Implementing Accountability and 

Supports Under ESEA Flexibility
Implementing Accountability and 

Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

February 2016

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Prepared by: 

Kerstin Carlson Le Floch

Courtney Tanenbaum

American Institutes for Research
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. EDPEP-11-O-0089/Task 

Order 11 with the American Institutes for Research. Terris Ross served as the contracting officer’s 

representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any 

product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

John B. King, Jr.

Acting Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Amy McIntosh

Delegated Duties of Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Jennifer Bell-Ellwanger

Director

February 2016

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

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

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies 

Service, Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility, Washington, DC, 2016. 

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/index.html.

Availability of Alternate Formats

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the 

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via e-mail at 

om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for 

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available 

free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-

800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or e-mail us at 

ed.language.assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource 

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202.

Content Contact:

Terris Ross 

202-401-4614

terris.ross@ed.gov
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

iii

Contents

List of Exhibits...................................................................................................................................iv

...... v

......1

...... 2 

...... 2 

...... 3 

...... 4 

......5

...... 5 

...... 6 

.... 10

.... 13

.... 16

.... 18

.... 21

....24

....26

....27

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................

Introduction ................................................................................................................................

Study Sample ...........................................................................................................................

Study Questions.......................................................................................................................

Data Collection and Analysis....................................................................................................

Study Limitations .....................................................................................................................

Findings.......................................................................................................................................

Approaches to Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility ........................................

Features of Accountability Under ESEA Flexibility ...................................................................

Communication and Understanding of Accountability Under ESEA Flexibility.........................

Perceptions of the State Accountability Designations Under ESEA Flexibility..........................

Interventions and Improvement Strategies for Low-Performing Schools and Districts ...........

Supports and Challenges for Implementing School Improvement Strategies..........................

Burden Associated With ESEA Flexibility and State and District Capacity to Support the 

Implementation of ESEA Flexibility Provisions............................................................

Conclusion...................................................................................................................................

References...................................................................................................................................

Appendix Exhibits........................................................................................................................
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

iv

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Federal and State Policy Activities Prior to ESEA Flexibility Among the 12 States in 

the Study Sample ................................................................................................................. 6 

.......... 8 

........ 27

........ 28

........ 29

Exhibit 2. Composition of Combined Subgroups in Five States With Subgroups........................

Exhibit A1. School-Level Characteristics of Participating and Non-Participating Schools in the 

Study Sample..............................................................................................................

Exhibit A2. Non-Financial Rewards Offered to Reward Schools...................................................

Exhibit A3. Identification of Other Low-Performing Schools........................................................
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

v 

Executive Summary

This report explores the early implementation of state-differentiated recognition, accountability and 

support systems under the U.S. Department of Education’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA) flexibility initiative, announced in September 2011. The findings are based on telephone 

interviews conducted with a sample of state, district and school-level officials in late 2013 and early 

2014, and a review of relevant policy documents that were available on state and local education agency 

websites during this same time period. Participants in the state and district sample included officials 

from 12 state education agencies with approved ESEA flexibility requests and 22 districts located within 

these 12 states. The school-level sample drew from the state and district sample and participants 

included principals of 25 Title I schools located within a subset of 12 districts and six states. Although the 

state, district and school samples were diverse, the states, districts and schools were not randomly 

selected and are not representative of the larger population of 35 states whose ESEA flexibility requests 

had been approved at the time of this study and the districts and schools within these states. Thus, the 

findings presented in this report are not generalizable. 

States that receive ESEA flexibility are required to implement a state-based accountability system for all 

local education agencies (LEAs) in the state and for all Title I schools in these LEAs. These systems must 

provide differentiated recognition, accountability and support to schools based on their performance—

and change in performance over time—with respect to academic achievement and graduation rates of 

all students and subgroups of students. State systems must identify and support at least three types of 

Title I schools: priority schools, focus schools and reward schools.1 States also are directed to provide 

incentives and support to encourage continuous improvement in other Title I schools that are not 

making progress in improving student achievement and narrowing achievement gaps (U.S. Department 

of Education, 2012a; U.S. Department of Education, 2012b). These categories of Title I schools are 

identified as follows:

• Priority school: A Title I school identified as among the lowest performing schools in the state

and, at the high school level, with a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years.

A priority school may also be a Tier I or Tier II school under the School Improvement Grant (SIG)

program that is using SIG funds to implement a school intervention model. The total number of

priority schools in a state must be at least 5 percent of the Title I schools in the state.

• Focus school: A Title I school that is contributing to the achievement gap in the state and, at the

high school level, a Title I- school that has the largest within-school gaps in graduation rates. A

Title I high school with a graduation rateless than 60 percent over a number of years must be

identified as a focus school if it is not identified as a priority school. The total number of focus

schools in a state must equal at least 10 percent of the Title I schools in the state.

1 A state also may include non-Title I-participating schools in its differentiated recognition, accountability and support systems; 

however, “Title I, Part A funds may be used only in Title I-participating schools. Although the Department will consider 

request for a waiver of ESEA section 1113(a)(3)-(4) and (c)(1) that would allow an LEA to use Title I, Part A, funds in Title Ieligible schools that are included within the definition of priority schools (i.e., Title I-eligible high schools that have had a

graduation rate below 60 percent over a number of years), the Department does not intend to expand the scope of that

waiver to include other Title I-eligible, but not participating, schools. (Added January 5, 2012)” (U.S. Department of

Education, 2012b, p. 41).
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

vi

• Other Title I schools: Other low-performing Title I schools, besides identified priority and focus

schools, that are not making progress against established targets in improving student

achievement and narrowing achievement gaps.

• Reward school: A Title I school identified as among the highest performing Title I schools in the

state with respect to the absolute performance on statewide assessments or graduation rates of

all students and all subgroups of students, or a high-progress school that is among the top 10

percent of Title I schools in the state with respect to progress on statewide assessments and, at

the high school level, graduation rate.

The purpose of this study was to explore state and district processes, successes and challenges, as well 

as school-level experiences associated with the early implementation of the accountability provisions of 

ESEA flexibility. The analysis of interviews and document data yielded the following findings.

State Rationales for Accountability Under ESEA Flexibility. State officials in all 12 states described ESEA

flexibility as an opportunity to address perceived deficiencies of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. At 

the same time, for most states in the study, accountability under ESEA flexibility built on or continued 

states’ existing policy reform efforts.

Features of Accountability Under ESEA Flexibility. Five of the 12 states in the study used a combined 

subgroup as part of their accountability system under ESEA flexibility. Although some early critics of ESEA

flexibility expressed concern that combined subgroups could mask the performance of some subgroups 

(Education Trust, 2012), the majority of state and district interviewees did not share these concerns. 

Although states are required to specifically identify priority, focus and reward schools, they are also 

required to ensure LEAs provide differentiated supports and interventions for other Title I schools that 

are not identified in one of these categories and who fail to meet achievement and graduation rate 

targets for subgroups of students. Eight of the 12 states also used a third improvement category, 

beyond priority and focus schools, for other low-performing schools that are not making progress in 

student achievement or narrowing student achievement gaps. The officials from these states reported 

developing a specific category for this group of other Title I schools to monitor and support schools that 

might not otherwise meet the criteria for priority and focus school designations.

Communication and Understanding of Accountability Under ESEA Flexibility. The interviewed state and 

district officials described efforts to disseminate information and build local-level understanding of state 

accountability and support systems. Officials from two states and seven districts reported challenges 

related to these communication efforts, including effectively translating the complexities of the system. 

Among the Title I school principals interviewed for the study, perceptions of state and district 

communication efforts and understanding of state accountability and support systems were mixed. 

Principals in four of the six states from which the school sample was drawn did not raise concerns about 

the information they had received from their states and districts and consistently reported that they had 

a good understanding of their state accountability systems. Nearly all of the interviewed principals in the 

other two states indicated an overall lack of understanding of their state’s accountability system and 

expressed concern with the communications they had received from their state about the system.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

vii

Perceptions of State Accountability Designations. The majority of district respondents did not voice 

concerns about their state’s accountability designations and the measures that were being used to 

identify low-performing schools. However, officials from eight of the 22 districts pointed to perceived 

deficiencies related to ways in which states were measuring achievement gaps, how those metrics failed 

to capture the academic progress of English learner (EL) students, whether the reformulated student 

achievement measures were targeting the right schools or whether the changes to the system would 

improve student outcomes. 

The interviewed school principals consistently reported an appreciation for the intentions behind their 

state’s accountability system under ESEA flexibility. They perceived these systems as aiming to provide 

school performance targets that are clear and realistic and acknowledge intermediate progress. At the 

same time, the respondent principals varied in their perceptions of whether the criteria underlying their 

state’s system were valid or accurate measures of school performance. The interviewed principals in 

three of the six states perceived their state’s school designation criteria as more valid measures of 

school performance than the criteria that were used in the previous system. Respondent principals in 

the other three states expressed concerns about the criteria their states were using for determining 

school designation status under ESEA flexibility.

