No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School Choice Provision
Published: 2004-12-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The school choice provision of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001 applies to schools that receive Title I funds and that have not met state performance goals for 2 consecutive years, including goals set before the enactment of NCLBA. Students in such schools must be offered the choice to transfer to another school in the district. GAO undertook this review to provide the Congress a report on the first 2 years of the implementation of NCLBA school choice. GAO reviewed (1) the number of Title I schools and students that have been affected nationally, (2) the experiences of selected school districts in implementing choice, and (3) the guidance and technical assistance that Education provided. GAO collected school performance data from all states, interviewed Education officials, and visited 8 school districts in California, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: About 1 in 10 of the nation's 50,000 Title I schools were identified for school choice in each of the first 2 years since enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001. The proportion of schools identified for choice varied by state. About 1 percent of eligible children, or 31,000 students, transferred in school year 2003-2004. However, little is known about the students who did and did not transfer or factors affecting parents' transfer decisions. Education has launched a study that will yield some information on these topics. Officials in most of the 8 districts GAO visited said they welcomed NCLBA's emphasis on improved performance, but had difficulties providing choice because of tight timeframes and insufficient classroom capacity. Final state determinations of the schools that met state yearly performance goals were not generally available before the school year started, so offers of transfers were based on preliminary determinations. District officials expressed concern that parents had inadequate time and information to make an informed decision. Parents were offered at least 2 possible schools as transfer options, but many of these schools had not met state performance goals in the most recent year. Because of limited classroom capacity in 4 of the districts, some students did not receive the opportunity to transfer. For students who transferred, transportation was provided on school buses, public transit or personal cars, and most districts spent less than 7 percent of the pool of funds that NCLBA required be set aside for that purpose in school year 2003-2004. Education issued extensive guidance on choice. However, the complexity of providing school choice raises a number of issues that have not been addressed in guidance available through October 2004, such as how to handle cases where schools receiving transfers later are identified for choice and how to expand capacity in the short-term within budgetary constraints.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Increased school choice is one of the cornerstones of The No Child Left  Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001. Signed into law in January 2002, this major  legislation is designed to improve the academic achievement of all  students by requiring states to set annual performance goals for schools  that would result in all students being proficient in reading and math by  school year 2013-2014. Title I of the act provides financial support to  improve the education of low-income students in high-poverty schools. In  2004, about 50,000 public schools—over half of all public schools  nationwide—received a share of $12 billion in Title I funds. While all  public schools are expected to meet state performance goals, some of the  law’s provisions apply only to Title I schools, for instance, the school  choice requirement. Title I schools are identified for choice when  performance goals, including goals set before the enactment of NCLBA,  are not met for 2 or more years in a row. In general, all students enrolled  in such schools must be offered the option of transferring to other schools  in the district that have not been identified for choice and transportation  must be provided. Transfer requests cannot be denied for lack of  classroom capacity, according to federal regulations. While states set the  performance goals and schools are judged on the performance of their  students, the nation’s 15,000 school districts are held responsible for  implementing the school choice requirements of NCLBA, starting in school  year 2002-2003.
The school choice provision of NCLBA is intended to provide a unique  opportunity for students in schools not meeting state goals to attend  schools that have had greater success meeting these goals. However, little  is known about how states and districts are implementing the provision  and how many schools and students are participating. We undertook this  review to provide the Congress an early report on the first 2 years of  NCLBA implementation, with a more detailed look at the experiences of   8 school districts. Specifically, we address:  1.  To what extent have Title I schools been affected by the school choice  provision of NCLBA in terms of the number of schools identified for  choice and the number of students transferring?  2.  What were the experiences of selected school districts in  implementing the choice provision?  3.  What guidance and technical assistance did the Department of  Education provide states and districts as they implemented public  school choice?
To determine the numbers of schools and students affected by choice  nationwide during the first 2 years of NCLBA, we compiled and analyzed  data from a variety of sources, including our surveys of state education  agencies and school districts, Department of Education (Education)  reports of state agencies’ data, and other Education databases. We  assessed the reliability of these data and determined that they were  adequate for our purposes. To obtain information on district  implementation, we visited 8 districts that had schools identified for  choice and interviewed district and school officials about their  experiences. Located in seven states—California, Illinois, Ohio,  Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington—these districts  were selected to achieve variation in geographic, demographic, and  program characteristics. All but one district we visited had students  transferring under choice. One rural district —North Panola, Mississippi— offered supplemental educational services instead of transfers under  choice, as permitted, because the middle school identified for choice was  the only middle school in the district. To ascertain the role of Education in  providing guidance and technical assistance, we reviewed regulations and  other forms of guidance available from Education and interviewed  officials at the federal, state, and district levels, as well as representatives  of national educational organizations and other experts in the area. See  appendix I for a more detailed description of our methodology. We  conducted our work from October 2003 through November 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Department of Education is responsible for overseeing state  implementation of NCLBA, which amended and reauthorized the  Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Title I of this act authorizes  funds to states for local school districts with high concentrations of  children from low-income families to improve the academic achievement  of students failing or at risk of failing to meet state standards. Title I is the  single largest federal program supporting education in kindergarten  through 12th grade, supplying over $12 billion in federal funds in 2004.
These funds are designed to supplement the instructional services and  support that districts and schools provide. Title I and other federal funding  represent about 8 percent of total spending on elementary and secondary  public education, with the remaining 92 percent provided primarily by  states and localities. Title I funds are distributed by formula to state  education agencies, which retain a share but pass through most of the  funds to school districts. Districts with at least a minimum number and  percentage of low-income students receive a share of Title I funds. The  districts are required to distribute Title I funds first to schools with high  poverty rates—over 75 percent—and then to eligible schools in rank order  of poverty either districtwide or within grade spans. Because school  enrollment numbers and demographics may vary from one year to the next  and because districts have some discretion in how many and which  schools receive Title I funds, the status of schools as Title I or not Title I  can vary from one year to the next. Approximately 25 million students  were enrolled in schools eligible for Title I funds in school year 2002-2003  out of a total of about 49 million students in all schools nationwide,  according to Education.
subsections: section_title: Accountability for Results in All Public Schools under NCLBA and Prior Law
paragraphs: Stronger accountability for educational results is one of several education  reform principles embodied in NCLBA and it builds on requirements in  place under prior law. Prior to NCLBA, states were expected to have  accountability systems that included standards for what students should  learn and tests every year in certain grade levels to measure their  knowledge of reading and mathematics. Each year, increasing  percentages of students were expected to demonstrate their proficiency  on these tests, and schools were judged on their ability to make adequate  yearly progress in educating students to the state’s standards—referred to  in this report as meeting their yearly performance goals. Title I schools  that did not meet their goals for two consecutive years were to be  designated for improvement, provided technical assistance, and required  to implement improvement plans. States were at various stages of  implementation when NCLBA was enacted, so some states had been  identifying schools for improvement for several years while others were  just beginning the process.
