Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Were More Often Located in Urban School Districts and Served Higher Percentages of Minority, Poor, and Middle-School Students Than Other Title I Schools

Schools in corrective action and restructuring status in the 2005-2006  school year were more frequently located in urban school districts and a  few states and served higher percentages of minority, poor, and middle- school students than other Title I schools. 1). The Number of Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Has Increased Considerably from Last Year and May Continue to Do So

Data for the 2006-2007 school year showed that the number of schools in  corrective action and restructuring has increased. As proficiency targets continue to increase up  to 100 percent by 2014, many schools identified for improvement may not  make AYP. Most Schools Used a Corrective Action or Restructuring Option, but Some May Not be Meeting NCLBA Requirements

Our survey results indicated that a majority of schools in corrective action  and restructuring implemented required activities; however, in some cases  schools may not be in compliance with NCLBA requirements. Based on our survey, we estimate that 6 percent of schools in corrective  action status did not take corrective actions. These schools took  corrective action in earlier years of improvement and did not implement  any further corrective actions after entering corrective action status. Under NCLBA, states are  required to annually submit to Education and make widely available the  measures taken to address the achievement problems of schools in  improvement status, including schools in corrective action. However,  Education does not require states to report on the measures taken for each  school. Nonetheless, about half of the schools that did not take one of the five  restructuring options engaged in a variety of school improvement efforts. Many Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring Did Not Receive All Required Assistance through Their School Districts; However, Most Received Assistance from Their State

We estimate that more than 40 percent of the schools in corrective action  and restructuring did not receive all of the required technical assistance,  such as data analysis and professional development, through their school  district, but most of the schools received some technical assistance from  their state. While states generally are not required to provide specific kinds  of assistance to schools, they are required to develop a statewide system  of support that is available to schools and districts and to provide  technical assistance to schools if the district fails to do so. Although state  educational agencies generally are not required to provide specific kinds  of technical assistance to schools in corrective action and restructuring,  they are required to ensure that districts are providing all of the required  assistance to schools identified for improvement, and if the district has  not, state educational agencies must step in and provide the assistance. In addition to the Comprehensive Centers and What Works Clearinghouse  programs, Education implemented a variety of other initiatives that may  assist officials in their efforts to improve schools. These  schools typically serve low-income students, and many report that factors  such as neighborhood violence and student mobility pose additional  challenges to engaging students and improving their academic  performance. While this course of action may be a reasonable and  appropriate path for some schools to take, Education has not provided  guidance to districts delineating when continuing a corrective action—and  not taking an additional one—is appropriate and when it is not. Objectives 2 and 3: Implementation of Corrective Action and Restructuring and State and District Assistance

To address the second objective on school’s implementation of corrective  action and restructuring and the third objective on district and state  assistance, we designed and administered two Web-based surveys to a  nationally representative sample of school principals: one for schools in  corrective action and one for schools in restructuring, as of the 2005-2006  school year. No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic  Growth.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.