Interventions and Improvement Strategies for Low-Performing Districts and Schools. The interviewed 

state and district officials reported that low-performing districts and schools were typically allowed to 

select their own interventions, but that their states had established guidance to help inform these 

decisions. The most frequently reported intervention strategies among the interviewed principals of 

priority, focus and other low-performing Title I schools included creating a culture of targeted data use, 

aligning instruction with standards, extending the learning time in core content areas, providing 

teachers with professional development and promoting a more positive school climate.

Supports and Challenges for School Improvement Strategies. The state officials who were interviewed 

for this study described providing support to low-performing schools through the use of regional 

technical assistance organizations, external support providers and early warning systems. Ten of the 13 

priority and focus school principals who were interviewed described receiving more frequent or more 

intensive support from their districts under ESEA flexibility than in previous years, particularly around 

data use and interpretation and mathematics and reading instruction. Despite these supports, principals 

from 20 of the 25 schools in the sample described a variety of factors that challenged their improvement 

efforts, including limited resources; staff turnover; low staff morale; and testing requirements for ELs 

who are subject to the testing requirements for all students as well as to any state- and districtmandated tests for the EL subgroup.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

viii

State and District Capacity to Support School Implementation of ESEA Flexibility Provisions. Among 

the 12 state respondents in the study, eight described at least a modest burden associated with 

implementing the differentiated recognition, accountability, and support systems under ESEA flexibility, 

and another three respondents described a substantial effort but did not describe the level of effort as a 

burden. State officials reported implementing strategies to build capacity to implement the 

accountability and support provisions, which included cross-agency collaborations, developing staff 

expertise, partnerships with districts, structural changes within the SEA and consolidating multiple 

funding streams. Among the interviewed district officials, about half indicated that implementing the 

new state accountability systems under ESEA flexibility had required effort but had not been 

burdensome. At the same time, officials from seven of the 22 districts in the sample reported 

insufficient staff and expertise to provide the level of support they believed was needed to improve lowperforming schools in their districts.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility

1 

Introduction 

This study’s purpose was to explore the early implementation of state-differentiated recognition, 

accountability and support systems under ESEA flexibility. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 (ESEA) is the nation’s key policy driver for elementary and secondary education, shaping federal, 

state and district efforts to promote effective school systems and improve educational outcomes, 

particularly for students in high-poverty schools. The most recent reauthorization of ESEA (the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001, or NCLB) called for landmark changes. Among its many provisions, NCLB 

required states to adopt challenging academic content standards and aligned assessments, created a 

system of accountability for districts and schools, introduced new teacher quality requirements, and 

outlined specific consequences for not meeting annual performance objectives. 

As time passed after the implementation of NCLB and Congress did not reauthorize ESEA as expected, 

policymakers expressed concerns that some of the law’s provisions might not align with evolving policy 

and practice. In the absence of a reauthorized ESEA, the Obama administration announced a temporary 

measure known as ESEA flexibility, designed to give states flexibility to advance innovative education 

reform efforts by leveraging the Secretary of Education’s authority to grant states and districts waivers 

from certain provisions of NCLB. 

Specifically, ESEA flexibility offers states flexibility with regard to how states set annual measurable

objectives (AMOs), whether or not they continue to calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP), designate

low-performing schools and districts, implement interventions, use section 1003(a) funds2

, determine

transferability of ESEA funds and implement improvement plans for highly qualified teachers. States that 

were interested in receiving such flexibility submitted a request to the Department detailing the ways

the state’s reform plan would (1) ensure college- and career-ready expectations for all students; (2)

implement state-developed differentiated recognition, accountability and support systems; (3) support

effective instruction and leadership; and (4) reduce duplication and unnecessary burden. The

Department offered five submission windows for state ESEA flexibility requests, with deadlines in

November 2011, February 2012, September 2012, February 2013 and April 2014. As of June 2015, the

Department had received flexibility requests from 46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and

the Bureau of Indian Education. Among these 46 states, the Department had approved the requests for 

43 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

3 The sample of districts and schools in this study’s 

analyses were drawn from the group of states approved for ESEA flexibility in the first two windows 

(referred to in this report as Window 1 and Window 2). 

2 States must use these funds to support Focus and Priority schools and if approved via an additional waiver, may use them to 

support interventions and support in other Title I schools. 

3 The flexibility requests of three states (Iowa, Nebraska, and Wyoming) and the Bureau of Indian Education were in review 

status as of June 2015. Also, although Washington’s flexibility request had earlier been approved, the state’s flexibility was 

not extended through 2014–15.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

2 

Study Sample

The primary data sources for this study were ESEA flexibility policy documents and telephone interviews 

with key officials in selected state educational agencies, local education agencies (LEAs), and schools. 

The study team reviewed state ESEA flexibility requests and other policy-related materials on state and 

district websites. The team also conducted semi-structured interviews with state and district officials 

who held primary responsibility for accountability and support systems under ESEA flexibility, and 

principals of Title I schools that had received priority, focus or reward designations or were otherwise 

designated as a low-performing school for the 2012–13 school year. The interview participants included 

officials representing 12 states, 22 (of 24 selected) districts, and 25 (of 36 selected) schools. 

The study team purposefully selected the 12-state sample to include state 

variation in (1) time of ESEA flexibility approval—either Window 1 or 

Window 2 states, (2) region and size, (3) receipt of Race to the Top grants, 

(4) approach to annual measurable objectives and (5) use of combined 

subgroups. The selected states included Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, 

Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington.

The study team selected the district and school samples from the 12-state sample to reflect variation in 

(1) the number of reward, focus, priority and other low-performing schools Title I schools; (2) size and 

urbanicity; and (3) demographic diversity. For the district sample, the district’s intent to apply as a Race 

to the Top applicant also was considered and treated as a rough proxy for capacity to implement 

accountability system reforms. The school sample was also purposefully selected to reflect variation in 

ESEA flexibility accountability designation, school size, district size, student demographics, urbanicity 

and geographic location. The final district and school samples included 22 district participants and 25 

school participants, respectively. Within the school sample, seven of the schools were designated 

priority schools, six were designated focus schools, six were designated reward schools and six were 

other low-performing Title I schools for the 2012–13 school year. 

Study Questions

As previously noted, this study’s purpose was to explore the early implementation of ESEA flexibility 

from the state, district and school-level perspectives. The study’s primary questions focus on the 

experiences, including the challenges and successes, of officials at these three levels and asked the

following questions:

1. Approaches to accountability and supports under ESEA flexibility. What prior experiences and

rationales guided state approaches to accountability and support under ESEA flexibility,

including states’ selection of AMOs?

2. Features of accountability under ESEA flexibility. What are the primary components of state

accountability and support systems under ESEA flexibility?

3. Communication of state accountability and supports under ESEA flexibility and school-level

understanding of state systems. What modes of communication did states and districts use to

inform and build local-level understanding of state systems under ESEA flexibility? To what

extent were these communication efforts perceived as effective?
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

3 

4. Perceptions of the state accountability designations under ESEA flexibility. How did local-level

officials perceive state accountability systems under ESEA flexibility, including the criteria being

used to identify low-performing schools?

5. Interventions and improvement strategies for low-performing schools and districts. What

approaches are states taking to identify and intervene in low-performing districts? What

improvement strategies did principals report implementing?

6. Supports and challenges for school improvement strategies. What structures or mechanisms

were states and districts using to support low-performing schools, and how did principals

perceive these supports?

7. State and district capacity to support the implementation of ESEA flexibility provisions. How

did states and districts perceive their capacity to implement ESEA flexibility provisions, and what

factors did states and districts report as challenging and supporting their implementation efforts?

Data Collection and Analysis 

This report’s findings are based on telephone interviews with state, district and school officials, as well 

as on a review of state and district websites and relevant policy documents that were available online. 

The telephone interviews and document reviews were conducted in late 2013 and early 2014. The 

interviews were conducted using semi-structured protocols to balance questions that were sufficiently 

uniform to yield comparable data across states and districts but varied enough to allow for documentation 

and exploration of the unique circumstances within each state, district and school. Therefore, the 

structure of the interviews and the specific questions asked of the officials varied across respondents. 

The analytic process included multiple steps designed to promote timely, reliable and rigorous analyses. 

The interviews were recorded, transcribed and reviewed for accuracy. The study team then compiled 

data from interviews and document reviews in a Web-based platform, or data repository, which divided 

interview topics into sets of open- and closed-ended questions. The team developed decision rules and 

evidence thresholds that the analysts applied to identify themes and determine how to classify states, 

districts and schools into theme categories. The coding and key findings were independently reviewed 

by analysts to promote inter-coder agreement on state, district and school classifications. 

This report most often identifies states by name when describing specific policies and practices because 

state policy is a matter of public record and there is no reason to mask a state’s identity. However, when 

describing a comment that reflects the personal opinion or perspective of a state official—particularly if 

there is any possibility that this could be construed in a negative light—this report omits the state name. 