Enactment of NCLBA strengthened accountability requirements by  specifying timetables for school improvement and by holding all public  schools, whether or not they receive Title I funds, accountable for the  academic performance of various subgroups of students. For example,  schools must reach yearly performance goals set by states that will result  in 100 percent of students meeting state proficiency standards by school  year 2013-2014. In addition to meeting the state’s performance goals in  general, schools are responsible for meeting those goals for specified  subgroups of students who (1) are economically disadvantaged,   (2) represent major racial and ethnic minorities, (3) have disabilities, or  (4) are limited in English proficiency. If any subgroup does not meet the  target, the school is identified as not having made its yearly performance  goal.
While NCLBA requires that all 94,000 public schools in the nation be held  accountable for their performance, it requires specific actions or  corrective interventions only for Title I schools that repeatedly miss their  yearly performance goals. Two kinds of immediate interventions are  required for Title I schools that have not met their performance goals for  two consecutive years. On the one hand, plans are set in motion to  improve the school’s performance. At the same time, students must be  given the opportunity to transfer to other schools under the school choice  option. Depending on how often schools continue to miss their goals,  other required actions range from offering students supplemental  educational services, such as after-school tutoring, to completely  restructuring schools. See appendix II for further details on the specific  actions required in each year.
section_title: School Choice under NCLBA
paragraphs: The first year that Title I schools do not meet performance goals, no  specific actions are required under NCLBA. However, if the goal is missed  the next year, districts generally must offer parents of students attending  these schools the choice to transfer their child to another school. The  district must provide transportation to the new school, within limits, and  continue to pay for transportation until the school from which the student  transferred is no longer identified for choice. Schools are no longer  identified for choice when they have met their yearly performance goals  for at least 2 consecutive years.
Districts are required by federal regulations to offer parents at least two  schools from which to choose, if available, and these schools may be any  public school that is not itself currently identified for choice. Thus, under  NCLBA offered schools could include Title I schools that have missed  their yearly performance goals for a single year or any school that does not  receive Title I funds, regardless of its performance. However, states could  further limit the schools offered as transfer options, for example, by  prohibiting transfers to non-Title I schools that have not met their yearly  performance goals. Under circumstances where no viable transfer options  exist—as in districts with only one school serving particular grade levels  or where all schools in the district have repeatedly missed their  performance goals—districts are required, to the extent practicable, to  make arrangements with other districts to accept their transfer students.
NCLBA requires that districts notify parents of the choice option by the  first day of the school year immediately following the test administration  that resulted in the school being identified for choice. For example, if tests  given in spring 2003 resulted in the school being identified for choice, then  the option had to be offered parents by the first day of school of the 2003- 2004 school year. Notices to parents must be in an understandable and  uniform format and, to the extent practicable, in a language that parents  can understand. These notices must explain why the school was identified  for choice and how it compares with others in the district and state. In  addition, federal regulations require that the notice include information on  the academic achievement of the schools offered as transfer options.
Districts are not required to give parents their first choice among the  transfer options provided, but may not deny transfer requests based on  lack of physical capacity, such as lack of space within a building or  classroom, according to federal regulations. When deciding which schools  to offer as transfer options, districts can consider the amount of available  capacity, but they must offer options for all students enrolled in schools  identified for choice. When reviewing transfer applications, making school  assignments, and arranging for transportation, districts are required to  give priority to the lowest-achieving low-income students.
section_title: About 1 in 10 Schools Identified for Choice in the First 2 Years of NCLBA, and 1 Percent of Eligible Students Transferred in 2003- 2004
paragraphs: In each of the first 2 school years following enactment of NCLBA, from 10  to 12 percent of schools that received federal funds under Title I were  identified for school choice. Several million students were enrolled in the  schools identified for choice and were thus eligible to transfer. About  31,000 students, representing 1 percent of those eligible, transferred in the  second year, school year 2003-2004. Although Education has recently  begun to collect information on the number of transferring students, little  is known about their demographic or academic characteristics. Our  analysis of data from one district showed that proportionately fewer  minority and low-income students transferred, compared with students in  the same schools who did not transfer.
subsections: section_title: From 10 to 12 Percent of Public Schools Nationwide That Received Title I Funds Were Identified for Choice in Each of the First 2 Years of NCLBA
paragraphs: In each of the first 2 school years of NCLBA, about 1 in 10 Title I schools— about 1 in 20 public schools nationwide—was identified for school choice.  About 5,300 schools attended by 3 million children, were identified for  choice in the first year of NCLBA. As shown in figure 1, the total number  of schools identified for choice increased to about 6,200 in year two.  Because schools must meet their performance goals for 2 consecutive  years before they are no longer identified for choice, many of the same  schools may have been included in the total number for both the first and  second years.
As figure 2 shows, Title I schools identified for choice enrolled larger  proportions of minority students and students from low-income families  than other Title I schools.
About 60 percent of all schools identified for choice were elementary  schools. However, this proportion is smaller than might be expected, given  that 71 percent of all Title I schools are elementary schools. As figure 3  shows, proportionately more middle and high schools were identified for  choice.
Most schools identified for choice in school year 2003-2004 were located in  urban and suburban areas. Although 15 percent of all Title I schools were  located in rural areas, only 11 percent of the Title I schools identified for  choice were in rural areas.
