A Statutory Requirement Limits Some States’ Ability to Target Title I School Improvement Funds to Lowest- Performing Schools, but Many States Have Used Other Resources for School Improvement Efforts

The hold-harmless provision, which is designed to protect school districts  from reductions in their Title I funding, prevented some states from being  able to target school improvement funds to low-performing schools. However, many states have used other federal and state funds for school  improvement efforts. Twenty-two states have been unable to set aside the  full 4 percent of Title I funds for school improvement for 1 or more years  since NCLBA was enacted because they did not have enough funds to do  so after satisfying the hold-harmless provision. In addition to Title I funds for  school improvement, many states have dedicated other federal funds and  state funds to school improvement efforts. In addition to the 22 states affected by the  hold-harmless provision, 4 states did not set aside the full portion of Title I  school improvement funds for other reasons. 4). States Generally Target Funds to the Most Persistently Underperforming Schools, However, Some States Did Not Fulfill NCLBA Requirements for Allocating or Tracking Funds

States generally target improvement funds to the most persistently  underperforming schools, but some states did not fulfill some NCLBA  requirements for allocating or tracking funds. Education has not provided guidance on how states should provide this  information and does not monitor states’ compliance with this  requirement. We identified this issue through our site visits and are  uncertain if other states may have also done this. While most states monitor funds, 4 states were unable to make publicly  available the complete list of schools receiving improvement funds, as  required under NCLBA, because these states do not collect information on  each school receiving improvement funds, and Education has not provided  guidance on this requirement. Schools and States Are Engaged in a Variety of Improvement Activities and Mainly Assess Them Using Student Achievement Data and Feedback

Schools that received funds and states have employed a range of  improvement activities, and most states assess these activities by  reviewing trends in student achievement data and obtaining feedback from  district and school officials. At least 45 states reported that schools that  received school improvement funds were involved in professional  development, reorganizing curriculum or instructional time, or data  analysis. Nearly all states reported that they assisted schools identified for  improvement with school improvement plans and professional  development, and officials in 42 states consider this assistance key to  helping schools improve. 10). However, while Education points  out that set-aside funds come from districts with increasing Title I  allocations, it is still not known how removing the hold-harmless provision  would affect those districts protected by it. In addition, we asked states to provide information on each  school that included (1) the school’s full name; (2) the school’s address,  city, and state; (3) the school’s district name; and (4) the school’s National  Center for Education Statistics (NCES) school identification; (5) the  school’s year of improvement under NCLBA: first year of improvement  (school choice), second year of improvement (school choice and  supplemental educational services), third year of improvement (school  choice, supplemental educational services, and corrective action), fourth  year of improvement (school choice, supplemental educational services,  and plan for restructuring), or fifth year of improvement (school choice,  supplemental educational services, and implementing a restructuring  plan); and (6) we asked states, if possible, to provide the amount of Title I  set-aside funds (and any other federal/state improvement funds, if  applicable) that each school received. No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional  Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School  Choice Provision.
Why GAO Did This Study

Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), the federal government provides millions of dollars annually to assist schools that have not met state academic goals. In the 2006-2007 school year, over 10,000 such schools were identified for improvement. NCLBA requires states to set aside 4 percent of their Title I funds to pay for school improvement efforts. GAO was asked to determine (1) the extent to which states have set aside these funds and used other resources for school improvement, (2) which schools received improvement funds and the extent funds are tracked, (3) the activities states and schools have undertaken and how activities are assessed, and (4) how Education supports states' improvement efforts. GAO administered a survey to state education officials and received a 100 percent response rate, matched survey data to an Education database, and conducted site visits to five states.

What GAO Found

A statutory requirement--known as a hold-harmless provision--has limited some states' ability to target the full 4 percent of Title I funds for school improvement to low-performing schools. However, many states have used other federal and state funds for this purpose. While the hold-harmless provision is designed to protect school districts from reductions in their Title I funding, it has also kept 22 states from setting aside the full portion of Title I school improvement funds since 2002 because they did not have enough funds to do so after satisfying the hold-harmless provision. To address this, Education has proposed repealing the hold-harmless provision. However, it is not known how removing this provision would affect districts protected by it. In addition to Title I funds, 38 states have dedicated other federal funds, and 17 have contributed state funds for school improvement. Though states generally target improvement funds to the most persistently underperforming schools, some states did not fulfill key NCLBA requirements. Specifically, 4 states did not follow all requirements to ensure that schools most in need of assistance received funds. Although Education monitors how states allocate improvement funds, it did not identify this issue. Also, 4 states were unable to provide a complete list of schools that received improvement funds, as required by law. Education has not provided guidance on this requirement and does not monitor compliance with it. Schools and states are engaged in a variety of improvement activities, and most states use student data and feedback to assess activities. Most states reported that schools receiving improvement funds used the funds for professional development and for reorganizing curriculum or instruction time. Nearly all states assisted schools with school improvement plans and professional development. Most states use student achievement data and feedback from schools and districts to assess improvement activities. Education provides a range of support for school improvement, including technical assistance and research results. Nearly all states want more help, such as more information on promising improvement practices. Education has a new Web site to provide additional resources and plans to collect more information on promising practices through a new grant program.