Report to Congressional Committees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

September 2004 NO CHILD LEFT 

BEHIND ACT 

Improvements Needed 

in Education’s Process 

for Tracking States’ 

Implementation of 

Key Provisions 

GAO-04-734 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-734.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Marnie S. 

Shaul at (202) 512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-734, a report to 

congressional committees 

September 2004

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 

Improvements Needed in Education's 

Process for Tracking States' 

Implementation of Key Provisions 

States varied in how they established proficiency goals and measured 

student progress, which is permitted by NCLBA so that states can address 

their unique circumstances. For example, states differed in the annual rates 

of progress they expected schools to make in order to have all of their 

students academically proficient by 2014 and in methods used to determine 

whether schools had met state goals. This variation in state approaches 

could affect how many schools meet their annual goals over time. 

State and school district officials said that their leadership’s commitment to 

improving student achievement and technical assistance provided by an 

Education contractor facilitated implementation of NCLBA requirements. 

However, tight timeframes for determining school progress and problems 

with student data impeded implementation. Measuring achievement with 

faulty data can lead to inaccurate information on schools meeting 

proficiency goals. Education is working on efforts to help states improve 

their data systems, such as monitoring state data quality policies. 

Education assisted states in developing their plans for improving student 

proficiency and by June 10, 2003 approved, fully (11) or conditionally (41), 

all plans. As of July 31, 2004, Education had fully approved 28 states’ plans 

without conditions; plans from 23 states and the District of Columbia were 

approved but contained conditions needed to implement NCLBA 

requirements. To help states, Education asked assessment experts to review 

all plans and provide states with on-site evaluations. Although Education 

officials said that they are continually monitoring states whose plans have 

conditions, the Department does not have a written process that delineates 

how and when each state will meet its conditions. In addition, by the school 

year (2005-06) NCLBA requires states to increase assessments. Education 

has developed guidance for its review and approval of states’ expanded 

standards and assessments. However, it has not established a written plan 

that clearly identifies the steps required, interim goals, review schedules, and 

timelines. Without such written plans, states may be challenged to meet 

NCLBA system requirements by the 2005-06 deadline. 

Approval Status of State Plans as of July 31, 2004 

Source: GAO analysis.

Approved with 

conditions (24)

Fully approved 

by 7/31/04 (17)

Fully approved 

by 6/10/03 (11)

The No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001 (NCLBA) has focused national 

attention on improving the 

academic achievement of the 

nations’ 48 million students by 

establishing a deadline—school 

year 2013-14—for public schools to 

ensure that all students are 

proficient in reading and math. 

Accordingly, states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

developed plans that set goals for 

increasing the numbers of students 

who attain proficiency on state 

tests each year, with all meeting 

goals by 2014. To provide 

information about states’ efforts, 

GAO determined (1) what goals 

states established for student 

proficiency and their implications 

for whether schools will meet these 

goals; (2) what factors facilitated or 

impeded selected state and school 

district implementation efforts; and 

(3) how the Department of 

Education (Education) supported 

state efforts and approved state 

plans to meet student proficiency 

requirements. 

What GAO Recommends

We are recommending that the 

Secretary of Education delineate a 

written process and timeframes for 

states to meet conditions for full 

approval, develop a written plan 

with steps and timeframes so all 

states have approved standards and 

assessment systems by 2006, and 

further support states’ efforts to 

gather accurate student data used 

to determine if goals have been 

met. Education disagreed with the 

first recommendation and agreed 

with the others. 
Page i GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 

Background 5 

States Varied in the Goals Established for Student Progress, and 

That Variation May Have Implications for How Many Schools 

Meet State Goals over Time 10 

Leadership and Technical Assistance Facilitated Implementation 

Efforts, but Data Accuracy Problems and Tight Timelines 

Impeded Efforts 23 

Education Has Aided States in Developing Their Plans and 

Assessment Systems but Did Not Have Written Plans to Help 

States Meet NCLBA Provisions 27 

Conclusions 35 

Recommendations for Executive Action 36 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37 

Appendix I Methods to Establish Starting Points 39 

Appendix II Percentage of Schools That Met State Goals 

in 2002-03 41 

Appendix III State Plan Requirements 43 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Education 45 

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 50 

GAO Contacts 50 

Staff Acknowledgments 50 

Related GAO Products 51 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Tables 

Table 1: Primary Methods Education Used To Support State 

Planning and Implementation Efforts 28 

Table 2: Calculating a Starting Point Using the School at the 20th 

Percentile in Cumulative Enrollment 40 

Figures 

Figure 1: Example of States’ Discretion to Develop Their Own 

Content Standards and Tests and to Determine What 

Constitutes Proficiency on Each of the Tests 8 

Figure 2: Percentage of Students in Each State Expected to 

Demonstrate Proficiency on the Reading Tests in the First 

Year 12 

Figure 3: Minimum Size of Student Groups by Number of States 15 

Figure 4: Three Variations in State Projected Rates of Progress 

from 2002 to 2014 17 

Figure 5: A Majority of States Used Confidence Intervals to 

Determine Student Progress in School Year 2002-03 19 

Figure 6: Student Progress Measures and Potential Effects on 

Whether Schools Meet Proficiency Goals 22 

Figure 7: Example of a Timeline to Determine School’s Proficiency 

Status 26 

Figure 8: Approval Status of State Plans as of July 31, 2004 32 

Abbreviations 

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act 

LEA Local Educational Agency 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

September 30, 2004 

The Honorable Judd Gregg 

Chairman 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, 

 Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John A. Boehner 

Chairman 

The Honorable George Miller 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) has focused national 

attention on increasing academic achievement and closing achievement 

gaps among the nation’s 48 million school-aged children by establishing a 

deadline—school year 2013-14—for public schools to bring all of their 

students to an achievement level deemed “proficient” in reading and math 

by their state. This includes students in total and in NCLBA-designated 

student groups—students who are economically disadvantaged, are 

members of major racial or ethnic groups, have disabilities, or have limited 

English proficiency. As a condition for receiving federal funds, NCLBA 

required that each state submit a plan to the Department of Education 

(Education) that describes how the state will ensure that all students are 

proficient in reading and math by the deadline, as measured primarily by 

tests each state used. To provide information about the current status of 

states’ efforts to implement student proficiency requirements, GAO 

determined (1) what goals states established for student proficiency and 

their implications for whether schools will meet these goals, (2) what 

factors facilitated or impeded selected state and school district 

implementation efforts, and (3) how Education supported state efforts and 

approved state implementation plans to meet student proficiency 

requirements. 

To address these issues, we analyzed data from plans which all states 

submitted to Education and that Education approved by June 2003. We 

extracted detailed information from each plan and developed a database 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

of that information to facilitate analysis. We also contacted officials in 

50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to obtain information 

about the number of schools they had identified as meeting annual 

progress goals and their school and district characteristics in 2002-03.1

 We 

visited 4 states (California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Rhode Island) and 

6 school districts within these states, and conducted phone interviews 

with officials in another 17 states to obtain information about factors that 

facilitated and impeded implementation of student proficiency 

requirements. The states and districts were selected to achieve variation in 

geography and size and to explore variation among the states in such areas 

as their starting points, first-year goals, and successive annual student 

proficiency goals. We reviewed documentation Education provided the 

states, reviewed regulations and guidance issued by Education, and 

interviewed Education officials about their efforts to assist states in 

developing plans and their process for approving plans. We also reviewed 

the status of Education’s approval of states’ standards and assessments 

systems that were required to comply with the 1994 Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In July 2004, in response to our 

requests, Education provided us with updated and new information 

related to the approval status of states’ plans, grant award conditions, 

assessment system enforcement efforts, and assistance provided to 

improve the quality of state data. Finally, we interviewed officials from 

national education organizations and other experts in the area. We 

conducted our work between August 2003 and August 2004 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

States varied in how they established proficiency and measured student 

progress, and this variation in state approaches could affect how many 

schools meet their annual goals over time. NCLBA permits such variability 

for each state to address its unique circumstances, thus differences are not 

unexpected. First, states varied in their starting points—the 2001-02 

assessment levels that were used to set first-year proficiency goals—and 

also varied in their first-year goals. NCLBA prescribed a statutory formula 

for determining starting points based on each state’s 2001-02 assessment 

data. State starting points reflected the differences in decisions states had 

previously made in choosing content standards, determining the rigor of 

 1

Hereinafter, the term states will refer collectively to the 50 states plus the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

tests developed or chosen to measure student performance, and setting 

proficiency levels. Consequently, the percentage of students expected to 

meet proficiency goals in the first year varied widely. For example, in 

California’s schools, 14 percent of elementary school students were 

expected to be proficient in reading in the first year, while Colorado 

expected that 78 percent of its elementary students would be proficient. 