Figure 4 shows state variation in the proportion of schools identified for  choice. In the majority of states, 10 percent or fewer of Title I schools  were identified for choice in 2003-2004, but in some states a much larger  percentage was identified. One state, Wyoming, had no schools identified  for choice in 2003-2004. Among the states with relatively few schools  identified for choice were some of the nation’s most rural states, including  Maine, Mississippi, and Nebraska, but also some more populous states  such as Florida and Texas. By contrast, in 22 states the percentage of Title  I schools required to offer choice ranged from 11 percent to 48 percent.  Among these were several of the nation’s most populous states, including  California, Illinois, and New York, but also one of the most rural—Alaska.  Georgia and Hawaii each had 40 percent or more of their schools  identified for choice, higher than any other state. See appendixes III and IV  for state details for each year.
A number of factors contribute to state variations in the proportion of  schools identified for choice, including differences in school populations  and state accountability systems. Under NCLBA, if a school contains a  minimum number of students in specific groups—low-income, major  racial and ethnic minorities, students with disabilities, and limited English  proficient—schools are held accountable for the academic outcomes of  those groups, in addition to academic outcomes of the entire school. Large  or diverse schools are likely to have more student groups containing the  state-defined minimum number of students, and consequently have more  performance targets. Because it is harder for schools with many targets to  meet their overall performance goals, states with larger or more diverse  schools may be more likely to have a higher percentage of schools miss  their targets and be identified for choice.
Characteristics of states’ accountability systems also contribute to the  variation among states. For example, states use different standards and set  different annual progress rates for reaching 100 percent proficiency. In  addition, some states use smaller minimum student group sizes than other  states. The smaller the size of the group used, the more likely a school will  include additional student groups in accountability, increasing the number  of performance targets the school must meet.
section_title: About 1 Percent of Eligible Students Transferred in the Second Year; Little Is Known about Their Characteristics
paragraphs: About 19,000 students transferred under the NCLBA school choice option  in school year 2002-2003, the first year, and an additional 31,000 students  transferred in the second year. As illustrated in figure 5, this number  transferring in the second year represented about 1 percent of the students  who were eligible. Across states, the number of eligible students who  transferred under NCLBA in 2003-2004 ranged from zero in 6 states to over  7,000 in one state. States also varied in the extent to which eligible  students exercised the option and transferred. Oregon reported the  highest proportion of eligible students transferring at 17 percent, followed  by Florida with 6 percent. The remaining states had less than 5 percent of  eligible students transfer. Further, states with more students eligible for  choice under NCLBA did not necessarily have more students use the  transfer option. For example, although Hawaii had more students eligible  for choice, Colorado had about twice as many students transfer. The  number of eligible students transferring in each year for each state is  detailed in appendix V.
Overall, the proportion of eligible students transferring in the most rural  states was about the same as in other states; however, statewide data  may mask differences within states between rural and nonrural districts.  For example, Kansas, the rural state with the most students eligible for  choice, provided detailed data showing how many student transfers  occurred in each district. About 70 percent of Kansas transfers were in the   state’s three largest districts—Wichita, Shawnee Mission, and Kansas   City —although about half of the students eligible for NCLBA transfers  were located in those districts. Officials in several rural states reported  that rural districts faced unique challenges implementing NCLBA choice.  In some rural districts, although students were eligible for choice, no  transfers took place because there were no other schools in the districts  that could be offered as transfer options. Where transfer options were  available, sometimes the distances between schools made transfers  difficult.
In the 41 states that could provide student transfer data and had schools  identified for choice in both years, the total number of transferring  students rose by about 85 percent. This increase was driven by several  states that had substantial increases, such as New York, New Jersey, and  South Carolina. However, 8 states reported declining numbers of transfers,  and 6 of these states also reported fewer schools identified for choice in  the second year, while 2 reported increases.
Little is known about the demographic characteristics and academic  performance of students who transferred under NCLBA school choice in  either year or reasons why parents accept or do not accept transfer  opportunities. Although Education has requested state data on the number  of students transferring each year, it has not collected data on the  characteristics or academic performance of transferring students.  Education officials told us that they have contracted for a major, multi- faceted study of NCLBA that will examine key areas of implementation,  including school choice. Two parts of the study relating to school choice  are descriptive: one is a descriptive comparison of the demographics of  students who choose to transfer and those who do not. A second part  examines reasons that parents give for their decisions about whether or  not to apply for transfers. A third part of the study, still under design, will  examine student achievement outcomes. This effort would examine the  academic outcomes over time of transferring students in a sample of  districts, but this portion of the study is not fully developed. For instance,  officials said they are still exploring several possibilities for study  methodology and whether demographic characteristics of these students  will be included in the achievement analysis.
Our analyses of 2003-2004 demographic and academic data that we were  able to obtain from one district we visited showed diversity in transferring  students. Of the students who transferred, 53 percent were male,   62 percent were minorities representing all the major racial and ethnic  groups, and 82 percent were from low-income families as measured by  their eligibility for the free or reduced-price school lunch program. In  addition, 10 percent of these transferring students were English language  learners and 14 percent were enrolled in special education. In general,  proportionately fewer minority and low-income students transferred,  compared with students who were eligible but did not transfer, as shown  in table 1. Our analysis of available student performance data from state  reading and math assessments showed little difference between  transferring students and those not transferring. The proportion of  students who met the standards was about the same for each group.