In all cases, district and school names have been omitted.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

4 

Study Limitations

Readers should note some limits to the interpretation and generalizability of the study. First, as noted 

previously, the interviews were semi-structured, allowing some variability in the questions asked across 

respondents. As a result, there might be an undercount of states, districts or schools on some topics 

because the interviewer did not ask a state, district or school official about a particular topic. Second, 

state and district data were limited to individuals or groups of individuals appointed by state and district 

leaders to participate in interviews and so reflect these individuals’ knowledge and perspective; 

similarly, school-level data were collected from the principals who were leading the school at the time of 

data collection and reflect solely their knowledge and perspective of the topics about which they were 

asked. Third, the study included only a subset of states with approved ESEA flexibility requests. The

Department approved 35 states’ ESEA flexibility requests in Window 1 and Window 2, and this study 

includes information collected from principals at 25 schools and officials in 22 (of 24 selected) districts 

within 12 of these 35 Window 1 and Window 2 states. Moreover, the states, districts and schools, 

although diverse, were not randomly sampled and are not representative. For these reasons, the data 

collected and the reported findings are not generalizable to all states, districts and schools. 

Readers should also note that in reporting findings related to states, we have masked the identity of the 

states except when describing a policy that is already in the public domain.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

5 

Findings

Approaches to Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility

ESEA flexibility provides states with autonomy to design state accountability systems that align with 

their individual state context, priorities and reform histories using three guiding principles: (1) establish 

college- and career-ready expectations for all students; (2) develop differentiated recognition, 

accountability and support systems; and (3) support effective instruction and leadership. States, districts 

and schools are required to expect improvement in student outcomes but may determine their own 

goals, interim targets and plans for achieving those goals rather than measuring against a uniform 

objective of 100 percent proficiency by 2014. Indeed, the state officials interviewed in all 12 states in the 

sample described ESEA flexibility as an opportunity to address perceived deficiencies of NCLB, and a 

review of state ESEA flexibility requests along with the interview data demonstrate that states often had 

an underlying theory of action that guided the development of their systems of support for lowperforming schools. These underlying theories of action implied a set of assumptions about the reasons 

schools were low performing and leveraged points to build school capacity and foster improvement. 

Furthermore, all of the interviewed state officials reported that their states had already started down a 

path of refining their approach to school and district accountability when they applied for ESEA flexibility 

to address perceived problems with the law’s requirements. 

Among the perceived problems with NCLB requirements reported by state officials, nine officials 

reported that too many schools were being identified for improvement. Officials from nine states 

reported that, each year, as more and more schools were identified for improvement, the designations 

became less meaningful. For example, officials from four states expressed concern about the lack of 

differentiation among low-performing schools designations, making it difficult to provide targeted 

supports. In addition, officials from three states indicated that the over-identification of schools led to a 

compliance-driven culture and strained state capacity to support school improvement. In contrast, the 

officials reported that, under ESEA flexibility, their states were able to designate a smaller number of

schools for school improvement and to target their supports accordingly. In the words of one official: 

We’re really able to focus more on the schools in our state who are really underperforming 

instead of identifying almost every school in our state as “does not meet AYP [adequate yearly 

progress].” And that’s been a huge focus for us because we’re able to concentrate our work 

specifically in those buildings, schools, and districts that are significantly underperforming. So we 

now have 170 buildings to focus on instead of almost 2,000 buildings, and that’s significant. 

State officials reported that NCLB pilot initiatives were influential in the design of their state 

accountability systems under ESEA flexibility. Through NCLB pilot initiatives dating back to 2005, eight 

of 12 states in the study sample had modified their measures of proficiency or designations of lowperforming schools. Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Oklahoma received flexibility to develop 

a performance index with multiple measures to determine adequate yearly progress. Colorado, 

Minnesota, Missouri and Tennessee were approved to measure proficiency using student achievement 

growth as part of the NCLB growth model pilot. Maryland and New York had flexibility to develop 

differentiated accountability systems in which additional levels of intervention allowed for more 

nuanced targeting of intervention and support. 
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

6 

These officials reported that their participation in these pilot initiatives was one of the factors that 

influenced the design of their state accountability systems under ESEA flexibility. For example, a New 

York state official explained: 

We have had a performance index for English/language arts and mathematics in New York State 

since the inception of NCLB. ... So this was something that was kind of baked into the New York 

state system. And then when we moved to our ESEA waiver, we took the concept of the 

performance index, but we made several changes to it under the waiver. 

Exhibit 1 summarizes state participation in federal and state policy initiatives prior to ESEA flexibility.

Exhibit 1. Federal and State Policy Activities Prior to ESEA Flexibility Among the 12 States 

in the Study Sample

State

NCLB

Performance 

Index Pilot 

(2007)

NCLB

Growth 

Model 

Pilot 

NCLB

Differentiated 

Accountability 

Pilot 

Race to 

the Top 

Awardee

Recent State 

Policy Introducing 

or Reforming 

Accountability 

System Other 

Than NCLB

Year State 

Introduced 

Policy 

Through 

Legislation

Colorado 2008 Round III X 2009

Kentucky Round III X 2009

Maryland 2008 Round II

Massachusetts X Round II X 2010

Minnesota X 2008 X 2012

Missouri 2007 X 2011

New Jersey Round III

New Mexico X 2011

New York X 2009 Round II X 2009

Oklahoma X X 2011

Tennessee 2005 Round I X 2010

Washington X 2010

Source: U.S. Department of Education website, state department of education websites and interview data from state officials.

Features of Accountability Under ESEA Flexibility

State educational agencies developed differentiated recognition, accountability and support systems 

under ESEA flexibility. State systems under ESEA flexibility were required to set AMOs and to identify 

priority, focus and reward schools. ESEA flexibility also includes the flexibility for states to create and use 

other accountability designations to identify schools beyond reward, priority and focus schools that met 

certain criteria. Priority schools are Title I schools that are among the lowest performing schools in the 

state, focus schools are Title I schools with the greatest achievement gaps or in which subgroups are 

furthest behind, and reward schools are highest performing and high-progress schools. Under the 

provisions of ESEA flexibility, states are required to ensure that priority, focus, and any other Title I

schools that are not making progress or narrowing achievement gaps receive interventions and supports. 
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

7 

Identifying other low-performing Title I schools

Although states are required only to identify priority, focus and reward schools under ESEA flexibility, 

eight states in the study sample established a specific accountability designation category for other 

Title I schools to facilitate their efforts to provide such accountability and support provisions. 

ESEA flexibility guidance requires states to describe how state systems will provide incentives and 

support improvement in other Title I schools that are not making progress or narrowing achievement 

gaps and not designated as priority or focus schools. To satisfy this component of ESEA flexibility, 

officials from eight of the 12 interviewed states (Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New 

Mexico, New York, Oklahoma and Washington) developed a specific category of low-performing schools 

to monitor and support other Title I schools (and in some cases non-Title I schools) that might not 

otherwise meet the criteria for priority and focus designations; interviews with state officials highlighted 

state priorities to support all schools in need of assistance. In the words of a state official from Washington: 

There’s that part in the ESEA flexibility request that talks about serving other low-performing 

Title I schools, and ... we’re using the word emerging [to describe other low-performing schools] 

because they’re certainly headed in the right direction. ... With some support, we hope that they 

grow and don’t end up on the focus list. 

See Exhibit A1 for the definitions these eight states with specific accountability designations for other 

low-performing schools used to identify and categorize such schools. 

At the district level, local officials used their own classifications of other Title I low-performing schools 

to monitor and support schools that were not identified as focus and priority schools but that were 

still demonstrating insufficient progress toward improving student achievement or narrowing 

achievement gaps. Among the eight districts in the four states that did not specifically have a 

designation category for other low-performing Title I schools, three districts used their own system to 

identify other low-performing Title I schools. For example, officials in one district were concerned that 

not all schools that needed targeted support were being identified for improvement under the focus 

and priority designations.

Setting AMOs

Among the three ESEA flexibility options for setting new AMOs, eight of the 12 states in the sample 

chose to devise their own goals for measuring student achievement. With respect to developing AMOs 

under ESEA flexibility, states were given the opportunity to replace the goal of 100 percent proficiency 

by 2014, which was set for all states under NCLB. States had flexibility to select among three options to 

set new ambitious, yet achievable, annual targets for school improvement at the state, district and 

school levels. States could choose option A (to halve the percentage of students—all students and all 

subgroups—not proficient in six years, using proficiency rates in reading and mathematics), option B (to 

achieve 100 percent proficiency by 2020, using average statewide proficiency rates in reading and 

mathematics), or option C (to devise their own ambitious yet achievable goals, using an educationally 

sound method, for measuring student achievement that are similarly ambitious to the AMOs that would 

result from using option A or B). 
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

8 

Eight of the 12 states in the sample (Colorado, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Mexico, New 

York, Oklahoma and Tennessee) selected option C, to develop their own methods for setting AMOs. The 

officials from these eight states described a variety of reasons for choosing option C. Missouri, New York 

and New Mexico officials favored option C because they wanted to align the AMOs with components of 

their state system for assessing performance. Colorado, Kentucky, New Mexico and Oklahoma officials 

said that they wanted to be able to include additional measures beyond reading and mathematics 

AMOs. For more information on these states’ approaches under option C, see 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html where the most up-to-date flexibility 

requests for each state and related documents are accessible. The remaining four states in the sample 

(Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and Washington) chose option A, to halve the percentage of 

students not proficient in six years. The interviewed officials from these four states indicated that they 

perceived this approach as more simple and practical than options B and C. None of the states in the 

sample selected option B, 100 percent proficiency by 2020. Several state officials reported that they did 

not favor this option because they believed it would continue a policy that was not working. In the 

words of one New Jersey official: 

Option B would have been almost the simplest thing to do ... but it felt like kicking the can. It 

didn’t help us in inspiring all schools to address their weaknesses because it just literally 

extended the time frame for a system that we already felt wasn’t working well. 