States also varied in the minimum size of designated groups, such as 

economically disadvantaged and ethnic minority students, whose progress 

must be measured separately. In determining whether schools met 

proficiency goals, states were not required to include results for these 

groups if the number of students was too small to yield statistically 

reliable information. For example, in the state of Washington, which has a 

minimum group size of 30, schools would not be required to include 

separately the test scores for any group of fewer than 30 students. States 

also varied in the percentage of students they expected to be proficient 

annually to meet NCLBA’s requirement that all students be proficient by 

2014. For example, some states expected schools to show steady progress 

every year and others every 3 years. Finally, states varied in how they 

planned to determine whether their schools met state goals. The majority 

of states used statistical techniques that they believed improved the 

accuracy of their determinations, such as determining that a school had 

made adequate progress if the percentage of students scoring at the 

proficient level or above came within a statistical range (i.e., confidence 

intervals) of the state goal. The approaches states used to establish goals 

and determine student proficiency, such as confidence intervals, could 

have implications over time for the number of schools that meet their 

goals. 

State officials we interviewed cited factors that facilitated implementation 

of student proficiency requirements, such as the commitment of their state 

leadership to the goals of NCLBA and technical assistance. However, 

factors such as data problems and tight timelines for determining school 

progress impeded implementation. Officials reported that state leadership, 

by providing administrative and legislative support, had been influential in 

facilitating the goals of NCLBA. They also reported that technical 

assistance from the Council of Chief State School Officers, under contract 

with Education, had been an important factor in facilitating states’ firstyear implementation. On the other hand, more than half of the state and 

school district officials we interviewed reported being hampered by poor 

and unreliable student data. Reliable data are essential for implementing 

the requirements of the law. For example, officials in Illinois reported that 

about 300 of their 1,055 districts had problems with data accuracy. 

Education is working on efforts to help states improve their data systems, 
Page 4 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

such as monitoring state data quality policies and establishing a common 

set of data definitions. Officials from about half of the 21 states also said 

that tight timelines impeded implementation of student proficiency 

requirements. For example, because tests were often given late in the 

school year, it was difficult for states to make final determinations about 

whether schools had met progress goals prior to the next school year. 

Education assisted states in developing their plans for improving student 

proficiency in several ways and approved all plans, fully or conditionally, 

by June 10, 2003. To help states, Education asked experts familiar with 

student assessments to review all plans and provide them with on-site 

evaluation. Education also allowed states some flexibility with certain 

requirements, such as granting all states greater flexibility in determining 

how students with limited English proficiency could be assessed. On June 

10, 2003, when Education announced it had approved all plans, 11 state 

plans met all NCLBA requirements. The remaining 41 plans were approved 

by Education with conditions that needed to be met to satisfy all NCLBA 

requirements. As of July 31, 2004, 28 states had plans that met all NCLBA 

requirements, and 24 states, including the District of Columbia, had plans 

with conditions that needed to be met before receiving full approval from 

Education. According to Education, states approved with conditions had 

sufficient information in their plans to demonstrate that the requirements 

of NCLBA could be met in the future if certain actions were taken. 

Although Education officials said that they are continually monitoring 

states whose plans have not been fully approved, the department does not 

have a written process that delineates how and when each state will meet 

the conditions. In addition, in July 2004 some states did not have approved 

academic standards and assessment systems in place to meet the 

requirements for the 1994 education law, even though they are the primary 

means by which the law requires states to determine student proficiency. 

By school year (2005-06), all states are required by NCLBA to increase the 

current level of testing. Given the difficulties states experienced meeting 

the 1994 requirements, developing new standards and assessment systems 

to meet the expanded assessment requirements may be challenging for 

states. Education has developed guidance for its review and approval of 

states’ expanded standards and assessment systems. However, it has not 

established a written plan that clearly identifies the steps required, interim 

goals, review schedules, and timelines. Without such a plan, states may be 

challenged to meet NCLBA standards and assessment systems 

requirements by the 2005-06 school year deadline. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of Education delineate in writing 

the process and time frames that are appropriate for each state’s particular 
Page 5 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

circumstances to meet conditions for full approval, develop a written plan 

that includes steps and time frames so that all states have approved 

NCLBA standards and assessment systems by the 2005-06 school year, and 

further support states’ abilities to gather accurate student data used to 

determine whether schools met state goals. 

In its comments on a draft of this report, Education expressed support for 

the recommendations we made on developing a written plan to help states 

meet the 2005-06 NCLBA requirements for standards and assessment 

systems and indicated the department has begun to take steps to develop 

such a plan. Education also supported our recommendation to provide 

additional assistance to the states to improve their abilities to gather 

accurate student performance data. Education disagreed with our 

recommendation that it delineate in writing the process and time frames 

for states to meet conditions needed to receive Education’s full approval 

of their plans. Education indicated that it has a process to monitor states’ 

progress, although not in writing, and that this process has resulted in 

additional plans being fully approved. We recognize the efforts the 

department has taken to support states’ implementation of NCLBA. 

However, Education has not fully approved almost half (24) of state plans, 

meaning that conditions still exist for some states in order for them to be 

able to meet NCLBA provisions. A written delineation of conditions that 

these plans need to meet and the time frames appropriate for each state’s 

circumstances would provide the necessary documentation and assurance 

to Education, Congress, and the public that the steps states need to take 

and the timeframes for their actions are clear and understood. 

Over the past 40 years, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA) has authorized billions of dollars in federal grants to states and 

school districts to improve educational opportunities for economically 

disadvantaged children.2

 ESEA was reauthorized in 1994, with 

requirements designed to hold states accountable for student progress.3

Specifically, as a condition for receiving federal financial assistance under 

 2

Title I, Part A, of the ESEA is the largest program of federal aid for elementary and 

secondary education, allocating almost $12 billion in fiscal year 2003 to serve 

disadvantaged children in approximately 90 percent of the nation’s school districts. 

3

ESEA was reauthorized and amended as the Improving America’s Schools Act in 1994. 

Background 

Prior Federal Reform 

Efforts 
Page 6 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Title I, Part A, of the act, states were required to develop academic 

standards, develop tests and measure student proficiency in certain 

grades, and determine whether schools were meeting proficiency goals. As 

ESEA neared reauthorization in 2001, however, only 17 states had received 

Education’s approval of their systems for standards and testing, and 

Congress was concerned that student performance was not improving as 

quickly as it should have, specifically among some student groups, such as 

the economically disadvantaged. 

In part to address these issues, the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001 enhanced the federal government’s role in kindergarten-12th grade 

(K-12) education by taking steps to ensure that all students reach the 

“proficient” level of achievement within 12 years of the enactment of the 

law, that is, by school year 2013-14. NCLBA strengthened the 1994 

reauthorization requirements in several ways. NCLBA increased the 

amount of testing in future school years. Beginning in the 2005-06 school 

year, tests in math and reading must be administered every year in grades 

3 through 8 and once in high school, and by 2007-08, states must also 

measure students’ science achievement. NCLBA requires that these tests 

serve as the primary means of determining the annual performance of 

schools and that states provide Education with evidence from the test 

publisher or other relevant sources that these assessments are of adequate 

technical quality and consistent with nationally recognized professional 

and technical standards. States are to show that increasing numbers of 

students are reaching the proficient level on state tests over time so that 

by 2014, every student is proficient. 

Similar to the 1994 law, NCLBA also designated specific groups of students 

for particular focus. These four groups are students who (1) are 

economically disadvantaged, (2) represent major racial and ethnic groups, 

(3) have disabilities, and (4) are limited in English proficiency. 4 States and 

school districts are required to measure the progress of all students in 

meeting proficiency goals, as well as to measure separately the progress of 

these designated groups. To be deemed as having made adequate progress, 

each school must show that each of these groups, as well as the school as 

a whole, met the state proficiency goal. Schools must also show that at 

 4

Students with disabilities refers to students covered under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act, the primary law that addresses the unique needs of children with 

disabilities. 

New Test Requirements 

and Standards and a Goal 

for 2014 
Page 7 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

least 95 percent of students in grades required to take the test have done 

so.5

 Further, schools must also demonstrate that they have met state 

targets on another measure of progress—graduation rates in high school 

or attendance or other measures in elementary or middle schools.6

Finally, NCLBA requires that additional actions be taken if schools that 

receive funding under Title I, Part A, of the act do not meet state goals. 

Schools that have not made progress for 2 consecutive years or more are 

“identified for improvement” and must take certain actions such as 

offering parents an opportunity to transfer students to another school 

(school choice) and providing supplemental services (e.g., tutoring).7

States and school districts are required to provide funding up to a 

maximum amount specified in law for such actions, including 

transportation, tutoring, and training. 

Although NCLBA placed many new requirements on states, states have 

broad discretion in many key areas. States develop their own tests to 

measure the content students are taught in their schools. States set their 

own standards for what constitutes “proficiency” (see fig. 1). NCLBA does, 

however, require states to set two standards for high achievement—

“advanced” and “proficient,” to reflect a degree of mastery—and to set 

another standard for “basic” achievement to indicate the progress of the 

lower-achieving children toward mastering their state standards. As part of 

its monitoring, Education reviews any changes states may make to their 

tests and academic and proficiency requirements, and the law requires 

states to notify Education of any significant change. 

 5

The department issued guidance in March 2004 indicating that states—if they request to do 

so—may average participation rates over 2 or 3 years. 

