No Child Left Behind Act
Education Should Clarify Guidance and Address Potential Compliance Issues for Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Status Gao ID: GAO-07-1035 September 5, 2007The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) focused national attention on improving schools so that all students reach academic proficiency by 2014. In the 2006- 2007 school year, about 4,500 of the 54,000 Title I schools failed to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for 4 or more years. Schools that miss AYP for 4 years are identified for corrective action, and after 6 years, they must be restructured. GAO examined (1) the characteristics of Title I schools in corrective action and restructuring; (2) the actions that schools in corrective action and restructuring implemented; (3) the assistance those schools received from districts and states; and (4) how Education supports states in their efforts to assist these schools. GAO administered two Web-based surveys to a nationwide sample of schools in corrective action and restructuring status and conducted site visits to five states.
Nationwide, the 2,790 Title I schools that were in corrective action or restructuring status in the 2005-2006 school year were more frequently located in urban areas and in a few states. These schools served higher percentages of minority, poor, and middle-school students than other Title I schools, and many report that factors such as neighborhood violence and student mobility pose additional challenges to improving student academic performance. As state proficiency targets continue to increase to 100 percent in 2014, the number of schools in corrective action and restructuring may increase. A majority of schools in corrective action or restructuring status implemented required activities. However, in some cases, schools may not be meeting NCLBA requirements. GAO estimates that 6 percent of schools did not take any of the required corrective actions and that about a third continued corrective actions implemented during earlier years of school improvement but did not take a new action after entering corrective action status. While this course of action may be an appropriate path for some schools to take, the Department of Education has not provided guidance to districts delineating when continuing a corrective action is appropriate and when it is not. In addition, about 40 percent of schools did not take any of the five restructuring options required by NCLBA. While states are required to report annually to the Department of Education the measures taken by schools in improvement status, Education does not require states to report on the specific measures taken for each school. GAO estimates that 42 percent of the schools in corrective action or restructuring did not receive all required types of assistance through their school districts, although most received discretionary assistance from their state educational agencies. Districts are required to ensure that several types of assistance are provided to all schools in improvement status, including those in corrective action and restructuring status. This assistance includes help in analyzing students' assessment data and revising school budgets so that resources are allocated to improvement efforts. NCLBA generally does not require states to provide specific kinds of assistance to schools in corrective action or restructuring; however, they are required to develop a statewide system of support, including school support teams to provide technical assistance to schools and districts. Most schools received some type of assistance from the state educational agency. Education provides technical assistance and research results to states primarily through its Comprehensive Centers Program. Education also has provided more material in its Web-based clearinghouse to address a greater number of topics and is developing an initiative to outline practical steps for schools in improvement, including those in restructuring.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-1035, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Should Clarify Guidance and Address Potential Compliance Issues for Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Status
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1035
entitled 'No Child Left Behind Act: Education Should Clarify Guidance
and Address Potential Compliance Issues for Schools in Corrective
Action and Restructuring Status' which was released on September 5,
2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2007:
No Child Left Behind Act:
Education Should Clarify Guidance and Address Potential Compliance
Issues for Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Status:
Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring:
GAO-07-1035:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1035, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) focused national attention
on improving schools so that all students reach academic proficiency by
2014. In the 2006-2007 school year, about 4,500 of the 54,000 Title I
schools failed to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for 4 or more
years. Schools that miss AYP for 4 years are identified for corrective
action, and after 6 years, they must be restructured. GAO examined (1)
the characteristics of Title I schools in corrective action and
restructuring; (2) the actions that schools in corrective action and
restructuring implemented; (3) the assistance those schools received
from districts and states; and (4) how Education supports states in
their efforts to assist these schools. GAO administered two Web-based
surveys to a nationwide sample of schools in corrective action and
restructuring status and conducted site visits to five states.
What GAO Found:
Nationwide, the 2,790 Title I schools that were in corrective action or
restructuring status in the 2005-2006 school year were more frequently
located in urban areas and in a few states. These schools served higher
percentages of minority, poor, and middle-school students than other
Title I schools, and many report that factors such as neighborhood
violence and student mobility pose additional challenges to improving
student academic performance. As state proficiency targets continue to
increase to 100 percent in 2014, the number of schools in corrective
action and restructuring may increase.
A majority of schools in corrective action or restructuring status
implemented required activities. However, in some cases, schools may
not be meeting NCLBA requirements. GAO estimates that 6 percent of
schools did not take any of the required corrective actions and that
about a third continued corrective actions implemented during earlier
years of school improvement but did not take a new action after
entering corrective action status. While this course of action may be
an appropriate path for some schools to take, the Department of
Education has not provided guidance to districts delineating when
continuing a corrective action is appropriate and when it is not. In
addition, about 40 percent of schools did not take any of the five
restructuring options required by NCLBA. While states are required to
report annually to the Department of Education the measures taken by
schools in improvement status, Education does not require states to
report on the specific measures taken for each school.
GAO estimates that 42 percent of the schools in corrective action or
restructuring did not receive all required types of assistance through
their school districts, although most received discretionary assistance
from their state educational agencies. Districts are required to ensure
that several types of assistance are provided to all schools in
improvement status, including those in corrective action and
restructuring status. This assistance includes help in analyzing
students‘ assessment data and revising school budgets so that resources
are allocated to improvement efforts. NCLBA generally does not require
states to provide specific kinds of assistance to schools in corrective
action or restructuring; however, they are required to develop a
statewide system of support, including school support teams to provide
technical assistance to schools and districts. Most schools received
some type of assistance from the state educational agency.
Education provides technical assistance and research results to states
primarily through its Comprehensive Centers Program. Education also has
provided more material in its Web-based clearinghouse to address a
greater number of topics and is developing an initiative to outline
practical steps for schools in improvement, including those in
restructuring.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education provide guidance on when
schools in corrective action may continue previously implemented
corrective actions rather than implementing new ones; direct states to
report information on activities taken by each school in corrective
action or restructuring; and take additional steps to ascertain whether
states are ensuring that districts provide the required assistance to
schools. Education agreed with these recommendations.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1035].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202)
512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Were More Often Located
in Urban School Districts and Served Higher Percentages of Minority,
Poor, and Middle-School Students Than Other Title I Schools:
Most Schools Used a Corrective Action or Restructuring Option, but Some
May Not be Meeting NCLBA Requirements:
Many Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Did Not Receive All
Required Assistance through Their School Districts; However, Most
Received Assistance from Their State:
Education Provides Technical Assistance and Research on School
Improvement, Including Some Specific Information on School
Restructuring:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Objective 1: Analysis of School Characteristics:
Objectives 2 and 3: Implementation of Corrective Action and
Restructuring and State and District Assistance:
Objective 4: Education's Efforts to Support State Implementation:
Appendix II: Number of Schools in Corrective Action, Planning for
Restructuring, and Implementing Restructuring, by State in 2005-2006
and 2006-2007:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Timeline for Implementing Interventions for Schools That Do
Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress:
Table 2: Allowable Activities for Schools in Corrective Action and
Restructuring:
Table 3: NCLBA Technical Assistance Districts Are Required to Ensure
for Schools Identified for Improvement, Including Those in Corrective
Action and Restructuring:
Table 4: Education, State, and District Responsibilities for Monitoring
States, Districts, and Schools Identified for Improvement:
Table 5: Percentage of Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring
and All Other Title I Schools in 2005-2006, by Locale:
Table 6: Percentage of Schools Nationwide in Corrective Action and
Restructuring in the Top 5 School Districts in School Year 2005-2006:
Table 7: Percentage of Students with Selected Characteristics,
Comparing Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring with All Other
Title I Schools, by Locale:
Table 8: Percentage of Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring
Compared to All Other Title I Schools, by Grade Level:
Table 9: Grade Level Definitions:
Table 10: School Districts Selected for Site Visits:
Table 11: Number of Schools in Corrective Action, Planning
Restructuring, and Implementing Restructuring, by State in 2005-2006
and 2006-2007:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Title I Schools Identified for Corrective Action,
Planning for Restructuring, and Implementing Restructuring in 2005-
2006:
Figure 2: Number of Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring in
School Year 2005-2006, by State:
Figure 3: Number of Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring for
the 3 Most Recent School Years:
Figure 4: Change in the Number of Schools in Corrective Action and
Restructuring from 2005-2006 to 2006-2007, by State:
Figure 5: Corrective Actions Allowed under NCLBA and Estimated
Percentage of Schools That Implemented Each Action in 2005-2006:
Figure 6: Restructuring Options Allowed under NCLBA and Estimated
Percentage of Schools That Implemented Each Option:
Figure 7: Among Schools Implementing "Other" Major Restructuring,
Estimated Percentage of Schools Implementing Various Activities:
Figure 8: The Estimated Percentage of Schools in Corrective Action and
Restructuring That Received Each Form of Required Technical Assistance
through Districts in School Year 2005-2006:
Figure 9: Estimated Percentage of Schools in Corrective Action and
Restructuring in 2005-2006 That Received State Assistance:
Figure 10: Education's Content and Regional Centers:
Abbreviations:
AYP: adequate yearly progress:
CCD: Common Core of Data:
CSPR: Consolidated State Performance Reports:
Education: Department of Education:
ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965:
IASA: Improving America's Schools Act of 1994:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
SES: supplemental education services:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 5, 2007:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd:
Chairman:
The Honorable Lamar Alexander:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Children and Families:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
Over the past 40 years, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (ESEA) has authorized billions of dollars in federal grants to
states and school districts to improve educational opportunities for
economically disadvantaged students. Despite this investment, the
academic performance of disadvantaged students is still substantially
lower than that of more advantaged students. Congress, with the
enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA)[Footnote 1]-
-the most recent reauthorization of ESEA--sought to address this issue
by holding public schools accountable for the academic performance of
their students by requiring that all students reach proficiency in
reading, math, and science by 2014. In particular, districts and
schools receiving funds under Title I of NCLBA are required to take
certain actions when students do not make sufficient progress toward
meeting state proficiency targets.[Footnote 2] However, many Title I
schools, which comprise over half of all public schools and serve about
26 million students, continue to struggle to raise student achievement.
In the 2006-2007 school year, about one-fifth of the 54,000 Title I
schools had failed to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for at least
2 consecutive years, and about 4,500 of these schools had not made AYP
for 4 or more years. Under NCLBA, when a Title I school does not make
AYP for 4 years, the school enters corrective action, and the district
must take a statutorily prescribed action to improve the school, such
as replacing selected teaching staff. If the school fails to make AYP
for 6 years, the district is required to restructure the school by
changing how the school is governed.[Footnote 3] Such changes may
include closing the school and re-opening it as a charter school or
turning the operation of the school over to the state educational
agency. As annual goals leading up to the 2014 deadline continue to
increase, more schools are expected to enter corrective action and
restructuring and will be required to take major action to improve.
However, little is known about what specific corrective actions or
restructuring options schools are currently implementing nationwide,
the extent to which these actions are associated with making AYP, and
the support that schools in corrective action and restructuring have
received from school districts and states as they attempt to improve
student performance. In order to shed light on these issues and help
the Congress prepare for reauthorization of the NCLBA, you asked GAO to
answer the following questions: (1) What are the characteristics of
Title I schools in corrective action and restructuring? (2) To what
extent have schools in corrective action and restructuring implemented
corrective actions or restructuring options? (3) What assistance have
schools in corrective action and restructuring received from districts
and states? and (4) How has the Department of Education (Education)
supported states in their efforts to assist schools in corrective
action and restructuring status?
To provide information on these topics, we collected data through
multiple methods. We obtained data on which schools were in corrective
action and restructuring for the 2005-2006 school year. States reported
these data to Education through the Consolidated State Performance
Report process, which collects annual information from states on ESEA
programs. We matched data on these schools with additional data in
Education's Common Core of Data (CCD), conducted descriptive analyses
of selected characteristics, and compared them to all other Title I
schools. We also administered two Web-based surveys sent to 470
principals in a nationwide sample of schools in corrective action and
restructuring during the 2005-2006 school year. We administered the
surveys between January and March 2007 and received a combined response
rate of about 70 percent. Percentage estimates from the surveys have
margins of error of plus or minus 8 percentage points using a 95
percent confidence interval, unless otherwise noted. While we did not
fully validate specific information that school officials reported in
our survey, we took several steps, including corroborating evidence of
some schools' improvement status, to ensure that the information
provided by school officials was sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of this report. We conducted site visits to 5 states (California,
Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania) and 10 school districts
with schools in corrective action, restructuring, or both, as well as
20 schools in those districts. The states, districts, and schools
selected for site visits not only provided variation across such
characteristics as geographic location and district size, but also
generally resembled all schools in corrective action and restructuring
in terms of students' racial, ethnic, and economic characteristics.
Together, schools in these 5 states accounted for over 59 percent of
schools in corrective action and restructuring nationally in the 2005-
2006 school year. We also interviewed state officials from several
states (Idaho, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia) that had few schools
in correction action or restructuring to obtain information on how
their state educational agencies are working with districts on school
improvement issues. We reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and
agency guidance and interviewed Education officials to obtain
information about how they monitor and provide assistance to states and
districts. We also interviewed officials in some of Education's
comprehensive and regional assistance centers. We analyzed relevant
Education documents and studies and reports issued by policy and
research organizations on schools in corrective action and
restructuring and interviewed staff in many of these organizations. See
appendix I for detailed information on both surveys as well as our
other data collection methods. We conducted our work from August 2006
through August 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The 2,790 Title I schools nationwide in corrective action and
restructuring status in the 2005-2006 school year--comprising about 5
percent of all Title I schools and serving over 2 million students--
were more frequently located in urban school districts and a few states
and served higher percentages of poor, minority, and middle-school
students than other Title I schools. Nationwide, almost two-thirds of
the 1,155 corrective action and 1,635 restructuring schools were in
urban districts, compared to about one-quarter of other Title I
schools. Five states--California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and
Pennsylvania--collectively had over 60 percent of these schools, but
less than 30 percent of all Title I schools. When compared to all other
Title I schools, those in corrective action and restructuring served
more than twice as many racial or ethnic minority students--96 percent
compared to 37 percent--and a higher percentage of students who were
economically disadvantaged--83 percent compared to 54 percent. More
than twice as many of these schools served middle school students as
compared to all other Title I schools. Nationwide, the number of
schools in corrective action and restructuring increased substantially
to 4,509 in the 2006-2007 school year from 2,790 in the previous year.
As state proficiency targets continue to increase until they reach 100
percent by 2014, the number of schools in corrective action and
restructuring may grow, because many schools now in early stages of
improvement may continue to struggle to make AYP.
Though many schools had implemented a corrective action or
restructuring option, some schools may not be meeting NCLBA
requirements. Among schools in corrective action status, we estimate
that 94 percent implemented at least one required corrective action and
that about three-quarters used more than one corrective action. Hiring
an outside expert and changing the internal structure of the school
were the most frequently implemented actions, with each implemented by
about 60 percent of schools. However, based on our survey, we estimate
that 6 percent of schools did not take any of the required corrective
actions. About a third continued corrective actions implemented during
earlier years of school improvement after entering corrective action
status. Education officials told us that if a school had previously
implemented a corrective action, an additional action might not be
required if the school provided evidence that the intervention is
producing results that are likely to enable the school to exit
improvement status. As of July 2007, Education had not developed
guidance on when continuing prior actions without implementing a new
one is acceptable. About 60 percent of schools in restructuring
implemented a restructuring option as required by NCLBA, and the two
most frequently selected options were "other" major restructuring, such
as reconfiguring the grade levels served by the school, and replacing
selected school staff. Yet many schools in restructuring may not have
undertaken restructuring options as prescribed under NCLBA. States are
required to report annually to Education on the measures taken to
address the achievement problems of schools in improvement status,
including schools in corrective action and restructuring. However,
Education does not require states to report on the specific measures
taken for each school, and therefore, the department has limited
information on whether states have found that some districts may not be
in compliance with NCLBA requirements. A much higher percentage of
schools that fully implemented activities, regardless of which activity
they chose, made AYP compared with those that had not fully implemented
activities. Nevertheless, we found that no one particular corrective
action or restructuring option was associated with making AYP, nor was
the number of activities undertaken associated with AYP.
We estimate that 42 percent of the schools in corrective action and
restructuring did not receive all required types of assistance through
their school district, although most received discretionary assistance
from their state educational agency. Districts are required to ensure
that several types of assistance are provided to all schools in
improvement status, including those in corrective action and
restructuring. This assistance ranges from analyzing student assessment
data to revising school budgets so that resources are allocated to
improvement efforts. NCLBA generally does not require states to provide
specific kinds of assistance to schools in corrective action and
restructuring. However states are required to develop a statewide
system of support, including school support teams that are available to
provide technical assistance to schools and districts. We estimate that
most schools received some type of assistance from the state. For
example, 60 percent of schools received assistance from a state support
team and almost two-thirds received help from instructional experts or
highly skilled educators. Additionally, almost half of the schools
received state funds that were used for school improvement activities
such as professional development.
Education provides technical assistance and research primarily through
its Comprehensive Centers Program. The department replaced its former
assistance centers and various education consortiums with 16 regional
centers and 5 content centers to meet the requirements of the Education
Sciences Reform Act of 2002. These centers are to help low performing
schools and districts close achievement gaps and meet the goals of
NCLBA. The centers provide assistance and research to states on
developing approaches for improving schools. In addition, Education has
expanded the material in its Web-based What Works Clearinghouse to
address a greater number of topics and revised its district and school
improvement guidance by adding more material on school restructuring.
While the clearinghouse had little information on promising practices
for schools in corrective action and restructuring, Education is
developing an initiative targeted to principals, teachers, and other
educators that is to develop practical steps to improve schools on the
basis of scientifically based research identified by the clearinghouse
and may have information on school restructuring by the end of 2007.
To enhance school efforts to increase student achievement, we recommend
that Education provide guidance to districts on when schools may
continue previously implemented corrective actions rather than taking
new ones. We also recommend that Education obtain more specific
information from states on the specific improvement activities
implemented by each school in corrective action and restructuring as
well as more specific information on compliance issues states
identified as part of their monitoring activities. Finally, we
recommend that the department take additional steps through its
monitoring process to ascertain whether states are ensuring that
districts provide the assistance required by NCLBA. Education agreed
with our recommendations and stated it would explore options for
providing more guidance, gathering additional information from states,
and improving its monitoring activities.
Background:
Under NCLBA, states are required to establish performance goals and
hold their Title I schools accountable for students' performance by
determining whether or not schools have made AYP. Schools that have not
met their state's performance goals for 2 or more consecutive years are
identified for improvement and must implement certain activities that
are meant to improve student academic achievement. Districts and states
play a role in this process by providing technical assistance to
schools. In addition, states are responsible for monitoring district
and school compliance with NCLBA. Education provides states and
districts with guidance on school improvement and monitors states for
compliance with NCLBA requirements.
States and Districts Are Held Accountable for the Performance of Their
Schools and Must Take Action to Improve Student Achievement When
Schools Do Not Make AYP for 2 or More Years:
Prior to NCLBA, the Congress attempted to hold states accountable for
the annual performance of their schools by requiring them to collect
assessment data, develop criteria to determine whether schools and
districts were performing satisfactorily, and conduct student
assessments. The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA--Improving America's
Schools Act (IASA)--required that schools be designated for improvement
for failure to make AYP for 2 consecutive years and that districts take
corrective action as a final intervention for schools that repeatedly
missed AYP.[Footnote 4] However, under IASA states assessed AYP in
different ways and used different measures to evaluate school
performance. NCLBA added several new provisions to address these
differences and to strengthen accountability. These provisions include:
* The requirement that states develop plans that include academic
standards and establish performance goals for meeting AYP that would
lead to 100 percent of their students being proficient in reading,
mathematics, and science by 2014.[Footnote 5] To measure their
progress, states were required to establish academic proficiency goals
for making AYP and to administer an annual assessment to students in
most grade levels.[Footnote 6] In addition, each school's assessment
data must be disaggregated in order to compare the achievement levels
of students within certain designated groups with the state's
proficiency targets. These student groups include the economically
disadvantaged, major racial and ethnic groups, students with
disabilities, and those with limited English proficiency, and each of
these groups generally must make AYP in order for the school to make
AYP.
* A timeline for implementing specific interventions based on the
number of years the school missed AYP.[Footnote 7] For a school that
fails to meet AYP for 2 consecutive years, districts must offer
students in these schools the opportunity to transfer to a higher-
performing public school in the district, and after the third year,
they must also offer supplemental education services (SES), such as
tutoring. In addition, the school must also develop an improvement plan
in consultation with the district, school staff, parents, and outside
experts. These plans, which are subject to district approval, must
incorporate strategies to address the specific academic issues that
caused the school to be identified for improvement. Under NCLBA, if a
school fails to make AYP for 4 consecutive years, it is required to
implement one of the corrective actions identified in the legislation.
In addition, a new intervention to change the governance of schools--
school restructuring--was introduced for schools that miss AYP for 5 or
more years. (See table 1.) Districts are responsible for selecting and
implementing the corrective actions and restructuring options for these
schools. Schools exit improvement status if they make AYP for 2
consecutive years.
Table 1: Timeline for Implementing Interventions for Schools That Do
Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress:
Adequate yearly progress: First year missed;
School status in the next year: Not Applicable;
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: None.
Adequate yearly progress: Second year missed;
School status in the next year: Needs Improvement (First Year of
Improvement);
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Required to offer public
school choice[A].
Adequate yearly progress: Third year missed;
School status in the next year: Needs Improvement (Second Year of
Improvement);
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Required to offer public
school choice and SES.
Adequate yearly progress: Fourth year missed;
School status in the next year: Corrective Action (Third Year of
Improvement);
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Implement certain corrective
actions and offer public school choice and SES.
Adequate yearly progress: Fifth year missed;
School status in the next year: Planning for Restructuring (Fourth Year
of Improvement);
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Plan for a change in
governance and offer public school choice and SES[B].
Adequate yearly progress: Sixth year missed;
School status in the next year: Implementation of Restructuring (Fifth
Year of Improvement);
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Implement a change in
governance and offer public school choice and SES.
Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA and Education's regulations.
[A] At this stage, the school must also develop the school improvement
plan.
[B] While NCLBA does not require that corrective actions must be
continued after a school enters restructuring, Education officials
noted that in practice, many schools continue corrective actions after
entering restructuring status.
[End of table]
Schools in corrective action must implement at least one of six
activities such as replacing selected school staff or implementing a
new curriculum.[Footnote 8] Schools that do not make AYP after 5 years
must plan for restructuring, which means that the district must decide
how to change the school's governance. Restructuring, the most severe
of the NCLBA interventions, requires that the school implement a major
change to how the school is operated, such as reorganizing into a
public charter school or contracting with an outside organization such
as a private management company to operate the school.[Footnote 9] If
the school does not make AYP during the planning phase, the school
enters restructuring. The corrective action and restructuring
activities allowed under NCLBA are shown below in table 2. NCLBA does
not address actions that districts must take after implementing
restructuring and the school continues to fail to make AYP. Education
officials said that they have encouraged states and districts to
continue to try different interventions with these schools.
Table 2: Allowable Activities for Schools in Corrective Action and
Restructuring:
Corrective actions: The district must implement at least one of the
following actions:
* Replace the school staff who are relevant to the failure to make AYP;
* Institute and fully implement a new curriculum;
* Significantly decrease management authority at the school level;
* Appoint an outside expert to advise the school on its progress toward
making adequate yearly progress;
* Extend the school year or the school day;
* Restructure the internal organizational structure of the school;
Restructuring options: The district must implement at least one of the
following options:
* Reopen the school as a charter school;
* Replace all or most of the school staff (which may include the
principal) who are relevant to the failure to make AYP;
* Contract with another organization or company to operate the school;
* Turn the operation of the school over to the state;
* Implement any other major restructuring of the school's governance,
such as:
- Expand or narrow the grades served;;
- Close the school and re-open it as a theme school (for example, a
math and science academy).
Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA (20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(7) and (8)) and
Education's guidance.
[End of table]
Both Districts and States Provide Technical Assistance to Schools in
Improvement:
The school district bears the primary responsibility for ensuring that
its schools in improvement, including those in corrective action and
restructuring, receive technical assistance, although the state also
plays a role in providing assistance. The purpose of the district's
assistance is to strengthen and improve the school's instructional
program by helping the school address the issues that caused it to make
inadequate progress in student achievement.[Footnote 10] Specifically,
the district must ensure that each school identified for improvement
receives assistance based on scientifically based research in three
areas: analysis of student assessment data, identifying and
implementing instructional strategies, and analysis of the school
budget, as shown in table 3 below.[Footnote 11]
Table 3: NCLBA Technical Assistance Districts Are Required to Ensure
for Schools Identified for Improvement, Including Those in Corrective
Action and Restructuring:
Data analysis;
The district must ensure that school staff receive assistance in
analyzing student assessment data to identify and develop solutions in
areas such as:
* Instructional deficiencies;
* Parental involvement and professional development requirements.
Identification and implementation of strategies;
The district must ensure that the school receives help to identify and
implement:
* Instructional strategies and methods that are grounded in
scientifically based research and address specific issues that cause
the school to be identified for improvement;
* Professional development relevant to implementation of such
strategies and methods.
Budget analysis;
The district must ensure that the school is provided with:
* Assistance in analyzing and revising its budget to fund activities
most likely to increase student achievement.
Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA.
[End of table]
The state educational agencies are also responsible for making several
forms of technical assistance available to schools in improvement and
overseeing the improvement activities of districts. States generally
are required to reserve and allocate 4 percent of the state's total
Title I allocation for school improvement activities, with 95 percent
of these funds going directly to the districts. States are to
prioritize their assistance to districts that, among other things,
serve the lowest achieving schools, such as those in corrective action
and restructuring. They also are required to develop and sustain a
statewide system of support that provides technical assistance to
schools, with a priority given to those in improvement status. In
addition, in developing the statewide system of support, the state
agency must:
* Establish school support teams to work in schools throughout the
state that are identified for improvement. The purpose of these teams
is to assist schools to strengthen their instructional programs and
must include individuals who are knowledgeable about scientifically
based research and practice and its potential for improving teaching
and learning.
* Designate and use distinguished teachers and principals who are
chosen from Title I schools and have been especially successful in
improving academic achievement.
* Devise additional approaches to improve student performance, for
example, by drawing on the expertise of other entities, such as
institutions of higher education, educational service agencies, or
private providers of scientifically based technical assistance.
Education Provides Assistance to States and Districts and Monitors for
Compliance:
Education provides assistance to states in implementing NCLBA and
monitors states for compliance. Specifically, Education provides
assistance to states and districts in several ways such as issuing
regulations, providing guidance and policy letters, and through its
comprehensive centers. For example, the department published
nonregulatory guidance that was specific to schools in improvement and
provided information on the actions that districts and states must take
to reform their schools in compliance with NCLBA.[Footnote 12] To help
build the capacity of states to meet NCLBA goals, Education awarded
almost $57 million in fiscal year 2006 to the 21 comprehensive centers.
These include 16 regional centers established to provide technical
assistance to states within defined geographic areas. In addition,
Education established five content centers that work closely with the
regional centers to provide technical assistance to states on school
improvement. One content center focuses on school improvement issues.
Education monitors each state agency to determine, among other issues,
whether the state is ensuring that districts are implementing NCLBA
requirements for school improvement. Education, the state agency, and
districts all play a role in ensuring that schools are meeting NCLBA
requirements. Their monitoring responsibilities are presented in table
4.
Table 4: Education, State, and District Responsibilities for Monitoring
States, Districts, and Schools Identified for Improvement:
Stakeholder: Education;
Roles and responsibilities: Monitor states to assess the extent to
which states provide leadership and guidance for districts and schools
in implementing policies and procedures that comply with NCLBA.
Stakeholder: State educational agency;
Roles and responsibilities: Monitor districts to ensure they are:
* Meeting NCLBA requirements for such things as school choice,
providing SES, and providing technical assistance to schools identified
for improvement;;
* Providing guidance to their Title I schools to ensure they are
complying with NCLBA program requirements;
and;
* Ensuring that schools identified for improvement, corrective action,
or restructuring implement required activities.
Stakeholder: School district;
Roles and responsibilities: Monitor Title I schools identified for
improvement for developing the school improvement plan and
implementation of school improvement activities, including parental
involvement activities.
Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA and Education's monitoring plan for Title
I programs.
[End of table]
Education monitors states in two ways: (1) routinely gathers and
analyzes data collected from Web-based searches and documents, such as
Consolidated State Performance Reports,[Footnote 13] and (2) on-site
visits at least once every 3 years to monitor state compliance with
Title I. During these site visits, states are monitored to ensure that
they are complying with Title I program requirements, which includes
providing the necessary guidance and support to schools that are in
improvement, including those in corrective action and restructuring. In
addition, according to Education's monitoring guidelines, Education
officials visit selected districts in each state and ask for evidence
on how schools are implementing required actions and meeting
timeframes. Once the review is complete, Education issues a report to
the state containing findings, recommendations, and required actions
needed to address identified problems. A state is generally given 30
business days to respond to the findings and required actions and also
to provide a timeline for addressing each issue. A state with
significant findings may have conditions attached to its Title I Grant
and if it fails to adequately address the identified deficiencies, the
Secretary generally may withhold the state's Title I funds that are
used for state administration until all requirements have been
satisfied.
Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Were More Often Located
in Urban School Districts and Served Higher Percentages of Minority,
Poor, and Middle-School Students Than Other Title I Schools:
Schools in corrective action and restructuring status in the 2005-2006
school year were more frequently located in urban school districts and
a few states and served higher percentages of minority, poor, and
middle-school students than other Title I schools.[Footnote 14] In the
2005-2006 school year, 2,790 Title I schools were in corrective action,
planning for restructuring, or implementing restructuring (see fig. 1).
These schools comprised about 5 percent of all Title I schools and
served over 2 million students. Data for the 2006-2007 school year show
that the numbers of schools in corrective action and restructuring are
growing, a trend that is likely to continue.
Figure 1: Number of Title I Schools Identified for Corrective Action,
Planning for Restructuring, and Implementing Restructuring in 2005-
2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[End of figure]
Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Were Concentrated in
Urban Areas and a Few States:
Schools in corrective action and restructuring were predominantly
located in urban areas, especially compared to all other Title I
schools, as shown in table 5.
Table 5: Percentage of Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring
and All Other Title I Schools in 2005-2006, by Locale:
Locale: Urban;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: 63;
All other Title I schools: 27.
Locale: Suburban;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: 22;
All other Title I schools: 26.
Locale: Town/Rural;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: 15;
All other Title I schools: 44.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by Education.
Note: Locale data for 3 percent of all other Title I schools were
missing.
[End of figure]
Examples of urban areas with relatively higher numbers of schools in
corrective action and restructuring include Chicago, Detroit, Los
Angeles, New York, and Philadelphia. Nationwide, school districts in
these 5 cities alone contained over 25 percent of all schools in
corrective action and restructuring, as shown in Table 6. By
comparison, these 5 districts contained less than 4 percent of all
other Title I schools.
Table 6: Percentage of Schools Nationwide in Corrective Action and
Restructuring in the Top 5 School Districts in School Year 2005-2006:
School district: City of Chicago;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: 10.
School district: New York City;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: 7.
School district: Los Angeles Unified;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: 3.
School district: Philadelphia City;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: 3.
School district: Detroit City;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: 2.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by Education.
Note: Three other school districts (local educational agencies) each
had 2 percent of the total of schools in corrective action and
restructuring: Hawaii Department of Education (56 schools), the
District of Columbia Public Schools (45 schools), and Baltimore City
Public Schools (42 schools). The Hawaii Department of Education and the
District of Columbia Public Schools each serves simultaneously as a
state educational agency and a local educational agency (school
district). New York City reported its number of schools by regions
within the school district. For our report, we summed across regions
within New York City to arrive at one number for the district as a
whole.
[End of table]
Consequently, schools in corrective action and restructuring were
concentrated in a few states. Five states--Illinois, New York,
California, Pennsylvania and Michigan--collectively had over 60 percent
of these schools, but less than 30 percent of all Title I schools
nationwide. In contrast, a majority of states had 20 or fewer schools
in corrective action and restructuring, as shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Number of Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring in
School Year 2005-2006, by State:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Education data; (Map), Map Resources.
[End of figure]
In general, states with large numbers of schools identified for
improvement when NCLBA was passed had more schools in corrective action
and restructuring in the 2005-2006 school year than those with few
schools in improvement in 2001.[Footnote 15] Prior to NCLBA, states had
identified schools for improvement, and when NCLBA was passed in the
2001-2002 school year, it generally required states to maintain the
prior improvement status of schools.[Footnote 16] Consequently, many
schools that were in earlier stages of improvement in school year 2001-
2002 entered corrective action and restructuring in subsequent years.
Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Served a Higher
Percentage of Minority, Economically Disadvantaged, and Middle School
Students, Compared to All Other Title I Schools:
Schools in corrective action and restructuring also had a much higher
percentage of racial or ethnic minority students compared to all other
Title I schools (96 percent compared to 37 percent) and also enrolled a
higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students (83 percent
compared to 54 percent).[Footnote 17] These differences varied
substantially when the location of the school is accounted for, as seen
in table 7.
Table 7: Percentage of Students with Selected Characteristics,
Comparing Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring with All Other
Title I Schools, by Locale:
Locale: Urban;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: Minority status: 98;
All other Title I schools: Minority status: 84.
Locale: Suburban;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: Minority status: 93;
All other Title I schools: Minority status: 34.
Locale: Rural/Town;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: Minority status: 93;
All other Title I schools: Minority status: 11.
Locale: Urban;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: Poverty status: 83;
All other Title I schools: Minority status: 70.
Locale: Suburban;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: Poverty status: 81;
All other Title I schools: Minority status: 45.
Locale: Rural/Town;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: Poverty status: 83;
All other Title I schools: Minority status: 49.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by Education.
Note: The table shows the percentage of students who are members of
racial or ethnic minority groups or who qualified for free-or reduced-
priced meals in the median schools (by locale) when all schools were
ranked by the percent of those characteristics in the schools.
[End of table]
Schools in corrective action and restructuring varied in terms of the
grade level of students that they served. Compared with all other Title
I schools, middle schools were considerably over-represented among
schools in corrective action and restructuring while primary schools
were underrepresented, as seen in table 8.[Footnote 18]
Table 8: Percentage of Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring
Compared to All Other Title I Schools, by Grade Level:
Grade level: Primary;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: 52;
All other Title I schools: 70.
Grade level: Middle;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: 32;
All other Title I schools: 15.
Grade level: High;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: 12;
All other Title I schools: 10.
Grade level: Other;
Schools in corrective action and restructuring: 4;
All other Title I schools: 5.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by Education.
Note: For the purposes of our analysis, we used the definitions of
primary, middle, and high schools provided in the CCD, as described in
appendix I of this report.
[End of table]
Several factors might explain why middle schools are over-represented.
Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress--
especially for many of the urban school districts with numerous schools
in corrective action or restructuring--shows that the percentage of
students who score at a proficient level or above in math is generally
lower in middle schools than in elementary schools.[Footnote 19] Other
factors may also include being less qualified than their peers in
elementary or middle schools, teachers in middle schools, and social
and emotional challenges associated with students as they make the
transition into middle schools.[Footnote 20] Yet another reason may be
that because of NCLBA provisions about the minimum number of students
in a school that would comprise a designated student subgroup, middle
schools typically have to make AYP for more student subgroups than
elementary schools.[Footnote 21]
The Number of Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Has
Increased Considerably from Last Year and May Continue to Do So:
Data for the 2006-2007 school year showed that the number of schools in
corrective action and restructuring has increased. In 2006-2007, there
were 4,509 schools in corrective action and restructuring compared to
2,790 the year before, an increase of over 60 percent, and more than
twice as many schools compared to just 2 years earlier. (See fig. 3.)
Figure 3: Number of Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring for
the 3 Most Recent School Years:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
Note: For the 2004-2005 school year, we used data from the National
Assessment of Title I: Interim Report which had only one category for
schools in restructuring and did not distinguish between schools
planning for restructuring and those implementing restructuring. Also,
this report, which was not updated, included data from some states that
had not completed decisions for schools appealing their improvement
status, resulting in fewer schools ultimately identified than was
reported.