Using combined subgroups

Five of the 12 states in the study sample used a combined subgroup as part of their accountability 

system under ESEA flexibility. One of the central components of accountability under NCLB was 

disaggregating data by individual subgroups. ESEA flexibility provided guidance that required states to 

continue using these individual subgroups but allowed state educational agencies to create combined 

subgroups that would consolidate into a single group a set of NCLB subgroups4

—for example, racial and 

ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students and/or students with disabilities—when identifying 

low-performing schools. As presented in Exhibit 2, five of the 12 states in the study sample (Kentucky, 

Massachusetts, Missouri, New Mexico and Oklahoma) chose to use a combined subgroup as part of 

their accountability system under ESEA flexibility.

Exhibit 2. Composition of Combined Subgroups in Five States With Subgroups

State Students Included in Combined Subgroup

Kentucky Historically disadvantaged race/ethnic students (African American, Hispanic, Native 

American), students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged, English learners 

Massachusetts Students with disabilities, current and former English learners, and economically 

disadvantaged students

Missouri Black and Hispanic students, low-income students, students with disabilities, and/or 

English learners

New Mexico Students achieving below the 25th percentile in reading and mathematics

Oklahoma Students achieving below the 25th percentile in reading and mathematics

Source: State department of education websites, state ESEA flexibility approved requests and interviews with state officials.

4 We use the term NCLB subgroups to distinguish the subgroups that were specified in the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA. 
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

9 

Although the Department’s ESEA flexibility guidance requires states that use a combined subgroup to 

continue to include the performance of all ESEA subgroups in its accountability system, specifically in 

reporting AMOs, and to demonstrate that the composition of the subgroup is educationally sound, one 

potential concern with this approach is that higher performing groups of students could mask the 

underperformance of other groups of students. This concern was highlighted by peer reviewers of the 

state’s ESEA flexibility requests and through an analysis of the accountability provisions implemented by 

the first 11 states that were approved to implement ESEA flexibility (Education Trust, 2012). Among the 

five states in this study’s sample that were using combined subgroups, officials from four did not express 

concern that this approach would draw attention away from individual subgroups. In addition, officials 

from eight of the 12 districts in this study’s sample that were located in the five states using combined 

subgroups did not express concern about this approach. However, officials in four of the 12 districts did 

express some concerns that the needs of some students might be masked. As one official commented: 

I’m happy for the increased accountability. But sometimes when you lump a lot of groups 

together, it’s easy to—particularly for educators who are not well trained and have issues with 

disadvantaged and English learners—it’s easy to get lost in the fog of all that.

Recognizing reward schools

State officials from all 12 states in the sample reported providing opportunities for financial rewards 

for reward schools, and these officials reported identifying reward schools for reasons that included 

recognition for improvement and achievement gap closure. Among the 12 states in the sample, 

officials from six states (Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Washington)

reported that the ESEA flexibility request prompted them to make revisions to existing formulas or 

criteria in order to identify reward schools, such as including achievement gap closure as a factor and/or 

expanding reward school designations to include improving or high-progress schools. Three state 

respondents (Massachusetts, New Mexico and Tennessee) stressed the importance of recognizing lowperforming schools that have demonstrated growth. As the official from New Mexico noted, a result of 

designating reward schools was to establish examples of successful school turnaround across the state 

“to spread around the positive results” by connecting practitioners from low-performing schools with 

leaders and staff who have made progress in school turnaround.

Officials from all states in the sample reported providing opportunities for monetary awards to 

identified reward schools, but the forms of financial rewards and conditions for payment varied by state. 

Officials from six states (Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and New Mexico) 

reported a policy of direct monetary bonuses to schools. Additionally, in three of those states (Kentucky, 

Minnesota and New Mexico) and in five others (Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee and 

Washington), reward schools were eligible to compete for grants to disseminate information on best 

practices or to participate in compensated partnerships with other schools. In addition to the variance in 

rewards across the states, most states structured financial rewards to be contingent on available 

funding, and officials in six states reported funding shortfalls that limited rewards.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

10

Apart from monetary awards, state officials described other forms of recognition for reward schools. 

Officials from all 12 states described public recognition for reward schools, including public praise in 

press releases, state publications, and on the state educational agency website; public praise at state 

events and conferences or through school visits from state officials; certificates, awards, or letters of 

recognition presented to the school or staff; and permission for the school to use reward status or 

official state logos for promotion of the school. State officials in four states (Maryland, New Mexico, 

New York and Oklahoma) also described exemptions from regulatory requirements or greater autonomy 

to reward schools (see Exhibit A2 for a table presenting the nonfinancial rewards offered to reward 

schools by the 12 states in the sample).

Among the six reward schools in the sample, one school principal reported receiving formal, but 

nonmonetary, recognition from the state; none of the reward school principals reported receiving 

monetary rewards or compensation. In general, the principals of the reward schools in the sample 

reported that their reward status was not accompanied by any special recognition, such as bonuses or 

other incentives, from their respective states. One of the interviewed principals indicated that he was 

not made aware of his school’s reward status until being contacted for this study. The principals of the 

other five reward schools reported being aware of their school’s reward designation, but only one of 

these five principals reported receiving any formal recognition from the state. This recognition came in 

the form of a plaque noting the school’s reward status. Another principal stated that she assumed the 

school’s reward status was published in the newspaper, but she had not been notified if it was. Another

principal explained that the school’s status was noted in Title I quarterly reviews and annual reports but 

had not been publicized in any other ways. Overall, it appeared that reward school principals, while 

pleased with the designation, did not perceive the accountability systems under which they had received 

reward status as particularly focused on emphasizing the improvements or successes of reward schools. As 

one principal remarked, “It seems like ... we’re punitive when people are not doing well. ... It would be nice 

to be able to recognize teachers and be able to recognize some really amazing hard work.”

Communication and Understanding of Accountability Under ESEA Flexibility 

The development and implementation of meaningful accountability systems may be contingent on 

school leaders and stakeholders having a strong understanding of the system. Thus, states’ and districts’ 

abilities to communicate effectively with school leaders about the accountability systems may be critical 

to fostering the understanding and motivation at the school level that can mobilize successful and 

sustained turnaround of low-performing schools (O’Day, 2002). 
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

11

State officials reported multiple modes of communication with local education leaders to disseminate 

information and build understanding of their new accountability systems. All of the state interview 

respondents indicated that their states’ communications with local education leaders and other 

education stakeholders often were provided in face-to-face settings such as working groups or training 

sessions on specific topics. Officials from 11 of the 12 states reported that they held periodic 

committees, advisory councils or commissions to provide ESEA flexibility updates and new information 

on an ongoing basis. For example, Washington’s state official reported that the state educational agency 

had established an Educational Opportunity Gap Oversight and Accountability Committee that brought 

representatives from 22 organizations together to discuss implementation challenges with the new 

system and the role of the state in assisting low-performing schools. This state official reported that this 

group was “a very, very robust and deliberate structure” for disseminating state and federal 

accountability information. Officials from six states reported using written communications, such as 

practice guides, newsletters, press releases and resource documents, to communicate information on 

the new accountability system. 

District officials generally reported that they relied on existing structures rather than new structures 

for disseminating information to and obtaining feedback from stakeholders on ESEA flexibility. 

Officials in 15 out of 16 districts who reported having feedback structures stated that they used existing 

systems, such as parent advisory groups or school-site planning meetings, to explain aspects of the new 

accountability system and to gather any feedback on implementation to date. One district official 

reported having two separate Title I meetings each year and formally incorporating discussion of the 

new accountability system in those meetings. 

Officials from two states and seven district officials described challenges related to translating the 

state accountability and support system to schools and the community to support local-level 

understanding of the system. Most of the interviewed state officials did not mention challenges related 

to communicating information about the state system of accountability and supports under ESEA

flexibility; however, officials from two states specifically described such challenges. For example, one of 

these state officials indicated that the state sent “[district leaders] information all the time and we say, 

‘Share this with your schools.’ And they never do. So we have had to start thinking about how we can 

get information down specifically to school leaders because the district doesn’t always send it along.”

Among the 22 districts in the sample, officials in seven states suggested that the new systems were too 

complex and expressed frustration related to trying to translate the new system to teachers, parents, 

and students. One district official stated, “As an administrator, to be able to simplify the understanding 

of the language and the accountability system is quite challenging.” Another district official shared a 

specific example of the struggle the district has with helping principals understand the metrics necessary 

to develop an actionable plan:

I had school leaders asking me this morning, “So I got 2.9 points for school growth. How do I

figure out what my target is for school growth so that I can actually have some measurable goals 

that I can deliver to my teachers as to where we want to go with school growth?” There’s no 

comparison on measuring yourself as to basically how to improve, if that makes sense.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

12

In addition, three of the interviewed district officials reported feeling that the responsibility for 

communicating the new system to educators and the public was not their own but rather the state’s 

responsibility. One district official explained: 

[District staff] don’t feel that it is their job, and they don’t feel equipped to do it anyhow because 

they don’t completely understand it themselves. ... And in trying to sell the system, we don’t feel 

that’s our responsibility, and the state doesn’t feel like it’s our responsibility either, quite frankly.