6

These other measures may include, but are not limited to, grade-to-grade retention rates, 

and changes in the percentage of students completing gifted and talented and advance 

placement or college preparatory courses. 

7

Schools designated as in need of improvement under the Improving America’s Schools Act 

had their designation carry over after NCLBA took effect. 
Page 8 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Figure 1: Example of States’ Discretion to Develop Their Own Content Standards and Tests and to Determine What 

Constitutes Proficiency on Each of the Tests 

Under NCLBA, each state requesting federal financial assistance was 

required to submit a plan to Education that, among other things, 

demonstrated how the state will meet the law’s requirements for setting 

annual goals and measuring student progress.8

 The law required that plans 

demonstrate that the state has developed and is implementing a statewide 

system that will be effective in ensuring that schools make adequate yearly 

progress toward the 2013-14 goal. The law also required that state plans 

 8

We use the term plan to refer to a state’s “accountability workbook,” a format developed 

by Education. Education required states to use the accountability workbooks to detail the 

basic elements of the state’s system to demonstrate meeting NCLBA requirements. 

State Plans for Setting 

Goals and Measuring 

Student Progress 

1.

Multiple choices - 40

Short answers - 4

State A State B State C

2.

3.

1.

Multiple choices - 80

2.

3.

1.

Multiple choices - 20

Short answers - 10

Essays - 3

2.

3.

Each state decides 

what students 

should know and 

be able to do 

(content standard). 

Each state develops

its own tests to 

determine how 

well students have 

learned the content 

taught in school. 

States also decide 

the number and 

types of questions 

on tests.

Each state determines 

what constitutes 

proficiency.

Achieve a score 

of at least

50

Achieve a score 

of at least

62

Achieve a score 

of at least

49

Test of 

3rd 

grade 

reading

Test of 

3rd 

grade 

reading

Test of 

3rd 

grade 

reading

Source: GAO analysis.
Page 9 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

demonstrate what constitutes adequate yearly progress, and required that 

plans establish: 

• Starting points for measuring the percentage of students who meet or 

exceed the state’s proficient level of academic achievement using 

assessment data from the 2001-02 school year. The methods for computing 

starting points, as specified in the law, take into account such factors as 

scores from designated student groups and how schools rank in their 

state.9

 Separate starting points were to be developed for reading/language 

arts and math. 

• Annual goals, including first year goals, establishing the single minimum 

percentage of students who will be required to score at or above the 

proficient level on the state assessment in each year until 2013-14. The 

goals are based on the starting points for each state’s reading and math 

assessments. 10

• The minimum number of students in a designated student group 

necessary for their test results to be used as a separate group in 

determining whether a school met state goals. Each state was allowed to 

determine the minimum number required to ensure that the group size was 

sufficient to produce statistically reliable results.11 

• Graduation rates for high schools and another indicator of progress of the 

state’s choosing for elementary and middle schools, such as attendance 

rates. Graduation rate is defined in NCLBA as the percentage of students 

who graduate from secondary school with a regular diploma in the 

standard number of years. 

Following states’ submission of their plans in January of 2003, Education 

was statutorily required to conduct a peer review process, identifying 

federal and state officials and outside experts to meet as a team with each 

state, review its plan, and provide assistance. Subsequently, the teams 

were to provide their assessment of the extent to which state plans met 

 9

See appendix I for a description of the methods the law required states to use to develop 

starting points. 

10The first-year goals may or may not be the same as the starting points. 

11Measuring the achievement of a group of students is not required if the number of 

students in that group is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or would 

reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student. 
Page 10 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

NCLBA requirements, such as having starting points, first-year goals and 

annual goals to ensure that every student would become proficient, and 

minimum student group sizes for measuring the achievement of 

designated students. The law required Education to review the plans and 

approve them within 120 days of a state’s submission. If the Secretary 

determined that a state plan did not meet all requirements, he was 

required to notify the state and offer technical assistance, among other 

actions, before disapproving the plan. 

NCLBA also requires the Secretary to report to Congress annually 

regarding state progress in implementing various requirements, including 

the number of schools identified as needing improvement. While NCLBA 

requires accurate and reliable data on student test scores and valid 

systems for identifying designated student groups, GAO, along with other 

auditors, has reported that states and school districts face serious 

challenges in this regard. GAO has proposed several recommendations for 

improving the collection and reporting of student data.12 Additionally, 

Education’s Inspector General has reported that the lack of procedures 

and controls on student data is a continuing challenge for the 

department.13

States varied in how they established goals and measured student 

progress; this variation may affect how many schools meet their annual 

goals—adequate yearly progress—each year. NCLBA permits variability in 

a number of areas, allowing states to address their unique circumstances. 

States varied in the percentage of students they expected to demonstrate 

proficiency on their tests in the first year of NCLBA’s implementation and 

in the number of students in designated groups whose proficiency had to 

be measured separately. They also varied in the annual rates they set to 

increase student proficiency. Finally, they differed in how they measured 

student progress. These variations may have implications for the number 

of schools that meet their goals each year. 

 12GAO, Title I: Education Needs to Monitor States’ Scoring of Assessments, GAO-02-393, 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2002), and Title I Program: Stronger Accountability Needed for 

Performance of Disadvantaged Students, GAO/HEHS-00-89, (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 

2000). 

13U. S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, Department of Education 

Management Challenges, Feb. 2004. 

States Varied in the 

Goals Established for 

Student Progress, and 

That Variation May 

Have Implications for 

How Many Schools 

Meet State Goals over 

Time 
Page 11 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

States’ starting points—based on the percentage of students proficient in 

reading and math on state tests in 2001-02—varied widely, as did their 

first-year performance goals. NCLBA specified that states were to use their 

2001-02 test data to calculate their starting points and instructed states on 

how the starting point was to be set from these data. After states 

computed their starting points, they specified performance goals for each 

year that would result in all children being proficient by 2013-14. As figure 

2 illustrates, the percentage of students expected to be proficient in 

reading in the 2002-03 school year differed widely among the states. 

States’ Starting Points and 

First-Year Goals Varied 
Page 12 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Figure 2: Percentage of Students in Each State Expected to Demonstrate 

Proficiency on the Reading Tests in the First Year 

Notes: Thirty-six states both provided data on first-year goals and used “percent proficient” as their 

measure for the goals. Six states used a different measure (proficiency index) that allowed them to 

incorporate other data in determining school progress, while 10 states did not provide first-year goal 

data. 

When states set different first-year goals (e.g., separate goals for elementary, middle, and high 

schools), we used goals set at the lowest grade span or level (e.g., elementary) for this chart. 

Source: GAO analysis of state plans approved by Education in June 2003.

20

30

40

80

Percent

0

10

50

60

70

Calif. D.C. Mo. S.C. Ark. Hawaii Fla. Nev. Maine Wyo. La. Mich. Ill. Ohio

14

18 18

30 30 30 31 32 32

34

37 38

40 41
Page 13 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

For example, in order for an elementary school to meet the state reading 

goal in California, at least 14 percent of its students had to score at the 

proficient level on the state test, whereas in Colorado, at least 78 percent 

of the students had to score at the proficient level.14 

 14First-year goals for math also varied substantially across states. 

44

41

45

47 48

51 52

55

60 60 61 61 61 62

64 65 65 65 65

68 69

78

Oreg. Ariz. Pa. Tex. Ky. Wash. Kans. Conn. Ga. N.H. Va. Wis. Miss. Iowa Nebr. Alaska Utah Colo. N. Dak. S. Dak. N.C. N.J.
Page 14 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Variation in states’ starting points and first year-goals reflected the 

differences in decisions states had previously made in choosing content 

standards, developing tests to measure student performance, and setting 

proficiency levels, among other factors. For example, the score required to 

be proficient on a similar type of test might be higher in one state than in 

another, potentially affecting the percentage of students that demonstrate 

proficiency on the test. 

In addition to establishing widely varying first-year goals, states differed in 

whether they set the same goal for all of their schools or whether they set 

different goals by grade level. Given that each state has its own system and 

structure, decisions about setting the same or different goals for schools 

was generally within the states’ discretion. Some states established 

different first-year goals for each grade; others for elementary, middle, and 

high schools; and some established the same first-year goals for all 

schools. Vermont, for example, had distinct goals for different grade 

configurations: schools that had elementary, middle, and high school 

grades had different goals than schools with just elementary grades. 

The size of the designated groups (the economically disadvantaged, ethnic 

minorities, students with disabilities, and students with limited English 

proficiency) whose progress must be measured separately also varied 

among states.15 NCLBA specified that to make adequate yearly progress, 

the school overall and each of these individual groups must reach the 

performance goal unless the number of students in the group is small 

enough to reveal personally identifiable information on an individual 

student or to yield statistically unreliable information. States decided the 

minimum number of students in such groups, and the resulting group sizes 

varied from state to state and sometimes within a state. As figure 3 shows,

the majority of states (36) set the minimum group size between 25 and 45 

students.16

 15This statement refers to the minimum size of designated student groups for measuring 

proficiency and not for reporting test scores. 

16Some states had more than one group size. When states reported multiple group sizes, we 

report the lower size. 

