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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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.