Another district official reported that the district had chosen to explain only the parts of the accountability 

system that were relevant to the district, rather than the system overall. The official stated:

When I’m thinking back three years, I did not see and I don’t think our district saw our role to 

explain this accountability system. We thought it was the state’s role. So that does not mean we 

don’t go public with the results or explain those results. And we have like little press conferences. 

But this particular accountability system is pretty hard to understand—more complicated and 

convoluted than AYP.

At the school level, all of the interviewed principals in four of the six states in the school sample 

consistently reported that they had a good understanding of their state accountability systems. These 

principals attributed their understanding to state and district communication efforts. The principals in 

one state consistently praised the communication they had received from the state and their districts 

about the system and the implications of their accountability designation. Two of these principals 

commended the direct lines of communication they had with state staff and the efforts state staff had 

made to make themselves available to answer questions by phone, webinar or onsite. One of these 

principals reported the following when asked about whether the state’s communications about the 

accountability system under ESEA flexibility had fostered school-level understanding of the system: 

I’m understanding it [the school accountability rules] more, and we really use the data with that 

lens of looking at proficiency, growth, and achievement gap. We talk about it with our parents, 

teachers, and my boss, and other folks at the district level talk to us about it. It provides a shared 

language. 

As another example, the three interviewed principals in a different state praised the meetings their 

districts had held with them to explain the school accountability criteria and the calculations on which 

the school designations were based. One of these school principals explained: 

We have a data person who works with us and an accountability person who comes out and 

makes sure we understand [our designation] ... we in turn ask questions ... then, they in turn 

make sure we have an understanding so we can relay understanding, so we can relay 

information in a way that is understood by our staff.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

13

In two other states, seven of the 11 interviewed principals described an overall lack of understanding 

of their state’s accountability system and expressed concerns about the communications they had 

received about the system. Indeed, these principals expressed frustration about the communication not 

received about their state’s differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system. As 

mentioned, a principal from one of the states reported receiving no information or notification of his 

school’s reward designation, stating that he had not been made aware of his designation until contacted 

for this study. Although all other principals from these two states were aware of their school’s 

designation, they consistently reported that their states had provided insufficient information and 

resources to support their full understanding of the system. According to one principal, the state had 

disseminated a handbook with guidelines for how the school accountability designations would be 

calculated but did not provide any accompanying trainings or workshops to further support school-level 

understanding or correct interpretation of the guidelines. In addition, the principal reported that the 

state “kept changing that guide, over and over. ... I would look at it one way, they would change the 

criteria, and I would have to look at it another way.”

Perceptions of the State Accountability Designations Under ESEA Flexibility

As noted previously, under ESEA flexibility, states are required to identify priority, focus and reward 

schools. States also are required to identify and provide support to other Title I schools that are not 

demonstrating progress, but are not identified as priority or focus schools. These other Title I schools 

include schools in which subgroups of students miss AMOs or graduation rate targets or both over a 

number of years. States have the option to develop a specific school accountability designation for 

these schools. While ESEA flexibility includes these provisions, states with approved flexibility requests 

have been provided autonomy to design state accountability systems that align with their own 

circumstances, priorities and reform histories within the parameters of the flexibility principles. One 

intention of this flexibility is to provide states with the opportunity to develop meaningful systems that 

stimulate local change in education policy and practice, ultimately resulting in improved student 

outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). However, the extent to which state accountability 

systems under ESEA flexibility can enable and motivate improvement is likely dependent on key 

stakeholders, including school-level personnel perceiving the accountability designations as accurate 

and meaningful (O’Day, 2002). 

In three of the six states in the sample, all 10 of the interviewed school principals perceived the 

criteria that their states were using to identify low-performing schools under ESEA flexibility to be 

more valid measures of school performance than the criteria that were used in the previous 

accountability system. In these three states, none of the interviewed principals voiced major concerns 

about their state’s accountability system under ESEA flexibility. These principals generally described the 

accountability measures as more comprehensive and fairer than the measures used to assess school 

performance under previous state systems. In particular, they emphasized their appreciation for 

measures that included proficiency, growth and achievement gaps rather than a single proficiency 

measure. As one principal stated, “Looking at growth for students who are not performing is a good 

thing and can help motivate staff and help staff celebrate success. Just looking at proficiency can be 

demoralizing.” Even schools that had received a priority designation viewed the designation as less 

punitive than the designations they had received under the former state system. One priority school 

principal stated: 
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

14

The priority school environment allowed us to demonstrate a growth factor. That was a big part 

of why we were able to move designations, because we met our growth goals. Obviously, we’re 

totally aware that we have to continue to meet those goals and that the bar raises, but what it’s 

done for us is that it’s not made the standards so high that it feels impossible.

Eight of the 15 interviewed school principals in the other three states expressed concerns about the 

criteria their states were using to make school designation determinations. Despite reporting that they 

had a good understanding of their state’s differentiated accountability system, four principals in one 

state expressed reservations about the way in which the state ranked schools in comparison with each 

other based on student achievement growth. 

In another state, all six interviewed principals voiced support for the state accountability system’s focus 

on student achievement growth rather than just proficiency rates, but these principals perceived the 

system as punitive in implementation. These principals expressed a desire for the system to focus more 

strongly on the successes schools were achieving. In one state, two of the five interviewed principals 

raised concerns about the metrics that were being used to identify schools, including concerns about the 

accuracy of the data and whether the metrics were valid measures of performance. According to one 

principal, the school had received a designation report that included findings that resulted in staff 

feeling “confused or discouraged by the ratings.” 

The majority of district respondents did not voice concerns about their state’s accountability 

designations and the measures that were being used to identify low-performing schools. However, 

officials from eight of the 22 districts pointed to perceived deficiencies. The officials from these eight 

districts raised concerns about the ways in which states were measuring achievement growth (three 

districts), ways in which the metrics continued to fail to capture the academic progress of EL students 

(three districts), whether the reformulated student achievement measures were targeting the right 

schools (two districts), as well as a general critique that the measures were “less informative” (two 

districts). (Districts may fall into more than one category.) 

Some state officials remarked on the benefits of ESEA flexibility with respect to aligning dual systems 

of state and federal accountability. At the same time, other officials described continuing challenges 

related to aligning their accountability systems. One of the problems with NCLB that states sought to 

address under ESEA flexibility was the existence of a dual system of federal and state accountability. For 

example, officials in 10 of 12 sampled states reported having had a statewide accountability system with 

school or district designations that were different from those associated with NCLB accountability. The 

officials from four of these states specifically stated that aligning their state accountability system with 

the federal system was a prominent reason for applying for flexibility.5 One Colorado official stated: 

We really wanted to create a single accountability system. We felt like our state system was in a 

second year of implementation and it was mature enough to carry the load for both state and 

federal. And so we pursued the waivers. 

One official reported that the state system and federal system had been growing farther apart in their 

determination of which schools were low performing, which was becoming increasingly problematic and 

confusing for districts and schools. 

5 Study interviewers did not probe specifically on this point. Thus, it is possible that more states share this perspective but did 

not volunteer the information.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

15

At the same time, in implementing the ESEA flexibility accountability provisions, some officials reported 

continued challenges in aligning their state and federal accountability systems. Officials from eight other 

states reported that they struggled to reconcile the designation of low-performing schools under the 

state accountability designations with the ESEA flexibility requirements for either priority or focus 

schools. These officials reported that the criteria for identifying priority or focus schools were 

problematic because the schools identified by the guidelines set in ESEA flexibility were often different 

from the schools identified as low performing using the state-devised index or grading system. 
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

16

Interventions and Improvement Strategies for Low-Performing Schools and 

Districts

The interviewed state and district officials reported that low-performing districts and schools typically 

were allowed to select their own interventions, but that their states had established guidance to help 

inform these decisions. Among the 12 states in this study, the organizations involved most often in 

determining interventions in priority schools were the district (eight states), school (six states) or 

regional organization (three states). In seven states, the decision was shared across multiple 

organizational levels.

Box 1: Turnaround Principles

Strong leadership

Effective teachers

Redesigned schedules for additional time

Rigorous and aligned instructional program

Use of data for continuous improvement

Safe and healthy students

Family and community engagement

The states in the study sample often developed an array of interventions from which districts and 

schools could choose to support improvement; these interventions were typically based on turnaround 

principles established by the Department as part of ESEA flexibility guidelines (see Box 1) (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2012a, p. 2).6 One state in the sample, for example, presented a “menu of 

interventions and supports” in its ESEA flexibility request from which districts and schools could select, 

including extended learning time, training for instructional leaders, the adoption of early college 

programs for high schools, and other instructional and behavioral interventions and supports. In six 

states, state education agencies were involved in district and school selection of interventions, either by 

reviewing plans or by working collaboratively with each district or school to identify appropriate 

interventions. These states required districts or schools to conduct needs assessments to guide the 

selection of their interventions. According to one state official: 

The state provides the parameters for which interventions are acceptable. The district in 

consultation with the school selects the actual intervention. The rationale is that the district is 

closer to the school ... and then the state doesn’t have the resources to select interventions for all 

schools.