States Set Different Size 

Requirements for 

Measuring the Progress of 

Designated Groups 
Page 15 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Figure 3: Minimum Size of Student Groups by Number of States 

Note: This figure does not include Montana or North Dakota, which used a statistical model to 

determine the minimum group size so that the number may be different for each school and 

designated student group. 

For example, in Washington state, with a minimum group size of 30, 

schools were not required to include the results of any student group with 

fewer than 30 students in determining whether they met the state’s 

proficiency goals. In this case, if a school had fewer than 30 students of a 

particular ethnic group, for instance, the scores of this student group 

would not be considered separately. These students’ individual scores 

would still be considered, however, in determining whether their school as 

a whole had met its goal. A few states used different group sizes, 

depending on other factors. For example, California set its group size at 

50 but allowed the minimum size to be 100, depending on the size of the 

school’s enrollment. Ohio, among other states, used a larger group size for 

its students with disabilities than the one used for other student groups. 

According to its state plan, one of the reasons Ohio set a larger size for this 

group was to account for the fact that students in that group have a wide 

variety of conditions and results for small groups could be unreliable. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Fewer

than 25

25-45 More

than 45

10

36

4

Source: GAO analysis.

Number of states

Student group size
Page 16 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

States also varied in the annual rate at which they expected their students 

to progress toward full proficiency by 2014. Using the flexibility in the law, 

some states set different proficiency goals each year, while others set 

goals for 3-year intervals. 17 Some states used a combination of staggered 

and steady progress. (See fig. 4.) 

 17NCLBA states that when states increase their goals from one year to the next, those 

increases must occur in equal increments, that the first increase must occur by 2004-05, 

and that future increases occur no later than every 3 years thereafter. 

States Set Different Rates 

for Annual Student 

Progress 
Page 17 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Figure 4: Three Variations in State Projected Rates of Progress from 2002 to 2014 

Note: Graphs in this figure are hypothetical and do not reflect particular states. 

Three states assumed generally equal annual increases in student progress. 

(See panel A.) For example, Arkansas’s first-year goal was that 32 percent 

of the elementary students in each of its schools would be proficient in 

reading, followed by an increase of about 6 percent of its students 

annually until all of its students were proficient by 2014. In contrast, 

14 states staggered improvement over 2- or 3-year periods rather than in 

25

50

75

100

Percentage of students proficient

02

School year ending

03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

Panel A: equal annual increases 

25

50

3

3

3

3

3

3

11 1

3

75

100

Percentage of students proficient

02

School year ending 

04 07 10 13

Panel B: three-year increases

25

50

75

100

Percentage of students proficient

02

School year ending

03 05 06 08 09 11 12 14 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

Panel C: combination

Source: GAO analysis.
Page 18 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

1-year increments. (See panel B.) For example, North Carolina’s first-year 

goal was that about 69 percent of elementary students in each of the 

state’s schools would be proficient in reading in the first year and the state 

set goals for subsequent increases every 3 years: 77 percent by 2005, 

84 percent by 2008, 92 percent by 2011, and 100 percent by 2014. Finally, 

18 states used a combination of progress rates. (See panel C.) Nevada, for 

example, staggered improvement goals in 2- and 3-year increments until 

2011, at which point the state planned for annual increases in percentages 

of students that were proficient up to 2014.18 

States also used different approaches for determining whether schools, 

and designated groups of students within schools, met their annual 

performance goals. In the 2002-03 school year, a majority of states used 

statistical measures such as confidence intervals in which schools were 

deemed to have made adequate yearly progress if they came within a range 

of the state proficiency goal, as shown in Figure 5. 19 

 18As of June 10, 2003, 17 states either did not report an annual rate or used some other 

method. 

19When using confidence intervals, upper and lower limits around a school’s or district’s 

percentage of proficient students are calculated, creating a range of values within which 

there is “confidence” the true value lies. For example, instead of saying that 72 percent of 

students scored at the proficient level or above on a test, a confidence interval may show 

that percentage to be between 66 and 78, with 95 percent confidence. 

States Varied in How They 

Measured Annual Student 

Progress 
Page 19 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Figure 5: A Majority of States Used Confidence Intervals to Determine Student Progress in School Year 2002-03 

Note: How each state measured annual student progress was taken from state plans Education 

approved by June 10, 2003. Arkansas did not indicate in its original plan that it would use confidence 

intervals; however, it amended its plan in 2003 to include them and used them to determine whether 

schools met state goals in 2002-03. California and Texas indicated in their plans that they would use 

confidence intervals only with schools with small numbers of students or test scores. Montana’s 

original plan included confidence intervals, but it subsequently did not use them for technical reasons. 

Recently, Alabama, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania had plan amendments approved whereby they 

also will use confidence intervals. 

Source: GAO analysis.

State used a confidence interval (29)

State did not use a confidence interval (23)

Alaska

Hawaii

New York

Mississippi

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California Colorado

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

Vermont

New Hampshire

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Connecticut

New Jersey

Delaware

Maryland

District of Columbia

New Mexico

North 

Carolina

North 

Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South 

Carolina

South

Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

Wyoming

West

Virginia

Puerto Rico
Page 20 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

States that used confidence intervals constructed an estimate of student 

performance that included a range of scores, which was then compared 

with the state goal. For example, 68 percent of students making the goal 

might be represented by a confidence interval of 64-72 percent. If the state 

goal was 70 percent, it would be included in the confidence interval, thus 

the school or designated group would be classified by the state as having 

made its performance goal. 

Education officials told us that states used such statistical procedures to 

improve the reliability of determinations about the performance of schools 

and districts. According to some researchers, such methods may provide 

more valid results because they account for the effect of small group 

sizes20 and year-to-year changes in student populations.21

Variations in states’ approaches may influence whether schools will meet 

annual state goals. First, schools in states that established smaller annual 

increases in their initial proficiency goals may be more likely to meet state 

goals in the earlier years compared with schools in states that set larger 

annual increases. For example, Iowa projected moderate annual increases 

in student proficiency in the first 8 years, followed by more accelerated 

growth. Nebraska, however, projected a different scenario—steady 

increases in student proficiency. Although schools in states such as Iowa 

may be more likely to meet state goals in the first few years, they may find 

it more challenging to meet state goals in subsequent years to ensure that 

all students are proficient by 2013-14. 

Second, schools with a large number of designated student groups may be 

less likely to meet state goals than schools with few such groups, all other 

factors being equal.22 In order for a school to meet its state goal, both the 

school as a whole and each designated student group must meet 

proficiency goals. Some schools may have few student groups that must 

 20Theodore Coladarci, Gallup Goes to School: The Importance of Confidence Intervals for 

Evaluating “Adequate Yearly Progress” in Small Schools, the Rural School and 

Community Trust Policy Brief, Oct. 2003. 

21Thomas J. Kane and Douglas O. Staiger, “Volatility in School Test Scores: Implications for 

Test-Based Accountability Systems,” in Diane Ravitch, ed., Brookings Papers on Education 

Policy 2002, pp. 235-283. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. 

22Other factors, such as the application of certain statistical procedures, can affect this 

result. 

The Way States Measured 

Student Progress Has 

Implications for Schools 

Meeting State Goals Over 

Time 
Page 21 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

demonstrate progress because they do not have the state-prescribed 

minimum number of such students needed for their results to be 

considered separately. Several state officials told us that many of their 

schools were not meeting state goals because one or two student groups 

did not meet their annual proficiency goals. 

Finally, the approach states used in determining whether schools met 

proficiency goals may influence the number of schools meeting goals. 

Some states used statistical methods, such as confidence intervals, which 

may result in more of their schools reaching proficiency goals than states 

that do not. For instance, Tennessee—a state that initially did not use 

confidence intervals but later received approval to do so—re-analyzed its 

data from 2002-03, applying confidence intervals. The application of 

confidence intervals substantially decreased the number of schools not 

meeting state goals. The number of elementary and middle schools not 

making state goals was reduced by over half—47 percent to 22 percent. 

The application of confidence intervals can produce such differences 

because the computed ranges can be large, especially when small numbers 

of students make up groups or when scores vary significantly among 

students. For example, in a Kentucky high school, 16 percent of students 

with disabilities scored at the proficient level a state test in 2004, and the 

goal was 19 percent. However, when the state applied confidence 

intervals, the computed interval associated with 16 percent was 0 to 33 

percent. Because the state goal—19 percent—was within the confidence 

interval, the state considered this group to have met the goal.23 (See fig. 6 

for potential effects of different student progress measures on whether 

schools meet proficiency goals.) 

 23These results were preliminary at the time we obtained them and were calculated at the 

99 percent confidence level. 
Page 22 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Figure 6: Student Progress Measures and Potential Effects on Whether Schools Meet Proficiency Goals 

Student progress

measure

Type of measurement Explanation

that may make it more 

likely that schools will 

meet proficiency goals

Type of measurement 

that may make it less 

likely that schools will 

meet proficiency goals

Annual rate of 

student progress

States that require smaller annual 

increases in the percentage of students that 

must be proficient may in the early years 

be more likely to have their schools meet

proficiency goals than states that required 

larger initial annual increases but may have

more difficulty in later years. 