Compared with students in the schools into which they transferred,  however, transferring students were somewhat lower performing on state  assessments. About 33 percent of transferring students met state reading  standards, while 43 percent of the other students in the receiving schools  met these standards. Similarly, about 20 percent of transferring students  met state math standards, while 34 percent of the other students in  receiving schools met state math standards. Transfer students were also  more often from a minority background. About 62 percent of the  transferring students were minorities, but about 52 percent of the students  in receiving schools were minorities.
section_title: Implementation of Choice Was Challenging in Selected Districts
paragraphs: Officials in most of the 8 districts we visited mentioned that they  supported the NCLBA focus on improved student performance and  accountability; however, they had difficulties providing school choice,  primarily because of tight timeframes and insufficient capacity. To try to  get notices out to parents before school started, most districts took a risk  and acted on preliminary data on school performance that they received  from the state in late summer because final data were not available.  Parents of eligible students were presented at least two schools as transfer  options, but many of these alternatives were similar to the schools  students were currently attending. Some districts were not able to  accommodate all transfer requests because the demand for some schools  exceeded their capacity. Districts employed a variety of strategies to  provide transportation to transferring students, including school buses,  public transportation, and cash stipends.
subsections: section_title: Short Timeframes Created Challenges
paragraphs: Although the law requires districts to notify parents of the choice option  by the start of the school year, 7 of 8 districts we visited did not receive  final results of school performance for the most recent year from the state  in time to meet the requirement. Consequently, many used preliminary  data to identify schools for choice. Akron was the only district that had  final results from the state when notices were sent to parents. Four  districts used preliminary data to identify which schools had to offer  choice and notified parents before school started. A fifth district also used  preliminary data but did not receive the data until after school started.  Using preliminary data can put districts at risk of incorrectly identifying  schools as having to offer choice and consequently misinforming parents.  One district included language in the notification letter to parents  explaining that the transfer offer could be revoked if final determinations  by the state were different. Table 2 shows key testing and notification  dates in 6 of the districts we visited.
The remaining 2 districts we visited, Memphis and Fresno, did not use  preliminary data from the most recent testing period, but rather used data  from the previous year to determine the schools that would have to offer  choice. Officials said they were aware this delay was not in accord with  Education guidance but took this action to combine NCLBA choice with  their voluntary choice programs, which permit all students to request  transfers in the spring. Memphis officials said that they planned to change  their procedures and offer school choice twice in 2004—first in the spring,  during the open enrollment process, for schools that they already know  must offer choice and again in the fall when they receive the results of the  spring 2004 assessments. Fresno officials did not indicate that they would  be changing their procedures.
Given the tasks that districts must complete to offer school choice before  school starts, officials expressed concerns that little could be done to  mitigate these timeframe problems. Districts must first administer state  tests in the spring, which are sometimes sent to contractors to be scored.  Next, after receiving the preliminary test results from the state, districts  assess the scores to verify the accuracy of the data, use these data to  identify schools likely to be required to offer choice, and notify schools.  Schools may appeal this decision to the state. Only after reviewing such  appeals do states release final determinations of which schools are  required to offer choice. Most districts we visited did not have the final  performance data before school started in the fall. Figure 6 shows the  timeline of events in one school district we visited; similar patterns  occurred in most others.
The compressed timeframe for making school status determinations and  implementing the choice option left parents little time to make transfer  decisions, and district and school officials expressed concerns that  parents did not have adequate time to make an informed decision. In most  of the districts we visited, parents had 3 weeks or less to make their  transfer decisions. In addition, in districts and schools with highly mobile  populations, reaching parents can be time-consuming. Akron and Memphis  officials told us that many letters notifying parents of the transfer option  were sent to addresses found to be incorrect. To ensure that parents had a  greater chance of learning about school choice, some districts used a  variety of additional notification strategies—fliers, newspaper articles,  postings to the district Web site, and public meetings. In addition, they  provided parents several ways to communicate their desires such as  through the mail, by telephone, or going to the district in person.
Officials in some districts also expressed concern that the information  provided to parents was not always clear and that it may not have been  sufficient for them to base their decisions. Letters sent to parents  generally explained what it meant to be identified for choice, gave the  reasons for the identification, described the process for applying for  transfer, and listed the transfer school options. However, little information  was provided about the transfer schools. In some districts, school officials  were concerned that the wording of the letters may have been confusing.  They said that parents did not always understand the meaning of the  school choice option as explained in the letter and needed more time to  consult with district or school officials. For example, officials in 2 districts  told us that some parents misunderstood the letter and believed that they  were required to transfer their child to another school. Other school  officials talked about the need for parents to have additional information  about specialized services and instructional support that certain schools  provide in order to understand the educational implications of their  decisions. Officials in one district told us that some parents who chose a  transfer school later changed their minds when they found that student  support services their child had received at their Title I school, such as  extended day programs and after school tutoring made possible by Title I  funds, were not available at the non-Title I transfer school.
Schools also faced challenges in implementing choice within the  timeframes, particularly in adjusting staffing and scheduling, when they  learned shortly before the start of school that they would be receiving  students under the NCLBA school choice program. For example, a  Tacoma middle school principal said that she faced a variety of challenges  when she was notified a month before school started that the school was  to receive NCLBA transfer students. Based on spring predictions of the  school’s student population and student needs, she had released six  teachers. However, when notified the school was receiving 57 NCLBA  transfers in the fall, she had to quickly hire two new teachers and  reconfigure the schedule to include more remedial classes to  accommodate the learning needs of the transferring students. In addition,  school officials did not receive records for some students from the schools  they left until after school started, and some students were initially placed  in the wrong classes.
section_title: Most Districts Offered Parents a Number of Schools as Choices, but Many of These Alternatives Were Similar to the Student’s Current School
paragraphs: Whenever possible, districts offered each parent at least 2 schools as  transfer options, as required by federal regulations, but some districts  offered more than 30 schools. The locations varied by district. Table 3  shows the number and location of elementary schools offered in the  districts we visited. Some districts offered schools based on geographic  location within the district and some offered schools districtwide. For  example, as table 3 shows, students in Memphis attending one of the   40 schools identified for choice selected from among 3-10 transfer schools  that were in the same general area of the city, while students in each of the  6 schools identified in Akron selected from a group of 33 schools spread  across the district. Elementary schools offered as transfer options were  more commonly selected for their proximity to sending schools than  middle and high schools, which were generally offered districtwide.  Although not shown in table 3, parents generally were offered fewer  transfer options for middle and high school students, because districts  tend to have fewer middle and high schools than elementary schools.
