U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act

Volume III—Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report

Background

Accountability for improved student performance lies at the very heart of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This report draws on data from the
2004-05 data collection cycles of two federally funded studies—the Study of
State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB
(SSI-NCLB) and the National Longitudinal Study of NCLB (NLS-NCLB)—to
describe major patterns in state, district, and school implementation of NCLB’s
central accountability provisions. The SSI-NCLB study interviewed state
education agency staff and collected extant data in all states. The companion
NLS-NCLB study surveyed districts, principals, teachers, and Title I
paraprofessionals in a nationally representative sample of 300 districts and
1,483 schools. Both studies will collect a second round of data in the 2006-07
school year. The two studies will issue a series of joint reports on accountability,
teacher quality, Title I choice provisions, and targeting and resource allocation.

The findings presented in this report indicate rapid implementation of many

NCLB requirements, including assessments in additional grades, new definitions
of AYP, and increased reporting of disaggregated assessment data. Findings
also suggest areas that may need more attention, such as the timeliness of
notification about AYP and identification status, implementation of English
language proficiency standards and assessments, and assistance to schools
regarding students with special needs.

State Standards, Assessments, and Targets

All states have content standards in at least mathematics and reading.

Most states continued to engage in standards development or revision activities
in reading and mathematics during the three years between 2001-02 (when
NCLB was passed) and 2004-05. Many had no science standards in place prior
to 2001, but 38 states had adopted content standards in science by 2004-05.

States are making progress in addressing NCLB testing requirements.

By 2004-05, 28 states had instituted yearly testing in grades 3-8, which NCLB
requires by the 2005-06 school year—more than double the number of states
(12) that had such tests in 1999-2000. Nearly all states administered or were
planning to administer alternate assessments for students with disabilities in
2004-05.

States varied widely in the levels at which they set academic

achievement standards to define student proficiency. Using the National

1
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as a common external metric, state
standards for proficiency under NCLB in 8th grade mathematics, for example,
range from NAEP equivalent scores of approximately 247 to 314. States that set
higher performance standards tended to have a lower percentage of students
scoring at the proficient level and will need to make greater progress in order to
reach the goal of all students proficient by 2013-14.

States are still working to implement English language proficiency

standards and assessments two years after the original deadline. Few
states were able to meet the NCLB deadline to implement English language
proficiency (ELP) standards and assessments before or during the 2002-03
school year, but 41 states had adopted ELP standards by the 2004-05 school
year. In addition, in 2004-05, 20 states reported they had an ELP assessment in
place to meet NCLB requirements and 27 planned to have such an assessment
in 2005-06.

School and District Adequate Yearly Progress

States varied greatly in the proportions of schools and districts that

made AYP. Three-quarters of the nation’s schools made AYP in 2003-04, as did
71 percent of school districts. The proportion of schools that made AYP ranged
from nearly 95 percent in Wisconsin to 23 percent in Alabama and Florida.
Similarly, the proportion of districts that made AYP ranged from all districts in
Arkansas and Delaware to less than 10 percent in Alabama, West Virginia, and
Florida.

Schools that were high-poverty, high-minority, urban, and large were

less likely to make AYP than other schools. For example, 57 percent of
high-poverty schools made AYP in 2003-04, compared with 84 percent of low-
poverty schools. Secondary schools also were less likely to make AYP than
elementary schools.

Half (51 percent) of schools that did not make AYP in 2003-04 missed
due to the achievement of the “all students” group (33 percent) or two
or more student subgroups (18 percent). In contrast, 23 percent missed
only for the achievement of a single subgroup. Small percentages of schools
missed AYP for test participation only (6 percent) or the other academic
indicator only (7 percent).

Identifying Schools and Districts for Improvement

The number of Title I schools identified for improvement increased

considerably in 2005, from 6,219 in 2003-04 to 9,333 in 2004-05.
Overall, 13 percent of all schools and 18 percent of Title I schools were identified
for improvement in 2004-05. Of these schools, about 1,000 Title I schools were
in corrective action and about 1,200 were in restructuring status.

States varied greatly in the percentage of Title I schools identified for

improvement for 2004-05. Rates of school identification ranged from only 2

2
percent in Iowa and Nebraska to 68 percent in Florida. Schools in states where
proficiency standards for AYP are high, as referenced to NAEP, were more likely
to be identified than schools in states with lower proficiency standards.

High-poverty, high-minority, large, urban schools, and middle schools,

were most likely to have been identified for improvement. For example,
36 percent of high-poverty schools were identified for 2004-05, compared with 4
percent of low-poverty schools. Similarly, 34 percent of schools with high
concentrations of minority students were identified for improvement, compared
with 4 percent of low-minority schools.

About one in four identified Title I schools (23 percent) exited

improvement status in 2004-05 by making AYP for two consecutive years.
The remaining 77 percent of identified schools remained at the same status or
moved into a more-serious school improvement status.

Ten percent of all districts were identified for improvement for

2004-05, and 32 percent of these contained no identified schools.
Districts without identified schools become identified when student subgroups
are large enough to count at the district level but too small to count at the
school level. Fewer than 50 districts were placed in corrective action for
2004-05.