Slower rates 

of increase

Faster rates 

of increase

Student groups States that include fewer student group 

results may be more likely to have their 

schools meet proficiency goals than states 

that include more group results because 

each of the student groups will need to reach

the goals as well as the school as a whole.

Less 

Year 1

Year 2

More

Calculation of annual 

proficiency goals

States that use a confidence interval may be 

more likely to have their schools meet 

proficiency goals than schools in states that 

do not. In this example, a school with 68 

percent of its students proficient would be 

classified as meeting the state goal in a 

state that used confidence intervals, but not 

in the state without them.

With confidence intervals Without confidence intervals

Source: GAO analysis and Copyright @ Corel Corp. All rights reserved.

64 68 70 72

Percentage

proficient

State

goal

68

Percentage

proficient

State

goal

70
Page 23 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

State officials we interviewed cited factors that facilitated implementation 

of student proficiency requirements, such as their states leadership’s 

commitment to the goals of NCLBA and technical assistance provided by 

the Council of Chief State School Officers, through a contract with 

Education. Officials also cited factors that impeded implementation, such 

as problems with the data they use to determine student proficiency, tight 

timelines, and a lack of timely guidance from Education. 

Officials in 10 of the 21 states we interviewed said that their leadership’s 

commitment to improving student achievement facilitated their efforts to 

implement student proficiency requirements. For example, one state’s 

Commissioner of Education said he supported holding schools 

accountable for the progress of all students, a sentiment echoed by other 

state officials. Officials in three of the school districts where we 

interviewed expressed their commitment to NCLBA’s focus on raising the 

proficiency of all students. For example, one district official said the law 

has been helpful in demonstrating achievement gaps to school officials. 

Another told us that NCLBA has focused the state’s attention on the 

importance of annually tracking student proficiency. Leadership’s 

commitment facilitated implementation in many ways, such as helping 

schools and school districts focus on improving student proficiency and 

enabling state education staff in different offices to share information. 

Officials from 7 states also reported that the assistance provided by the 

Council of Chief State School Officers facilitated implementation of 

NCLBA requirements. Through its contract with Education, the council 

has provided states technical assistance in implementing NCLBA 

requirements and issued many publications about the law’s requirements. 

The council has also held meetings where state officials have discussed 

common challenges and strategies and received advice and assistance 

from national experts and Education officials. For example, of the seven 

officials citing the council’s work, two said that their meetings assisted 

them in developing their state plans. Officials from another state said they 

turned to the council for information when they were unable to obtain 

answers about implementation from other sources. 

Leadership and 

Technical Assistance 

Facilitated 

Implementation 

Efforts, but Data 

Accuracy Problems 

and Tight Timelines 

Impeded Efforts 

Officials Cited Leadership 

Commitment and 

Technical Assistance as 

Key Factors That 

Facilitated Implementation 

of Student Proficiency 

Requirements 
Page 24 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Concern about the quality and reliability of student data was the most 

frequently cited impediment to implementing student proficiency 

requirements. More than half of the state and school district officials we 

interviewed cited this concern. For example, officials in California 

indicated that they could not obtain racial and ethnic data—used to track 

the progress of designated student groups—of comparable quality from 

their school districts.24 Officials in Illinois reported that about 300 of its 

1,055 districts had problems with data accuracy, resulting in those schools’ 

appealing their progress results to the state. Similarly, officials in Indiana 

acknowledged data problems but said addressing them would be 

challenging. Inaccurate data may result in states incorrectly identifying 

schools as not meeting annual goals and incorrectly trigger provisions for 

school choice and supplemental services. GAO, Education’s Inspector 

General, and other auditing groups have also reported the challenges 

states face in gathering and processing accurate and reliable student data. 

For example, in a 2004 report, Education’s Inspector General reported that 

many states lacked procedures and controls necessary to report reliable 

student data. Another auditing group reported that some states were not 

reporting accurate student data to Education and recommended that 

Education take steps to help states address data accuracy problems.25 

Although NCLBA focuses primarily on the state’s responsibility to ensure 

data reliability and validity, Education also has a critical role in assisting 

states to improve the quality of data used for assessment and reporting. 

NCLBA requires the Secretary of Education to provide an annual report to 

Congress that includes national and state-level data on states’ progress in 

implementing assessments, the results of assessments, the number of 

schools identified as needing improvement, and use of choice options and 

supplemental services. Education officials acknowledged the need to 

share responsibility with the states to improve data quality so data 

provided to Congress are valid and reliable. According to Education 

officials, they are working with states to monitor state data quality policies 

and establish a common set of data definitions. Education also has begun 

a multiyear pilot project related to data reporting. However, while one of 

the primary goals of this effort is to improve the quality of state data, this 

 24California officials told us that a bill had recently passed in its state legislature that may 

address this issue. 

25Texas State Auditor’s Office, A Joint Audit Report on the Status of State Student 

Assessment Systems and the Quality of Title I School Accountability Data, SAO Report 

No. # 02-064, (Austin, Texas: Aug. 2002). 

Data Quality Issues and 

Tight Timelines Were Cited 

as Impeding 

Implementation Efforts 
Page 25 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

long-term project will not address states’ problems with the data they are 

now using to report on student progress. In addition to reporting data 

quality concerns, officials from about half of the 21 states said that tight 

timelines impeded implementation of student proficiency requirements, 

even though many of those requirements built upon provisions in the 

previous reauthorization of ESEA. That previous law required states to 

test students in reading and math in three grades to measure if schools 

were making progress. However, a majority of states did not have 

approved assessment systems in place when NCLBA was enacted.26

NCLBA set specific time frames, because many states had not been taking 

the necessary steps to position themselves to meet requirements. Those 

states that had taken steps to meet the earlier requirements were generally 

better positioned to meet NCLBA requirements. 

Officials we interviewed from 5 states said that they had very little time to 

develop their state plans. They said that developing a system that meets 

NCLBA requirements for measuring student proficiency for all students 

and selected subgroups was complicated, and they had to resolve many 

issues before their systems could be up and running. States that already 

had a state system for measuring school progress in place prior to NCLBA 

faced other challenges. These states had to determine how they would 

reconcile parts of their existing systems with NCLBA’s requirements in 

order to submit their plans to Education on time. 

Officials from 6 states said it was difficult for the state to notify schools of 

their status in meeting proficiency goals in a timely fashion. Many states 

test students in the spring, and NCLBA requires that test results be 

processed before the beginning of the next school year in order for 

districts to identify which schools did not make progress, as illustrated in 

figure 7. However, many factors may make it difficult to meet these 

deadlines, such as identifying and correcting errors in student data. 

 26According to Education, shortly after NCLBA was enacted and prior to the statutory 

deadline, all states without approved assessment systems were under either a timeline 

waiver or a compliance agreement with specific deadlines for full compliance. 
Page 26 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Figure 7: Example of a Timeline to Determine School’s Proficiency Status 

Note: This example reflects a sample timeline for a public school district. Different states and districts 

may and do have different timelines for these steps. 

Officials in 12 of the 21 states where we interviewed said that the lack of 

clear and timely guidance and information from Education has impeded 

their efforts to implement NCLBA’s student proficiency requirements. 

Several officials said that Education’s communications with them were not 

timely and sometimes changed. Other officials said that Education was not 

timely in resolving issues Education had with their plans. In response, 

Education officials told us they provided states draft guidance on plan 

requirements, and subsequent changes were made in order to be 

responsive to the concerns of state officials. Education officials told us 

that it was challenging to provide the support states needed to implement 

NCLBA’s proficiency requirements so that states could begin assessing 

students in the 2002-03 school year. They also said it was challenging, 

because the support often needed to be tailored, given the varied ways 

states chose to measure student proficiency. 

2003

Source: GAO analysis of public school documents.

April

Testing period for school 

year 2002-03.

May

Test booklets transported 

from district to vendor for 

scoring.

July

District receives preliminary 

test results from the state.

July-August

District reviews test results to verify and 

reconcile data discrepancies such as lost or 

duplicate test booklets and to ensure that students 

that have moved are assigned to the correct school.

Using preliminary test results, district calculates 

whether each school met state progress goals.

August

District notifies schools of 

their results. Schools may 

appeal testing results.

September

School year starts.
Page 27 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Education aided states in developing their plans in several ways, including 

having peer review teams evaluate plans on site and allowing states 

flexibility in implementing some NCLBA requirements. As of July 31, 2004, 

Education had fully approved 28 plans as meeting all NCLBA 

requirements; the remaining states had approval with conditions. In 

addition, 17 states did not have approved academic standards and testing 

systems in place to meet the requirements of the 1994 law, even though 

they are the primary means by which the law requires states to determine 

student proficiency. According to Education officials, the department has 

been continually monitoring states progress in meeting conditions and has 

been working with states to meet prior and NCLBA requirements for 

standards and assessment systems. However, Education officials told us 

that they did not have a written process to track that states are taking 

steps toward meeting the conditions set for full approval of their plans or 

to document states’ progress in meeting NCLBA requirements for the 

expanded standards and assessment systems required under NCLBA. 