Many schools that districts offered as transfer options had not met state  performance goals in the prior year, and some were at risk themselves of  having to offer choice in the following year. Among the seven districts that  offered transfers, all had some schools offered as choices that had not met  the state’s yearly performance goals, based on the spring 2003  assessments. Table 4 provides more detail on the status of schools offered  as transfer options by district. Because many of these schools were Title I  schools and, therefore, subject to NCLBA requirements, those that did not  meet their yearly performance goals for a second consecutive year would  have to offer school choice the following year. For example, in Memphis  37 Title 1 schools were offered as transfer options, and 29 of these had not  met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests. Some schools  offered were not Title I schools and, therefore, were not required to offer  transfers, regardless of the performance of the school. Overall, as shown  in Table 4 for the districts we visited, from 21 to 73 percent of all schools  offered, Title I and non-Title I, had met yearly performance goals.
Officials from large urban districts such as Fresno and Memphis said that  they would have few schools to offer as choices if they did not offer Title I  schools that had failed to meet the performance goals for only one year.  Officials in some districts expressed concerns that, as the bar for meeting  yearly performance goals is raised, more schools would fail and few  schools would be available as transfer options. In these districts, over   80 percent of schools received Title I funds and many more students could  become eligible for transfer under NCLBA.
In districts such as Chicago, Fresno, and Memphis with high proportions  of Title I schools, the majority of the schools offered as transfer options  were often demographically similar to those attended by students eligible  for transfer. Specifically, the schools offered as transfer options served  many poor students and had high minority populations. As shown in table  5, for example, 34 of Fresno’s 39 schools required to offer choice—about  seven-eighths—had poverty rates that exceeded 75 percent, as did over  half of the 18 schools offered as transfer options.
In contrast, other districts that we visited tended to offer more transfer  options that differed demographically from the schools required to offer  choice. As shown in table 6, for example, 7 of Akron’s 8 schools required  to offer school choice had poverty rates that exceeded 75 percent, but less  than one-third of schools offered as transfer options had such rates. See  appendix VI for poverty and minority rates of schools in seven districts  that we visited.
section_title: Several Districts We Visited Cited Lack of Sufficient Capacity as Limiting the Number of Transfers
paragraphs: Despite the fact that all districts offered parents a choice of schools,  officials in four districts told us that they were unable to accommodate  some requests for transfers because of constraints on classroom capacity,  as shown table 7. In two districts in Illinois—Elgin, and Chicago—officials  said that they believed that state law did not allow their districts to offer  choice under NCLBA if it led to overcrowding in schools. Akron officials  told us that they were seeking clarification from the state about whether  any transfers in their district would be prohibited by Ohio state law.  Memphis officials told us that demand exceeded the capacity at certain  schools that were already overcrowded, and use of portables to expand  capacity was unrealistic because of the expense and lack of sufficient  space on school campuses.
In some districts with capacity constraints, open enrollment programs  could limit the ability of students to transfer under NCLBA. In all but 2 of  the districts we visited, school choice was available to all students through  open enrollment programs. These programs offered students the chance to  apply for transfers, typically during the winter and spring months, and, in  several districts, allowed transferring students to learn which school they  would attend before the end of that school year. In contrast, students in  most districts transferring under NCLBA did not know about their  opportunity until just before the next school year started. Unless these  districts took special care, schools could be filled to capacity with  transfers approved under the open enrollment program before NCLBA  students had the opportunity to apply. To avoid this situation, Akron gave  NCLBA transfers priority and delayed decisions on requests for transfers  under its open enrollment program until the decisions on NCLBA transfers  had been made.
Officials in Fresno, Pittsburgh, and Tacoma reported that they had not yet  experienced problems with capacity because few students had  transferred. However, some officials expressed concern that capacity  could pose a challenge in their district in the future. Specifically, officials  in Fresno, Memphis, and Tacoma noted that if more schools were required  to offer choice in the future, the number of students eligible to transfer  could increase and capacity could become a problem.
section_title: Districts Used Different Strategies to Meet Transportation Requirement
paragraphs: The districts we visited arranged and paid for the transportation of  students who transferred, as required under NCLBA, but did so in a variety  of ways as allowed under the law. For instance, some districts provided  school buses, while others paid for public transportation or provided cash  stipends to cover public or private transportation. In 5 of the 7 districts,  school buses picked up elementary students who lived more than 1-2 miles  from their schools. For middle and high school students, some districts  paid for public transportation by giving students passes or tokens. Finally,  Akron gave parents a $170 transportation subsidy at the end of the school  year in which students transferred to subsidize the costs of public transit  or defray the gasoline costs of driving their child to school.
In providing transportation, districts used relatively little of the funding  that was required to be set aside for school choice transportation and for  supplemental services because few students transferred. In 2003-2004, the  estimated expenditures for transportation represented less than 7 percent  of the set-aside funds in all but one district we visited. As shown in table 8,  the proportions ranged from less than 1 percent in Akron to about 25  percent in Elgin. Most district officials did not expect to spend the full  amount that had to be set-aside for the combined costs of choice-related  transportation and supplemental educational services. However, some  district officials said they anticipated that as more schools have to offer  school choice and more students become eligible to transfer, it is likely  that transportation expenditures will increase.
section_title: Education Issued Extensive Guidance on Choice, but Questions Remain as Implementation Proceeds
paragraphs: Education issued final regulations and guidance on school choice within a  year of NCLBA enactment, but did so after districts had begun their first  year of implementation, and some issues remain unclear. Extensive  additional guidance and technical assistance in the form of policy letters,  training tools, presentations at conferences, and a handbook on promising  practices became available at various times throughout the first and  second years of implementation. While district officials we visited  generally had access to Education’s guidance, questions concerning the  implementation of school choice remained, as might be expected in initial  years of implementation. For example, there were “how to” questions  about ways to offer choice when building capacity is limited. There were  also “what if” questions involving issues that may arise as NCLBA  implementation progresses, such as districts’ use of Title I funds for  transportation when students choose to remain at a school to which they  have transferred if that school subsequently does not meet its yearly  performance goals and is itself required to offer choice. Some of these  questions have been addressed in guidance but others remain.
subsections: section_title: In the First Year, Districts Implemented Choice Using Preliminary Guidance Released through Letters to Superintendents
paragraphs: Responding to the need to get information out quickly, Education issued  preliminary guidance in June 2002 before the start of the first school year.  The information provided, however, was not always clear or complete.  The preliminary guidance was sent out in the form of a “Dear Colleague”  letter directly to school district superintendents as well as state education  agency officials. In the letter, Education acknowledged that its preliminary  guidance was necessarily brief and not as comprehensive as guidance that  would be forthcoming. The letter highlighted key topics such as notices to  parents, designation of sending and receiving schools, prioritization of  students, capacity and transportation. The letter stated that choice had to  be provided, unless prohibited by state law, to all eligible students,  “subject to health and safety code requirements.” Some district officials  believed this language allowed them to limit the number of transfers based  on state or local health and safety codes or classroom size requirements.