State Data Systems and Reporting

States are reporting assessment results more quickly, but nearly half
of principals did not receive notification of their schools’ AYP and
identification status before the start of the 2004-05 school year. For
accountability determinations based on 2003-04 testing, 31 states delivered at
least preliminary data to schools before September, up from 28 states in the
previous year. Fifty-six percent of principals said they were notified of their
identification status before September 2004.

Most principals—but fewer teachers—knew whether their school made

AYP or was identified for improvement. Overall, 88 percent of principals
were able to correctly report their schools’ AYP status for 2003-04, and 92
percent knew whether their schools had been identified for improvement in
2004-05. About two-thirds of teachers correctly reported their school’s AYP or
identification status.

State Systems of Support for Identified Schools and Districts

All states provided some support to schools identified for improvement. Thirty-
nine states reported providing support to all identified schools during the
2004-05 school year, while other states provided support to only a subset of
identified schools.

3
Support teams and distinguished educators were the most common
means through which states provided support to identified schools
during the 2004-05 school year. Thirty-seven states provided support
teams, and 29 states used distinguished educators—experienced teachers or
administrators external to the district—to provide support to schools identified
for improvement.

Promoting School Improvement

Identified schools were more likely to report needing technical

assistance than were non-identified schools, and also reported
receiving more days of assistance from their districts (15 days vs. 10
days). Identified schools in states with comprehensive systems of support
received technical assistance at higher rates than those in states with limited or
moderate support systems.

Most principals said their schools received the technical assistance

they needed, but assistance regarding students with special needs was
frequently insufficient. For most technical assistance topics, a majority of
schools needing assistance reported that they received it and that it was
sufficient to meet their needs. However, about half of the schools that needed
assistance for students with special needs (such as those with disabilities or with
limited English proficiency) did not have their needs met.

Most schools reported using a variety of improvement strategies, and

identified schools were focusing on more different types of
improvement efforts than other schools. Almost all schools were involved
in joint school improvement planning with their district or state, and more than
half used assessment results for planning instruction and professional
development or implemented periodic “progress” tests to monitor student
performance during the school year.

Interventions and Sanctions for Identified Schools

Consequences required for identified Title I schools in Year 1 or Year 2

of improvement status were implemented in most, but not all, of these
schools. Eighty-nine percent of Title I schools in Year 1 of improvement status
said they notified parents of their children’s schools status, and 82 percent
offered parents the option of transferring their child to a higher-performing
school. Similarly, 90 percent of Title I schools in Year 2 of improvement status
offered students supplemental educational services.

Nearly all (96 percent) Title I schools in corrective action status

experienced at least one of the NCLB-defined interventions. The most
common interventions involved changes in curriculum (89 percent) or the
appointment of outside advisors (59 percent). In contrast, only 27 percent of
schools in corrective action status reported a significant reduction in
management authority in the school, and only 7 percent reported that staff
members were replaced.

4
Few Title I schools in restructuring status experienced interventions
specified under NCLB for schools in that stage of improvement. This
may in part reflect the two stages of school restructuring status, where schools
first spend a year planning for restructuring and then implement the plan the
following year. Few principals of schools in the first or second year of
restructuring status reported state take-over of the school (9 percent), re-
opening of the school as a public charter school (2 percent), contracting with a
private entity to manage the school (2 percent), or replacement of all of the
school staff (2 percent). Appointment of a new principal, although not specified
as a restructuring intervention under NCLB, was reported by 20 percent of
schools in restructuring status, as well as by 20 to 21 percent of schools in other
stages of school improvement status.

Focus of School Improvement Efforts

Most schools, identified and non-identified, were involved in efforts to

improve curriculum and instruction, placing particular emphasis on
aligning curriculum and instruction with standards, and most teachers
reported having access to resources to help them accomplish this. However,
one-third of teachers in identified schools reported that they lacked sufficient
textbooks and other instructional materials, and 18 percent said that textbooks
and instructional materials that were not aligned with state standards presented
a moderate or major challenge to improving student performance.

Increasing instructional time was a common improvement strategy

among identified schools. Half (51 percent) of identified schools reported a
major focus on extended-time instructional programs (such as after-school
programs). Nearly one-third (30 percent) of identified elementary schools
reported increasing instructional time in reading by more than 30 minutes, and
55 percent of identified secondary schools said they increased instructional time
in reading for low-achieving students.

Teachers found annual state tests and local progress tests useful for
improving instruction. For example, 80 percent of elementary teachers in
identified schools reported using state assessment results to identify areas
where they needed to strengthen their own content knowledge or teaching
skills.

Promoting District Improvement

Most states made a broad range of technical assistance available to all

districts, as mandated, but did not target technical assistance services
specifically to identified districts. Some states integrated assistance for
identified districts with the support provided for identified schools. Identified
districts were more likely than non-identified districts to report needing technical
assistance relating to planning for district improvement and analyzing student
assessment data.

5
The majority of identified districts reported that they implemented additional
professional development for teachers and principals, distributed test
preparation materials, and increased monitoring of instruction and school
performance.

The complete report is available at

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. Other reports in the series
based on the SSI-NCLB and NLS-NCLB studies are also available at this website.