Education aided states in developing their plans for measuring student 

progress and provided technical assistance for implementing them. The 

department helped states by having peer review teams examine and 

provide suggestions about the plans, allowing states flexibility in adhering 

to certain NCLBA requirements and issuing guidance to clarify key aspects 

of the law. (See table 1.) 

Education Has Aided 

States in Developing 

Their Plans and 

Assessment Systems 

but Did Not Have 

Written Plans to Help 

States Meet NCLBA 

Provisions 

Education Aided States in 

Developing Their Plans for 

Measuring Student 

Progress 
Page 28 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Table 1: Primary Methods Education Used To Support State Planning and 

Implementation Efforts 

Method Education used 

to support states Purpose 

Peer review To review and provide on-site suggestions to 

state officials as they were developing their 

plans 

Technical assistance To assist states in developing state plans as 

well as implementing other aspects of NCLBA 

Guidance To clarify requirements in NCLBA so that 

states understood their roles and 

responsibilities with respect to NCLBA 

Flexibility To help states deal with challenges they faced 

in implementing some proficiency 

requirements, both in general and on a caseby-case basis 

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s processes for supporting state efforts. 

As required by NCLBA, Education assembled a team of experts, consisting 

of Education officials and external members drawn from state education 

agencies and other organizations familiar with student assessments and 

accountability, to review and provide states with advice on their plans. In 

reviewing them, the peer review teams identified areas where states were 

not meeting NCLBA requirements and closely examined areas that were 

particularly complex, such as their methods for measuring student 

progress goals. Peer reviewers also met with state officials on-site to 

discuss their plans and to suggest ways to improve them. Following the 

reviews, the teams presented the results to Education. The department 

then used this information to determine the extent to which state plans 

met requirements. Education also established a 12-member National 

Oversight Panel to review state plans and advise Education of the extent 

of their completeness. This panel, which met monthly, was composed of 

parents, teachers, local education agency officials, and state education 

officials with knowledge about a range of areas, including standards and 

assessments and the needs of low-performing schools. 

Education also provided states with technical assistance to implement 

their plans. The department hosted conferences where it provided 

information on requirements for state plans. Education also contracted 

with the Council of Chief State School Officers to provide technical 

assistance to states. The council has held meetings and workshops as well 

as issued instructional publications about implementing different NCLBA 

requirements. 
Page 29 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Additionally, Education issued guidance in a number of areas to assist 

states in their implementation efforts. For example, Education issued 

guidance explaining state responsibilities for monitoring NCLBA 

implementation and for providing schools with technical assistance, 

including the kinds of assistance they must provide to schools identified as 

needing improvement.27 Education also issued guidance addressing actions 

states should take if schools do not meet their goals and explaining the 

purpose of supplemental educational services and state responsibility for 

providing and monitoring the receipt of such services. 

Education also allowed all states flexibility to address difficulties they 

experienced implementing some requirements and granted additional 

flexibility to states on a case-by-case basis. For example, Education 

granted all states greater flexibility in determining how students with 

limited English proficiency could be assessed. Education no longer 

required states to include the reading test results during students’ first 

year in school. Further, on a case-by-case basis, Education allowed several 

states to vary the sizes they set for designated student groups. For 

example, Ohio and other states were allowed to use a larger group size for 

students with disabilities than for other student groups. 

In February 2004, Education granted additional flexibility to states by 

establishing a process whereby states could propose amendments to their 

plans.28 Forty-seven states proposed amendments; for example, some 

states proposed to use a 3-year average to calculate the percentage of 

students taking state tests, rather than use the annual percentage. This 

flexibility may lessen the effects of year-to-year fluctuations in how many 

students take the tests. At the conclusion of our review, Education 

officials told us they had responded to every state and approved many of 

their proposals. Many of these amendments were in response to recently 

announced flexibility options. Other amendments were responses to 

specific conditions that Education had placed on some state plans before 

it would grant full approval. For example, one state amended its plan to 

resolve with Education how it would calculate its graduation rate for high 

school students. 

 27See Department of Education, No Child Left Behind: LEA and School Improvement 

(Non-Regulatory Guidance), Jan. 2004. 

28Several states exercised this authority prior to Education establishing a process. 
Page 30 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Education’s review and approval of state plans included discussions with 

state officials and ongoing exchanges of drafts of state plans because of 

the uniqueness of each state’s educational system. According to Education 

officials, the review process was particularly challenging for those states 

that did not have existing assessment systems that could provide a basis 

for meeting NCLBA requirements. Education also noted that some states 

with long-standing assessment systems needed to change their processes 

to develop an assessment system that conformed to NCLBA provisions. 

NCLBA required each state’s plan to demonstrate that the state had 

developed and was implementing a single statewide accountability system, 

had determined what constitutes adequate yearly progress for public 

schools (e.g., starting points, graduation rates), and had established a 

timeline for meeting state proficiency levels by 2014. The law specifically 

identified that elements—such as the method for determining adequate 

yearly progress—be demonstrated. Thus, a state’s assurance that an 

element will be implemented in the future would not be sufficient to meet 

plan requirements. 

NCLBA establishes that the Secretary of Education is responsible for 

approving plans. Education developed guidance for states that lists state 

plan requirements. (See app III) In reviewing state plans, Education 

established two levels of approval: “fully approved,” and “approved.” 

Education designated a plan as “fully approved” if it met all NCLBA 

requirements, and “approved” if additional conditions had to be met to 

fulfill requirements. Education described an approved plan as one that 

demonstrated that, when implemented, the state, its school districts, and 

its schools could meet NCLBA provisions. A state was required to have an 

approved plan before it could receive its Title I funding for the 2003-04 

school year, with release of funds scheduled for July 1, 2003. Education 

included the conditions for approval in states’ 2003 grant awards.29 

On June 10, 2003, Education announced that it had approved all state 

plans. Education fully approved 11 of the state plans (Connecticut, Hawaii, 

Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, 

Texas, and Washington) as meeting all NCLBA requirements. Between 

June 11, 2003 and July 31, 2004, Education fully approved plans for an 

additional 16 states and Puerto Rico. The remaining 23 states and the 

 29If a state does not meet the conditions cited in the grant award, it is subject to 

withholding of administrative funds. 

Education Approved All 

State Plans by June 10, 

2003, although Most States 

Were Approved with 

Conditions to Meet All 

NCLBA Requirements 
Page 31 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

District of Columbia had plans that met some, but not all, requirements, 

and were approved with conditions. (See fig 8 for the approval status of 

state plans as of July 31, 2004.) 
Page 32 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Figure 8: Approval Status of State Plans as of July 31, 2004 

Note: By “Fully approved by 7/31/04” we mean fully approved between June 11, 2003, and July 31, 

2004. 

According to Education, these 23 states and the District of Columbia had 

sufficient information in their plans to demonstrate that the requirements 

of NCLBA could be met in the future if certain actions were taken. Our 

review of the letters Education sent to the 23 states and the District of 

Columbia whose plans it had not fully approved indicated a range of 

conditions that needed to be met, such as providing performance targets 

for graduation rates or other indicators, analyzing the effect of using 

Source: GAO analysis.

Approved with conditions (24)

Fully approved by 7/31/04 (17)

Fully approved by 6/10/03 (11)

Alaska

Hawaii

New York

Mississippi

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California Colorado

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

Vermont

New Hampshire

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Connecticut

New Jersey

Delaware

Maryland

District of Columbia

New Mexico

North 

Carolina

North 

Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South 

Carolina

South

Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

Wyoming

West

Virginia

Puerto Rico
Page 33 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

confidence intervals and providing state report card examples. Further, of 

these 23 states and the District of Columbia, 4 had to obtain final state 

action from their state boards of education or legislatures as their only 

condition for receiving full approval from Education. 

According to Education officials, these approved plans provided sufficient 

assurance that when implemented they would meet NCLBA requirements. 

For example, some states provided Education with definitions for how 

they would calculate their goals and targets and assurances that the 

information would be forthcoming, but did not include the rates and 

percentages required by the law. Education officials said that some of 

these states did not have enough data to report graduation rates, but that 

the states defined how they would do so once they began collecting such 

data. Education approved these state plans with the condition that states 

collect data on graduation rates and define them in a manner consistent 

with their plans. 

Education officials told us that they were in frequent communication with 

states regarding unmet plan requirements. However, the department did 

not have a written process to track interim steps and document that states 

meet the identified conditions within a specified time frame. In the followup letters Education sent to most states, it did not indicate specific time 

frames for when it expected states to demonstrate that they had met all 

NCLBA requirements. Education officials told us that they did not have a 

written process to ensure states are taking steps toward meeting the 

conditions set for full approval or what actions the department would take 

if states do not meet them. 

Standards and assessments are the primary means by which states gauge 

student progress. States’ current testing is governed by requirements first 

enacted by the 1994 ESEA, which required that states assess students once 

in each of three grade spans—elementary (3-5), middle (6-9), and high 

school (10-12). Under this law, state standards and assessments systems 

must meet certain requirements, such as measuring how well students 

have learned the academic content taught in school. 

As of March 2002, Education had not approved most states’ (35) standards 

and assessment systems required by the 1994 ESEA. 30 Education granted 

 30GAO, Title I: Education Needs to Monitor States’ Scoring of Assessments, GAO-02-393, 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr.1, 2002). 

States Face Challenges in 

Meeting the 2005-06 

NCLBA Requirements for 

Standards and Assessment 

Systems 
Page 34 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

timeline waivers or compliance agreements for those states that did not 

demonstrate that they could meet the 1994 ESEA requirements within the 

statutory time frame.31 According to Education, enforcement efforts have 

included close monitoring of states’ progress, for example, agreements 

included interim steps to ensure that states are making progress and 

submitting quarterly reports to the department. Further, Education’s 

enforcement efforts have included withholding funds from one state that 

did not fulfill its commitments under its timeline waiver. In accordance 

with the law, the department withheld 25 percent of Title I administrative 

funds from this state for fiscal year 2003. As of July 31, 2004, 35 states had 

approved standards and assessment systems and 17 states did not. 

By the next school year (2005-06) states will be required to increase the 

current level of testing, as required by NCLBA. For example, states will be 

required to test students annually in grades 3 through 8 and once in high 

school in reading and math. Given the difficulties states experienced 

meeting the 1994 requirements, developing new standards and assessment 

systems to meet the expanded assessment requirements may be 

challenging for states. All states will have to undergo a review and 

approval process for these tests to ensure that state standards and 

assessment systems meet NCLBA requirements. 

Education has taken some steps to guide its review and approval process 

of states’ standards and assessments systems to meet the 2005-06 time 

frame. It issued regulations on implementation in July 2002 and 

nonregulatory guidance on the standards and assessments requirements in 

March 2003. In April 2004, Education issued guidance to inform states 

about the information they will need to demonstrate that their systems 

meet NCLBA requirements and help peer reviewers determine whether 

state systems are consistent with NCLBA. Finally, Education officials told 

us that they are planning to train state Title I directors and to provide 

additional outreach to states. Education officials said that they do not 

intend to grant any waivers or extensions of time to states that fail to meet 

the NCLBA standards and assessment requirements. 

 31The NCLBA gave states 90 days to show how they would address any aspect of their 

standards and assessment systems that did not meet the 1994 requirements. After that 90-

day window expired, the NCLBA prohibited Education from granting additional waivers of 

deadlines for meeting these requirements. States failing to meet deadlines established by 

the 1994 law (or under a waiver or compliance agreement) are subject to a mandatory 

withholding of 25 percent of administrative funds. For states that do not comply with 

NCLBA requirements, the law authorizes, but does not require, Education to withhold Title 

I state administrative funds. 
Page 35 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Although Education has undertaken several initiatives to prepare for the 

review of state systems to meet the 2005-06 NCLBA deadline, it has not 

established a written plan that clearly identifies the steps required, interim 

goals, review schedules, and timelines. The assessment systems are likely 

to be complex, given the increased number of tests required under 

NCLBA. Given the complexity of developing such systems, the department 

may find that, similar to its experience with states’ compliance with the 

1994 law, some states may be challenged to meet NCLBA standards and 

assessment system requirements by the 2005-06 school year deadline.32 

NCLBA seeks to make fundamental changes in public education. For the 

first time, Congress has specified a time frame for when it expects all 

students to reach proficiency on state tests showing that they know their 

state’s academic subject matter. It has also focused attention on closing 

the learning gap between key groups of students that have historically not 

performed well by also requiring that they be proficient. Achieving the 

goal of having all students proficient will be a formidable challenge for 

states, school districts, schools, and students. NCLBA provides a 

framework to help states achieve this goal and has required states to plan 

how they intend to do so. Education has undertaken numerous efforts to 

assist states with meeting this challenge. For example, it promulgated 

regulations, provided guidance, and reviewed state plans within fairly tight 

time frames to meet NCLBA requirements. 

Education approved all state plans by June 10, 2003. However, many of 

these plans lacked key information regarding how states measure student 

proficiency, such as graduation rates. Education approved these plans 

conditionally, with the states’ assurances that conditions could be met in 

the future. As of July 31, 2004, the plans for 23 states and the District of 

Columbia had not been fully approved. Although Education officials said 

that they have been in frequent communication with these states, the 

 32In Title I Program: Stronger Accountability Needed for Performance of Disadvantaged 

Students (GAO/HEHS-00-89) issued in June 2000, GAO concluded that most states were not 

positioned to meet the 1994 ESEA requirement to collect and report on student assessment 

by designated subgroups. In Education’s response to the report, it noted that states were 

not required to publicly report these data until the 2000-01 school year. Specifically, 

Education commented, “the Department is reviewing State final assessment systems 

(using external peer reviewers) to ensure compliance with Title I assessment requirements, 

including the requirement that States publicly report disaggregated assessment data.” 

Although Education devoted efforts to ensure that deadlines were met, only 17 states had 

approved assessment systems by the 2000-01 deadline. 

Conclusions 
Page 36 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

department does not have written procedures and specified time frames 

for monitoring states’ progress for these 24 plans still needing to meet 

conditions. Without such tracking mechanisms, Education may not be able 

to ensure that required actions are taken in a timely way. 

State assessment systems are the foundation for determining whether 

students are proficient. NCLBA has significantly increased the amount of 

testing, and states are required to have approved NCLBA standards and 

assessments by the 2005-06 school year. Education does not have a written 

plan that delineates steps and time frames to facilitate its review of plans 

to ensure NCLBA time requirements are met. Given Education’s recent 

experience of a significant number of states that did not meet the 1994 

ESEA requirements for standards and assessments systems, the lack of a 

written plan could hinder Education’s efforts to better position states to 

meet the NCLBA requirements. 

Furthermore, many state officials indicated they have concerns about the 

accuracy of student demographic and test data. Education has also noted 

these issues and has undertaken several initiatives to assist states with 

their data systems. States and districts have routinely collected student 

demographic and test data. However, the need to ensure the data’s 

accuracy is even more important with the introduction of NCLBA’s 

accountability requirements. The number of schools that are identified as 

in need of improvement has implications for states and school districts, 

especially when provisions for school choice and supplemental services 

become applicable, as they have for schools in a number of states. 

Measuring achievement with inaccurate data is likely to lead to poor 

measures of school progress, with education officials and parents making 

decisions about educational options on the basis of faulty information. 

For those states that have plans that did not meet all NCLBA requirements 

and still have conditional approval, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Education delineate in writing the process and time frames that are 

appropriate for each state’s particular circumstances to meet conditions 

for full approval. 

Further, we recommend the Secretary of Education develop a written plan 

that includes steps and time frames so that all states have approved 

NCLBA standards and assessment systems by the 2005-06 school year. 

To improve the validity and reliability of state data used to determine 

whether schools are meeting state goals, we recommend that the 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 37 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Secretary of Education further support states’ abilities to gather accurate 

student data through activities such as disseminating best practices and 

designating technical specialists who can serve as resources to help states. 

We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. 

Education agreed with our recommendation that it develop a written plan 

that includes steps and time frames so all states have approved NCLBA 

standards and assessment systems by the 2005-06 school year. Education 

noted that such actions are consistent with current departmental efforts 

and should help NCLBA implementation. Similarly, the department agreed 

with our recommendation to further support states’ abilities to gather 

accurate student data. Education provided new information in its 

comments on efforts to support states’ improvements in their data 

collection capacities. Consequently, we modified the report to reflect 

Education’s comments. Education officials also provided technical 

comments that we incorporated into the report where appropriate. 

Education’s comments are reproduced in appendix IV. 

Education disagreed with our recommendation that it delineate in writing 

the process and time frames that are appropriate for each state’s particular 

circumstances to meet conditions for full approval of their state plans. In 

its comments, Education cited several reasons for disagreeing with this 

recommendation. Education stated it has a process of continuous 

monitoring, although not in written form, and cited as evidence of success 

of its process that all states have used their plans to make annual progress 

determinations. However, experience under the 1994 ESEA has shown 

that school progress determinations can be made without meeting all plan 

requirements. As of July 31, 2004, plans from 23 states and the District of 

Columbia have not received full approval, and according to Education 

officials, these plans need to meet conditions to be able to meet NCLBA 

requirements. We recognize the significant efforts the department has 

taken to support states’ implementation of NCLBA and its plans to 

continue assisting states to improve the performance of their districts, 

schools, and students. However, a written delineation, appropriate to each 

state’s circumstances, of the process and time frames necessary for the 

remaining states to meet all conditions would provide the necessary 

documentation and assurance to Education, Congress, and the public that 

the steps states need to take and the timeframes for their actions are clear 

and understood. 

In its comments, Education also questioned our statement that it approved 

plans without the states meeting all plan requirements. The department 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 38 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

states that no plan was approved unless it demonstrated that when 

implemented the state, its districts and schools could meet the 

accountability requirements of the law. Thus, Education asserted that 

GAO narrowly interpreted approval. We do not disagree with the 

department’s interpretation of its authority to conditionally approve plans. 

