	Background

NCLBA provides for increased accountability by requiring states and  school districts to improve student achievement. To support the new accountability requirements, NCLBA established  several options that permit states and school districts to redirect specified  NCLBA program funds. First, NCLBA established two flexibility  demonstration programs—State- and Local-Flex. State- and Local-Flex provide various mechanisms to assist states and  school districts in their efforts to improve student achievement. Commitment of Leadership and Capacity Influenced Decisions to Apply While Conflicting Deadlines, Few Perceived Benefits, and Limited Awareness Influenced Decisions Not to Apply

Officials in the 1 state and 3 school districts that applied for the flexibility  demonstration programs did so because of the commitment of leadership  to make full use of federal flexibility provisions as soon as possible, and  the ability and willingness to develop goals and strategies demonstrating  how additional flexibility would be used to improve student achievement  even though it was possible they would have to revise these plans later. State and district officials we spoke with said that a second factor  influencing their decision to apply was that the added flexibility afforded  through the demonstration programs would allow them to better  coordinate federal funds to fit with their strategies to improve student  achievement and narrow achievement gaps. Conflicting Deadlines, Few Perceived Benefits, and Limited Awareness of Flexibility Demonstrations Were Cited as Key Factors in Decisions Not to Apply

For the State-Flex program, officials in 8 states said they did not apply for  State-Flex because they were busy completing accountability plans and  that they needed the information in these plans in order to complete the  program application. The key reason why school districts did not apply for Local-Flex was a  lack of awareness about the program, while districts that were aware of  the program cited various other reasons for not applying. Finally, while Education has developed criteria and  procedures for reviewing and awarding flexibility, it is too early to  comment on its processes because it has yet to award flexibility to any  state or district. As part of the application process for these two programs, Education  publicized and sought feedback through the Federal Register. While these 17 states  technically did not have approved accountability plans at the time State- Flex applications were due, these states and their school districts were in  a better position to develop and use data on student achievement needed  for State- and Local-Flex applications. Education has acknowledged that  its communications were not targeted at those states and districts in the  best position to apply. For applicants, we reviewed copies of the four applications  submitted for the programs and conducted site visits to two applicants— Florida and Seattle. To review the extent to which the Department of Education publicized,  provided guidance to interested applicants on, and established a process  to review and award flexibility demonstration programs, we conducted  structured interviews with Education officials and reviewed Education’s  documentation. We also discussed Education’s guidance with states and  school district officials.
Why GAO Did This Study

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) has focused national attention on increasing accountability for states and school districts to improve student achievement. While increasing accountability, NCLBA also provided states and school districts with additional flexibility. The act established two flexibility demonstration programs--State- and Local-Flex--which allow up to 7 states and 80 school districts to redirect up to 100 percent of certain NCLBA program funds. GAO was asked to determine factors that affect states' and districts' decisions whether or not to apply for the demonstration programs and to determine the extent to which the U.S. Department of Education publicized, provided guidance, and established a process to review and award flexibility demonstration programs. To address these questions, GAO conducted a study, using telephone interviews with officials in 22 states and 37 school districts, and site visits to 2 of the four applicants.

What GAO Found

The one applicant for State-Flex and the three applicants for Local-Flex cited two main reasons why they applied--the commitment of leadership and the ability to develop goals and strategies to improve student achievement. In contrast, states did not apply primarily due to few perceived benefits, as well as conflicting deadlines with other NCLBA requirements, while school districts did not apply primarily due to a lack of awareness about the program. In particular, state officials said they were busy completing mandatory draft plans for measuring student achievement. Additionally, these state officials indicated that they needed student achievement data based on these plans in order to apply for State-Flex. Officials in other states said that less time-consuming options to transfer funds were preferable to State-Flex due to the time and effort required to complete the State-Flex application and develop agreements with school districts. Finally, most school district officials GAO spoke with did not apply for Local-Flex because they were not aware of the program. Education publicized the flexibility demonstration programs in routine channels, such as the Federal Register, at conferences informing states and school districts about NCLBA, and in letters to nearly 200 of the largest districts. However, Education's communication strategy did not target those potential applicants in the best position to apply--states and districts that had developed goals and strategies to improve student achievement and narrow achievement gaps. Additionally, Education provided guidance on the application process and assisted interested applicants. However, the two applicants GAO visited said that more guidance was needed in some areas, such as how to demonstrate that funds would be used for allowable purposes. Finally, while Education has developed criteria and procedures for reviewing and awarding flexibility, it is too early to comment on its processes because it has not made awards under these two flexibility programs to any state or district.