U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Results in Brief:

Implementing Accountability and Supports Under ESEA Flexibility 

February 2016

The ESEA flexibility initiative was designed to give states flexibility with certain provisions of the 2002 reauthorization of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This report explores the early 

implementation of state differentiated recognition, accountability and support systems under ESEA flexibility. 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. 

STUDY QUESTIONS 

1. What are the primary components of state accountability 

and support systems under ESEA flexibility? 

2. What modes of communication did states and districts 

use to inform and build local-level understanding of state 

accountability and support systems 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?

3. What approaches did states take to identify and intervene

in low-performing districts and schools? What 

improvement strategies did principals report 

implementing?

4. What supports were states and districts providing to 

low-performing schools? How did officials perceive their 

capacity to implement the ESEA flexibility provisions for 

state support and accountability systems, and what 

challenges did they report? 

STUDY DESIGN 

This report’s findings are based on policy and document 

reviews, and semi-structured telephone interviews with 

state, district, and school officials conducted in late 2013 and 

early 2014. The sample included officials from 12 state 

education agencies (SEAs) with approved ESEA flexibility 

requests, 22 districts located across these 12 states, and 25 

Title I schools located across the state and district samples. 

The sample was not randomly selected and the reported 

findings are not generalizable to all states, districts, and 

schools. 

Highlights

• Five of the 12 states in the study used a combined 

subgroup as part of their accountability system and eight 

of the 12 devised their own goals for measuring student 

achievement. Eight of the 12 created a designation 

category for low-performing schools that did not meet 

the priority and focus designation criteria. 

• Nearly all state officials (11 of 12) reported holding

periodic committees, advisory councils, and commissions 

to share ESEA flexibility update to districts.

• Most district respondents (14 of 22) did not voice 

concerns about the criteria that their states used to 

identify low-performing schools. 

• Principals in three of the six states perceived the ESEA

flexibility accountability criteria as more valid measures 

of school performance than had been used in previous 

systems; however, principals in the other three states 

expressed concerns about their states’ criteria. 

• The interviewed principals described improvement 

strategies that included promoting a culture of targeted 

data use, standards-aligned instruction, extended time 

for math and reading instruction, professional 

development, and positive school climates.

• State officials reported providing support through regional 

technical assistance organizations, external support 

providers, and early warning systems. Ten of the 13

priority and focus school principals described receiving 

more frequent or more intensive support than in years 

prior to ESEA flexibility. 

• State officials described building capacity through crossagency collaborations, developing staff expertise, 

partnering with districts, implementing organizational

changes, and consolidating funding streams. 

COMPONENTS OF STATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND 

SUPPORT SYSTEMS UNDER ESEA FLEXIBILITY

States are required to design accountability systems that expect

improvement in student outcomes under ESEA flexibility, but 

states may develop their own annual measurable objectives 

(AMOs) for achieving those goals. States are required to

establish criteria and identify priority, focus, and reward 

schools using these criteria; and states also may identify 

other low-performing schools. 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 high-performing or improving 

schools. Under ESEA flexibility, states are also expected to 

support other Title I (and non-Title I) schools that are not 

making progress or narrowing achievement gaps based on 

the state’s AMOs and are not otherwise identified as priority 

or focus schools. 

Five of the 12 states in the study used a combined subgroup 

as part of their accountability system. 

Among the five states and 12 districts in this study’s sample 

that were using combined subgroups, officials from four states

and eight districts did not express concerns that this approach

would draw attention away from individual subgroups. 

However, officials in four of the 12 districts did express some 

concerns that the needs of some students might be masked

through the use of combined subgroups. 

Eight of the 12 states created a specific designation

category, beyond priority and focus, to monitor and support

other low-performing schools. 

The officials from these states reported developing this 

category to monitor and support schools that might not 

otherwise meet the criteria for priority and focus school 

designations.

COMMUNICATION, UNDERSTANDING, AND 

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER 

ESEA FLEXIBILITY

State officials reported multiple modes of communication 

with local education leaders to disseminate information and 

build understanding of their new accountability systems.

Officials from 11 of the 12 states reported that they held 

periodic committees, advisory councils, and commissions to 

provide districts with ESEA flexibility updates and new 

information on an ongoing basis. At the same time, officials 

from two of these states described challenges associated 

with translating information about the new systems to local 

stakeholders.

All of the interviewed principals in four of the six states in the 

school sample reported having a good understanding of their 

state accountability system; most of the principals in the 

other two states (7 of 11) expressed concerns about their 

understanding of the system and the communication they 

had received from their state. 

The majority of district respondents (14 of 22) did not voice 

concerns about the criteria that their states used to identify 

low-performing schools. Principals in three of the six states in 

the sample perceived the criteria as more valid measures of 

school performance than had been used in previous systems. 

Principals in the other three states expressed concerns about 

the accuracy and validity of some of the data their states 

were using to make accountability designations. 

INTERVENTIONS AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES

Interviewed state and district officials reported that lowperforming schools typically were allowed to select their 

own interventions, but they used established guidance from 

the state to inform these decisions.

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.

CAPACITY, SUPPORTS, AND CHALLENGES FOR 

IMPLEMENTING ESEA FLEXIBILITY PROVISIONS

Officials from the 12 states in this study described requiring 

or offering support to low-performing schools through 

structures and mechanisms that included regional 

organizations (three states), external support providers 

(12 states), and early warning systems (10 states).

All 13 of the priority and focus school principals in the 

sample described receiving some state-level support for 

implementing their improvement strategies. Most of these 

principals (10) also described receiving more intensive or 

more frequent support from their districts than in the years 

prior to ESEA flexibility. 

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 English learner students (two 

principals).

State officials described implementing strategies to build 

capacity to implement the accountability and support 

provisions under ESEA flexibility, including cross-agency 

collaborations, developing staff expertise, and partnerships 

with districts (seven states); structural changes within the 

SEA (eight states); and efforts to coordinate oversight of 

federal initiatives and/or multiple funding streams (five 

states).

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 low-performing 

schools. However, 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.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The complete report is available online:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html