Instead, our focus was on whether plans contained all the elements 

required by NCLBA and not merely on whether the plan contained an 

assurance that in the future it would meet the requirements of the law. We 

found that many plans that were conditionally approved did not meet all 

NCLBA requirements for what states were to have in their plans, and 

Education did not dispute this finding. 

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, relevant 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will also make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any questions 

about this report. Other contacts and major contributors are listed in 

appendix V. 

Marnie S. Shaul 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Methods to Establish Starting 

Points 

Page 39 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

To establish goals for schools to reach in the first year of No Child Left 

Behind Act (NCLBA) implementation, states were to set starting points 

using student test performance data from the 2001-02 school year. They 

computed results for each designated student group and for each school. 

To set the starting points, states were required to choose the higher 

percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or higher of the 

following: 1

(a) the student group with the lowest 2001-02 test performance from 

among: 

1. economically disadvantaged students, 

2. students from major racial and ethnic groups, 

3. students with disabilities, 

4. students with limited English proficiency, 

or 

(b) the score of the school at the 20th percentile of enrollment when all 

schools in the state were ranked according to 2001-02 test performance. 

To identify the student group with the lowest 2001-02 test performance, 

states had to determine what percentage of students in each of the 

designated groups scored at the proficient level on state tests. For 

example, a state may have found that 15 percent of students with 

disabilities scored at the proficient level, whereas all other groups had 

more students do so. In this case, the state would identify the students 

with disabilities group as the lowest-performing student group. 

To identify the score of the school at the 20th percentile of enrollment, 

states had to follow the following process. First, they had to determine the 

enrollment and percentage of students that were proficient for each of 

their schools. Then, they would rank the schools based on how many 

students were proficient in each school. For example, the state may list 

schools as shown in the following table. 

 1

For the rest of this appendix, we will refer to scoring at the proficient level to mean 

scoring at the proficient level or higher. 

Appendix I: Methods to Establish Starting 

Points 
Appendix I: Methods to Establish Starting 

Points 

Page 40 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Table 2: Calculating a Starting Point Using the School at the 20th Percentile in 

Cumulative Enrollment 

School name 

Percent scoring at 

the proficient level Enrollment 

Cumulative 

enrollment

Roosevelt H.S. 25.0 110 1,875

Madison Elem. 21.2 90 1,765

Jefferson Elem. 15.0 75 1,675

Adams Elem. 9.1 350 1,600

Lincoln H.S. 7.5 700 1,250

Washington Elem. 7.2 550 550

Source: Cowen, Kristen Tosh. 2004. The New Title I: The Changing Landscape of Accountability. Washington, D.C.: Thompson 

Publishing Group, (used with permission of the publisher). 

Beginning with the school at the lowest rank, the state would add the 

number of students enrolled until it reached 20 percent of the state’s 

enrollment. If the state’s total student population is 9,375, then the 

20th percentile cutoff is 1,875, (9,375 x 20 percent), or Roosevelt H.S. in 

this example. At Roosevelt H.S., 25 percent of students were proficient. 

The state would compare the two results. Since the percentage of students 

at the proficient level at Roosevelt H.S. (25 percent proficient) was higher 

than the results for students with disabilities (15 percent proficient), the 

state would set its starting point at 25 percent. For a school to meet the 

state’s proficiency goal in 2002-03, at least 25 percent of its students would 

have to score at the proficient level; however, a first year goal could be set 

higher.2

 2

This example draws extensively from Cowan, Kristen Tosh. 2004. The New Title I: The 

Changing Landscape of Accountability. Washington, D.C.: Thompson Publishing Group. 
Appendix II: Percentage of Schools That Met 

State Goals in 2002-03 

Page 41 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Name of state 

Percentage of schools that met state 

proficiency goals in 2002-03

Alabama 96

Alaska 42

Arizona 76

Arkansas 89

California 54

Colorado 75

Connecticut Not available

Delaware 44

District of Columbia 45

Florida 18

Georgia 64

Hawaii 39

Idaho 75

Illinois 56

Indiana 77

Iowa 93

Kansas 88

Kentucky 60

Louisiana 92

Maine 88

Maryland 65

Massachusetts 76

Michigan 76

Minnesota 94

Mississippi 75

Missouri 51

Montana 80

Nebraska 51

Nevada 60

New Hampshire 69

New Jersey 88

New Mexico 79

New York 76

North Carolina 47

North Dakota 91

Appendix II: Percentage of Schools That Met 

State Goals in 2002-03 
Appendix II: Percentage of Schools That Met 

State Goals in 2002-03 

Page 42 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Name of state 

Percentage of schools that met state 

proficiency goals in 2002-03

Ohio 78

Oklahoma 79

Oregon 72

Pennsylvania 74

Puerto Rico 90

Rhode Island 77

South Carolina 24

South Dakota 47

Tennessee 57

Texas 92

Utah 72

Vermont 88

Virginia 59

Washington 78

West Virginia 59

Wisconsin 89

Wyoming 85

Source: GAO analysis of state plans and other information reported by states. 

Note: Connecticut has not yet released figures for the 2002-03 school year; and Iowa reported only 

schools that received funds through Title I, Part A. 
Appendix III: State Plan Requirements 

Page 43 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

State accountability system element 

Principle 1: all schools 

1.1 Accountability system includes all schools and districts in the state. 

1.2 Accountability system holds all schools to the same criteria. 

1.3 Accountability system incorporates the academic achievement 

standards.

1.4 Accountability system provides information in a timely manner. 

1.5 Accountability system includes report cards. 

1.6 Accountability system includes rewards and sanctions.

Principle 2: all students 

2.1 The accountability system includes all students

2.2 The accountability system has a consistent definition of full academic 

year.

2.3 The accountability system properly includes mobile students. 

Principle 3: method of adequate yearly progress determinations 

3.1 Accountability system expects all student subgroups, public schools, and 

LEAs to reach proficiency by 2013-14. 

3.2 Accountability system has a method for determining whether student 

subgroups, public schools, and LEAs made adequate yearly progress. 

3.2a Accountability system establishes a starting point. 

3.2b Accountability system establishes statewide annual measurable 

objectives.

3.2c Accountability system establishes intermediate goals. 

Principle 4: annual decisions 

4.1 The accountability system determines annually the progress of schools 

and districts. 

Principle 5: subgroup accountability 

5.1 The accountability system includes all the required student subgroups. 

5.2 The accountability system holds schools and LEAs accountable for the 

progress of student subgroups.

5.3 The accountability system includes students with disabilities. 

5.4 The accountability system includes students with limited English 

proficiency.

5.5 The state has determined the minimum number of students sufficient to 

yield statistically reliable information for each purpose for which 

disaggregated data are used. 

5.6 The state has strategies to protect the privacy of individual students in 

reporting achievement results and in determining whether schools and 

LEAs are making adequate yearly progress on the basis of 

disaggregated subgroups. 

Appendix III: State Plan Requirements 
Appendix III: State Plan Requirements 

Page 44 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

State accountability system element 

Principle 6: based on academic assessments 

6.1 Accountability system is based primarily on academic assessments. 

Principle 7: additional indicators 

7.1 Accountability system includes graduation rate for high schools. 

7.2 Accountability system includes an additional academic indicator for 

elementary and middle schools.

7.3 Additional indicators are valid and reliable. 

Principle 8: separate decisions for reading/language arts and mathematics 

8.1 Accountability system holds students, schools and districts separately 

accountable for reading/language arts and mathematics. 

Principle 9: system validity and reliability 

9.1 Accountability system produces reliable decisions. 

9.2 Accountability system produces valid decisions. 

9.3 State has a plan for addressing changes in assessment and student 

population.

Principle 10: participation rate 

10.1 Accountability system has a means for calculating the rate of 

participation in the statewide assessment. 

10.2 Accountability system has a means for applying the 95 percent 

assessment criteria to student subgroups and small schools. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education. 

Note: Italics in original. 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 45 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Education 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 46 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 47 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 48 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 49 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 50 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

Harriet C. Ganson, (202) 512-7042, GansonH@gao.gov

Jason S. Palmer, (202) 512-3825, PalmerJS@gao.gov

In addition to those named above, Deborah Edwards, Gilly Martin, Sherri 

Doughty, Richard Burkard, Luann Moy, and Sheranda Smith-Campbell 

made key contributions to the report. 

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 51 GAO-04-734 No Child Left Behind Act 

No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on 

Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909. 

Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2004.

Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination 

Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher 

Requirements. GAO-04-659. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004. 

No Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help States 

Determine Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified. GAO-03-631. 

Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2003. 

Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information 

Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO-03-389. Washington, 

D.C.: May 8, 2003. 

Title I: Education Needs to Monitor States’ Scoring of Assessments. 

GAO-02-393. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2002. 

Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit Though Funding Per Poor Child 

Differs. GAO-02-242. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2002. 

Title I Program: Stronger Accountability Needed for Performance of 

Disadvantaged Students. GAO/HEHS-00-89. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 

2000. 

Related GAO Products 

(130285) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov(202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs