1,824 districts (16.2 percent) based on the district survey. The

discrepancies occur because the Eligibility file has complete information on all schools and

districts in the sample, while the survey data is incomplete due to nonresponse.

In 2001-02, an estimated 26 percent of districts had at least one identified Title I school

based on the Eligibility file; the percentage of districts was reported as 21 percent on the basis of

data gathered from the district survey. The difference in the two estimates for 2001-02 and 2002-

03 are not statistically significant. In 2001-02, there were an estimated 9,200 identified Title I

schools based on the TASSIE Eligibility file; the number of identified Title I schools was reported

as 8,078 on the basis of a weighted analysis of the number of respondents to the principal survey

(in 2001-02, the survey sample was representative of Title I schools identified for improvement

based on 2000-01 assessment data).

The method used to adjust for nonresponse in TASSIE, while customary, assumes that nonrespondents are distributed in proportions equal to the respondents across other variables, such as

eligibility for the study. TASSIE is in an unusual position for a survey in having information

about the eligibility of the districts and schools that did not respond. For future waves of TASSIE

we intend to modify the weighting procedure to reduce any discrepancies. In the modified

procedure we will use all known data sources to classify schools prior to adjusting for nonresponse. In essence this extends the concept of “strata” beyond those that were used in the

original sample selection (i.e., it is a type of post-stratification based in part on external sources of

data).

Minimum Sample Size

We report parameter estimates 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. Interpretations made of the corresponding Chi-square tests and p-values are

 29

 Shields, P. M., Laguarda, K.G., Lash, A., Padilla, C., Winter, N., Woodworth, K., Uperesa, L, Javitz, H. (2004).

Evaluation of Title I Accountability and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE): First Year Technical Appendix.

Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International.
A-4

tentative and should be followed up with additional analyses (e.g., of subportions of the tables or

recoded variables that combine low-frequency response categories) before drawing conclusions.

Definitions of Scales

The definitions of the scales used to measure district support and assistance, emphasizing

related professional development, and teacher collaboration are described below.

District Support

Survey items about district support for planning and data use included the following:

D24. 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:

a. Review data to be sure identification is valid.

b. Analyze student achievement data to identify specific academic problems that caused

the school to be identified.

c. Identify research-based strategies.

d. Provide additional data analysis, e.g., additional disaggregation or analysis of

diagnostic assessments.

e. Analyze and revise the school’s budget so that school resources are effectively

allocated.

f. Review the school’s staffing plan.

g. Write or revise a school’s improvement plan.

h. Monitor progress throughout the school year toward goals established in the school

improvement plan.

D25. Which of the following topics were addressed in the professional development supported

by the district in identified schools?

h. Monitoring individual students’ progress toward learning goals.

i. Analyzing and interpreting student achievement data.

Survey items about district support for curriculum alignment included the following:

D36. Has the district taken any of the following steps to assist schools in ensuring the

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.

2. Published detailed curriculum guides with standards, frameworks, and pacing

sequences.

3. Developed classroom-embedded assessments with a standard scoring rubric to monitor

progress.

4. Developed model lesson plans based on standards.

5. 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).
A-5

6. Mapped out the alignment of required textbooks and instructional programs to

standards.

7. Mapped out the alignment of required textbooks and instructional programs to

assessments.

8. Analyzed available student achievement data to identify specific strengths and

weaknesses related to the attainment of standards.

D25. Which of the following topics were addressed in the professional development supported

by the district in identified schools?

d. Ensuring that curriculum and instruction are consistent with state and/or district content

standards.

e. Ensuring that curriculum and instruction are consistent with state and/or district

assessment.

Receiving a Minimum Level of Related District Assistance

District support for implementing a new reading/language arts curriculum was

constructed by combining responses on six items. A dichotomous scale was created to distinguish

between those who either agreed or strongly agreed (on average, a score of 4.0 or higher),

compared to those who endorsed all other response categories (on average). The items included

the following:

P39a. District helped to identify reading/language curricula/instructional programs that support

instruction consistent with standards and assessments.

P39b. District disseminates useful information about reading/language arts

curricula/instructional programs.

P39c. District assisted in selecting a reading/language arts curriculum/instructional program

appropriate for our school.

P39e. District is helpful in securing support from publishers/program developers to assist with

the implementation of our reading/language arts curriculum/instructional program.

P39f. District provides adequate support for implementation of our reading/language arts

curriculum/instructional program.

P39g. District monitors implementation of our school’s reading/language arts

curriculum/instructional program.

District support for implementing a new mathematics curriculum was constructed by

combining responses on six items. A dichotomous scale was created to distinguish between those

who either agreed or strongly agreed (on average, a score of 4.0 or higher), compared to those

who endorsed all other response categories (on average). The seven items included:
A-6

P42a. District helped to identify math curricula/instructional programs that support instruction

consistent with standards and assessments.

P42b. District disseminates useful information about math curricula/instructional programs.

P42c. District assisted in selecting a math curriculum/instructional program appropriate for our

school.

P42e. District is helpful in securing support from publishers/program developers to assist with

the implementation of our math curriculum/instructional program.

P42f. District provides adequate support for implementation of our math curriculum/

instructional program.

P42g. District monitors implementation of our school’s math curriculum/instructional program.

District support for the use of a school reform model was constructed by combining

responses on six items. A dichotomous scale was created to distinguish between those who either

agreed or strongly agreed (on average, a score of 4.0 or higher), compared to those who endorsed

all other response categories (on average). The seven items included:

P36a. District helped to identify school reform models that support instruction consistent with

standards and assessments.

P36b. District disseminates useful information about school reform models.

P36c. District assisted in selecting a school reform model appropriate for our school.

P36e. District is helpful in securing support from our model’s design team to assist with

implementation.

P36f. District provides adequate support for model implementation.

P36g. District encourages the use of school reform models that focus on instructional

improvement.

P36h. District monitors implementation of our reform model.

Emphasizing Related Professional Development

Of nine areas of professional development, principals were asked to check the three that

were the primary areas of emphasis in their schools. If they checked “reading/language arts

instruction” they were counted as “emphasizing reading/language arts professional development.”

Analogous definitions were used for “mathematics instruction” and “implementation of a school

reform model.” This threshold is based on the underlying premise that reports of professional

development that do not rise to this level are unlikely to be either intensive or frequent enough to

be considered support for the related improvement activities.
A-7

Measure of Teacher Collaboration

Evidence that an identified school was engaged in teacher collaboration as a school

improvement strategy was defined as "conducting at least one of five teacher collaboration

activities at least a few times per year.” The five items included:

P30a. Frequency with which majority of teachers at school participate in teacher work groups to

analyze samples of student work.

P30b. Frequency with which majority of teachers at school participate in teacher work groups to

develop teaching materials or activities for particular classes.

P30c. Frequency with which majority of teachers at school participate in observations in other

teachers' classrooms to offer feedback and/or learn ideas (excluding observation for

purposes of formal evaluation).

P30d. Frequency with which majority of teachers at school participate in teacher work groups to

discuss student assessment data to make decisions about instruction.

P30e. Frequency with which majority of teachers at school participate in in-class coaching or

mentoring.
Our mission is to ensure equal access to education

and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation.

www.ed.gov