Subsequent guidance provided additional information about Education’s  position on capacity and other issues. Final regulations and draft guidance  on choice were issued in December 2002, after the start of the first school  year. The final regulations applied to all aspects of Title I, while the draft  guidance applied specifically to school choice and was characterized as  “non-regulatory” guidance. The final regulations clarified some key  information and the December guidance added extensively to material in  the June 2002 letter. For example, in response to numerous requests for  clarification of its language on capacity, Education’s regulations made it  explicit that districts were required to accommodate all transfer requests  while complying with all applicable state and local health and safety codes  as well as classroom size requirements. Districts had to offer all students  at schools identified for choice the option of transferring and could not  use lack of capacity as a reason to deny students this option. The  regulations explained that state law exempts districts from offering choice  only if the state law prohibits choice through restrictions on public school  assignments or the transfer of students from one public school to another  public school. The December guidance went further to help clarify  Education’s position by contrasting its regulations on capacity before and  after enactment of NCLBA and providing an explanation for the  differences. Because there had been no mention of capacity in NCLBA and  some district representatives were uncertain about the meaning of the  preliminary guidance in the June letter, the final regulations and December  guidance represented an important clarification of Education’s official  position on the issue. In these December documents, Education also  suggested ways that districts might expand capacity, for example, by  adding classes and additional teachers, in order to be able to offer choice  to students while adhering to state classroom size requirements and health  and safety codes.
section_title: Additional Guidance and Technical Assistance Provided in the Second Year of Implementation
paragraphs: In the second year of NCLBA implementation, Education updated and  expanded its draft guidance and published a handbook on promising  practices in the provision of school choice. Education also provided  additional assistance in the form of training materials, presentations at  various conferences and a toll-free hotline for district superintendents in  both the first and second years. See table 9 for a chronology of the various  types of guidance on choice issued by Education.
The February 2004 guidance was developed in response to state questions,  often made at the request of districts, for further clarification of several  issues. Although Education’s primary relationship was with state agencies,  Education officials also made appearances at conferences attended by  district and school officials and made a concerted effort to alert local  education officials and other interested parties when it released its latest  guidance through electronic mailing lists to subscribers and through its  Web site. In many of the districts that we visited, officials told us that they  had access to Education’s guidance, either directly from Education’s Web  site, from the state agency or from a national organization representing  their interests, such as the Council of the Great City Schools.
One of the major changes in the February 2004 guidance was a list of   10 ways that districts might increase capacity in order to provide school  choice for all eligible students requesting transfers. The guidance  suggested that districts “employ creativity and ingenuity” in developing  ways to expand capacity, such as setting up “virtual” schools, reallocating  portable classrooms, or creating “schools within schools” that would be  new, distinct schools, with separate faculty, within the physical sites of  schools required to provide choice. Some district officials we interviewed  expressed their reservations about the feasibility of Education’s  suggestions on how to develop the needed capacity, in part because of  concerns about the costs of implementing the suggestions.
The May 2004 technical assistance handbook describes promising  practices in several key areas, including capacity, that have been  employed to implement choice in 5 school districts. The most detailed and  thorough description covers strategies that these districts have used to  deal with parental notification and decision-making, but other chapters  deal with capacity and transportation, support for sending and receiving  schools, use of databases and surveys for planning, and factors leading to  success. With respect to capacity, the handbook lists the actions that  certain districts have taken but does not describe them in detail. For  example, the handbook states that Milwaukee established a special team  that spent 2 months assessing available capacity; Miami-Dade used  portables; Denver used teacher lounges and resource rooms as  classrooms, and Mesa created new schools. Individuals interested in more  details could contact the districts involved to find out more about  timetables and costs of these various strategies at the postal or Web site  addresses listed in the handbook. Education officials told us that within  the first 6 months following its publication they had sent out over 16,000  copies of handbook to state officials and to organizations representing  local education officials, such as the National School Boards Association  and the National Alliance of Black School Educators.
section_title: Complexity of Implementing Choice Raises Issues Not Addressed in Guidance
paragraphs: Numerous questions concerning current or future implementation issues  were raised during our visits with district and school officials that were  not answered clearly in Education’s February 2004 guidance on choice.  The issues involved how best to handle, within the context of federal  regulations and guidance, certain complex situations involving timetables,  schools receiving transfers, transportation, and capacity. With respect to  timetables for parental notification, district officials we visited in two  states were concerned about the accuracy of preliminary state  determinations of the schools that made or did not make yearly  performance goals. Because NCLBA required that they offer choice by the  start of school, the districts were acting on preliminary but possibly  inaccurate determinations made by states and were uncertain if there were  any circumstances that would permit them to delay choice until they  received final determinations. Basically, the questions involved how best  to mitigate the risks for all involved—districts, schools, parents and  students. Notices sent to parents had included warnings—either that the  school status might change within a month or that the offer of choice  might be withdrawn. However, there was interest in finding better ways to  deal with the uncertainty involved, including what steps should be taken  on behalf of parents and students when transfers have occurred either into  or out of schools that were designated incorrectly.
Even where school designations were known, planning for future  contingencies raised a number of questions about schools offered as  transfer options and about transportation arrangements. District officials  explained that they are operating in a dynamic environment where school  performance can change from one year to the next and their status as Title  I or not Title I schools can also change. Officials in one district we visited  asked for confirmation that, if they could not find reasonable alternatives,  they would be permitted to offer as transfer options those schools that had  missed their performance goals for one or more years, as long as they  were not Title I schools. Confirmation could be inferred from the February  2004 non-regulatory guidance on choice, but was not clear-cut.  Considerations of schools offered as transfer options led into further  questions about transportation provided for students who transferred, for  example if students could continue to receive Title I-funded transportation  if they had transferred into a Title I school offered as a transfer option that  later missed its yearly performance goals for 2 consecutive years.
In several districts we visited, we found that officials were struggling to  find practical and realistic ways to offer choice when building capacity,  budgets and timeframes were limited. Some of these officials had studied  the suggestions offered in Education’s February guidance but considered  creation of virtual or charter schools to be long-term projects that could  not provide capacity in time to meet short deadlines. Other officials  commented that they did not know what steps to take to create “schools  within schools,” as suggested, or how to estimate the costs. Cost  considerations were a major issue in several districts where capacity  constraints had limited the number of transfers under NCLBA.
Education officials told us in November 2004 that they believed that the  guidance and technical assistance that they had provided thus far was  sufficient to meet the needs identified by states and district officials with  whom they were in contact. At that time, they had no specific plans to  issue further guidance or provide additional technical assistance on these  issues. However officials added that policy letters will continue to be  issued as needed in response to questions raised by states that have not  been addressed elsewhere.
Finally, some issues that district officials raised during our site visits were  not ones for which Education could provide guidance. These issues  involved distinctions between federal and state requirements that  individual states would be expected to resolve for their districts. For  example officials in one district sought clarification as to whether or not  their state applied the NCLBA interventions both to schools not receiving  Title I funds and to Title I schools. Officials in another district were unsure  about whether their state exempted schools that did not receive Title I  from some NCLBA interventions, such as school choice and supplemental  services, but not from other interventions, such as corrective action and  restructuring after repeatedly missing yearly performance goals.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: NCLBA is an important and complex piece of legislation, and as  implementation proceeds, Education will need to continue to help states  and districts address the many issues they face in providing school choice.  State and districts officials, although positive about the intent of NCLBA,  nevertheless identified a variety of challenges in implementing the law.  Half of the districts we visited did not grant as many transfers as were  requested because of constraints on the building capacities at many of  their schools. Difficulties related to building capacity are unlikely to  diminish in the future, and could become more pronounced if the number  of students eligible to transfer increases and the number of schools  available as potential transfer options decreases. In the first 2 years under  NCLBA, Education data show that the number of schools not making their  yearly performance goals increased. Several state officials suggest that this  trend will continue. Consequently, it is likely that more schools will be  identified for choice, which would increase the number of students eligible  for transfer while decreasing the pool of possible transfer schools.  Further, new challenges may arise if the schools to which students have  transferred in the early years of NCLBA do not themselves make their  yearly performance goals.
In addition, our work raised questions about how well-informed parents  are about the school choice option. In the second year of NCLBA, about 1  percent of eligible students transferred, and without more information on  the reasons parents do or do not take advantage of the transfer option,  policy makers and school officials may miss opportunities to better serve  parents and students through the choice option. In addition, it is unclear  whether or not parents are receiving adequate information to make fully  informed transfer decisions. It may be that parents do not fully understand  why their child’s school was identified for choice or the educational  services available in the transfer school. Education’s longitudinal study of  NCLBA will address some of these questions. The parental survey will  explore the reasons parents do or do not exercise the transfer option and  the circumstances that facilitate or hinder their decisions. The result of the  survey may give Education and policymakers insight into the reasons  behind the numbers of students who have transferred, as well as assist  school officials in assuring that parents are aware of the option. In  addition, the technical assistance handbook that Education issued in May  2004 provides some suggestions that may help districts improve their  communications with parents, but this information is based on the  experiences of only a small number of school districts. Districts may need  additional help in various ways, including how to provide information on  choice options that can be easily understood by parents and how to  provide additional information parents need to make an informed  decision.
Finally, little is known about transferring students or the effects of  transfers, but Education’s plans for its major study of NCLBA are  promising. As planned, the study should provide insight into the  demographic characteristics of students transferring under the school  choice provision and the extent to which the lowest achieving students  from low-income families, identified for priority consideration under the  law, are exercising the transfer option. Equally important is Education’s  proposed analysis of how transfers may affect the subsequent academic  performance of students who change schools under the choice provision  of NCLBA. This portion of Education’s proposed study is critical to  informing policy makers and school officials about whether or not the  school choice option is achieving its intended outcome of improving  student achievement; however, this part of the study is still in the design  phase.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help states and districts implement choice and to gain a better  understanding of its impact, we recommend that the Secretary of  Education:    Monitor issues related to limited classroom capacity that may arise as  implementation proceeds, in particular, the extent to which capacity  constraints hinder or prevent transfers. Based on this monitoring,  Education should consider whether or not additional flexibility or  guidance addressing capacity might be warranted.
Collect and disseminate additional examples of successful strategies that  districts employ to address capacity limitations and information on the  costs of these strategies.
Assist states in developing strategies for better informing parents about  the school choice option by collecting and disseminating promising  practices identified in the course of working with states and districts. For  instance, Education might collect and share examples of clear, well- written, and particularly informative notices. In addition, Education  should make the results of its parental surveys, conducted as part of its  national study, widely available for use by states and districts to help them  better refine their communications with parents regarding school choice.
For its student outcomes study, Education should use the methodology  with the greatest potential to identify the effects of the school choice  transfer on students’ academic achievement. The methodology selected  should allow it to compare academic outcomes for transferring students  over several years with outcomes for similar students not transferring,  while accounting for differences in student demographics. The study  should also examine the extent to which transferring students remain in  the schools to which they transfer.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for  review and comment.  Education’s written comments appear in appendix  VII. Recommended technical changes have been incorporated in the report  as appropriate.