Respondents in 15 of the 22 districts representing eight states in the study sample provided information 

on their level of autonomy in selecting school improvement interventions. Officials from nine of these 

15 districts indicated that they have a great deal of latitude. Officials noted, however, that in some 

cases, intervention plans required state approval. When asked about the district role in identifying 

interventions, one district respondent explained:

6 Although these interventions were typically found to be consistent with turnaround principles, ESEA flexibility policy requires 

only priority schools to implement interventions that are aligned with turnaround principles.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

17

The district does have a lot of leeway ... which is really good. However, district plans, especially 

with schools that are priority improvement or turnaround, have to be reviewed by a state panel 

made up of members from [the state educational agency] and others from around the state 

trained to review plans.

The intervention strategies most frequently described by principals included creating a culture of 

targeted data use, aligning instruction with standards, extending the learning time in core content 

areas, providing teachers with professional development and promoting a more positive school 

climate. The data collected from principal interviews did not allow for an assessment of the intensity 

with which their reported school improvement strategies were being implemented. Rather, the 

interviews focused on the strategies that the priority, focus and other designated low-performing Title I

schools had selected and their rationale for doing so. 

The interviewed principals consistently described strategies that were informed by their data analyses 

and identified areas of weakness—specifically, improving student performance on reading and 

mathematics and closing achievement gaps between subgroups of students. Principals described varied 

strategies for addressing these needs, including extended learning time in these core subject areas, 

more frequent data collection and analysis to monitor gaps in achievement and progress among 

subgroups of students, and more closely aligned instruction with the standards and assessments. One 

elementary principal explained:

We said, “We know the standards, we know what the state will be testing on, so let’s start

there.” Let’s use the math[ematics] program to teach to the standards, but put the standards 

first. We developed mini-quizzes based on the standard the program was supposed to be 

teaching for a particular week. ... The teachers would use the results of these quizzes to 

determine whether to move on or reteach the standard students were learning. We did this in 

the tested grades for math[ematics], grades 3–5. And we saw an 11 percent gain in proficiency.

Principals also described providing professional development supports to enhance teachers’ 

instructional practices and to foster collaboration among teachers around data use and instruction. For 

example, the principals of two schools reported providing training to teachers to increase their 

understanding of the specific needs of certain subgroups of students. One of these principals explained, 

“This is a new strategy. Instead of looking at the class as a whole, we really look at each student and what 

[he or she] needs.” As another example, the principal of one school described a new districtwide coteaching model that connected general education teachers with teachers with specialized EL expertise. 

According to this principal, this co-teaching model was intended to result in more aligned instruction 

and improved outcomes for EL students. 

Nearly all of the interviewed principals of priority, focus and other designated low-performing Title I 

schools indicated that building a positive school culture was a central component of their school 

improvement efforts. These principals described various ways in which they were trying to transform 

their school’s culture and climate. Some of the strategies they reported implementing included 

empowering teachers to rebuild their confidence and to meet high expectations for practice, 

implementing formal mentoring and advising programs for students, and launching more informal 

efforts to bring teachers, students, and the broader community together in positive, school-pridebuilding activities.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

18

Principals of reward schools described ongoing efforts to foster continuous improvement, including a 

culture of data use and instilling high expectations for all students. Five of the six interviewed 

principals of reward schools described examining data on a continuous basis to promote and sustain 

improvement gains and student achievement successes. These principals described using data not only 

to monitor student progress and provide early interventions to students but also to improve and target 

their schools’ use of available resources. As the principal of one elementary school explained, “It’s just a 

new way of looking at data, and [making] a conscious decision about ways to spend resource money in 

places where we needed help.”

The six interviewed reward school principals also emphasized that setting and maintaining high 

expectations for students was central to their improvement efforts. These principals described having 

high academic and behavioral expectations for students and promoting a culture in which students take 

ownership, pride, and responsibility for their work in and outside of the classroom. One principal 

described pushing students “to grow and to do all they can do, both academically and from a 

responsibility standpoint.”

Nearly all states involved in this study (10 of 12) no longer require districts to provide students with 

supplemental education services (SES) or to offer school choice as previously required under NCLB. 

The Department allowed states and districts to choose, under ESEA flexibility, whether they would 

provide SES or public school choice to students attending Title I schools identified for improvement. 

Among the 12 states in the sample, one state continued to require districts to offer SES and school

choice but reduced the percentage of Title I funds to be set aside for these programs from 20 percent to

15 percent. In another state, priority schools must use at least 5 percent of their Title I funds to offer

school choice but are not required to offer SES. Officials in the states that allow districts to choose

whether to offer these parental-choice options cited a desire to provide districts and schools with 

flexibility over the 20 percent set aside of their Title I funds. All of the interviewed state and district

officials unanimously supported the flexibility to choose whether to offer SES and school choice.

Supports and Challenges for Implementing School Improvement Strategies 

ESEA flexibility sought to offer school improvement reform opportunities for states and schools by 

“enabl[ing] states and districts to better advance their work by developing locally tailored solutions to 

address their most pressing education challenges” (U.S. Department of Education, n.d., p. 2). States with 

approval for ESEA flexibility develop plans for implementing systems of differentiated recognition, 

accountability and support based on student achievement in at least reading/English language arts and 

mathematics, graduation rates, and school performance and progress over time, including the 

performance and progress of all subgroups. Specifically, 

States participating in ESEA Flexibility have prioritized their most underperforming schools so 

that they receive additional assistance. ... Compared to NCLB’s mandates for school turnaround, 

state flexibility plans better target strategies on the lowest-performing schools and require 

aggressive action to change a school’s course when necessary. (U.S. Department of Education, 

n.d., p. 2)
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

19

Officials from the 12 states in this study described requiring or offering support to low-performing 

schools through structures and mechanisms that included external support providers (12 states), early 

warning systems (10 states), and regional organizations (three states). All 12 states in the study sample 

permitted low-performing schools or districts to contract with an external organization or a technical 

assistance provider, but only Massachusetts and Oklahoma mandated such collaboration. Oklahoma 

requires priority schools to partner with local organizations for support in a number of areas, including 

developing family and community engagement strategies. In Massachusetts, districts with priority 

schools are required to identify a Priority Partner from the state’s approved list. Respondents from each 

of the other 10 states in the sample mentioned that their states had contracts with external 

organizations or technical assistance providers but that it was up to districts and/or schools how and 

whether to use these services. 

Three states (Massachusetts, Minnesota and Washington) established state-level processes for 

recruiting, screening, and qualifying vendors to assist schools and districts in selecting high-quality 

external organizations as partners. Officials in three other states (Colorado, New York and Oklahoma) 

reported that they provided guidance to districts and schools to help them choose providers or required 

that any partner vendors demonstrate a track record of success. 

Officials in 10 states were in various stages of developing and implementing early warning systems. The 

interviews with these officials indicated that, despite some variance across states, early warning systems 

had many elements in common. For example, all of these state officials described data management 

systems that collected multiple early warning metrics on students as they progress through the K–12 

system, including measures of student attendance, class grades, assessment results, demographic 

information, and behavior, such as the number of suspensions. State officials reported that their 

systems allow users at the district, school and often classroom level to generate lists of students who 

exhibit certain risk factors, and officials in two states (Massachusetts and Tennessee) reported that their 

systems allow for uploads of additional local data, such as notes from guidance counselors, to account 

for other risk factors that are not captured through the pre-established metrics in the system. 

The officials from three states reported requiring low-performing schools to take advantage of the 

services provided by regional organizations that are staffed by school improvement or turnaround 

experts recruited by the state. These experts support schools in implementing interventions, providing 

professional development to leadership and staff, analyzing data, building school leader capacity, and 

implementing college- and career-ready standards. An official in one of these states said that these 

centers were integral to their plans for school improvement but described challenges finding qualified 

staff for the centers. Officials in the other two states that offered support through regional school 

improvement organizations reported that focus or priority schools were not required to seek support 

from these organizations but that their services were available to schools. 

District leaders in 13 of 21 districts (in nine states) affirmed that they had received support from state 

education agency staff for low-performing schools. District leaders offered mixed reports on the 

quality of the assistance they were receiving from the state. Different states used different names for 

similar roles, but district leaders in five districts said that the state provided “performance managers,” 

“school success coaches,” “school support professionals,” or “turnaround coaches.” These personnel 

met with district and/or school leaders on a regular basis and helped them to identify and implement 

the appropriate interventions, provided professional development, or assisted in other ways. 
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

20

Two district officials lauded the support their districts had received from the state personnel. One 

official specifically noted that the state-assigned performance manager excelled at out-of-the-box 

thinking and brought a fresh perspective on issues their schools were facing. Another official praised the 

state’s use of performance managers to verify that plans were implemented with fidelity, explaining:

If you’re a district of priority improvement schools, [the state] assigns a performance manager to 

meet with you, at least monthly, to make sure that the plan is actually being implemented. ... 

