Summary
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.
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.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change
from "In process" to "Implemented" or "Not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
Cornelia M. Ashby
Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income Security
(202) 512-8403
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: 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.
Agency Affected: Department of Education
Status: Implemented
Comments: According to Education officials, in 2008, Education provided guidance to State Title I Directors responsible for providing guidance to districts for corrective action and restructuring in multiple meetings and via electronic dissemination through its regional comprehensive centers network. Education officials reported one example of the guidance the agency provided. An LEA may implement a corrective action earlier in the school improvement timeline. Whether a second corrective action would be required would depend on the nature of the initial corrective action and whether achievement data identify other issues that also need to be addressed. For example, the process for implementing a new curriculum takes several years. If an LEA implements a new curriculum in a school that is in the first or second year of improvement and the school subsequently becomes subject to corrective action, an additional corrective action may not be required as the new curriculum is still in the process of being implemented. However, if data indicate that there are other issues that need to be addressed in addition to the new curriculum, they would expect an LEA to take additional corrective action. Whether the nature of the additional steps that need to be taken rise to the level of a second corrective action would, thus, would depend upon the individual circumstances reflected in the achievement data. Officials also reported that since this is an ongoing topic of interest to states, it will be a part of continued technical assistance and support, as well as part of Education's monitoring of states in 2008-2009 to review practices in decision making for schools in improvement.
Recommendation: The Secretary of Education should 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.
Agency Affected: Department of Education
Status: In process
Comments: Education has updated its Consolidated State Performance Report to collect more specific information on district implementation of corrective action and restructuring activities that schools are using. According to agency officials, the data for the 2007-2008 school year will be collected by approximately December 2008. Following states certifying their data, the agency will begin the process of analyzing the data to determine areas in which further guidance is needed or non-compliance is occurring. Additionally, Education plans to monitor 20 states on their implementation of Title I Part A between September 2008 and September 2009, including reviews of state compliance with requirements for schools in improvement. These reviews include an analysis of SEAs and LEAs regarding corrective actions and their statewide systems of support.
Recommendation: The Secretary of Education should take additional steps through Education's monitoring process to ascertain whether states are ensuring that districts provide the assistance required by NCLBA.
Agency Affected: Department of Education
Status: Implemented
Comments: Education concurred with and has implemented this recommendation. In its protocol (revised in April 2008) used to monitor state education agencies, Education collects evidence that states are monitoring local education agencies to determine what assistance was provided to schools, whether that assistance has been effective, and whether that assistance is consistent with school improvement plans. The revised protocol has additional information to assist education in monitoring state oversight of LEAs.