Education said that the report would be a useful addition to the literature  on the public school choice provision and indicated its intent to use the  findings and recommendations in the report to improve Education’s  technical assistance to states and districts and to strengthen its  implementation studies. Specifically, Education agreed with our  recommendations concerning monitoring capacity and disseminating  successful strategies to meet capacity challenges, noting several projects  under development that might assist in carrying out these  recommendations. Education also strongly supported our  recommendation that it assist states in better informing parents about the  school choice option and related some of its plans for doing so.  Regarding  our recommendation concerning the department’s study of choice  implementation, Education said that it is working to design a rigorous  analysis of student outcomes and will take our recommendation into  consideration as it refines the design for the study.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties.  Copies will be made available to other interested parties upon request. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any question about this  report, please call me at (202) 512-7215. Key contributors are listed in  appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this report were to determine (1) the extent to which  Title I schools have been affected by the school choice provision of The  No Child Left Behind Act  (NCLBA) of 2001 in terms of the number of  schools identified for choice and the number of students exercising the  option; (2) the experiences of selected school districts in implementing the  choice provision; and (3) the kinds of guidance and technical assistance  that the Department of Education provided states and districts as they  implemented public school choice.
To determine the extent that schools have been affected by school choice  in terms of the number of schools required to offer choice and the number  of students exercising the option, we analyzed data for school years 2002- 2003 and 2003-2004 using two sources: our survey of state education  agencies and state reports to Education. To obtain data on the number of  schools that had to offer choice, we used a different source for each  school year. For 2002-2003, we surveyed state education agencies in all 50  states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; for 2003-2004, we  obtained data from Education that had been reported by each state in its  Consolidated State Performance Report: Part I. Information on the  number of students that chose to transfer to another school for  school year 2002-2003 was obtained from the Consolidated State  Performance Report: Part I; for 2003-2004, the data were obtained from  our survey of the state education agencies, the District of Columbia, and  Puerto Rico. Although there was a 100 percent response rate to our survey  and to Education’s report, not all states provided complete information.  Seven states did not provide any transfer information for 2003-2004  because they did not plan to collect this information until later in school  year 2004-2005.
To test the reliability of these data, we performed a series of tests, which  included checking that data were consistent, that subtotals added to totals  and that data provided for one year bore a reasonable relationship to the  next year’s data and to data reported elsewhere, including state education  websites. Where we found discrepancies or sought clarification, we  followed up with state officials. In several states, officials revised the  numbers that they had initially reported to us or to Education. We  determined these data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
In addition, we sought information on schools and students from several  sources. The grade span and location of schools (urban or rural) identified  for choice and the demographics of their students was available from the  National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). We were not able to  describe the characteristics of the schools required to offer choice in 2002- 2003 because the list of schools was not available. We analyzed data for  the nation as a whole and by state, expressing the results in relation to the  universe of all Title I schools or all public K-12 schools. When we  compared results in the first school year with results in the second, we  compared only states that provided information for both years and  eliminated any states that provided data only for a single year. Because  NCES data were not available for 2003-2004, the year for which we  obtained lists of schools identified for choice, we used as a proxy the 2002- 2003 enrollment data for these schools including student numbers,  minority status and eligibility for the free or reduced price school lunch  program as a measure of the family income. Because these were the only  data available, and because we considered them adequate for our  purposes, we used 2002-2003 enrollment data to characterize schools in  2003-2004, based on an assumption that at the aggregate levels the  numbers and characteristics did not differ significantly from one year to  the next. We discussed this assumption with education officials at NCES,  and for a sample of states, tested it by checking the changes from 2001- 2002 to the following year for schools identified. We also tested the  reliability of the NCES data by comparing our numbers to published totals  and by reviewing documentation. We considered these data to be  sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
To determine the experiences of selected school districts’ implementation  of NCLBA school choice, we visited eight districts that had schools  required to offer choice. On the basis of our discussions with state officials  and our own research, we selected districts located in seven states— California, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and  Washington. Districts selected were based on geographic location and  district profile in terms of the number of schools required to offer school  choice, student population, and demographic profile. (See table 10 for  district characteristics.) During our visits, we interviewed officials in  school district offices and in most districts, also interviewed principals of  schools that were required to offer school choice as well as principals of  schools that received transferring students. In each of these districts, we  attempted to obtain data on the characteristics of students—such as race,  poverty, and academic achievement—that had transferred to another  school under NCLBA school choice in school year 2003-2004; we had  limited success at obtaining such information from most schools. We were  able to obtain information on transferring students’ academic achievement  from one district but most districts had not collected this information.
To determine the kinds of guidance and technical assistance that  Education provided states and districts as they implemented NCLBA  public school choice, we reviewed regulations, policy letters, and non- regulatory guidance provided to states and districts. We also interviewed  Education officials involved with developing the guidance and providing  assistance to states in implementing school choice. To obtain the  perspective of officials using the guidance provided by Education, we  interviewed district officials at all eight sites and state agency officials in   2 states. In addition, to obtain a national perspective on the effectiveness  of Education’s guidance and assistance to the states and districts, we  interviewed officials at the Council of the Great City Schools, the Council  of Chief State School Officers, and the Center on Education Policy.
section_title: Appendix II: NCLBA Interventions for Schools Not Meeting Yearly Performance Goals Over Time
section_title: Appendix III: Number of Title I Schools in Each State Identified for Choice in School Year 2002-2003
subsections: section_title: Number of schools that
section_title: Appendix IV: Number of Title I Schools in Each State Identified for Choice in School Year 2003-2004
subsections: section_title: Number of schools that
section_title: Appendix V: Number of Students in Each State Transferring under Choice Option in First 2 Years of NCLBA
subsections: section_title: Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003
section_title: Appendix VI: Poverty and Minority Rates of Schools Required to Offer Choice and Schools Offered as Transfer Options
subsections: section_title: Number of schools required to offer choice
paragraphs: For Chicago, minority data were not available for one of the 40 transfer schools.
Two of the 47 transfer schools in Memphis were new in school year 2003-2004, and no data were  available on the poverty or minority rates for the student enrollment at these two schools.
One of the 8 transfer schools in Tacoma was new in school year 2003-2004, and no data were  available on the poverty rate for the student enrollment at this one school.
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, the following individuals made  important contributions to this report: Nancy Purvine, Sara Margraf,   Scott Spicer, John Mingus, Amy Buck, and Margaret Armen.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education’s Process  for Tracking States’ Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734.  Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.
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.
Student Mentoring Programs: Education’s Monitoring and Information  Sharing Could Be Improved. GAO-04-581. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 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.
Disadvantaged Students: Fiscal Oversight of Title I Could Be Improved.  GAO-03-377. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 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.