You do get quite a bit of support from the state, and there is a lot tighter accountability for those 

schools and the districts that are in those categories. 

Some district leaders indicated room for improvement, however, with respect to certain elements of 

their states’ support systems. One district official expressed frustrations and disappointment with the 

school quality auditors who visited district schools on behalf of the state. This official perceived that the 

support was inadequate and ill-timed and that the audits served more as a distraction than a benefit. 

Leaders in another district mentioned that their schools were in need of state staff assistance but that 

none was provided. In addition, with respect to external providers, officials in six districts cited experiences 

with state-approved consultants whom they felt were too far removed from a classroom to provide them 

with high-quality professional development and meaningful assistance around implementation of their 

state’s college- and career-ready standards or the use of data to inform instruction. 

At the school level, all 13 of the priority and focus school principals described receiving some type of 

state support for their improvement strategies. Most of these principals reported receiving state 

support that was related to their improvement strategies, including funding, professional development 

for teachers, or direct support from teams of state staff or intermediary groups funded by the state. For 

example, the principal of a focus school reported receiving an additional $300,000 from the state to 

support the school’s improvement efforts as a result of its focus designation. The principal of a priority 

school in this same state described the support he had received from the state’s educational recovery 

team as central to the school’s improvement efforts and a drastic change in the type of support the 

school had received from the state in the past. This principal stated, “Last year was super. I could not 

have asked for more. I saw [the state] absolutely as a partner in school reform and an advocate for the 

students in the building.” 

The interviewed priority and focus school principals in three states also reported receiving support from 

state-designated school improvement specialists and intermediary groups the state had designated to 

support low-performing schools. These officials indicated that the support was useful, specific to the 

needs of their schools, and either more frequent or more targeted than support offered prior to ESEA

flexibility. One priority school principal stated:

They [state staff] would come physically to our building, and if they couldn’t make it [in person], 

they would do a webinar broadcast and say, “This is the scoop.” ... So those were very helpful for 

us, because it did keep that communication stream open. It gave that other venue of information 

that was like, OK, this is straight from the horse’s mouth, sort of thing. ... I thought it was kind of 

nice, since you are on the priority list, your needs were prioritized, so [your needs] got moved to 

the top of the list.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

21

Ten of the 13 interviewed priority and focus school principals reported receiving more frequent or 

more intensive support from their districts under ESEA flexibility than in previous years—specifically 

with regard to data use. Ten of the 13 interviewed principals specifically reported that they had 

received support from their district in reviewing and interpreting data and that the support the district 

had provided was useful, relevant and available to them as needed. As the principal of one priority 

school remarked, “Hardly a week goes by that some sort of data analysis training doesn’t take place.” 

Similarly, other school principals reported that their districts regularly monitored their data and 

described their district staff as “on call” to answer questions, provide data reports and support the 

school in interpreting data reports. In addition to data analysis support, principals of priority and focus 

schools across states in the study sample reported that their districts had provided them with site-based 

reading and mathematics specialists or coaches. Principals also highlighted the support of district-based 

instructional specialists who were visiting their schools regularly to lead professional learning 

community meetings, attend school leadership team meetings, and assist the school in implementing 

the activities and strategies in the school improvement plan. 

Principals from 20 of the 25 schools in the sample described a variety of factors that challenged their 

improvement efforts, including low staff morale (10 principals), limited resources (nine principals), 

staff turnover (three principals), and testing requirement burdens for EL students (two principals).

Among the nine principals citing limited resources as a challenge, three were priority school principals, 

five were reward school principals, and one was a focus school principal. The priority and focus school 

principals described challenges related to allocating limited resources to address the multiple needs of 

the school or the prospect of losing SIG funding, which supported many of their improvement efforts. 

The five reward school principals all cited funding as a challenge. These principals indicated that because 

of their reward school status, their schools typically were not targeted to the same extent as priority and 

focus schools to receive additional funds or other resources from the state or district.

Burden Associated With ESEA Flexibility and State and District Capacity to 

Support the Implementation of ESEA Flexibility Provisions

The full set of activities involved with ESEA flexibility—developing the policies, soliciting feedback, 

revising requests, putting policies in place, and providing technical support—involved a great deal of 

effort on the part of education officials from all levels. In addition, the scope and extent to which state 

accountability systems were changed through ESEA flexibility provisions placed significant demands on 

state and district capacity to identify high- and low-performing schools successfully and to provide 

effective support to struggling schools. The study team asked respondents to gauge the extent of 

burden they experienced in transitioning to the new accountability systems as well as their capacity to 

effectively implement their systems.

The interviewed state and district officials reported that ESEA flexibility implementation required 

substantial effort; most state officials in the sample described at least a modest level of burden, but 

the majority of district officials reported that the level of effort was not burdensome. Among the 12 

state respondents, eight described at least a modest burden associated with ESEA flexibility 

implementation, and another three respondents described a substantial effort but not necessarily a 

burden. Among the eight state officials who reported at least a modest burden, one state administrator 

explained: 
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

22

There seems to be a misunderstanding at the [U.S.] Department [of Education] about the 

amount of time that it takes for us to pull together the information that’s requested. ... In order 

to change completely our accountability system, we had to rewrite every single program and 

communicate with the districts at the same time. ... So then, when we would get a call from the 

Department saying, “Well, could you just show us the impact if you were to change this 

percentage?” That seems to them like a very minor request, but for us it was not, in the midst of 

everything else that we were trying to do.

Another state-level interviewee described “a significant amount of workload” associated with 

responding to inquiries about ESEA flexibility from stakeholders.

Officials in three other states noted that although implementing the ESEA flexibility provisions for 

differentiated accountability and support systems entailed a substantial effort, they did not perceive the 

level of effort as burdensome. For example, one official explained: 

Any time you make a change, there is the obligation to make sure that our districts are informed 

and our internal staff are informed. So obviously that took a little bit of time in getting everyone 

to a common understanding of what was required under the ESEA Flexibility waiver. I wouldn’t 

necessarily consider that burdensome because it was an improvement to the entire system.

At the district level, officials in 19 of the 22 districts in the sample provided data on level of 

implementation burden associated with the accountability systems under ESEA flexibility. Among these 

19, seven described implementation to be burdensome, but officials from 12 districts reported effort but 

no burden associated with implementation. One district official reported that “any change in approach 

takes learning in general” but that it has not been particularly burdensome. This sentiment was common 

among the other 12 respondents who reported effort but no burden associated with implementation. 

State officials described implementing strategies to build capacity to implement the accountability 

and support provisions under ESEA flexibility. The interviewed state officials described a variety of 

state-level efforts to enhance the state’s capacity, including cross-agency collaborations, developing 

staff expertise, and partnerships with districts (seven states); structural changes within the state 

educational agency to enhance the state’s capacity (eight states); and efforts to better align and 

coordinate oversight of federal initiatives and/or multiple funding streams (five states). For example, the 

officials who described cross-agency collaborations explained that the shared efforts and responsibilities 

across agency staff and direct links to support low-performing schools bolstered their capacity to 

facilitate districts and schools in their improvement efforts. Among the officials who reported structural 

changes and efforts to coordinate federal initiatives and funding streams, these respondents primarily 

described shifting roles and responsibilities within the state educational agency to create staff and units 

that would have joint responsibility for accountability and supports. 
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

23

A majority of district officials (15 of 22) reported that they have sufficient staff and expertise to 

support continuous improvement in all priority, focus and other designated low-performing Title I 

schools. Many district officials reported developing and using both internal and external expertise to 

improve school turnaround efforts. For example, one district official reported that focusing on meeting 

ESEA flexibility requirements encouraged the district to tap “into expertise from local colleges, 

universities, as well as national consultants.” Several district officials reported strategies for enhancing 

their capacity. Three district officials reported that they were in the process of hiring additional staff 

members to support low-performing schools. Another three reported that they would like to hire more 

administrative staff but were unable to do so because of funding constraints. Four districts reported that 

they planned to work with external providers to support their low-performing schools. 

Despite efforts to build capacity, nearly all of the state officials and half of the district officials 

described challenges or concerns related to their existing capacity to support improvement in lowperforming schools. Although state officials reported that the smaller caseloads of schools helped them 

better meet these schools’ needs, officials from five states expressed concern that the state still had too 

few staff to provide the level of individualized supports to schools that is necessary to promote 

sustainable school turnaround. Officials from two states also expressed concern about the state’s 

capacity to support schools that exit the priority and focus designations to the extent that is needed to 

sustain those schools’ improvement in the long term. 