[End of figure]
Additionally, 41 states had more schools in corrective action and
restructuring whereas only 8 states had fewer.[Footnote 22] (See fig. 4
and see app. II for a comprehensive list of the number of schools in
corrective action and restructuring in each state.) Most notably, in
2006-2007, the state of Florida had 574 schools in those categories
compared to only 32 such schools in 2005-2006. According to a Florida
state official, this increase is attributable to the fact that many
schools have been struggling to meet the increasing proficiency
targets. Other states with large increases include California (increase
of 376 schools) and Massachusetts (increase of 118 schools). A few
states, such as Michigan, had fewer schools in corrective action and
restructuring in 2006-2007 compared to the prior year. In Michigan's
case, it is not clear whether the decrease was related to state or
district reform efforts, changes in criteria making it easier for
schools to make AYP, or some combination of these factors.[Footnote 23]
Figure 4: Change in the Number of Schools in Corrective Action and
Restructuring from 2005-2006 to 2006-2007, by State:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Education data, (Map) Map Resources.
[End of figure]
The general trend toward higher numbers of schools in corrective action
and restructuring may continue. As of the 2006-2007 school year, more
schools were identified for improvement than at any time since such
data were tracked under IASA. As proficiency targets continue to
increase up to 100 percent by 2014, many schools identified for
improvement may not make AYP. Consequently, if these schools cannot
meet the increasing proficiency targets, they will enter corrective
action and ultimately restructuring.
Most Schools Used a Corrective Action or Restructuring Option, but Some
May Not be Meeting NCLBA Requirements:
Our survey results indicated that a majority of schools in corrective
action and restructuring implemented required activities; however, in
some cases schools may not be in compliance with NCLBA
requirements.[Footnote 24] Although many schools in corrective action
implemented multiple corrective actions, some did not take any
corrective action. A majority of restructuring schools implemented a
required restructuring option, but based on our survey results, about
40 percent of schools did not take any of the 5 restructuring options
required by NCLBA, one of which is a broad category referred to as
"other" major restructuring. Although there was no relationship between
any of the specific activities and whether a school made AYP, a higher
percentage of schools that fully implemented improvement activities
made AYP compared with those that had not fully implemented activities.
Among Schools in Corrective Action, Almost All Took at Least One
Corrective Action, but Some May Not Have Taken an Action As Required by
NCLBA:
Among schools in corrective action status, we estimate that 94 percent
implemented at least one corrective action from those specifically
identified by NCLBA, and about three-quarters had used more than one
corrective action. Hiring an outside expert and changing the internal
structure of the school were the most frequent actions, with each
implemented by about 60 percent of schools. Outside experts are used to
advise the school on its progress toward making adequate yearly
progress. Among schools that changed their internal structures, about
85 percent increased small group work and about 75 percent reorganized
the school schedule to increase opportunities for professional
development. Many schools also reduced class size, created small
learning communities, and implemented team teaching as part of the
changes to the organizational structure. In addition to hiring outside
experts and changing internal structure, about 40 percent of schools
changed the curriculum. A smaller percentage of schools implemented
certain forms of corrective actions such as extending the school year
or day or decreasing management authority at the school level. Some
officials explained that extending the school year or day would be
costly to the district because teacher salaries may have to increase to
compensate for the additional instructional time. For the majority of
schools, district officials played a significant role in determining
the action taken. Figure 5 shows the allowed corrective actions and the
percentage of schools implementing each action.
Figure 5: Corrective Actions Allowed under NCLBA and Estimated
Percentage of Schools That Implemented Each Action in 2005-2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey.
Note: These sum to more than 100 percent because some schools
implemented more than one action.
[End of figure]
Based on our survey, we estimate that 6 percent of schools in
corrective action status did not take corrective actions. For example,
in one school we visited, the principal told us that the school had not
implemented any changes during its year in corrective action. He told
us that the district provided no input on the required actions and that
the state educational agency approved the school improvement plan
without comment.
About a third of schools that went into corrective action in 2005-2006
did not take a new corrective action in that year. These schools took
corrective action in earlier years of improvement and did not implement
any further corrective actions after entering corrective action status.
For example, some schools indicated that the school used an outside
expert or implemented a new curriculum in previous school years and had
not implemented any additional corrective actions the year in which the
school entered corrective action status. Education officials told us
that if a school implemented a corrective action in earlier stages of
improvement (year 1 or 2 of improvement), an additional corrective
action might not be required. They explained that whether a district
must take additional actions depends in part on whether the school is
showing improvement in student achievement. If the school showed
evidence that the intervention is producing results that are likely to
enable the school to exit improvement status, an additional corrective
action might not be necessary. On the other hand, Education officials
noted that if the data indicates that the previous corrective actions
have not addressed the school's achievement problems they would expect
the district to take additional corrective action. While it may be
appropriate in some cases for schools to continue implementing the same
actions, Education officials acknowledged that they have not provided
written guidance on when continuing prior actions without implementing
a new one would be acceptable.
Department officials told us that while they had conducted Title I
monitoring in every state, they had not found compliance issues
specifically related to corrective action from their monitoring visits.
States are required to conduct annual reviews of district progress in
part to ensure that districts are carrying out their responsibilities,
one of which is taking at least one corrective action when necessary.
However, states generally do not report to Education district
noncompliance, such as failure to take corrective actions as required.
Under NCLBA, states are required to annually submit to Education and
make widely available the measures taken to address the achievement
problems of schools in improvement status, including schools in
corrective action. However, Education does not require states to report
on the measures taken for each school. Instead, Education requires
states to provide a brief summary of the measures taken across the
state. Consequently, Education lacks information on which action was
taken by each school, whether schools are taking actions at all, and
whether or not states have taken any actions against schools or
districts for failure to comply with NCLBA.
Among Schools in Restructuring, Almost Two-Thirds Implemented a
Restructuring Option; However, Many Schools May Not Be in Compliance
with NCLBA Requirements:
We estimate that a majority of schools in restructuring had implemented
at least one of the five restructuring options allowed by
NCLBA.[Footnote 25] According to NCLBA, each of these options is to
result in a major change to the school's governance. As figure 6 shows,
about 40 percent of the schools implemented the "other" major
restructuring of the school's governance, which can include such
actions as expanding or narrowing the grades served or creating smaller
learning communities within the school.[Footnote 26] We estimate that
27 percent of schools replaced all or most of the staff related to the
school's performance issues.
Figure 6: Restructuring Options Allowed under NCLBA and Estimated
Percentage of Schools That Implemented Each Option:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey.
[End of figure]
Of the 40 percent of schools that selected "other" major restructuring
of the school's governance, 44 percent created smaller learning
communities--an approach taken by some of the schools we
visited.[Footnote 27] For example, one middle school we visited created
"academies" within the school. Each academy had its own theme, and
students stay within the academy as they are promoted from grade to
grade. Another 37 percent of schools that chose the "other" option
narrowed or expanded the range of grades served within the school, for
example, changing a kindergarten-through-grade-five elementary school
to a kindergarten-through-grade-eight school. In one district we
visited, officials reported that a kindergarten-through-grade-eight
model creates a more positive learning environment than middle schools
do as it creates a sense of family and relationships in schools. Figure
7 shows the various types of restructuring activities taken by schools
implementing "other" major restructuring.[Footnote 28]
Figure 7: Among Schools Implementing "Other" Major Restructuring,
Estimated Percentage of Schools Implementing Various Activities:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey.
[End of figure]
In addition to the "other" major restructuring option, in an estimated
27 percent of restructuring schools, all or most of the staff
(primarily teachers and principals) who were relevant to the failure to
make AYP were replaced. The schools we visited that replaced staff
varied in terms of whether teachers, principals, or both were replaced.
Our survey indicated that for many of these schools, it was difficult
or very difficult to recruit new teachers as replacements.
Very few schools in restructuring had contracted with an entity, such
as a private management organization, become a charter school, or been
taken over by the state. Some states may not have authorized all
restructuring options under state law or policy, which may explain why
fewer schools have taken these options. For example, according to a
recent report, while some states have policies that permit districts to
turn schools over to private management or to reopen schools as charter
schools, others do not.[Footnote 29] In three of the five states we
visited, state officials reported that their state educational agencies
currently do not take over schools.[Footnote 30] In one of these
states, turning over school management to the state agency is
permissible under state policy, but officials told us that the state
does not have the capacity or expertise to do so.[Footnote 31] The
amount of time it takes to plan for such a change may also be a factor
in why these options are not often selected. For example, a district
official reported that the district did not have sufficient time during
the restructuring planning process to seriously consider reopening as a
charter school, contracting with a private management company, or
turning the operation of the school over to the state. In about 70
percent of schools, the district played a significant role in
determining the restructuring option taken.
Although a majority of schools implemented a restructuring option,
about 40 percent of the schools that were in restructuring did not take
any of the 5 restructuring options prescribed under NCLBA, according to
our survey results. Several principals of schools that had not
restructured did not know why an option was not taken. In other cases,
principals believed that the school board or district had decided not
to restructure. In addition, one of the surveyed schools and some
school and district officials we visited did not believe restructuring
was necessary when student achievement was improving. For example,
officials at one of the schools we visited that was planning for
restructuring indicated that the district and school administration had
determined that no changes were needed because they were confident that
the actions already taken were helping students.
Nonetheless, about half of the schools that did not take one of the
five restructuring options engaged in a variety of school improvement
efforts. Some of these efforts may fall under the "other" major
restructuring option, while others do not appear to be consistent with
NCLBA requirements for restructuring. For example, one school
implemented a new curriculum as a restructuring option, while at
another school extra funding was used for small group instruction and
after-school programs, both of which more closely resemble corrective
action under NCLBA. In addition, in two districts we visited, officials
allowed schools that were improving to continue efforts started under
prior stages of improvement. However, we could not determine based on
the information reported by survey respondents whether these activities
would be considered restructuring under NCLBA. Further, several
Education officials we spoke with could not determine whether or not
the actions schools reported taking were in compliance without more
information from the schools, such as other on-going districts efforts.
Similar to our finding that many schools may not be implementing a
restructuring option, Education's 2006 interim report on Title I stated
that very few schools in restructuring status implemented a
restructuring option prescribed by NCLBA, though many implemented
actions NCLBA specifies for the corrective action stage of school
improvement.[Footnote 32] Despite these findings, department officials
told us that they did not have any monitoring findings related to
restructuring requirements, nor did they know whether any states had
found districts that had not implemented restructuring requirements,
although they did find deficiencies in some districts' review of school
improvement plans.
Education's monitoring tools and reporting requirements do not fully
address issues of compliance. While Education's state monitoring tool
includes questions about how states monitor the implementation of
school improvement plans, Education officials acknowledged that the
department may be able to strengthen its monitoring tool to determine
whether state oversight of districts is adequate to ensure compliance.
Also, since states are not required to report district noncompliance to
Education and Education does not require states to report on the
specific corrective actions and restructuring options taken to address
the achievement problems of each school, federal officials have limited
information on areas in which there are compliance issues as well as
the extent to which districts are complying.
A Higher Percent of Schools That Fully Implemented Improvement
Activities Made AYP:
We estimate that over a third of schools that fully implemented a
corrective action or restructuring option made AYP, as opposed to 16
percent of schools that had mostly or partially implemented improvement
activities.[Footnote 33] Several officials noted, and research shows,
that school improvement efforts take more than a year to affect student
achievement, so it is possible that these activities will help these
schools make AYP over the next several years. Many district and school
officials we interviewed told us that implementing a new curriculum
takes time and that other improvement efforts can take several years to
fully implement and to see results. Other factors also can affect
school improvement efforts. For example, among the schools that made
AYP, 76 percent of principals believed teacher quality helped or
greatly helped school improvement activities in their school, opposed
to only 53 percent among schools that had not made AYP.[Footnote 34] In
addition to teacher quality, around 80 percent of school officials
believed that instructional support and resources, such as teacher
aides and computers, helped or greatly helped their school improvement
efforts. Schools lacking such support may find implementation of
corrective action and restructuring more challenging.
Based on our survey results, none of the specific corrective actions or
restructuring options was associated with making AYP, nor was making
AYP associated with the number of activities undertaken, and these
findings are consistent with recent research on school
improvement.[Footnote 35] Many school officials believed that other
factors affected student achievement and therefore, the schools'
ability to make AYP. About 80 percent of school principals believed
that community poverty impeded student achievement, while two-thirds
believed community violence impeded achievement. We found similar views
during our site visits.[Footnote 36] For example, at two schools we
visited, officials noted that the presence of gangs in the neighborhood
affected student achievement, and teachers at one school commented that
it was unsafe for students to visit the community library after dark.
Several school and district officials observed that poverty affected
students' academic efforts. School officials noted that many poor
students cannot stay late at school because they have family
obligations, such as taking care of younger children. In addition,
about two-thirds of school principals believed that student mobility
(moving from one school to another) impeded student achievement, and
several officials said that districtwide or statewide curricula had
been implemented, in part, to address widespread student mobility by
establishing a consistent instructional approach across schools.
Moreover, we estimate that nearly half of school officials believed
that low student attendance impeded student achievement at their
school. This finding was more prevalent among schools that had not made
AYP compared to schools that had made AYP. Finally, several activities
were undertaken by very few schools, such as state takeover or
extending the school year, so these activities' association with AYP
could not be accurately assessed in this study.
Many Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Did Not Receive All
Required Assistance through Their School Districts; However, Most
Received Assistance from Their State:
We estimate that more than 40 percent of the schools in corrective
action and restructuring did not receive all of the required technical
assistance, such as data analysis and professional development, through
their school district, but most of the schools received some technical
assistance from their state. While states generally are not required to
provide specific kinds of assistance to schools, they are required to
develop a statewide system of support that is available to schools and
districts and to provide technical assistance to schools if the
district fails to do so. Most schools reported receiving technical
assistance from their state educational agency, such as help from
instructional experts or highly skilled educators.
Many Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Did Not Receive All
Required Assistance through Districts:
We estimate that 42 percent of the schools in corrective action and
restructuring had not received all of the required assistance in school
year 2005-2006 while about 56 percent did. Schools most frequently
received technical assistance related to professional development (92
percent) and instructional strategies (90 percent). However, only about
70 percent received assistance with analyzing the school budget to
ensure that resources were allocated toward improving student
achievement. We also found, based on our survey results, that 7 out of
313 schools (about 2 percent) in corrective action and restructuring
received no assistance. (See fig. 8 for the percentage of schools
receiving each type of required technical assistance.)
Figure 8: The Estimated Percentage of Schools in Corrective Action and
Restructuring That Received Each Form of Required Technical Assistance
through Districts in School Year 2005-2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey.
[End of figure]
Education officials noted that through their monitoring site visits
they found that some districts had not provided all of the assistance
required. In these instances, Education officials said states could
withhold Title I funds from the districts that are out of compliance.
However, Education could not tell us how often states take actions
against districts for not providing required assistance, because
according to one Education official, Education did not collect this
information from states.
Generally, school officials we met with told us that the district was
actively involved in providing assistance to their schools. Almost all
school principals and teachers that we interviewed specifically
emphasized district efforts to train their administrators and teaching
staff to analyze and use student testing data to target their
instruction to areas of academic weakness and to students that needed
additional assistance. In addition, they said that districts had
targeted resources to provide professional development and implement
effective instructional practices. For example, in most districts we
visited, school officials said that literacy or math coaches had been
hired to provide staff development or to work with teachers to identify
instructional practices to improve instruction. Also, in some schools
we visited, officials told us that districts assisted the schools in
their efforts to increase parental involvement. For example, in New
York City, the district helped some schools by approving a parent
coordinator position to get parents more involved in their schools.
Officials in some districts also reported reviewing school budgets to
ensure that resources are allocated to programs that target student
performance. In regard to budget assistance, district officials in
Chicago told us that they must approve budgets of all schools in
restructuring. In addition, principals in two California schools
reported that the district reviewed their budgets and recommended
expenditures that targeted school improvement activities.
Most Schools Received Some Assistance from State Educational Agencies,
and Almost Half of Schools Received State Funds for School Improvement:
Most schools received some assistance from their state educational
agency, and almost half received state funds for school improvement.
States are required to develop a statewide system of support that is
available to assist districts. As a part of this system, states must
create school support teams, which are composed of various
participants, including highly qualified or distinguished educators,
such as teachers and principals who can assist the school in
strengthening its instructional program to improve student achievement.
We estimate that about 65 percent of schools received assistance from
their state educational agency in developing the school improvement
plan, and 60 percent received assistance from a school support team
(fig. 9). Although state educational agencies generally are not
required to provide specific kinds of technical assistance to schools
in corrective action and restructuring, they are required to ensure
that districts are providing all of the required assistance to schools
identified for improvement, and if the district has not, state
educational agencies must step in and provide the assistance.
An estimated 47 percent of the schools in corrective action and
restructuring received state funds for school improvement activities in
addition to federal Title I funds. While state funds were used for many
different kinds of school improvement activities, more than 75 percent
of the schools surveyed used the funds for professional development
activities, classroom support such as instructional and resource
materials, or both. In addition, officials in four of the five states
we visited told us that schools received state funds for school
improvement activities. Maryland provides its schools guidelines on how
the funds can and cannot be used and the guidelines emphasize that
whenever possible, the funds should be used to improve instruction,
such as purchasing textbooks or hiring more school staff. Schools in
California and New York apply for state funds and must include a plan
for how the funds will be used.
Figure 9: Estimated Percentage of Schools in Corrective Action and
Restructuring in 2005-2006 That Received State Assistance:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey.
[End of figure]
Education Provides Technical Assistance and Research on School
Improvement, Including Some Specific Information on School
Restructuring:
Education provides technical assistance and research results to states
primarily through its Comprehensive Centers Program, consisting of 16
regional centers and 5 content centers (fig. 10). The department
replaced its former assistance centers and various education
consortiums to meet the requirements of the Education Sciences Reform
Act of 2002.[Footnote 37] The primary task of the content centers is to
provide knowledge and assistance by experts in school improvement to
regional centers. The regional centers are to provide technical
assistance to states on a wide range of topics related to NCLBA, in
part based on information provided by the content centers.
Figure 10: Education's Content and Regional Centers:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO Illustration of Education's Comprehensive Centers Program.
[End of figure]
One content center, the Center on Innovation and Improvement, provides
a variety of services related to school improvement. The center
developed a guide, Handbook on Restructuring and Substantial School
Improvement,[Footnote 38] which it has disseminated to regional
centers, state educational agencies, and other organizations. The
handbook provides information on using student data to identify a
restructuring option and focusing instruction on state standards, among
other topics. Other services include the center's annual 2-day training
for representatives from the regional centers and additional workshops
throughout the year on various improvement topics. The center produced
a series of Web-based seminars during the spring and summer of 2007,
also based on the handbook, for use by the regional centers. In
addition, each regional center has developed an annual work plan,
negotiated with the states for which it is responsible. For example,
the New York Regional Center provides assistance to the state of New
York and has negotiated a work plan with several goals related to
school improvement. One goal is to help the New York State Education
Department build its school improvement capacity by assisting with
delivery of research-based professional development related to
adolescent literacy.
Education developed the What Works Clearinghouse to review studies of
educational interventions to determine which studies were conducted
with a sound methodology and to what extent the interventions are
effective. The clearinghouse has reviewed studies on topics such as
preventing dropouts and increasing elementary and middle school
achievement in mathematics. While these topics are likely to be of
interest for schools in corrective action and restructuring, the
clearinghouse has not reviewed studies that specifically deal with
practices employed by schools in corrective action and restructuring.
Moreover, several state, district, and school officials we interviewed
indicated that they needed more information on practices for improving
schools in corrective action and restructuring. For example, an
official in one district told us that they had been attempting to
create their own approaches to improve schools, but said that there was
insufficient information, from federal or other sources, on improvement
practices. Recognizing the need for information that may be more suited
for teachers, principals, and other educators, Education officials
reported that the department will launch a Web site in September 2007
related to their initiative, Doing What Works. Through this initiative,
Education would review studies identified by the clearinghouse and
develop materials, called "practice guides" for educators. According to
Education, a practice guide on school restructuring is in development
and may be available by the end of 2007.
In addition to the Comprehensive Centers and What Works Clearinghouse
programs, Education implemented a variety of other initiatives that may
assist officials in their efforts to improve schools. The department
revised its guidance in July 2006 to provide more information on school
restructuring. In addition, Education operates 10 Regional Education
Laboratories that provide research on a variety of topics. For example,
the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory is currently examining
statewide systems of support and the factors that have helped schools
make AYP. The laboratories are also available to provide assistance to
any entity, such as school districts or schools, that may request
information from them. Other resources include the Support for School
Improvement newsletter, developed by the Council of Chief State School
Officers and funded in part by Education. The newsletter focuses on
topics such as school improvement policies and closing achievement gaps
among student groups. Education also funds a clearinghouse for
Comprehensive School Reform, which disseminates research on effective
approaches to school reform through publications such as a recent
report on what improvement practices might work for schools in
restructuring.[Footnote 39]
Conclusions:
Schools that reach corrective action and restructuring status face many
challenges in raising the achievement levels of their students. These
schools typically serve low-income students, and many report that
factors such as neighborhood violence and student mobility pose
additional challenges to engaging students and improving their academic
performance. While most of these schools have implemented activities
that are required by NCLBA, it is possible that a significant number of
schools have not. Although Education has made efforts to provide
guidance to districts on what actions are required and when, the
department's efforts do not address several specific issues that would
allow states, districts, and schools to make well informed decisions
that are in compliance with NCLBA. For example, many schools in
corrective action continued efforts implemented previously but did not
implement a new action. While this course of action may be a reasonable
and appropriate path for some schools to take, Education has not
provided guidance to districts delineating when continuing a corrective
action--and not taking an additional one--is appropriate and when it is
not. Without written guidance, some districts and schools that are not
demonstrating sustained improvement may continue previous efforts in
order to avoid having to make more changes. On the other hand, some
districts may not know they can comply with NCLBA by continuing an
action that is moving their schools forward and instead may be
struggling to choose another prescribed activity that is not needed.
While Education monitors states to ensure compliance with NCBLA--and
has found deficiencies in some districts' reviews of schools'
improvement plans--department officials told us that they were unaware
that some districts may not be implementing the required corrective
action and restructuring activities because they do not collect that
specific information. Collecting information on the activities of
schools in corrective action and restructuring and on compliance issues
identified by states would better position Education to target its
guidance and monitoring on areas of greatest need.
Finally, our review indicates that many schools may not be receiving
all the types of assistance that they are supposed to receive through
their districts. However, Education officials told us that they have
not found any instances in which schools in corrective action and
restructuring have not received required assistance, and officials
noted that Education does not track the extent to which states also
have found such incidences. Schools that are not receiving this
assistance might not be able to make the kinds of dramatic improvement
needed for their students, in part because they may not be receiving
the resources to improve as envisioned by NCLBA.
Recommendations:
The Secretary of Education should:
* Ensure that guidance is provided to states and districts about when
it may be appropriate to allow schools to continue corrective action
implemented in earlier years of improvement and not take a new activity
as the school moves into corrective action status.
* Obtain more specific information from states on district
implementation, such as the primary activity that each school in
corrective action and restructuring is implementing as well as more
specific information on compliance issues states have identified as
part of their monitoring activities. This information should be
analyzed to identify areas where further federal guidance is needed and
to ensure that areas of noncompliance are being addressed by states.
* Take additional steps through Education's monitoring process to
ascertain whether states are ensuring that districts provide the
assistance required by NCLBA.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Education provided us with written comments on a draft of this report.
Education agreed with our three recommendations to provide more
guidance to states and districts, obtain more information on district
implementation of corrective action and restructuring activities, and
take additional steps to determine whether districts are providing
assistance required by NCLBA. Specifically, Education agreed to explore
options for sharing guidance on when schools may continue a corrective
action while not taking a new one and commented that it will explore
sharing guidance that address other issues related to schools in
corrective action and restructuring that it has asked states to
identify. While Education noted that it is generally informed on the
actions taken in schools in corrective action and restructuring, it
agreed that more information is needed from states on district
implementation of corrective action and restructuring activities and
that it will consider options for gathering additional evidence on how
states ensure that districts are complying with corrective action and
restructuring requirements. Finally, Education agreed to consider ways
for revising its monitoring procedures in order to obtain more
information on how states determine whether districts are providing
technical assistance to these schools, the types of assistance they
provide, and the actions states take to address areas of noncompliance.
See appendix III for Education's comments. Education also provided us
with a few technical comments that we incorporated.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education and
other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report will be made available at no
charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Major contributions to this report are listed in
appendix IV.
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To address the objectives of this study, we used a variety of methods.
To obtain a national perspective, we conducted descriptive analyses of
characteristics of schools in corrective action and restructuring and
compared them to all other Title I schools nationwide. We selected a
nationally representative sample of these schools and conducted two Web-
based surveys--one of principals whose schools were in corrective
action and another for schools implementing restructuring--to obtain
information on implementation of corrective action and restructuring
and school district and state assistance to such schools. We also
conducted site visits during which we interviewed state, district, and
school officials representing 5 states and 10 school districts within
these states, and we conducted phone interviews with state officials
from 4 other states. We spoke with officials at Education involved in
oversight and implementation of corrective action and restructuring in
schools and reviewed Education's data on schools identified for
improvement. We also interviewed several experts in the field of school
improvement. We reviewed federal laws, regulations, and agency
guidance. We conducted our work from August 2006 through August 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Objective 1: Analysis of School Characteristics:
To address the first objective, we obtained lists of schools in
corrective action, planning for restructuring, and implementing
restructuring status and their school districts from Education. States
submitted these lists to Education through the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLBA) Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPR) for school year
2004-2005, which contained each school's improvement status for the
2005-2006 school year, among other data. Because states provided the
names of schools in corrective action and restructuring in their 2004-
2005 CSPRs, these schools comprised the national population of such
schools. In some cases, states used different labels for identifying
schools in corrective action and restructuring. For example, one state
identified schools in corrective action by labeling them as "Year 3"
schools. When states used terms other than corrective action and
restructuring to indicate schools' improvement status, we contacted
state officials to clarify the label the state used. Education also
provided us with numbers of schools in corrective action and
restructuring for the 2006-2007 school year, which we compared to
numbers from prior years. On the basis of our review of the data on
improvement status for school years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, we
determined these sources to be sufficient for the purposes of our work.
We used the lists of schools in corrective action and restructuring for
the 2005-2006 school year to develop our survey samples and for
comparisons with other Title I schools not identified as needing
improvement.
Also in the CSPR, states provided each school's nationally unique
identification number, allowing us to link data on these schools with
data provided in Education's Common Core of Data (CCD). The CCD is a
database of Education's National Center for Education Statistics, which
annually collects data from state educational agencies about all public
schools, public school districts, and state educational agencies in the
United States. At the time we began our analysis, the latest CCD data
available were from the 2004-2005 school year. Although we based our
analysis on schools in corrective action and restructuring in 2005-
2006, the characteristics were based on one year prior. Upon linking
schools identified in the CSPR to those in the CCD, we obtained data on
the following characteristics:
* locale: whether the school was located was in an urban, suburban, or
rural area or town;
* minority status: the percent of students in the school classified as
American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black/Non-
Hispanic, or Hispanic;
* poverty status: the percent of students in the school who qualified
for free-or reduced-priced meals; and:
* grade levels served: whether primary, middle, or high school grades.
To define these levels, we used the definitions provided in the CCD, as
listed in table 9.
Table 9: Grade Level Definitions:
Grade level served: Primary;
Low grade: Pre-kindergarten to 3;
High grade: Up to 8.
Grade level served: Middle;
Low grade: 4 to 7;
High grade: 4 to 9.
Grade level served: High;
Low grade: 7 to 12;
High grade: 12.
Source: Common Core of Data.
[End of table]
Schools that did not fit these grade-level configurations were
classified as "other," meaning any other combination, from the low
grades of prekindergarten, kindergarten or first grade up to twelfth
grade, consistent with the CCD definition.
We compared the percentage of schools in corrective action and
restructuring with all other Title I schools within each category of
the characteristics of locale and grade levels served. For minority
status and poverty status, we compared schools in corrective action and
restructuring with all other Title I schools by comparing the
characteristics of the median school within each group.[Footnote 40]
The median is the school in the middle of a list of schools when they
are listed from highest to lowest along any given characteristic, such
that one-half of the schools are listed above and the other half are
listed below that school. For example, when all corrective action and
restructuring schools were listed from highest to lowest in terms of
poverty status, the school in the middle of that list had a poverty
rate of 96 percent. In contrast, when all other Title I schools were
listed from highest to lowest, the school in the middle of that list
had a poverty rate of 37 percent. We chose to use the median school
instead of calculating the average for all schools or all students,
because so many schools had high rates of poverty and minority student
representation, that the median more accurately characterized the
typical school in our dataset than did the average.
We performed a series of tests and took additional steps as needed to
assess the reliability of the data used. For the lists of schools
obtained in the CSPR and the CCD, we checked to ensure that data were
consistent, that subtotals added to overall totals and that data
provided for 1 year bore a reasonable relationship to the next year's
data and to data reported elsewhere, including state education reports.
We also spoke with Education officials about their follow-up efforts to
verify the data. At the time of our review, Education reported that the
2004-2005 data had been verified.
On the basis of our review of these data, we determined these sources
to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our work. We also
considered school improvement-related findings from Education studies,
including the National Assessment of Title I Interim Report, Vol. 1:
Implementation (2006). To ensure the findings from these studies were
sufficiently reliable, we reviewed each study's methodology, including
data sources and analyses, limitations, and conclusions. We found these
studies to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our work.
Objectives 2 and 3: Implementation of Corrective Action and
Restructuring and State and District Assistance:
To address the second objective on school's implementation of
corrective action and restructuring and the third objective on district
and state assistance, we designed and administered two Web-based
surveys to a nationally representative sample of school principals: one
for schools in corrective action and one for schools in restructuring,
as of the 2005-2006 school year. The surveys were conducted between
January and March 2007. To obtain the maximum number of responses, we
sent follow-up e-mail notifications with a link to the surveys to those
who had not completed the survey approximately 1 week after the initial
launch and additional six follow-up notifications every week
thereafter. In addition, approximately 3 weeks after the Web surveys
began, we provided a mail survey to those who had not responded. The
surveys included questions about corrective actions or restructuring
options the school had taken. Both surveys included questions about
factors that may have influenced student achievement and assistance
provided by the state and district. We also conducted site visits to 5
states and 10 school districts and 20 schools within these states,
during which we conducted interviews and obtained documentation on
school improvement efforts and related topics. Finally, we reviewed
Education's regulations, guidance, and monitoring tools and interviewed
department officials about monitoring and guidance related to
corrective action and restructuring. Specifically, we reviewed the
NCLBA, associated regulations, Local Education Agency and School
Improvement Guidance (revised July 2006), monitoring tools and
indicators used during Education's site visits, and selected monitoring
reports and findings.
Corrective Action Survey:
Sample Design and Errors:
Based on data obtained from the CSPR, the study population of 1,163
schools consisted of all public Title I schools that were in corrective
action in the 2005-2006 school year. We selected a random sample of
schools in the population and calculated the sample size to achieve a
precision of plus and minus 8 percent at the 95 percent confidence
level for an expected proportion of 50 percent.[Footnote 41] To ensure
the sample sizes were adequate, we set the sample size assuming we
would obtain a 70 percent response rate. The total sample size was 240
schools. In the sample, each school in the population had a known,
nonzero probability of being selected. Each selected school was
subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all
the schools in the population, including those that were not selected.
Because we surveyed a sample of schools, survey results are estimates
of a population of schools and thus are subject to sampling errors that
are associated with samples of this size and type. Since we followed a
probability procedure based on random selections, our sample is only
one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. As each
sample could have provided different estimates, we express our
confidence in the precision of our particular sample's results as a 95
percent confidence interval (for example, plus or minus 8 percentage
points). This is the interval that would contain the actual population
value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result,
we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in
this report will include the true values in the study population. We
excluded 8 of the sampled schools, because they were not in corrective
action status in the 2005-2006 school year, were not Title I schools or
had closed, and therefore were considered out of scope. All estimates
produced from the sample and presented in this report are
representative of the in-scope population. All percentage estimates
included in this report have margins of error of plus or minus 8
percentage points or less, unless otherwise noted.
We took steps to minimize nonsampling errors that are not accounted for
through statistical tests, like sampling errors. In developing the Web
survey, we conducted several pretests of draft instruments. We
pretested the survey instrument with school officials in Aurora,
Illinois; Berkeley, California; and Orange, New Jersey, between October
and November 2006. We selected schools in these states because they
contained large numbers of schools in corrective action and thus it was
likely that schools from these states would be included in our sample.
In the pretests, we were generally interested in the clarity of the
questions and the flow and layout of the survey. For example, we wanted
to ensure definitions used in the surveys were clear and known to the
respondents, categories provided in closed-ended questions were
complete and exclusive, and the ordering of survey sections and the
questions within each section was appropriate. We revised the survey on
the basis of information we gathered in the pretests.
A second step we took to minimize nonsampling errors was using a Web-
based survey. By allowing respondents to enter their responses directly
into an electronic instrument, this method automatically created a
record for each respondent in a data file and eliminated the need for
and the errors (and costs) associated with a manual data entry process.
To further minimize errors, programs used to analyze the survey data
and make estimations were independently verified to ensure the accuracy
of this work.
While we did not fully validate specific information that school
officials reported in our survey, we took several steps to ensure that
the information was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report. For example, data from mailed surveys were double-keyed to
ensure data entry accuracy, and the information was analyzed using
statistical software. We obtained corroborating evidence of schools'
improvement status when the information provided by the school
conflicted with the information we had received from the Department of
Education. In addition, we verified the responses of those schools that
reported that the school had made AYP. When survey responses did not
align with the information that we obtained from state Web sites and
school report cards, we made changes to the survey responses based on
documentary evidence. After the survey was closed, we also made
comparisons between select items from our survey data and another
national-level data set.[Footnote 42] We found our survey data were
reasonably consistent with the external sources. On the basis of our
checks, we believe our survey data are sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of our work.
Response Rate:
We received survey responses from 68 percent of the Title I schools in
corrective action in our sample. After the survey was closed, we
analyzed the survey respondents to determine if there were any
differences between the responding schools, the nonresponding schools,
and the population. We performed this analysis for four
characteristics--percentage of minority students, percentage of
students with free lunch, region, and locale. We found no significant
differences between the estimates for the survey respondents and the
overall population values for these characteristics. On the basis of
the 68 percent response rate and this analysis, we chose to include the
survey results in our report and produce sample-based estimates to the
population of schools in corrective action in the 2005-2006 school
year.
Restructuring Survey:
Sample Design and Errors:
The study population of 920 schools consisted of public Title I schools
that were implementing restructuring in the 2005-2006 school year. This
population was obtained from the CSPR data provided by Education, as
described above. We used the same sample design for the restructuring
Web survey as the design used for the corrective action survey. The
total sample size was 230 schools.
We determined that 12 of the sampled schools were out of scope because
they were not implementing restructuring in the 2005-2006 school year.
All estimates produced from the sample and presented in this report are
representative of the in-scope population. All percentage estimates
included in this report have margins of error of plus or minus 8
percentage points or less, unless otherwise noted.
As with the corrective action survey, we took steps to minimize
nonsampling errors. We pretested the survey instrument with school
officials in Detroit, Michigan and Syracuse, New York, between October
and November 2006. We selected schools in these states because the
states contained large numbers of schools implementing restructuring
and thus it was likely that schools from these states would be included
in our sample. The pretests were conducted in the same manner as those
done for the corrective action survey. On the basis of the pretests,
the Web instrument underwent some revisions. Again, use of a Web-based
survey also minimized nonsampling errors as did independently verifying
programs used to analyze the survey data and make estimations.
Steps taken to ensure that the information was sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of this report mirror those taken for the corrective
action survey, including obtaining corroborating evidence of schools'
improvement status when the information provided by the school
conflicted with the information we had received from the Department of
Education. When a survey response did not align with the information
that we obtained from state Web sites and school report cards, we made
changes based on our documentary evidence. We checked a sample of
schools that claimed to have made AYP to verify these responses and
found that the responses were accurate. Again, we made comparisons
between select items from our survey data and other national-level data
sets,[Footnote 43] and found our survey data were reasonably consistent
with the external sources. On the basis of our checks, we believe our
survey data are sufficient for the purposes of our work.
Response Rate:
We received survey responses from 74 percent of the Title I schools
implementing restructuring in our sample. After the survey was closed,
we analyzed the survey respondents to determine if there were any
differences between the responding schools, the nonresponding schools,
and the population, as was done for the corrective action survey. We
found no significant differences between the estimates for the survey
respondents and the overall population values for these
characteristics. On the basis of the 74 percent response rate and this
analysis, we chose to include the survey results in our report and
produce sample-based estimates to the population of schools in
restructuring in the 2005-2006 school year.
Combined Surveys:
Many of the questions on the corrective action survey and restructuring
survey were the same. For example, on both surveys we asked about the
assistance provided by the state and district, the factors that impeded
or facilitated student achievement, and the factors that helped or
hindered implementation of school improvement efforts. For such
questions, we combined the survey responses for reporting purposes. We
weighted the respondents so that the estimates are for the in-scope
combined population of corrective action and implementing restructuring
schools. Because we surveyed a sample of schools, our results are
estimates of a population of Title I schools in corrective action and
implementing restructuring and thus are subject to sampling errors that
are associated with samples of this size and type. All percentage
estimates included in this report have margins of error of plus or
minus 8 percentage points or less, unless otherwise noted.
Site Visits:
To understand corrective action and restructuring implementation at the
local level, we conducted site visits to 5 states and 10 districts and
20 schools within these states between October 2006 and March 2007. The
5 states we chose were: California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and
Pennsylvania. Together, these 5 states had 59 percent of schools in
corrective action and restructuring nationwide in the 2005-2006 school
year and are located in a variety of geographic regions. We interviewed
state officials on state efforts to oversee and assist schools in
corrective action and restructuring.
Within each of the 5 states, we visited 2 school districts, for a total
of 10 school districts, as shown in table 10. The 10 districts were
selected because they had experience implementing corrective action and
restructuring. When viewed as a group, the districts also provided
variation across characteristics such as geographic location and
district size.
Table 10: School Districts Selected for Site Visits:
School District: Baltimore City Public School System;
City, State: Baltimore, Md.
School District: Brentwood Union Free School District;
City, State: Brentwood, N.Y.
School District: Chicago Public Schools;
City, State: Chicago, Ill.
School District: East Aurora School District #131;
City, State: Aurora, Ill.
School District: Los Angeles Unified School District;
City, State: Los Angeles, Calif.
School District: New York City Department of Education;
City, State: New York, N.Y.
School District: Pomona Unified School District;
City, State: Pomona, Calif.
School District: Prince George's County Public Schools;
City, State: Upper Marlboro, Md.
School District: School District of Philadelphia;
City, State: Philadelphia, Pa.
School District: York City School District;
City, State: York, Pa.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
During the site visits, we interviewed state and district officials as
well as officials representing 20 schools, including principals,
teachers, and other school staff involved with school improvement
activities in order to provide in-depth information and illustrative
examples of our more general findings. The selected schools resembled
the population of schools in corrective action and restructuring in
terms of the grade levels served, and the students' racial, ethnic, and
economic characteristics. While in many cases district officials
selected the schools we visited, all of the schools had experience
implementing corrective action or restructuring. Through our interviews
with state, district, and school officials, we collected information on
corrective actions and restructuring options implemented, factors
affecting student achievement, and state and district assistance
provided to schools in corrective action and restructuring.
Objective 4: Education's Efforts to Support State Implementation:
To address the fourth objective on Education's efforts to assist
states' implementation of corrective action and restructuring
provisions, we conducted interviews with representatives of the offices
of Title I, Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, What Works
Clearinghouse, Comprehensive Centers Program, and General Counsel. We
also interviewed officials with the Center on Innovation and
Improvement, the California and New York Regional Centers, and the
Northwest Regional Education Laboratory.
In addition, we interviewed experts in the field on school improvement,
including those at the American Institutes for Research, Center on
Education Policy, Council of the Great City Schools, Council of Chief
State School Officers, Education Commission of the States, and RAND
Corporation. We reviewed several studies on school improvement,
corrective action, and restructuring.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Number of Schools in Corrective Action, Planning for
Restructuring, and Implementing Restructuring, by State in 2005-2006
and 2006-2007:
Table 11: Number of Schools in Corrective Action, Planning
Restructuring, and Implementing Restructuring, by State in 2005-2006
and 2006-2007:
State: Alabama;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 0;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 13;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 27;
2005-2006: Totals: 40;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 3;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 5;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 18;
2006-2007: Totals: 26.
State: Alaska;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 34;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 5;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 8;
2005-2006: Totals: 47;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 35;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 30;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 12;
2006-2007: Totals: 77.
State: Arizona;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 25;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 20;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 4;
2005-2006: Totals: 49;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 36;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 12;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 14;
2006-2007: Totals: 62.
State: Arkansas;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 4;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 1;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 5;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 54;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 19;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 4;
2006-2007: Totals: 77.
State: California;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 406;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 153;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 247;
2005-2006: Totals: 806;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 482;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 343;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 357;
2006-2007: Totals: 1,182.
State: Colorado;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 22;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 13;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 3;
2005- 2006: Totals: 38;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 21;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 16;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 14;
2006- 2007: Totals: 51.
State: Connecticut;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 4;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 6;
2005-2006: Totals: 10;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 63;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 1;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 6;
2006-2007: Totals: 70.
State: Delaware;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 2;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 2;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 3;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 1;
2006- 2007: Totals: 4.
State: District of Columbia;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 45;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 45;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 33;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Totals: 33.
State: Florida;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 32;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 32;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 544;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 30;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Totals: 574.
State: Georgia[A];
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 19;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 66;
2005-2006: Totals: 85;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 23;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 19;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 48;
2006-2007: Totals: 90.
State: Hawaii;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 2;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 13;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 41;
2005-2006: Totals: 56;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 38;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 3;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 50;
2006-2007: Totals: 91.
State: Idaho;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 0;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 0;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 12;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Totals: 12.
State: Illinois;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 151;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 211;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 20;
2005-2006: Totals: 382;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 93;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 177;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 138;
2006-2007: Totals: 408.
State: Indiana;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 10;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 9;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 6;
2005-2006: Totals: 25;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 18;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 6;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 9;
2006-2007: Totals: 33.
State: Iowa;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 0;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 0;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 4;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Totals: 4.
State: Kansas;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 0;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 2;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 2;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 3;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 2;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Totals: 5.
State: Kentucky;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 3;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 6;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 9;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 56;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 1;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 5;
2006-2007: Totals: 62.
State: Louisiana;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 23;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 6;
2005-2006: Totals: 29;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 3;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 4;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Totals: 7.
State: Maine;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 0;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 0;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 4;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Totals: 4.
State: Maryland;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 6;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 6;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 41;
2005-2006: Totals: 53;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 15;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 2;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 46;
2006- 2007: Totals: 63.
State: Massachusetts;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 32;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 10;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 19;
2005-2006: Totals: 61;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 129;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 24;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 26;
2006-2007: Totals: 179.
State: Michigan;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 22;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 40;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 58;
2005-2006: Totals: 120;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 46;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 16;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 37;
2006-2007: Totals: 99.
State: Minnesota;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 7;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 1;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 8;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 10;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 3;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Totals: 13.
State: Mississippi;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 0;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 1;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 1;
2005-2006: Totals: 2;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 12;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 1;
2006-2007: Totals: 13.
State: Missouri[B];
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 0;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 7;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 7;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: [Empty];
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: [Empty];
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: [Empty];
2006-2007: Totals: [Empty].
State: Montana;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 0;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 30;
2005-2006: Totals: 30;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 4;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 1;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 31;
2006-2007: Totals: 36.
State: Nebraska;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 0;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 2;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 2;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 0;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 1;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Totals: 1.
State: Nevada;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 16;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 2;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 18;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 18;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 9;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Totals: 27.
State: New Hampshire;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 1;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 1;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 2;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Totals: 2.
State: New Jersey;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 34;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 61;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 95;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 100;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 16;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 49;
2006-2007: Totals: 165.
State: New Mexico;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 16;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 28;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 24;
2005-2006: Totals: 68;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 29;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 17;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 48;
2006-2007: Totals: 94.
State: New York;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 95;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 43;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 147;
2005-2006: Totals: 285;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 67;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 77;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 166;
2006-2007: Totals: 310.
State: North Carolina;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 12;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 5;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 17;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 59;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 10;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 2;
2006-2007: Totals: 71.
State: North Dakota;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 3;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 2;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 3;
2005-2006: Totals: 8;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 3;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 2;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 14;
2006-2007: Totals: 19.
State: Ohio;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 25;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 24;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 29;
2005-2006: Totals: 78;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 76;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 19;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 33;
2006-2007: Totals: 128.
State: Oklahoma;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 3;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 3;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 4;
2005-2006: Totals: 10;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 10;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 3;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 2;
2006-2007: Totals: 15.
State: Oregon;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 0;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 1;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 1;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 9;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 1;
2006-2007: Totals: 10.
State: Pennsylvania;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 30;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 5;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 83;
2005-2006: Totals: 118;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 29;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 15;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 63;
2006-2007: Totals: 107.
State: Rhode Island;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 6;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 2;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 8;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 9;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 2;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 2;
2006-2007: Totals: 13.
State: South Carolina;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 26;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 6;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 7;
2005-2006: Totals: 39;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 69;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 27;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 10;
2006-2007: Totals: 106.
State: South Dakota;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 13;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 2;
2005-2006: Totals: 15;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 7;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 12;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 2;
2006-2007: Totals: 21.
State: Tennessee;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 0;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 13;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 24;
2005-2006: Totals: 37;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 10;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 1;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 19;
2006-2007: Totals: 30.
State: Texas;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 3;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 3;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 33;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 2;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Totals: 35.
State: Utah;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 1;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 1;
2005-2006: Totals: 2;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 0;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 1;
2006-2007: Totals: 1.
State: Vermont;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 0;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 0;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 2;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Totals: 2.
State: Virginia;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 9;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 3;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 12;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 12;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 2;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 2;
2006-2007: Totals: 16.
State: Washington;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 6;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 9;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 15;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 26;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 4;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 8;
2006-2007: Totals: 38.
State: West Virginia;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 1;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 1;
2005-2006: Totals: 2;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 6;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 1;
2006-2007: Totals: 7.
State: Wisconsin;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 6;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 7;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 13;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 7;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 4;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 2;
2006-2007: Totals: 13.
State: Wyoming;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 0;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2005-2006: Totals: 0;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 3;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 0;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 0;
2006- 2007: Totals: 3.
State: Totals;
2005-2006: Corrective Action: 1,155;
2005-2006: Planning for Restructuring: 727;
2005-2006: Implementing Restructuring: 908;
2005-2006: Totals: 2,790;
2006-2007: Corrective Action: 2,330;
2006-2007: Planning for Restructuring: 937;
2006-2007: Implementing Restructuring: 1,242;
2006-2007: Totals: 4,509.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[A] For the 2005-2006 school year, Georgia required schools in
corrective action to plan for restructuring. We reported these schools
as in status as corrective action.
[B] For the 2006-2007 school year, Missouri had yet to report which of
its schools were identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III Comments from the Department of Education:
United States Department Of Education:
Office Of Elementary And Secondary Education:
July 25, 2007:
The Assistant Secretary:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce:
and Income Security Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
I am writing in response to your request for comments on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report (GAO 07-1035) dated
September 2007, entitled "No Child Left Behind Act: Education Should
Clarify Guidance and Address Potential Compliance Issues for Schools in
Corrective Action and Restructuring Status." I appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the draft report.
The following are responses to the recommendations in the report to
take actions to support implementation of corrective action and
restructuring in Title I schools required to take these actions:
Recommendation 1. Ensure that guidance is provided to states and
districts about when it may be appropriate to allow schools to continue
corrective action implemented in earlier years of improvement and not
take a new activity as the school moves into corrective action status.
The Department agrees with this recommendation and will explore options
for sharing not only the guidance recommended above but also guidance
addressing other issues related to schools in corrective action and
restructuring. Department staff discussed this issue at a meeting with
State Title I directors in July 2007 and will also ask the State
directors to identify other areas where guidance is needed.
Recommendation 2. Obtain more specific information from states on
district implementation, such as the primary activity that each school
in corrective action and restructuring is implementing as well as more
specific information on compliance issues states have identified as
part of their monitoring activities. This information should be
analyzed to identify areas where further federal guidance is needed and
to ensure that areas of noncompliance are being addressed by states.
The Department does have general information on the actions taken in
schools in corrective action and restructuring, gathered as part of the
National Assessment of Title I, and Federal monitors do interview staff
of schools in corrective action and restructuring as part of the
Department's on-site monitoring. However, we agree that there is a need
for more information from States on district implementation of
corrective action and restructuring. The Department will explore
options for how this might be accomplished.
With regard to compliance, the Department's existing monitoring
protocol requires States to provide evidence of how they monitor their
school districts to ensure compliance with Title I, Part A
requirements. Federal monitors examine State monitoring reports for the
school districts visited on site. The Department will review its
monitoring process and consider possible options for gathering
additional evidence of how States are ensuring that school districts
comply with corrective action and restructuring requirements and on the
procedures States use for addressing areas of noncompliance.
Recommendation 3. Take additional steps through Education's monitoring
process to ascertain whether states are ensuring that districts provide
the assistance required by NCLBA.
The Department agrees with this recommendation. Our current monitoring
process requires each school district receiving an on-site visit to
provide evidence that it has provided, or provided for, technical
assistance grounded in scientifically based research to schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. As with
recommendation 2, we will consider options for revising our monitoring
procedures to gather additional information on: (1) how States
determine whether districts are providing technical assistance to
schools in corrective action and restructuring and what types of
assistance they provide, and (2) the follow-up actions States take to
address areas of noncompliance.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our comments and plans. Enclosed
please find some recommended technical edits to the report for your
consideration.
Please let me know if you need additional information regarding
activities underway at the Department to help States implement
corrective action and restructuring in schools.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Kerri L. Briggs:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215, ashbyc@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
Bryon Gordon, Assistant Director, and Elizabeth Morrison managed the
assignment. Cara Jackson, Jason Palmer, and Nancy Purvine made
significant contributions to this report in all aspects of the work.
Susannah Compton, Nancy Hess, Jean McSween, and Jerome Sandeau provided
analytical assistance. Sheila McCoy provided legal support, and Karen
Burke developed the report's graphics.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Teacher Quality: Approach, Implementation, and Evaluation of Key
Federal Efforts. GAO-07-861T. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2007.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions May Help Improve
Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services. GAO-
07-738T. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2007.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Assistance Could Help States Better
Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency. GAO-07-
646T. Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2007.
Reading First: States Report Improvements in Reading Instruction, but
Additional Procedures Would Clarify Education's Role in Ensuring Proper
Implementation by States. GAO-07-161. Washington, D.C.: February 28,
2007.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve
Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services. GAO-
06-1121T. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Local
Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational
Services. GAO-06-758. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic
Growth. GAO-06-948T. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States
Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency.
GAO-06-815. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic
Growth That Education's Initiatives May Help Address. GAO-06-661.
Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improved Accessibility to Education's
Information Could Help States Further Implement Teacher Qualification
Requirements. GAO-06-25. Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Could Do More to Help States Better
Define Graduation Rates and Improve Knowledge about Intervention
Strategies. GAO-05-879. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated
in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved. GAO-
05-618. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005.
Charter Schools: To Enhance Education's Monitoring and Research, More
Charter School-Level Data Are Needed. GAO-05-5. Washington, D.C.: Jan.
12, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional
Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School
Choice Provision. GAO-05-7. Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process
for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734.
Washington, D.C.: Sept. 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.: Sept. 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.
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 107-110.
[2] In this report, we refer to Title I, Part A of NCLBA as "Title I."
Other Parts of Title I (Parts B through I) generally are targeted at
specific populations or purposes and are commonly referred to by their
program names, such as Education of Migratory Children.
[3] Of the 4,509 schools that had not made AYP for 4 or more
consecutive years, 2,330 were in corrective action; 937 were planning
for restructuring; and 1,242 were in restructuring status.
[4] Pub. L. No. 103-382.
[5] This requirement applies to all states and students in public
schools regardless of whether the school receives Title I funding or
not.
[6] Students in grades 3 to 8 must be annually assessed in reading and
mathematics, while high school students are only required to be
assessed once in these subjects. Assessments in science, which were
first required under NCLBA in school year 2007-2008, are required at
least once in grades 3 to 8, grades 6 to 9, and grades 10 to 12. 20
U.S.C. § 6311(b)(3)(C)(v) - (vii).
[7] The timelines and other requirements for these improvement
strategies are outlined in 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b).
[8] 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(7).
[9] 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(8).
[10] Districts are required to ensure that their schools receive this
technical assistance, but they do not have to provide it directly
themselves. Instead, they may elect to provide it through other
entities such as an institution of higher education, private
organizations, educational service agencies, or other entities with
experience in helping schools improve academic achievement. 20 U.S.C. §
6316(b)(4)(B)(iv).
[11] 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(4) and 34 C.F.R. § 200.40.
[12] See LEA and School Improvement: Non-Regulatory Guidance
(Department of Education, Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2006).
[13] State may apply and report annually on multiple ESEA programs
through a single consolidated application and report. These annual
reports include information on numerous ESEA programs.
[14] The number of schools in corrective action, planning for
restructuring or implementing restructuring are from the 2005-2006
school year. Their characteristics and comparisons to all other Title I
schools are based on data from the 2004-2005 school year, the latest
data available at the time we began our analyses. The Common Core of
Data (CCD) refers to schools as Title I eligible. For the purposes of
our analysis, we refer to these school as Title I schools.
[15] We also analyzed these data taking into account the number of
schools as a percentage of all Title I schools by state. In general,
states with a higher percentage of Title I schools in improvement when
NCLBA was passed also had a higher percentage in schools in corrective
action and restructuring in 2005-2006.
[16] 20 U.S.C. § 6316(f).
[17] For this analysis, we compared the percentage of students who are
members of racial or ethnic minority groups or who qualified for free-
or reduced priced meals in the median schools when all schools were
ranked by the percent of those characteristics in the schools.
[18] Our finding on middle schools is similar to findings in other
reports. See U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment of Title
I Interim Report, Vol 1: Implementation, Institute of Education
Sciences (Washington, D.C.: February 2006); and Center on Education
Policy, NCLB: Middle Schools are Increasingly Targeted for Improvement
(Washington, D.C: 2006). We found no notable difference between the
percentage of middle schools in corrective action and restructuring and
the percentage of all other Title I schools based on whether they were
located in an urban, suburban, or rural area.
[19] Results for reading are mixed, with proficiency rates higher for
some district's or groups of middle school students than elementary
school students, but lower for others. See U.S. Department of
Education, The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2005. NCES 2006-451
(Washington, D.C.: October, 2005). See The Nation's Report Card:
Mathematics 2005. NCES 2006-453 (Washington, D.C.: October, 2005); The
Nation's Report Card: Trial Urban District Assessment Mathematics,
2005, NCES 2006-457r (Washington, D.C.: February 2006); The Nation's
Report Card: Trial Urban District Assessment Reading, 2005. NCES 2006-
455r (Washington, D.C.: February 2006).
[20] RAND, Focus on the Wonder Years: Challenges Facing the American
Middle School (Santa Monica, Calif.: 2004).
[21] Center on Education Policy, NCLB: Middle Schools Are Increasingly
Targeted for Improvement, NCLB Policy Brief 2 (Washington, D.C.: 2005).
[22] The number of schools in corrective action and restructuring for
one state did not change between school years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007,
and another state had yet to finalize its data for 2006-2007.
[23] See Center on Education Policy, What Now? Lessons from Michigan
about Restructuring Schools and Next Steps Under NCLB (Washington,
D.C.: 2007).
[24] All survey findings are based on what school officials reported
through GAO's Web-based or paper survey. We did not verify whether
schools had implemented the activities they reported taking.
[25] The information provided in this section pertains only to those
schools that were in the implementation stage of restructuring in 2005-
2006 school year. This section does not pertain to schools that were
planning for restructuring.
[26] Another study found similar results for schools implementing
restructuring in the state of California. See Center on Education
Policy, Beyond the Mountains: An Early Look at Restructuring in
California (Washington, D.C.: 2007).
[27] Margins of error for estimates pertaining to schools that
implemented "other" major restructuring do not exceed 15 percent.
[28] These categories reflect the examples of "other" major
restructuring provided in Education's 2006 guidance.
[29] Education Week (Editorial Projects in Education), "Quality Counts:
2007. From Cradle to Career: Connecting American Education from Birth
to Adulthood," (Bethesda, Md.: January 2007).
[30] According to the same report, many states currently authorize
turning over school management to the state educational agency through
state policy. (Education Week (Editorial Projects in Education),
(January 2007).
[31] Another state educational agency we visited attempted to take over
schools, but state officials told us that the state legislature
prevented it from doing so.
[32] Department of Education, National Assessment of Title I Interim
Report, Vol. 1: Implementation, Institute of Education Sciences
(Washington, D.C.: February 2006). Education explained its findings in
part by noting that the survey did not specify whether schools were
planning restructuring or implementing restructuring.
[33] Our findings throughout this section are based on analyses that
did not allow us to determine whether the type of school improvement
activity, level of implementation, or number of activities taken caused
schools to make AYP. However, we did test for whether these factors
were related to making AYP, and found no statistically significant
relationships. The RAND Corporation has conducted a study that
emphasizes the importance of implementation of school reform efforts.
See RAND, Evaluating Comprehensive School Reform Models at Scale: Focus
on Implementation (2006), Arlington, VA.
[34] Among schools that made AYP, the 95 percent confidence interval
for this estimate ranges from 65 percent to 87 percent of principals
who believed teacher quality helped or greatly helped school
improvement activities in their school.
[35] Mintrop, H. and Trujillo, T., "Corrective Action in Low-Performing
Schools: Lessons for NCLB Implementation from First-Generation
Accountability Systems," Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 13,
Issue 48 (December 2005) and Ronald C. Brady, Can Failing Schools be
Fixed? (Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, Washington, D.C.: January 2003).
[36] Our prior work has also documented some administrative challenges
associated with student mobility. See GAO-05-879, No Child Left Behind
Act: Education Could Do More to Help States Better Define Graduation
Rates and Improve Knowledge about Intervention Strategies (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 20, 2005).
[37] The comprehensive centers under this program replaced the former
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers, the Regional Technology in
Education Consortia, the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for
Mathematics and Science Education, and the Regional Mathematics and
Science Education Consortia.
[38] See Herbert J. Walburg, editor. "Handbook on Restructuring and
Substantial School Improvement" (Center on Innovation and Improvement,
Lincoln, Ill.: 2007).
[39] Learning Point Associates, School Restructuring Under No Child
Left Behind: What Works When? A Guide for Education Leaders.
(Naperville, Ill.: 2007).
[40] We also used locale (urban, suburban, town/rural) to enhance our
analyses of minority status and poverty status in order to account for
the clustering of minority students and students who are poor in urban
areas.
[41] Since the margin of error for a proportion estimate with a given
sample size is greatest at 50 percent, we were conservative when
planning the sample size.
[42] We compared our district survey data to data on schools in
corrective action reported by Education in the National Assessment of
Title I Interim Report , Vol. 1: Implementation, Institute of Education
Sciences (Washington, D.C.: February 2006).
[43] We compared our district survey data to data on schools in
restructuring reported by Education in the National Assessment of Title
I Interim Report, Vol. 1: Implementation, Institute of Education
Sciences (Washington, D.C.: February 2006). We also compared our survey
data to data on schools in restructuring reported by the Center on
Education Policy in Wrestling the Devil in the Details: An Early Look
at Restructuring in California (Washington, D.C.: February 2006).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, Beckers@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
