Most States Are Not in Compliance with the 1994 Title I Accountability and Assessment Requirements

As of March 2002, 17 states were in compliance with the 1994 Title I  assessment requirements; however, 35 were not. So far, Education has granted timeline waivers to 30  states. States failing to  meet these negotiated timelines will be subject to loss of some of their  Title I administrative funds. New 2001 requirements listed in table 1 have  deadlines that vary according to the requirement, and the Secretary of  Education can give states 1 additional year from those deadlines to meet  the new requirements, but only in case of a “natural disaster or a  precipitous and unforeseen decline in the financial resources of the state.”  Since the majority of states have not met the requirements of the 1994 law,  it appears that many states may not be well-situated as they work to meet  the schedule for implementing new requirements that build upon the 1994  requirements. For example, one governor spearheaded a plan that used  commissions to develop content standards and assessments aligned with  those standards. They said that efforts to ensure buy-in paved the  way for changes meant to ensure compliance with the assessment and  accountability requirements of the1994 legislation. Most states  reported taking some actions to ensure that students with limited English  proficiency and disabilities received appropriate accommodations during  testing. The errors were discovered by a number  of individuals, including local district officials, parents, and state agency  staff. Specifically, we reviewed three  key questions:  (1) the status of states’ compliance with key 1994 Title I  assessment requirements; (2) factors that have hindered or helped states  move toward meeting the requirements; and (3) the actions states are  taking to ensure that Title I assessments are scored accurately,  exemptions for students with limited English proficiency are justified, and  students with disabilities are accommodated during testing according to  federal regulations.
What GAO Found

Concerned that Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) had not significantly improving the educational achievements of children at risk, Congress mandated major changes in 1994. States were required to adopt or develop challenging curriculum content and performance standards, assessments aligned with content standards, and accountability systems to measure progress in raising student achievement. In return, states were given greater flexibility in the use of Title I and other federal funds. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 augments the assessment and accountability requirements that states must implement and increases the stakes for schools that fail to make adequate progress. The 1994 legislation required states to comply with the requirements by January 2001 but allowed the Department of Education to extend that deadline. Education has granted waivers to 30 states to give them more time to meet all requirements. If states fail to meet the extended timeliness, they are subject to the withholding of some Title I administrative funds. Title I directors indicated that a state's ability to meet the 1994 requirements improved when both state leaders and state agency staff made compliance a priority and coordinated with one another. Most directors said that inadequate funding hindered compliance. Many of the states reported taking action to ensure that Title I assessments were scored accurately, that any exemptions for students with limited English proficiency were justified, and students with disabilities were receiving appropriate testing accommodations. As of March 2002, 17 states had complied with the 1994 assessment requirements; 35 states had not.