The majority of district officials (15 of 22) reported that they presently had sufficient staff and expertise 

to support school improvement in identified schools; however, officials from seven districts reported 

factors constraining their capacity, including insufficient funds (four districts), a lack of expertise in 

intervening in low-performing schools (two districts), and the complex demands of school improvement 

(one district). Officials from an additional four districts expressed concern about their ability to sustain 

their capacity to support schools at scale after their SIG and/or Race to the Top grants expire. 
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

24

Conclusion

By extending flexibility on certain provisions of ESEA, as amended, the Department aims to attenuate 

many of the provisions that were perceived as hindering reform and to encourage innovative efforts to 

identify and support low-performing schools. States with approved ESEA flexibility requests are granted 

flexibility with regard to annual measurable objectives, AYP determinations, identification of and 

supports and interventions for low-performing schools and districts, the use of section 1003(a) funds, 

the transferability of ESEA funds, and improvement plans for highly qualified teachers. In order to be 

approved to implement ESEA flexibility, these states must adhere to specific principles: (1) ensure 

college- and career-ready expectations for all students; (2) implement state-developed differentiated 

recognition, accountability, and support; (3) support effective instruction and leadership; and (4) reduce 

duplication and unnecessary burden. 

The purpose of this study was to explore the early implementation of state systems of differentiated 

support and accountability under ESEA flexibility. The study sample included 25 schools in 22 districts 

located within 12 of the 35 states that were granted flexibility in Window 1 and Window 2. The key 

findings from the study follow. 

For most states in this study, their accountability systems under ESEA flexibility build on prior state 

policies and reform efforts. At the same time, state officials indicated that the flexibility provisions 

allowed them to address perceived deficiencies of NCLB. For example, state officials reported 

developing new state accountability systems under ESEA flexibility that built off of the NCLB growth 

model pilot, differentiated accountability, Race to the Top, and state-specific reforms. Although states 

perceived ESEA flexibility as an opportunity to continue these types of reform efforts already in place, 

state officials also indicated that flexibility enabled them to address challenges they had encountered 

with NCLB, such as the over-identification of low-performing schools and the over-reliance on 

proficiency in reading and mathematics as school performance metrics. Likewise, principals appreciated 

accountability systems that took into account performance on measures other than proficiency in 

reading and mathematics, with increased focus on student academic growth and reduction of 

achievement gaps among subgroups.

Many states that sought to reconcile their “dual” state and federal systems of accountability through 

ESEA flexibility described continued challenges in this regard. Although some state officials reported 

that one of their goals in applying for ESEA flexibility had been to reconcile their state accountability 

system and the federal accountability system, this goal was only partially realized in these states. Thus, 

ESEA flexibility helped better align state and federal systems of accountability, but some officials 

reported that it had not eliminated a “dual” system of accountability.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

25

Interviews with principals revealed differences across states in school principals’ understanding of 

state accountability systems. Principals in four of the six states from which the school sample was 

selected reported that their states and districts had done a good job of explaining the state system of 

accountability and support under ESEA flexibility. They reported that the communication efforts of their 

states had provided them with a clear understanding of the system, including the implications of their 

school designations. In comparison, the principals in two other states described the opposite: that their

states had provided them with insufficient information to support their full understanding of the system 

and the process by which their schools were designated. Notably, these principals also expressed concern 

about the validity of the criteria their state was using to make school accountability designations.

Targeted support is another critical component of ESEA flexibility, and district leaders in 13 of 21 

districts (in nine states) affirmed that they had received support from the state educational agency. 

However, district leaders offered mixed impressions of the assistance they were receiving from the 

state. Officials from four districts reported increased state support to develop and implement 

interventions for low-performing schools. For example, one district administrator lauded the support his 

district had received, mentioning that the assigned performance manager excelled at out-of-the-box 

thinking and brought a fresh perspective on issues their schools were facing. In contrast, a leader of a 

district in a different state expressed frustration with the school quality auditors assigned by the state, 

who were described as a distraction rather than a benefit. 

All of the priority and focus school principals in the sample described receiving state support for their 

improvement strategies as a result of their designation status. State officials reported that the smaller 

numbers of schools identified as low performing allowed them to provide better support and conduct 

more substantive progress monitoring. Moreover, 10 of the 13 interviewed priority and focus school 

principals reported receiving more frequent or more intensive support from their districts under ESEA

flexibility than in previous years—specifically with regard to data use. Indeed, district officials reported 

that smaller caseloads allowed school improvement specialists and academic coaches to visit schools 

more often for progress monitoring and professional development.

Officials from seven districts reported insufficient staff and expertise to provide the level of support 

they believed was needed to improve low-performing schools in their districts. As reported by officials 

in these seven districts, the factors that constrained capacity included insufficient funds (four districts), a 

lack of expertise in intervening in low-performing schools (two districts), and the complex demands of 

school improvement (one district). 

Among the six reward schools in the sample, only one school principal reported receiving formal 

recognition from the state associated with the school’s reward status. None of the reward school 

principals reported receiving incentives in the form of monetary rewards or compensation as a result of 

their reward school designation. 
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

26

References

Education Trust (2012). Accountability and support for struggling schools. Washington, DC: Author.

O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 

72(3), 293–337. Retrieved from 

http://her.hepg.org/content/021q742t8182h238/?p=17e07b4428be4e4ead0003c80d4245f6&pi=0

U.S. Department of Education (2012a). ESEA flexibility. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html

U.S. Department of Education (2012b). ESEA flexibility: Frequently asked questions. Washington, DC: 

Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html

U.S. Department of Education (n.d.). The opportunity of ESEA flexibility: Protecting students and 

supporting local education solutions. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/resources/esea-flex-brochure.pdf
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

27

Appendix Exhibits

Exhibit A1. School-Level Characteristics of Participating and Non-Participating Schools in the Study 

Sample

School-Level Characteristics Participating Schools Non-Participating Schools

565

76%

79%

19%

N = 11

Average enrollment

Average percentage of students receiving free or 

reduced-price lunch

Average percentage of minority students

Average percentage of special education students

Sample size

550

74%

72%

14%

N = 25

Source: 2011–12 EDFacts, Data Group (DG) 39: Membership, DG 74: Children with disabilities (IDEA) school age, DG 565: Free 

or reduced-price lunch.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

28

Exhibit A2. Non-Financial Rewards Offered to Reward Schools

State Types of Public Recognition Regulatory Flexibility

Autonomy 

Over Funds 

Exemptions From 

Regulations

Colorado Certificate as Title I Distinguished School

Press release

Media event

Kentucky Permission to schools to use recognition status on 

materials

Maryland Press release

Display on state website and other promotions

Certificate of recognition from state and district

Distinguished schools receive plaque

Recognition of superlative schools from governor and 

state board of education, and visit from dignitaries

Exempt from 

completing most 

parts of annual 

school 

improvement plan

Massachusetts State-level event

Certificates given to staff

Minnesota Recognition in annual press conference with governor 

and education commissioner

Certificates given to staff

Missouri Letter of congratulations

Award from state board of education

New Jersey Schools identified as New Jersey Schools of Excellence

Plaques for school and district 

Statewide press releases

Visit from governor and/or commissioner of 

education

Selected schools or students asked to present at 

Effective Practices Conference

New Mexico Press release

Showcase on website/online clearinghouse

Letter of recognition from governor and education 

secretary 

Exempt from 

completing most 

parts of annual 

school 

improvement plan

New York Press release

Showcase on website

Eligible for Commissioner’s Schools Dissemination 

Grant 

Specifics under 

discussion

Oklahoma Honor at state board of education meeting

Press release

Representation on advisory groups

Inclusion in state superintendent’s listening tour

Increased 

autonomy 

over federal 

funds

Tennessee Various forms of public recognition

Washington State visit and award ceremony at school

State dissemination of materials lauding school

Source: State department of education websites, state ESEA flexibility approved requests, and interviews with state officials.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

29

Exhibit A3. Identification of Other Low-Performing Schools

State School Category Definition 

Colorado Turnaround and 

Priority Improvement

Schools identified as low performing using the state’s school and 

district performance frameworks that have not also been identified 

as priority or focus schools 

Maryland Approaching Target Title I schools that do not meet the criteria for priority or focus 

schools under ESEA flexibility but that do not/did not meet AMOs in 

one or more categories

Massachusetts Level 3 (not focus) Schools with low aggregate performance that are among the 

lowest 20 percent relative to other schools in their grade span 

statewide and that are not already identified as priority or focus 

schools

Minnesota Continuous 

Improvement 

The bottom 25 percent of Title I schools that have not already been 

identified as priority or focus schools

New Mexico Strategic Title I schools with the largest achievement gaps in the state and 

with an overall school grade of “C” or lower, as measured by the 

state A–F grading system

New York Local Assistance Any school that is not a priority or focus school that (a) has large 

gaps in student achievement among subgroups of students, (b) has 

failed to make AYP for three consecutive years with same subgroup 

on same measure, or (c) is located in a non-focus district but is 

among the lowest in the state for the performance of one or more 

subgroups and for which the school is not showing progress

Oklahoma Targeted Intervention For 2012–13, any schools in the bottom 25 percent of the state 

(based on student achievement) that have not previously been 

identified as priority or focus schools

Washington Emerging Title I–participating schools identified from the priority list (next 5 

percent up from the bottom of the list) and the focus list (next 10 

percent up from the bottom) that are not already identified as 

priority or focus schools

Source: State department of education websites, state ESEA flexibility approved requests and interviews with state officials.

Note: Among the 12-state sample, four states (Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey and Tennessee) did not have a specific school 

accountability designation for identified low-performing schools that did not meet the criteria for designation as a priority or 

focus school.
Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov