This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-909
entitled 'No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research
on Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts' which was
released on September 23, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2004:
No Child Left Behind Act:
Additional Assistance and Research on Effective Strategies Would Help
Small Rural Districts:
GAO-04-909:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-909, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
To improve the academic achievement of the nation’s 48 million school-
aged children, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) introduced
significant changes to how states, districts, and schools are held
accountable for student performance and teacher qualifications.
Congress has raised concerns about whether rural districts face
difficulties implementing NCLBA. GAO is providing information on (1)
key challenges rural states and districts face in implementing NCLBA,
(2) strategies rural districts have developed to implement NCLBA, (3)
expenditures and resources related to rural districts’ compliance with
NCLBA, and (4) guidance and assistance that the Department of Education
(Education) is providing.
To address these objectives, GAO conducted a nationally representative
survey of rural school districts. GAO also surveyed nonrural districts
to provide a context for the survey results. In addition, GAO visited
and interviewed officials in rural states and districts and Education
officials.
What GAO Found:
Rural districts faced some challenges in meeting NCLBA provisions to a
greater extent than nonrural districts. For example, rural district
officials were more likely than nonrural district officials to report
challenges presented by a large enrollment of economically
disadvantaged students who may live in communities lacking resources
such as libraries. Rural districts also identified small school size
and geographic isolation as greatly affecting their ability to
implement NCLBA. Rural officials we interviewed said that limited
access to teacher training facilities and Internet line maintenance
difficulties impeded NCLBA implementation efforts.
[See PDF for image]
[End of table]
Rural district officials reported using some strategies, such as
training for teachers, to the same extent as nonrural respondents, to
help meet student proficiency provisions and implement teacher
qualification requirements of NCLBA. Rural districts were more likely
to increase computer capacity than nonrural districts. However, small
rural districts were less likely than other rural districts to report
using certain strategies, such as teacher mentoring.
Rural state and district officials we interviewed identified some
specific expenditures related to NCLBA, such as those related to
analyzing assessment results and providing tutoring services to
students. However, district officials were unable to determine total
expenditures made to implement NCLBA, in part because their accounting
records were not maintained in a way that tracked expenditures by
NCLBA categories; states we contacted did not require districts to
report separately on NCLBA expenditures. Besides state and local
funds, officials reported using multiple federal programs to implement
NCLBA, such as the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP).
Since 2002, Education has provided NCLBA guidance and assistance to
all states and districts, and since April 2003, it has focused on
rural education issues by issuing new guidance, establishing a task
force on rural issues, and planning for a rural education research
center. However, rural officials indicated that further assistance
would be helpful for small rural districts that are experiencing
difficulties in providing teacher development opportunities and
identifying effective remedial services to improve student achievement.
Currently, research on the effectiveness of different strategies to
improve student performance is limited.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that Education provide additional assistance on
implementation approaches small rural districts can use to address
their unique challenges and support research on effective strategies
that can be applied to improve student performance in small rural
districts through its new center.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-909.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Marnie S. Shaul at (202)
512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Rural Districts and States Faced Challenges in Implementing NCLBA:
Rural and Nonrural Districts Generally Reported Using Similar
Strategies to Implement NCLBA, but Small Rural Districts Were Less
Likely to Use Them:
Rural Districts Identified Some Specific Expenditures Made for NCLBA
Implementation and Used Multiple Funding Sources to Support
Implementation Efforts:
Education Provided Many Types of Assistance, but Rural Officials Said
Additional Assistance Would Be Helpful:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Other Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Characteristics of Small Rural, Other Rural, and Nonrural
Districts, 2001-02:
Table 2: Percentages of Rural and Nonrural District Superintendents
Reporting Challenges in Implementing NCLBA's Teacher Qualification
Requirements:
Table 3: Percentages of Small Rural and Other Rural District
Superintendents Reporting Additional Challenges in Implementing
Various NCLBA Provisions:
Table 4: Percentages of Rural and Nonrural District Superintendents
Reporting Specific Strategies to Meet Student Proficiency Goals:
Table 5: Percentages of Rural and Nonrural District Superintendents
Reporting Specific Strategies to Implement NCLBA's Highly Qualified
Teacher Provisions:
Table 6: Percentages of Rural and Nonrural District Superintendents
Reporting the Use of Distance Learning Technology in Implementing
NCLBA's Highly Qualified Teacher Provisions:
Table 7: Percentages of Rural District Superintendents Reporting the
Use of REAP Funds for Purposes Associated with NCLBA Implementation:
Table 8: Actions Taken by Education to Assist States with
Implementation of NCLBA and Their Intended Purpose:
Table 9: Site Visit States and School Districts:
Figures:
Figure 1: Small Rural and Other Rural Districts:
Figure 2: Rural States Contacted:
Figure 3: Percentages of Small Rural District Superintendents Reporting
Use of Specific Strategies to Help Schools Meet Student Proficiency
Goals Compared with Percentages of Other Rural District
Superintendents:
Figure 4: Percentages of Small Rural District Superintendents Reporting
Use of Specific Strategies to Meet NCLBA's Teacher Qualification
Requirements Compared with Percentages of Other Rural District
Superintendents:
Abbreviations:
AYP: adequate yearly progress:
CCD: Common Core of Data:
ESA: educational service agency:
K-12: kindergarten through 12th grade:
LEA: local education agency:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act:
NCES: National Center for Education Statistics:
REAP: Rural Education Achievement Program:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 23, 2004:
The Honorable Kent Conrad:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on the Budget:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Susan Collins:
Chairman:
Committee on Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Michael Enzi:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tim Johnson:
United States Senate:
In an effort to improve the academic achievement of all of the nation's
48 million school-aged children, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA)
introduced significant changes to how states, districts, and schools
are held accountable for their students' academic performance and
teachers' qualifications. The Congress, as well as state and district
education officials, has expressed concerns that many rural districts
are encountering difficulties in implementing NCLBA provisions. NCLBA
requires districts and schools to assess students' reading, math and
science abilities and measure the results against a level of
proficiency that has been established by the state. As a condition for
receiving federal funds, NCLBA currently requires states to ensure that
every student becomes proficient in reading and math by school year
2013-14. NCLBA also requires that teachers of core academic subjects,
such as English, meet teacher qualification requirements, and most of
these teachers must do so by the end of the 2005-06 school year. To
meet requirements teachers must have a bachelor's degree, be state-
certified to teach, and demonstrate subject matter competence in each
core academic subject that they teach. Because of the small size and
geographic isolation of many rural districts and schools, there is a
concern that these districts and schools may find it difficult to
implement some NCLBA provisions. In the 2001-02 school year, rural
districts comprised 25 percent of all school districts in the country.
As a result of concerns that rural states and districts may have
difficulties meeting some NCLBA requirements, we are providing you with
information about implementation issues. This study addresses the
following questions:
1. What key challenges do rural states and districts face in meeting
student proficiency provisions and teacher qualification requirements
of NCLBA?
2. What strategies have rural districts developed to meet student
proficiency provisions and teacher qualification requirements of NCLBA?
3. What expenditures and funding sources are related to rural
districts' compliance with NCLBA?
4. What guidance and assistance is the Department of Education
(Education) providing?
To answer these questions, we used multiple methodologies, including a
survey, site visits, and interviews with Education officials. We
conducted a survey of a stratified, nationally representative sample of
1,215 school districts and received a response rate of 86 percent. We
surveyed rural and nonrural districts so that we could determine
whether and to what extent rural districts differed from nonrural
districts. We used a definition of rural that focused on places that
were distant from metropolitan areas. We categorized our sample as
follows:
* Rural districts. We defined districts as rural if they were 55 miles
or farther from a metropolitan statistical area.
* Nonrural districts. We defined districts as nonrural if they were
located less than 55 miles from a metropolitan statistical area.
To obtain information from the most rural school districts, we further
stratified our sample by size. The literature suggests that smaller
districts may face unique challenges.
* Small rural districts. We defined districts as small rural if they
were 55 miles or farther from a metropolitan area and had 300 or fewer
students.
* Other rural districts. We defined districts as other rural if they
were 55 miles or farther from a metropolitan statistical area but had
more than 300 students.
We used Education's Common Core of Data (CCD) to draw the sample of
school districts for our survey. Figure 1 presents the distribution of
small rural and other rural districts based on the definition we use
that incorporated distance from metropolitan area.
Figure 1: Small Rural and Other Rural Districts:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition to the survey, we made site visits to six states--Maine,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. In
addition, we conducted telephone interviews with officials in four
states--Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, and Vermont. We selected these states
because they were the most rural states in the country, based on the
percentage of their school districts in rural communities, the
percentage of their students attending schools in rural communities,
and the average distance between the school district in the state and
the nearest metropolitan statistical area as a measure of geographic
isolation. In addition, we included Wyoming because of the large
geographic distance that its school districts cover. We selected school
districts to visit in these states based on variation in student
enrollment, geographic isolation, school proficiency, and demographic
characteristics. Figure 2 shows the rural states that we visited and
contacted by telephone.
Figure 2: Rural States Contacted:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We also conducted telephone interviews with educational association
representatives and other experts, met with Education officials, and
reviewed guidance and data from Education. In some cases, our survey
and site visits predated Education's guidance that addressed some
issues relevant to rural schools and districts. When this occurred, it
was identified in the report in the context of related findings. For a
more detailed explanation of our methodology, see appendix I. We
conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards between August 2003 and August 2004.
Results in Brief:
Rural districts we surveyed faced challenges in meeting NCLBA student
proficiency goals and implementing teacher qualification requirements
and faced some of these challenges to a greater extent than nonrural
districts. In terms of meeting NCLBA's student proficiency goals,
officials in rural districts were more likely than those in nonrural
districts to report that a large enrollment of economically
disadvantaged students created challenges. These students may not have
the community resources, such as libraries and computers, that may be
associated with improved academic performance. Rural districts were
more likely to report difficulties in offering competitive salaries to
teachers, limiting their ability to recruit teachers; 52 percent of
officials in rural districts reported this as a challenge compared with
36 percent of officials in nonrural districts. In our analysis of small
rural districts, we found that they were more likely than other rural
districts to report that school size and geographic isolation were
factors that affected NCLBA implementation. About half of small rural
districts, compared with about a quarter of other rural districts,
reported school size as greatly affecting their ability to implement
student proficiency provisions. For example, officials in small rural
districts told us that limited personnel made it difficult to release
teachers and administrators for attending Education's conferences and
training. These conferences and training are designed to help teachers
and administrators better understand what student proficiency goals are
and how they can help their students meet them. In addition, rural
district officials indicated that they typically had few staff, which
created difficulties completing tasks associated with meeting NCLBA
requirements, such as developing and disseminating reports on school
progress.
Rural and nonrural districts generally reported using some similar
strategies, such as teacher training to increase subject matter
knowledge, to meet student proficiency provisions and implement teacher
qualification requirements of NCLBA. However, differences between rural
and nonrural districts were found in the extent to which they reported
the use of other strategies. For example, rural districts were more
likely to use distance learning, such as receiving training online, for
providing instruction to teachers in implementing teacher qualification
requirements. Small rural districts were less likely to report the use
of some strategies, such as teacher mentoring programs, than other
rural districts. For example, about half of small rural districts
reported offering mentoring programs for teachers, compared with about
three-quarters of other rural districts. Factors such as having very
few teachers, existing teachers having to teach multiple subjects and
grade levels, and large distances to other rural districts limit small
rural districts' pool of teachers available to serve as mentors for
other teachers.
Rural state and district officials we interviewed identified some
specific NCLBA related expenditures such as some teacher training and
paying for staff to supervise students while they received instruction
from online tutors. However, officials found it difficult to determine
all expenditures made to implement NCLBA, primarily because their
accounting records were not maintained in a way that categorized
expenditures according to whether or not they were associated with
NCLBA requirements. NCLBA does not require states or districts to
report separately on expenditures related to implementation. Further,
projecting expenditures that will be needed in the future to meet the
goals of NCLBA is difficult because necessary data are often not
available to produce such estimates. For example, it is difficult to
project expenditures needed for meeting student proficiency provisions
because there is insufficient research on what strategies will help all
students reach academic proficiency goals. State and rural district
officials reported using multiple funding sources to support their
NCLBA implementation efforts. Besides state and local funds, they
relied on federal appropriations under NCLBA, and the majority of rural
districts reported receiving funds provided under the Rural Education
Achievement Program (REAP).
Education has provided all states and districts with guidance and
assisted them in a variety of ways; however, officials from rural
states and districts, including small rural districts, told us further
assistance would be helpful in addressing their issues. Beginning in
2002, after the passage of NCLBA, Education provided guidance
applicable to all states and districts, and communicated with state
officials through site visits and conferences. For example, Education
sent a team of experts to every state to obtain information on their
challenges and provide assistance on implementing the teacher
qualifications requirements of NCLBA. Since April 2003, Education's
actions have focused more directly on rural education issues. Education
introduced new flexibilities that were intended, among other things, to
assist rural states with meeting student proficiency provisions and
implementing teacher qualification requirements. For example, under
some circumstances, teachers in rural districts are allowed extra time-
-up to 3 years--to meet teacher qualification requirements. Also,
states can now use a single state test for teachers to demonstrate
subject matter competency for core academic subjects that they teach
instead of a separate test for each subject taught. This could be
especially helpful to rural districts and schools where a single
teacher might have to teach multiple subjects. Education also
established a Rural Education Taskforce to coordinate and focus rural
education efforts within the department. Further, Education has
recently awarded a grant to establish a National Center for Research
and Development in Rural Education. In addition, states we contacted
provided districts with guidance and assistance to help them implement
NCLBA, and most rural districts surveyed found state assistance
helpful. However, even with state and Education assistance, a majority
of the rural districts surveyed reported that their implementation
issues have not been fully addressed. For example, almost three-
quarters of rural district officials responding to our survey reported
the need for information on remedial services that will help students
meet academic proficiency goals. In addition, small rural districts and
those that may be very isolated continued to face unique challenges in
recruiting, retaining, and training teachers, and lacked strategies to
address them. Education officials told us they are continuing to work
on rural issues and provide more guidance in an effort to assist rural
states.
To assist rural states in meeting the provisions of NCLBA, we are
recommending that Education provide additional assistance on
implementation approaches small rural districts can use to address
their unique challenges and direct its National Research and
Development Center on Rural Education to focus on effective,
scientifically based methods that can be applied to improve student
performance in small rural districts.
In its comments on a draft of this report, the department discussed but
did not explicitly agree or disagree with our recommendations. For both
recommendations, Education provided new information that was
incorporated, as appropriate, in the report.
Background:
The NCLBA of 2001 amended and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, the largest and most comprehensive federal education
law.[Footnote 1] Title I of NCLBA provides funds to states for
educating students from low-income families and is the single largest
federal program supporting education in kindergarten through 12th (K-
12) grade.[Footnote 2] Districts receive Title I funds based on a
formula that incorporates, among other things, the number of children
in poverty. Approximately 56 percent of all schools are eligible to
receive Title I funds, compared with 65 percent of rural schools.
Rural districts comprised 25 percent of all school districts in the
country. Rural schools and districts, on average, have fewer students
than nonrural schools and districts and tend to be more geographically
isolated. Moreover, rural school districts are more likely to be
comprised of one, two, or three schools, whereas the number of schools
in urban and suburban districts is typically higher. Further, in our
analysis we found that 11 percent of all school districts are small
rural districts. (See table 1 for comparisons between very small rural,
other rural, and nonrural districts.)
Table 1: Characteristics of Small Rural, Other Rural, and Nonrural
Districts, 2001-02:
Characteristics: Percentage of districts;
Small rural: 11%;
Other rural: 14%;
Nonrural: 75%.
Characteristics: Average number of students in district;
Small rural: 126;
Other rural: 1741;
Nonrural: 4015.
Characteristics: Average school enrollment;
Small rural: 77;
Other rural: 368;
Nonrural: 560.
Characteristics: Average number of schools in district;
Small rural: 2;
Other rural: 5;
Nonrural: 7.
Characteristics: Average number of students per teacher;
Small rural: 11;
Other rural: 16;
Nonrural: 17.
Characteristics: Percentage of minority students;
Small rural: 16%;
Other rural: 33%;
Nonrural: 40%.
Characteristics: Percentage of students participating in the free and
reduced school lunch program;
Small rural: 41%;
Other rural: 42%;
Nonrural: 36%.
Characteristics: Average per pupil cost;
Small rural: $9,420;
Other rural: $6,970;
Nonrural: $7,820.
Source: GAO analysis of Education's 2001-02 Common Core of Data and
2001 U.S. Census Bureau's Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance
Data.
Note: Valid data on students' participation in the free and reduced
school lunch program were not available for Arizona, Connecticut,
Tennessee, and Wyoming.
[End of table]
In addition to the characteristics listed in Table 1, small rural
districts may have unique geographic characteristics that distinguish
them from other districts. Small rural districts can exist in unique
locations, such as small islands off the coasts of states, usually
making air or sea transportation a necessity. Small rural districts can
also be located in mountainous areas with difficult terrain and roads
that may not be passable for some part of the year because of extreme
weather conditions. These weather conditions can also affect
accessibility to electrical power. Small rural districts can also be
located long distances from other districts, towns, and universities.
In recent years, the Congress and other parts of the federal government
have demonstrated a growing interest in rural schools. The House and
Senate Rural Education Caucuses, consisting of bipartisan groups of
members of Congress, were formed to advance the education interests of
rural schools and districts. Further, the Congress authorized a Rural
Education Achievement Program (REAP) to help rural districts compete
for and make more effective use of federal grants. REAP was designed to
help rural districts that may lack the personnel and resources to
compete effectively for federal competitive grants. It is comprised of
two programs: (1) The Small, Rural School Achievement program
authorizes the Secretary of Education to award formula grants directly
to eligible school districts; (2) The Rural and Low-Income Schools
program is designed to address the needs of rural, low-income schools,
and authorizes the Secretary to award formula grants to state
educational agencies, which in turn award subgrants to eligible school
districts either competitively or on a formula basis. The funds can be
used for many activities, including teacher recruitment and retention,
professional development, and educational technology. The Congress
appropriated approximately $168 million for REAP funding in fiscal year
2003. Finally, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has
made improvements in its classification of schools to accommodate more
information about location, making it possible to develop more refined
information about rural education.[Footnote 3] NCES also established a
rural education data section on its Website, called Navigating
Resources for Rural Schools.
NCLBA was designed to raise the academic achievement of students and
the qualifications of teachers, and states, districts, and schools are
currently in their third year of its implementation. Key provisions of
the law included the following:
Academic content standards and yearly academic assessments. NCLBA
requires that states develop and implement academic content and
achievement standards in math, reading/language arts, and science, and
that annual assessments are aligned to these standards. States must
administer annual student assessments that are aligned with state
standards. Beginning in the 2005-06 school year, state assessments in
math and reading/language arts must be administered every year in
grades 3 through 8 and once in high school, and by 2007-08, states must
also measure students' science achievement. All students, including
students with limited English proficiency and those with disabilities,
are required to participate in assessments.
Adequate yearly progress and student proficiency goals. NCLBA requires
states to develop annual goals for adequate yearly progress (AYP) that
schools and districts must meet to ensure that every student becomes
proficient in math and reading/language arts by school year 2013-14.
The annual goals on state assessments and the final target of 100
percent student proficiency applies to all students and those in
designated groups, including economically disadvantaged students,
major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and
students that have limited English proficiency. Schools must also show
that 95 percent of their students--overall and within each subgroup--
participated in the assessments. In addition to including annual
assessment results, high schools must include students' graduation
rate, and elementary and middle schools must include one other academic
indicator determined by the state to assess whether they made annual
progress.
Teacher qualification requirements. Teachers of core academic subjects
must be certified to teach by their state, have a bachelor's degree,
and demonstrate subject matter competency in each core academic subject
they teach by the end of school year 2005-06. Subject matter competency
can be demonstrated in either of two ways: (1) successful completion of
an academic major, coursework equivalent to a degree, or advanced
certification in each subject or (2) passing a high, objective, uniform
state standard of evaluation developed by the state to certify
teachers' knowledge of the subjects they teach. In addition to
teachers, paraprofessionals are required to have two years of college,
or an associate's degree, or a rigorous standard of quality on formal
state or local assessment. Improving teacher qualifications is
identified in the NCLBA as a strategy to raise student academic
achievement. For example, by learning new instructional approaches and
enhancing subject matter expertise, teachers will be better equipped to
help students learn.
School choice. After 2 years of not making adequate progress toward
reaching student proficiency goals, schools receiving Title I funds
must offer all their students the option to transfer to a higher-
performing public school within the district. Under circumstances where
no viable transfer options exist-as in districts with only one school
serving all grade levels, districts are expected, to the extent
practicable, to make arrangements with other districts to accept their
transfer students and may offer supplemental educational services.
Supplemental educational services. After 3 or more years of not making
adequate progress toward reaching student proficiency goals, schools
receiving Title I funds must offer supplemental educational services,
such as tutoring in reading and math, to low-income students in the
school. States are required to provide a list of acceptable providers
of supplemental educational services to school districts and monitor
the performance of the provider, including success in improving student
performance.
In addition, NCLBA requires that all federally funded instruction,
technical assistance, and professional development activities be
supported by scientifically based research. However, this type of
research is limited in the education field. For example, this body of
research does not generally include the use of control groups and
randomly assigned subjects in experiments, techniques used in physical
science research to show that outcomes are caused by program
interventions and not other factors. Education is currently expanding
its grant awards to support scientifically based research in education.
State education officials play a major role in the implementation of
NCLBA in their states and districts. Some key decisions to be made by
state officials include:
* Developing academic content standards and assessments for math,
reading/language arts, and science, and determining the level of
proficiency each student must reach on assessments.
* Defining the criteria for state certification of teachers and
identifying tests teachers are required to take to demonstrate subject
matter competence.
* Determining the smallest number of students that must be enrolled in
a school, as well as in designated student groups, necessary for their
test results to be used in determining whether a school has met
proficiency goals. States have selected a wide range of numbers for
this purpose; the majority of states set their group size minimums at
between 25 and 45 students.
* Deciding whether or not they will accept NCLBA funding and thus agree
to the implementation of NCLBA requirements in their state.
* Developing a plan for submission to Education that, among other
things, demonstrates how the state will meet requirements for setting
annual goals and measuring student progress.
Education provides technical assistance to help states understand the
law and for monitoring their progress in meeting the law's student
proficiency provisions and teacher qualification requirements. The
Secretary of Education is required to report to the Congress annually
regarding state progress in implementing various requirements,
including how many of their schools were identified for improvement.
Rural Districts and States Faced Challenges in Implementing NCLBA:
Rural districts faced challenges in meeting student proficiency goals
and implementing teacher qualification requirements of NCLBA and faced
some of them to a greater extent than nonrural districts. State
officials we interviewed also cited challenges to implementing student
proficiency provisions on both the state and the district level. Rural
districts also identified small school size and geographic isolation as
greatly affecting their ability to implement NCLBA.
Rural Districts Reported Similar Challenges as Nonrural Districts in
Meeting Student Proficiency Goals but Faced Some of Them to a Greater
Extent than Nonrural Districts:
Rural districts were more likely than nonrural districts to report some
challenges in meeting student proficiency goals. For example, officials
in about 52 percent of rural districts surveyed reported that a large
enrollment of economically disadvantaged students created challenges to
meeting student proficiency goals; about 40 percent of nonrural
districts reported this as a challenge.[Footnote 4] During our site
visits, several rural district officials with large numbers of
economically disadvantaged students told us that these students
generally did not have structures in their communities or homes that
are typically associated with improved academic performance. For
example, some communities did not have libraries near where many of
their students lived. As a result, during our site visits rural
district officials noted their economically disadvantaged students
often required more resources and instruction time at the school than
other students to meet student proficiency goals. Another challenge
reported to a greater extent by officials in rural districts than
nonrural districts was declining student enrollment. This could result
in reducing the number of teachers in a school or district, and the
remaining teachers assuming additional responsibilities for subjects
taught.
Rural and nonrural districts reported some challenges to the same
extent, such as a large enrollment of students with disabilities. About
half of both rural and nonrural district officials reported large
enrollment of students with disabilities to be affecting their ability
to meet student proficiency goals. Students with disabilities often
require more services and assistance to help them achieve academic
proficiency. For example, students with learning disabilities may
require additional services from a reading resource teacher. Further,
several rural state and district officials explained that although most
students with disabilities participated in the standard state
assessment tests, they may require extended time and other
accommodations to take these tests. Officials noted that offering such
accommodations or services in rural areas may be difficult due to
limited staff available to provide them or the increased cost of
transporting students to sites where services could be received. A
quarter of both rural and nonrural districts noted that it was
challenging to provide services, such as tutoring or after-school
enrichment, to help students achieve proficiency.
Rural state officials we interviewed also identified several
difficulties in implementing student proficiency provisions. For
example, rural state officials cited difficulties performing
administrative duties, such as developing state plans and notifying
districts of improvement actions required under the law. Most rural
state officials we contacted noted that their state education offices
had few staff yet were responsible for meeting the same requirements as
all other states. In addition to having a limited number of staff
responsible for multiple tasks, most state officials said that they did
not always have the information on and explanation of the latest
guidance from Education. Although Education was making efforts to get
information to the states, rural state officials told us that they had
few administrative staff to act on that information once it arrived.
Rural Districts Faced Some Challenges to a Greater Extent than Nonrural
Districts in Implementing Teacher Qualification Requirements:
Rural districts were more likely than nonrural districts to identify
certain challenges to implementing NCLBA's teacher qualifications
provisions. (See table 2.)
Table 2: Percentages of Rural and Nonrural District Superintendents
Reporting Challenges in Implementing NCLBA's Teacher Qualification
Requirements:
NCLBA's highly qualified teacher provision:
Challenges: Competing in salary with other school districts for highly
qualified teachers;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 52%;
Percentage of nonrural district superintendents: 36%.
Challenges: Few professional development opportunities for teachers;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 15%;
Percentage of nonrural district superintendents: 6%.
Source: GAO survey data.
Notes: Percentages above show the proportion of respondents who
reported being affected by a particular factor to a great or a very
great extent.
Each difference between rural and nonrural districts in this table is
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
More than half of officials in rural districts reported that it was a
challenge to offer competitive salaries to teachers, compared with
about one-third of officials in nonrural districts. According to rural
district officials, as well as organization representatives we spoke
with, it was often difficult for school districts to recruit and retain
teachers when the salaries they offered were low. One rural district
official we spoke with told us that it was difficult for her district
to recruit new teachers because teacher salaries in her state were so
low; average teacher salaries in her state were among the lowest in the
nation. Recent data show that teacher salaries in the 10 most rural
states, excluding Alaska, rank among the lowest in the nation,
generally reflecting regional differences in the cost of
living.[Footnote 5] However, officials in rural districts noted that
other factors, such as geographic isolation, also affected their
ability to recruit and retain teachers. Additionally, 15 percent of
rural district superintendents reported having few professional
development opportunities for teachers as a factor that affected their
ability to implement NCLBA's highly qualified teacher requirements,
while 6 percent of nonrural district superintendents reported this as a
factor. In rural districts it is not uncommon for schools to be
separated by long distances from the nearest college or training
facility and have limited access to the Internet. Some district staff,
such as those in isolated communities, may have to travel three or more
hours to reach training facilities; others, such as those located on
island districts, must use planes or boats to travel to training. Rural
state officials we interviewed also expressed concerns about
implementing teacher qualification requirements similar to those
reported by survey respondents. In particular, they noted the challenge
of ensuring that all teachers demonstrate subject matter competency in
the subject that they teach by the deadline in the law. Even though
states had several options for teachers to demonstrate subject matter
competency, including a state-developed test, officials did not know
whether these alternatives could be developed within the required time
frames.
Rural Districts Faced Additional Implementation Challenges Related to
Small Size and Isolation:
Rural districts also identified small school size and geographic
isolation as greatly affecting their ability to meet student
proficiency provisions and implement teacher qualification
requirements of NCLBA, with the small rural districts more likely than
other rural districts to report these factors. (See table 3.) According
to our definition of rural districts, all were isolated, that is, 55
miles or farther from metropolitan areas. However, those rural
districts that were also small--fewer than 300 students--were more
likely to report isolation as a challenge. The majority of nonrural
districts did not report these factors as challenges.
Table 3: Percentages of Small Rural and Other Rural District
Superintendents Reporting Additional Challenges in Implementing
Various NCLBA Provisions:
NCLBA's student proficiency provision:
Challenges: Very small school size;
Percentage of small rural district superintendents: 52%;
Percent of other rural district superintendents: 23%.
Challenges: Geographic isolation;
Percentage of small rural district superintendents: 39%;
Percent of other rural district superintendents: 28%.
Challenges: NCLBA's highly qualified teacher requirement:
Challenges: Very small school size;
Percentage of small rural district superintendents: 54%;
Percent of other rural district superintendents: 29%.
Challenges: Geographic isolation;
Percentage of small rural district superintendents: 51%;
Percent of other rural district superintendents: 38%.
Source: GAO survey data.
Notes: Percentages above show the proportion of respondents who
reported being affected by a particular factor to a great or a very
great extent.
We calculated confidence intervals for our study using methods that are
appropriate for a stratified, probability sample. For the percentages
presented in this report, we are 95 percent confident that the results
we would have obtained if we had studied the entire population are
within plus or minus 10 percentage points of our results.
[End of table]
Small school size:
Small school size was associated with several difficulties for schools
trying to implement NCLBA's student proficiency provisions, according
to survey results and our site visit interviews. About half of small
rural district officials we surveyed reported school size as a factor
affecting their ability to implement student proficiency provisions,
compared with about one-fourth of officials in other rural districts.
Officials we visited also cited difficulties related to small school
size, such as having fewer administrative staff and limited expertise
that reduced their capacity to perform tasks associated with NCLBA
provisions. For example, for small administrative staff, completing the
paperwork associated with NCLBA--such as preparing and distributing
reports on assessment results--was a substantive addition to their
workload. Further, district staff often had to assume multiple roles,
which reduced the amount of time they could spend on collecting and
disseminating information on promising implementation strategies, as
well as designing and implementing them to raise student performance.
Some school district superintendents in single K-12 school districts
explained that they had to fulfill the duties of superintendent as well
as those of principal and teacher at their K-12 schools. Furthermore,
limited personnel made it difficult to release teachers and
administrators to attend conferences and receive training that might
help them address student proficiency goals. One rural district
official told us that he could not afford to allow his staff to take
off time to attend training on assessments because substitute teachers
were difficult to find. Moreover, officials told us that rural states
in which these districts were located had few staff themselves, which
limited their ability to provide assistance to the districts. In
addition, districts not meeting student proficiency goals faced
difficulties in offering supplemental educational services to students
because of the small school size. According to some rural officials,
providers were reluctant to provide services in rural districts because
the small number of children who may need these services do not provide
a profitable business opportunity.
Small school size also created difficulties for schools trying to
implement NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements, which slightly
more than half of small rural districts reported as a challenge,
compared with about one-quarter of other rural districts. On average,
77 students are enrolled in schools in small rural districts and rural
state and district officials told us that some small rural schools
might have only two or three students in each grade, requiring teachers
to take responsibility for teaching multiple subjects across different
grade levels. For example, officials in one rural district we contacted
explained that its three teachers were responsible for teaching every
subject to 15 students enrolled in grades K-12. Many district officials
we spoke with said that such small student enrollment made it more
challenging for teachers to meet the definition of highly qualified in
each core academic subject they teach. It also made it difficult for
teachers to take time off to attend professional development classes
because substitutes were generally not available in small districts.
In March 2004, Education issued new guidance allowing states to
administer a single evaluation to determine competency in multiple core
academic subjects. However, some state officials told us that
developing a test to gauge teachers' competency in every core subject
was a formidable task that would require time, expertise, and other
resources. Additionally, while guidance extended the time for obtaining
subject matter competency to existing teachers in some rural districts,
extending time for teachers to meet the requirements did not address
the underlying problem of a lack of professional development
opportunities.[Footnote 6]
Geographic isolation:
Geographic isolation created difficulties for districts to implement
NCLBA provisions, particularly the supplemental educational services
component. During our site visits, district officials explained that
they were often unable to use supplemental educational service
providers on approved state lists. Officials stated that traveling long
distances to meet the providers was generally not a viable option for
students, and thus they choose not to offer them. For example, when one
rural district made an effort to offer supplemental educational
services, it took students 3 hours to reach the provider's site.
According to state and district officials, the use of online service
providers as an option was difficult in some small rural districts,
especially those where severe weather conditions and physical features
such as mountains made it difficult to establish and maintain Internet
lines. Many of the rural school district superintendents we interviewed
in states such as Montana, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and
Maine noted that frequent power outages and poor transmissions hindered
the use of distance learning. Other officials explained that even when
Internet capabilities were established, it was difficult to recruit
technical maintenance personnel to isolated rural areas.
Geographic isolation was also associated with difficulties in
implementing teacher qualification requirements, according to district
officials. About half of small rural districts identified geographic
isolation as greatly affecting their ability to implement teacher
qualifications provisions, compared with about one-third of other rural
districts. Several district officials we interviewed also said that
geographic isolation made it difficult for current teachers to obtain
the training they need to become certified in every subject taught.
Because long distances and boundaries such as mountains or bodies of
water can separate small rural districts from training opportunities,
rural districts may need to rely on atypical means to get there. For
example, the superintendent of one very small and isolated rural
district we spoke with reported that traveling by air or boat was the
only option to reach the nearest college where his teachers could
receive appropriate training. In another district, officials said that
the nearest college where teachers and paraprofessionals could obtain
the necessary credentials was more than 600 miles away.
Additionally, the remote environment could be a deterrent to new
teachers seeking employment. During our site visits, districts
officials explained that geographic remoteness impeded the ability of
rural districts to recruit and retain teachers because of the lack of
social opportunities, severe weather conditions, and long distances to
the nearest metropolitan area. For example, officials from several very
isolated districts we spoke with explained that at times weather was so
severe that teachers and other school staff were forced to live in the
school until severe weather conditions subsided.
Rural and Nonrural Districts Generally Reported Using Similar
Strategies to Implement NCLBA, but Small Rural Districts Were Less
Likely to Use Them:
Rural and nonrural districts used similar strategies, such as providing
training for teachers, to meet student proficiency provisions and
teacher qualification requirements of NCLBA. However, small rural
districts were less likely than other rural districts to use the
strategies for implementation of these provisions.
Rural and Nonrural Districts Used Some Similar Strategies in
Implementing Student Proficiency Provisions:
The primary strategies used to meet student proficiency goals, reported
by about 90 percent of both rural and nonrural district superintendents
surveyed, were remedial services, such as tutoring for students, and
additional training for teachers. (See table 4.)
Table 4: Percentages of Rural and Nonrural District Superintendents
Reporting Specific Strategies to Meet Student Proficiency Goals:
Strategy: Provided remedial services to students at risk of failing[A];
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 89%;
Percentage of nonrural district superintendents: 94%.
Strategy: Provided additional training for teachers;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 90%;
Percentage of nonrural district superintendents: 93%.
Strategy: Provided test opportunities for students[A];
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 77%;
Percentage of nonrural district superintendents: 86%.
Strategy: Provided additional computer capability[A];
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 76%;
Percentage of nonrural district superintendents: 68%.
Strategy: Provided teacher mentoring[A];
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 62%;
Percentage of nonrural district superintendents: 75%.
Source: GAO survey data.
[A] We calculated confidence intervals for our study using methods that
are appropriate for a stratified, probability sample. For the
percentages presented in this report, we are 95 percent confident that
the results we would have obtained if we had studied the entire
population are within plus or minus 10 percentage points of our
results.
[End of table]
Among rural districts we contacted, most offered tutoring, extended day
and summer programs, or other remedial services to help students
improve academically. For example, one rural district we visited made
after-school tutoring in reading and math available to students four
nights per week, while another rural district extended its academic
program by two hours and introduced Saturday programs to help raise
students' academic achievement. Officials told us that such in-school
programs were particularly valuable in rural areas lacking other
enrichment opportunities. Furthermore, to help meet adequate yearly
progress provisions related to high school graduation rates, one school
district implemented a mentoring program for students in grades 6-12 by
district staff, while another was establishing an alternative high
school for recent dropouts on the campus of a local community college;
officials in both districts indicated that the purpose of these
programs was to help increase graduation rates among high school
students. Consistent with what the survey respondents reported, some
rural districts we visited also provided additional training for
teachers to help improve the level of instruction to students. Those
strategies included, for example, training on ways to more effectively
teach reading and math, as well as training on assessments required
under NCLBA. However, many of the strategies cited by district
officials were used even before NCLBA, and officials were uncertain
about the effectiveness of these strategies in helping all students
meet academic proficiency goals.
Although they reported doing so to a lesser extent, rural and nonrural
districts also used other strategies to implement student proficiency
provisions, and differences were found in the extent to which rural and
nonrural districts used many of them. (See table 4.) For example, rural
districts were less likely than nonrural districts to offer mentoring
for teachers--62 percent of rural district superintendents reported the
use of this strategy compared with 75 percent of nonrural district
superintendents. Mentoring programs, which employ the skills and
experience of a more senior teacher to assist newer teachers, can serve
a variety of purposes. One rural district we visited, for example,
offered mentoring to better familiarize teachers with standards-based
curriculum and to enhance the quality of instruction they provide to
students. However, several officials noted that rural districts might
experience difficulties offering such mentoring opportunities due to
their limited resources and small staff. On the other hand, rural
districts were more likely to increase computer capacity, such as
adopting distance learning technology in order to provide video class
instruction, than nonrural districts. Officials in some rural states
also reported on their efforts to invest in statewide technology
initiatives to help districts improve their technological capability
and use technology, such as distance learning, for raising students'
academic achievement. One rural state we visited, for example, launched
an initiative to provide every 7th and 8th grader in the state with a
laptop computer, thus enabling students in even the most remote rural
areas in that state to gain access to a wide array of academic
opportunities available through the Internet. Several officials,
however, were concerned about the effectiveness of online instruction
for low-achieving and younger students who may need direct teacher
contact.
Additionally, other strategies for meeting student proficiency goals
were reported, although they were used by less than half of rural and
nonrural superintendents. For example, less than half of both rural and
nonrural district superintendents reported coordinating with regional
educational service agencies (ESA) in an effort to help students attain
academic proficiency goals.[Footnote 7]
Rural and Nonrural School Districts Used Similar Strategies in
Implementing Teacher Qualification Requirements:
Rural districts also used a variety of strategies to implement NCLBA
teacher qualification requirements; the use of most of these strategies
by rural districts was not different from their use by nonrural
districts, according to survey results. The primary strategies used by
the majority of all districts were teacher and paraprofessional
training and dissemination of information to schools on exemplary
practices. (See table 5.)
Table 5: Percentages of Rural and Nonrural District Superintendents
Reporting Specific Strategies to Implement NCLBA's Highly Qualified
Teacher Provisions:
Strategy: Provided training for teachers;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 83%;
Percentage of nonrural district superintendents: 81%.
Strategy: Disseminated information on exemplary practices to schools;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 74%;
Percentage of nonrural district superintendents: 80%.
Strategy: Encouraged paraprofessionals to meet teacher qualification
requirements and become teachers;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 58%;
Percentage of nonrural district superintendents: 63%.
Strategy: Obtained services from ESAs;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 50%;
Percentage of nonrural district superintendents: 48%.
Source: GAO survey data.
Note: The differences between rural and nonrural districts in this
table are not significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Likewise, these strategies were cited by rural state and district
officials that we visited. Many rural states and districts we visited
provided teachers and paraprofessionals with professional development
opportunities to help them obtain the necessary qualifications. For
example, in one rural state we visited, officials said they developed
training programs for teachers to obtain subject area certifications.
They also said that most of their teachers who needed to become highly
qualified chose to take advantage of these state-funded programs
because they could obtain the necessary coursework free of charge. In
another rural state, one small and isolated rural district offered
courses in the school to paraprofessionals for which they could receive
credits from a local community college. Several rural districts we
visited were collecting and sharing information on exemplary practices
in raising students' academic performance with district staff. For
example, in one rural district visited, officials learned of another
state developing individualized education programs for each student,
not just students with disabilities, and disseminated information on
this approach for staff in their own district to adopt.[Footnote 8]
The strategy for implementing teacher qualification requirements that
rural districts were more likely to use than nonrural districts was
distance learning for providing instruction to teachers and
paraprofessionals, as well as for students to receive instruction from
a highly qualified teacher in another location. (See table 6.)
Table 6: Percentages of Rural and Nonrural District Superintendents
Reporting the Use of Distance Learning Technology in Implementing
NCLBA's Highly Qualified Teacher Provisions:
Strategy: Used distance learning for teacher training;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 47%;
Percentage of nonrural district superintendents: 35%.
Strategy: Used distance learning to provide a highly qualified teacher
in the classroom;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 35%;
Percentage of nonrural district superintendents: 18%.
Source: GAO survey data.
Note: Each difference between rural and nonrural districts in this
table is significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Among rural districts contacted, some used distance learning for
teachers or paraprofessionals to take classes to meet NCLBA's
qualification requirements, an approach that officials indicated was
very helpful in rural districts located far away from higher learning
institutions. Officials also cited rural districts using distance
learning to provide courses to students by a highly qualified teacher
when one was not available in the school. However, rural state and
district officials, although citing advantages of distance learning,
faced challenges in using technology, such as limited capacity or
Internet connection difficulties. Moreover, small rural districts did
not always know how to make best use of available technology and were
unaware of ways in which this technology could be used to meet the
requirements and the goals of NCLBA. For example, one small rural
district we visited had distance learning technology and high-speed
Internet connections in place, but officials indicated that none of the
students were taking online classes yet, and at the time of our visit,
they did not have the information on online professional development
options for teachers.
Other strategies for meeting teacher qualification requirements were
reported as well, although less than half of rural and nonrural
district superintendents reported using them. For example, about 40
percent of both rural and nonrural district superintendents reported
establishing partnerships with higher education institutions to train
teachers, and more than 10 percent of rural and nonrural districts
created agreements with other school systems for purposes such as
sharing highly qualified teachers. Officials indicated that some of
these strategies might be difficult to implement in rural areas. For
example, even though some districts were making attempts to share
teachers, large distances made it difficult for rotating teachers to
travel from one district to the next.
Small Rural Districts Were Less Likely to Use Some Strategies than
Other Rural Districts:
Among rural districts, small rural districts were less likely to report
using some strategies, such as teacher mentoring and remedial services,
to meet student proficiency goals than other rural districts. (See fig.
3.)
Figure 3: Percentages of Small Rural District Superintendents Reporting
Use of Specific Strategies to Help Schools Meet Student Proficiency
Goals Compared with Percentages of Other Rural District
Superintendents:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Each difference between small rural and other rural districts in
this table is significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of figure]
For example, about half of small rural districts reported offering
mentoring to teachers, compared with about three-quarters of other
rural districts. Small rural districts may experience greater
difficulties offering mentoring programs for teachers than other rural
districts since they typically have even fewer teachers, those they
have are more likely to teach multiple subjects and grade levels, and
they are located farther from other districts--factors that limit their
pool of teachers to serve as mentors to other teachers. Likewise,
although most rural districts used remedial services such as tutoring,
a smaller percentage of superintendents from small rural districts than
superintendents from other rural districts reported offering these
services to meet districts' student proficiency goals--81 percent
compared with 95 percent. Rural district officials noted that offering
remedial services to students was difficult because the distances
students had to travel home were large and road conditions were poor,
thus minimizing the amount of time that students could spend in school
to participate in remedial programs. Other strategies for meeting
student proficiency goals were generally as likely to be reported by
superintendents from small rural as by those from other rural
districts, and included coordinating with ESAs, providing additional
computer capacity, and offering incentives or bonuses for teachers.
Small rural districts were also less likely than other rural districts
to use certain strategies for meeting teacher qualification
requirements. (See fig. 4.)
Figure 4: Percentages of Small Rural District Superintendents Reporting
Use of Specific Strategies to Meet NCLBA's Teacher Qualification
Requirements Compared with Percentages of Other Rural District
Superintendents:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Each difference between small rural and other rural districts in
this table is significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of figure]
For example, about a quarter of small rural districts established
partnerships with higher education institutions to help teachers become
highly qualified, compared with almost half of other rural districts.
Similarly, fewer than half of superintendents from small rural
districts reported encouraging paraprofessionals to become highly
qualified in order to increase their supply of teachers who met NCLBA's
qualification requirements, compared with almost 70 percent of
superintendents from other rural districts. Officials indicated that
establishing partnerships with higher education institutions or sending
paraprofessionals for training was difficult in small and isolated
rural areas, since the nearest institutions were far away. According to
one official working with many small rural districts, it was also not
cost-effective for higher education institutions to send their
representatives to these districts to offer training on-site, given a
very small number of staff in small rural areas. Other strategies for
ensuring that teachers met NCLBA's qualifications requirements were
generally as likely to be reported by superintendents from small rural
districts as by those from other rural districts, and included
provision of training to teachers, increases of teacher salaries, and
the use of services for teachers offered by ESAs, among others.
Rural Districts Identified Some Specific Expenditures Made for NCLBA
Implementation and Used Multiple Funding Sources to Support
Implementation Efforts:
Rural state and district officials identified some specific
expenditures that they associated with implementation of NCLBA, such as
those related to assessments and services to help students meet
academic proficiency goals. However, officials were unable to determine
all NCLBA implementation expenditures, in part because their accounting
records were not maintained in a way that tracked expenditures by NCLBA
categories. States are not required to report separately on
expenditures related to NCLBA implementation, nor have any of the
states we contacted required their districts to do that. Officials
reported relying on various funding sources to support their
implementation efforts, including different federal programs, as well
as state and local funds.
Officials Cited Specific Expenditures Made for Implementing NCLBA:
Officials in states and districts we visited cited specific assessment-
related expenditures, including the cost of administering assessments
and collecting and analyzing assessment results in order to identify
students' academic needs and to inform parents and the community of
schools' progress. For example, officials in one district visited
indicated that they had to add 2 additional days into teachers'
contracts to allow teachers enough time to administer and score
assessments. Officials also indicated that assessment-related
expenditures involved those for training teachers on new assessments.
For example, officials in one district said that the district paid for
a trainer to conduct a 2-day training to familiarize staff with new
assessments.
Officials also identified expenditures related to schools' and
districts' efforts to meet student proficiency goals, including those
for providing remedial services to students and improving the
curriculum. For example, one rural district we visited invested in a
remedial reading program, after-school tutoring sessions, and a summer
program to improve students' proficiency. Another rural district paid
an educational research organization to review the district's math
curriculum and make recommendations for improvement.
In addition, officials in states and districts we contacted cited some
expenditures related to meeting NCLBA's teacher qualifications
requirements, including the direct costs of classes and professional
development programs that teachers and paraprofessionals attended, as
well as other costs associated with teachers and paraprofessionals
taking steps to meet the necessary qualifications. For example, one
small, isolated district we visited paid for teachers to enroll in a
semester-long distance learning class, while several others reimbursed
paraprofessionals for taking college courses to meet NCLBA
requirements. Officials also indicated that sending teachers to
training led to other expenditures, such as hiring substitutes while
teachers attended training or covering travel expenses for teachers who
were sent to training.
Finally, officials identified expenditures related to the provision of
supplemental educational services and school choice in districts and
schools not meeting student proficiency goals. In addition to covering
providers' fees, expenditures for supplemental educational services
included those used to purchase supplies and pay staff to supervise
students. For example, in one rural district, where only online
providers were available, officials said that expenditures would have
to be made to cover the cost of software and an on-site staff person to
monitor students while they received online instruction. Rural state
and district officials also indicated that they expected the cost of
transportation for students eligible for public school choice under
NCLBA to be very high, but those expenses have generally not
materialized because choice options have been so limited in rural
areas.
Difficulties Exist in Determining and Projecting NCLBA Implementation
Expenditures:
Although state and district officials identified specific expenditures
associated with NCLBA implementation, difficulties exist in determining
all NCLBA implementation expenditures. District officials were unable
to identify all of their current expenditures made for NCLBA purposes,
since their accounting records were not maintained in a way that
categorized current expenditures according to whether or not they were
associated with NCLBA requirements. NCLBA does not require states to
report separately on expenditures related to NCLBA implementation, and
none of the states we contacted required their districts to do so. Our
review of the accounting records for one district we visited disclosed
that for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 expenditures were placed in general
expense categories. For example, supplies purchased for use in
providing extended day programs, which were expanded due to NCLBA, were
placed in the same "Supplies" category as supplies purchased for
typical school day instruction. Similarly, salaries paid for teaching
during the extended day programs were placed in the same "Salaries"
category as salaries paid for teaching during the regular school day;
overtime pay and substitute costs, which officials often attributed to
NCLBA, were also placed in this "Salaries" category. An official in
that district indicated that it might be possible to report on NCLBA-
specific expenditures if the district changed the way accounting
records were maintained, but doing this would be time-consuming.
In addition to the difficulties identifying all current expenditures
associated with NCLBA implementation efforts, it is also difficult to
determine what expenditures would have to be made in the future to meet
NCLBA goals. One reason for this difficulty is that research and data
needed to project total expenditures for meeting NCLBA goals are often
not available. For example, research does not consistently suggest what
strategies will help all students meet student proficiency goals. In
fact, district officials told us they did not know which of the
existing strategies would enable students to improve academic
performance to the extent sufficient to reach NCLBA's student
proficiency goals. As a result, projected NCLBA expenditures based on
expanding current strategies, such as those made for tutoring or after-
school programs, may not represent the actual expenditures needed to
meet student proficiency goals if these strategies prove to be either
insufficient to help students meet these goals or are more than what is
needed. Similarly, states and districts currently do not know how many
students will use the school choice option under NCLBA and attend a
different school within their district. Consequently, the true number
of students who would require transportation could be higher or lower
than what may be currently assumed, resulting in a potentially
inaccurate estimate of transportation-related expenditures that
districts might incur.
Another reason why projecting total NCLBA expenditures is difficult is
that different assumptions are made about what costs should be
included. Currently, a consensus does not exist on whether expenditures
that originated prior to NCLBA but are now being used to help meet
NCLBA goals should be included in the estimate of total NCLBA
expenditures. For example, officials often cited remedial programs for
students and professional development for teachers as being related to
NCLBA, but these programs may already have been in place prior to
passage of the law. This may have been true particularly for states
that implemented systems for measuring student proficiency prior to
NCLBA or in states that were already striving for goals and outcomes
similar to those associated with NCLBA. In addition, it may be
difficult to determine the extent to which NCLBA may lead some
districts to redirect expenditures to more efficient purposes--such as
identifying and providing services to at-risk students in earlier
grades to reduce the need for subsequent services.
The accounting and conceptual difficulties we identified have affected
the total expenditure estimates produced by existing studies, resulting
in a wide range of estimates across the studies.[Footnote 9] For
example, one study included expenditures for various strategies that
will be provided to help students meet proficiency goals, including
summer school, in-school tutoring, and extended day programs; on the
other hand, another study included expenditures for 6 additional weeks
of academic instruction to help students meet these goals. As a result,
the studies resulted in different estimates of the total expenditures
that would be needed to meet student proficiency provisions of NCLBA.
As states and districts have more time to implement NCLBA or if the
studies estimating NCLBA expenditures become more focused on either
specific provisions of the law or on particular locations in which the
law is implemented, these difficulties may be mitigated. For example,
as districts have more time to identify which of their schools are
required to offer school choice to their students and as more parents
learn about this option, data will become available on how many
students will make use of school choice. In addition, instead of trying
to estimate the total expenditures associated with implementing NCLBA,
it may be less difficult to focus on individual NCLBA provisions, such
as assessments and teacher qualification requirements. Given the
differences in approaches that states and districts can use to meet the
requirements of the law, it may be less difficult to determine NCLBA
expenditures incurred by a particular district, rather than to try to
determine expenditures for all districts in the state or for all states
across the country. For example, some school districts required to
offer school choice might have a school available for students to
transfer to within their own district, while other districts might
choose to enter into agreements with other districts to offer school
choice; depending on whether students will have to travel within their
own district or outside of it to attend a different school,
transportation expenditures associated with offering school choice may
be different across districts.[Footnote 10] Thus, focusing on
expenditures associated with the school choice provision in one
particular district at a time may be less difficult than attempting to
determine a single estimate for school choice expenditures across the
entire state. States, researchers, and education organizations have
been working on developing methodologies to identify NCLBA
expenditures. Some states and districts told us they are trying to find
a method to document NCLBA expenditures separately from their
expenditures on other state initiatives. Researchers in the education
finance area have also been exploring methods for estimating
expenditures. Education organizations, such as the Council of Chief
State School Officers have also been working on developing approaches
to identify specific activities used to implement NCLBA, as well as
expenditures made for each of those activities.
Officials Used Multiple Funding Sources to Support NCLBA Implementation
Efforts:
Rural district officials responding to the survey identified various
funding sources as being very helpful in the implementation of NCLBA,
including different federal programs, as well as state and local funds.
Although the Congress has appropriated billions of dollars for
education--more than $37 billion for K-12 education in fiscal year
2004--the largest portion of district revenue typically comes from
state and local sources of funds. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's
Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data, districts
received, on average, roughly 7 percent of their revenues from federal
funds in 2001, but federal funds tended to make up a slightly higher
proportion of total revenue for rural districts than they did for
nonrural districts. Other major district revenues included state funds
(approximately 50 percent) and local funds (approximately 40 percent).
Rural districts received a somewhat larger portion of their revenues
from state funds and a smaller portion from local funds than nonrural
districts.
Officials reported using various federal funding sources for their
implementation efforts. According to survey results, Title I was one of
the primary sources of federal funds, and more than 60 percent of rural
district superintendents reported this source of funds as being very
helpful for implementing NCLBA. In rural states and districts
contacted, Title I funds were used for various initiatives designed to
improve student achievement and teacher qualifications. For example, in
one state contacted, officials indicated that Title I funds were used
by the rural districts for remedial services in reading and math,
initiatives to help increase academic achievement of students with
limited English proficiency, and professional development programs for
teachers.
More than half of rural district superintendents responding to the
survey also reported that Title II funds for improving teacher
qualifications were very helpful with NCLBA implementation efforts, and
officials contacted reported using these funds to help their staff meet
NCLBA's qualification requirements.[Footnote 11] For example, in one
state visited, officials indicated that Title II funds were used to
develop a portfolio-based assessment for teachers to demonstrate
subject matter competency, as required under NCLBA.[Footnote 12] In
addition, while the survey results showed that only 14 percent of rural
district superintendents reported that Impact Aid was very helpful for
NCLBA implementation, it played a large role among rural districts we
visited that had a large proportion of Native American students; in two
districts visited, officials told us that Impact Aid constituted almost
half of the districts' budgets.[Footnote 13] In rural districts
visited, Impact Aid funds were used for purposes such as providing
remedial services for students and tuition for paraprofessionals to
take college courses and become qualified under NCLBA.
Rural districts also used REAP funds for a variety of purposes
associated with NCLBA implementation, including providing remedial
services to students and professional development to teachers.[Footnote
14] Almost 70 percent of rural district superintendents responding to
the survey indicated that they received REAP, and the majority of them
reported using or having plans to use REAP to address technology needs
of students and teachers, provide remedial and supplemental educational
services to students, and offer professional development for teachers
to help them meet NCLBA's qualification requirements. (See table 7.)
Table 7: Percentages of Rural District Superintendents Reporting the
Use of REAP Funds for Purposes Associated with NCLBA Implementation:
Purpose: Technology needs of students and teachers;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 86.
Purpose: Supplemental educational services to students;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 66%.
Purpose: Remedial services to students in preparation for annual
assessments; Percentage of rural district superintendents: 60%.
Purpose: Professional development to help teachers meet NCLBA
qualification requirements;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 64%.
Purpose: Annual assessments (e.g., developing and administering
assessments, preparing report cards, disseminating information on
assessment results, data management for reporting results);
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 49%.
Purpose: Professional development to help paraprofessionals meet NCLBA
qualification requirements;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 46%.
Purpose: After-school or extended day programs;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 37%.
Purpose: Recruitment of highly qualified teachers;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 31%.
Purpose: Recruitment of qualified paraprofessionals;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 19%.
Purpose: School choice;
Percentage of rural district superintendents: 5%.
Source: GAO survey data.
[End of table]
In rural states and districts visited, officials reported that REAP
funds have been of great assistance in implementing various initiatives
to meet the goals of NCLBA. For example, some rural districts visited
used REAP to provide tutoring and after-school programs for students
falling behind, while others used REAP for programs to improve
students' reading skills. Some districts also used REAP for teacher
qualifications initiatives, such as sending teachers to training,
offering signing bonuses to attract teachers to a rural location, or
funding distance learning and video conferencing infrastructure to
enable teachers in geographically isolated areas to take classes to
raise their qualifications.
In addition to making additional funds available to eligible rural
districts, REAP also allows eligible districts to spend funds under
certain programs, such as the Safe and Drug-Free School Program, for
activities beyond what those programs intended. For example, districts
may choose to use funds allocated under technology and antidrug
programs for initiatives to help students reach academic
proficiency.[Footnote 15] In many rural states contacted, officials
indicated that this flexibility facilitated their efforts to implement
NCLBA by allowing them to direct funds to areas where they were most
needed to meet NCLBA's goals. For example, in one rural state
contacted, officials reported that many of their districts used Safe
and Drug-Free School Program funds to support their technology
initiatives, which, in turn, helped with implementing some of the
provisions of NCLBA.
Among rural district superintendents responding to the survey, 84
percent reported receiving E-Rate funds since the passage of
NCLBA.[Footnote 16] Rural officials we contacted indicated that these
funds facilitated their efforts to implement the law. For example,
beginning with school year 2004-05, some rural districts in a state
that we contacted will use E-Rate funds to finance distance learning
infrastructure for offering professional development to teachers. In
another rural state, the technology infrastructure created with the
help of E-Rate helped ensure that students in isolated rural areas
could take classes taught by highly qualified teachers in other
locations. Several district officials noted that E-Rate discounts
enabled them to provide or sustain Internet access, thus offering
learning opportunities to students that may have otherwise been
unavailable in rural areas.
In addition to using federal funds, rural districts used state and
local funds to implement NCLBA. For example, a few rural districts we
visited used state funds to improve technology and offer programs to
students via mechanisms such as interactive TV. In another rural
district visited, local property taxes were used to reimburse staff for
taking college courses to raise their qualifications.
Education Provided Many Types of Assistance, but Rural Officials Said
Additional Assistance Would Be Helpful:
Since the passage of NCLBA, Education has provided guidance and
assisted all states in a variety of ways, but officials from rural
states and districts, including small rural districts, stated that more
assistance would be helpful to fully address their issues. Education
has posted on its Website current NCLBA implementation guidance and
communicated with state officials in all states through telephone
calls, conferences, and visits. Education has employed an evolving
approach to assistance by providing more information and expanded
guidance as it learned more from state officials regarding questions
and issues they had difficulty addressing. Since April 2003, Education
has devoted more attention to rural issues. However, officials in rural
states we interviewed told us that additional assistance addressing
their unique challenges, such as the extreme challenges faced by small
and isolated rural districts, would be beneficial.
Education Provided Many Types of Assistance:
Since the passage of NCLBA, Education has provided general assistance
and guidance to all states in several ways in order to help them
implement the legislation. (See table 8.)
Table 8: Actions Taken by Education to Assist States with
Implementation of NCLBA and Their Intended Purpose:
Efforts to assist states: Websites providing current guidance on
implementation, promising practices, and scientific research;
Purpose: Clarify requirements of NCLBA to help states correctly
implement legislation and share information among states and districts
on successful practices taken to implement NCLBA.
Efforts to assist states: State visits--Teacher Assistance Corps;
Purpose: Obtain information on state efforts and challenges and advise
states on implementation of NCLBA teacher requirements.
Efforts to assist states: Conferences and workshops;
Purpose: National and regional conferences to explain guidance,
provide information on strategies, answer questions and obtain
information from states and districts on their challenges.
Efforts to assist states: Superintendents' Hotline;
Purpose: To respond to questions from district superintendents on
NCLBA and its implementation.
Source: GAO analysis of Education's documents and interviews with
Education officials.
[End of table]
Education's website contained information on guidance, regulations, and
legislation. The website featured large sections devoted to NCLBA,
including frequently asked questions and other useful information. For
example, key requirements, such as those related to teacher
qualifications, were highlighted with references to guidance.
Education's website also included links to other websites. For example:
* A website on teacher qualifications (April 2004) that identified best
practices for meeting teacher requirements. The Website also announced
plans to hold teacher workshops on strategies for improving student
proficiency.
* A website on supplemental educational services (May 2004) that
provided information to administrators, teachers, and parents on
lessons learned and available resources for providing supplemental
educational services. The site also included links to websites of all
state departments of education.
* A website for promising practices in offering school choice (May
2004) to assist districts in offering parents the choice of sending
their child to another school if the child's current school was in need
of improvement.
Education also provided assistance through state visits, conferences,
and a hotline for superintendents. In the summer of 2003, Education
organized teams of experts, called Teacher Assistance Corps teams.
These teams--composed of federal and state education officials,
teachers, principals, superintendents, leaders from higher education,
and others--visited every state education department to obtain
information on how states were implementing teacher qualification
provisions and the challenges they were facing, as well as to provide
assistance to states on implementing these provisions. The teams
completed visits to all states in April 2004. Education also held
several regional and national conferences to assist states with NCLBA
implementation. The conferences provided state and district officials
with the opportunity to meet Education's staff, discuss implementation
issues, and learn about recently issued guidance. In January 2004,
Education established a Superintendents' Hotline to provide a single
point where district superintendents could go to seek answers to their
questions on NCLBA implementation. In addition to receiving Education's
assistance, states we contacted provided districts with guidance and
assistance to help them implement NCLBA, such as conducting workshops
on NCLBA's requirements and disseminating information through state
websites. State officials told us that they have spent considerable
time and resources on these efforts, including the development of state
plans that provide a road map for districts to implement the law. Rural
districts surveyed reported assistance from the state department of
education as the most helpful, as compared to federal and local
agencies and other organizations.
Education Has Become More Focused on Rural Education Issues:
Since April 2003, Education has focused more efforts on rural education
issues. At that time, Education established a Rural Education Task
Force to coordinate and focus rural education efforts within the
department and, according to the Executive Director of the task force,
to bring together senior level personnel to identify rural issues and
solutions. According to the information provided by the Executive
Director, the task force has met with the Congressional Rural Caucus
and several national education organizations. The task force also
organized a virtual town hall meeting, hosted by the Secretary of
Education, on how rural communities are using technology to meet the
goals of NCLBA. The event was a live webcast to allow school officials
from across the country to learn more about how their colleagues are
using technology to achieve the goals and meet the requirements of
NCLBA. The Executive Director also indicated that the task force
contributed to developing the new flexibilities for rural states that
addressed some of their challenges, such as those related to
qualifications for teachers of multiple subjects. He said he believed
that rural states and districts currently had all the flexibilities
that they needed to implement NCLBA. The Executive Director added,
however, that discussion would continue on whether there is any other
work for the taskforce to do in assisting rural states and districts.
Education issued new flexibilities in guidance in March 2004. According
to Education officials, the information that rural state officials
provided to visiting Education teams, along with other communications
with state officials, was used by Education to develop the
flexibilities. The new flexibilities were intended, among other things,
to assist rural states with teacher qualification and student
proficiency provisions of NCLBA. For example, under some circumstances,
teachers in rural districts are allowed extra time--up to 3 years--to
meet the teacher qualification requirements, and states can now use a
single state test for teachers to demonstrate subject area knowledge in
multiple subjects and grades. These flexibilities may be helpful to
some rural districts, since teachers in small rural districts may be
expected to teach multiple subjects. In addition, schools may average
student participation in assessment over a 3-year period, which may
make it easier for small rural schools to meet NCLBA's assessment
participation requirement.
Education is also overseeing a research center for rural education. In
response to congressional legislation, Education funds national
research and development centers that examine a wide range of education
topics in order to provide information on educational practices and
outcomes contributing to successful school performance. On September
14, 2004, Education awarded a grant for the National Center for
Research and Development in Rural Education. According to Education's
Cooperative Agreement with the grantee, the purpose of the center is to
develop, test, and disseminate new approaches to improve teaching and
learning, and ultimately student achievement. The grant proposal and
the cooperative agreement documents contain several research
initiatives to address challenges rural districts face. According to
the agreement document, the research agenda is focused on the
implementation and evaluation of school-wide strategies that enhance
rural students' academic, behavioral, and social adjustment across the
elementary and middle school years and two supplemental studies related
to distance learning and career exploration for rural high school
students. However, there was no mention of any research directed to the
unique challenges faced by small rural districts such as frequent
inaccessibility to technology-based initiatives. Education has also
given other grants, including one to the National Association of State
Boards of Education that focus on assisting rural states.
Rural State and District Officials Cited the Need for More Technical
Assistance and Information on Services That Will Help Improve Student
Performance:
Many districts reported the need for more assistance at the time our
survey was administered in January 2004, and officials that we
contacted reported that Education's current assistance did not fully
address their unique issues. For example, almost three-quarters of
rural district officials responding to the survey reported the need for
additional assistance on remedial services that will help students meet
academic proficiency goals. Officials we contacted said they did not
know which strategies would help students reach student proficiency
goals or the extent to which strategies currently in use should be
maintained, modified, or eliminated. Currently, scientific research on
the effectiveness of different strategies to improve student
performance is limited.
Officials from some states we contacted between October 2003 and April
2004 told us that while Education's on-site teacher qualification teams
did seek information on challenges these states were facing, they did
not always respond to their questions. State officials with unanswered
questions were concerned that they may be out of compliance with the
law. Education officials told us that because they were continually
developing new policies and flexibilities in guidance to respond to
states' concerns, some questions could not be answered during
Education's visits to the states.
Most state officials told us that the guidance received from Education
for implementing various parts of NCLBA was helpful, but officials from
nine states we interviewed cited concerns, such as guidance being in
draft form, changing frequently, or not being issued in a timely manner
for meeting NCLBA requirements. In response to these concerns,
Education officials told us it was challenging to provide the support
states needed to meet NCLBA requirements given the short time frames
for issuing guidance to implement NCLBA provisions and the differences
in education systems among states. Education officials said that they
were continuing to address rural issues.
Conclusions:
NCLBA seeks to make fundamental changes in public education by
challenging federal, state, and local education officials to reevaluate
the way education has been delivered. For the first time, the Congress
has specified a deadline for when it expects all students to reach
proficiency on state assessments, showing that students possess
knowledge of the subject matter in accordance with state standards.
Achieving the goal of having all students proficient will be a
formidable challenge for all states, districts, schools, and students.
However, educators in rural areas may face additional challenges,
primarily related to the small size of rural school districts and their
geographic isolation.
Education made considerable efforts and progress in promulgating
regulations, providing assistance, and working with states during the
first two and a half years of NCLBA implementation. States also have
devoted significant time and resources in developing state plans and
working with districts to meet NCLBA requirements and deadlines. As a
result of these efforts, many states are becoming better positioned to
meet the 2014 deadline that all students be proficient. Yet, these
efforts have not always been as successful for states with small rural
districts because of the unique challenges they face. Small rural
districts comprise 11 percent of all school districts in the country.
Officials in states with small rural districts, as well as the district
officials, reported on the difficulties they were having implementing
NCLBA provisions. Although Education issued guidance that provides
additional flexibilities to help rural areas, challenges still exist.
Rural districts are held accountable for student performance to the
same extent as all other districts, so in the third year of NCLBA
implementation, additional assistance from Education would likely help
students in rural districts, particularly small rural districts, fully
benefit from NCLBA.
Further, rural districts, as well as nonrural districts, reported that
they needed information on what strategies are most effective in
helping improve students' performance. Currently, scientifically based
research on the effectiveness of various remedial services is limited,
particularly research on effective strategies that takes into account
the challenges that small and geographically isolated districts face.
Without information from scientifically based research studies on
effective remedial services, particularly services that can be used in
these districts, students may not achieve the levels of academic
progress sufficient for meeting state proficiency goals. In addition,
without this information, districts would not know what expenditures
they would need to make to better position themselves for meeting the
goals of NCLBA.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Because of the challenges small rural districts face, we recommend that
the Secretary of Education provide additional assistance to states on
approaches small rural districts can use to implement student
proficiency provisions and teacher qualification requirements,
including the application of new flexibilities.
To assist rural states in meeting student proficiency provisions of
NCLBA, we are recommending that Education---through its recently
established National Research and Development Center on Rural
Education---focus on effective, scientifically based methods to improve
student performance, and that it conduct studies on the services that
can help small rural districts meet students proficiency provisions in
light of the unique challenges that these districts face.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.
Education's written comments are reproduced in appendix II. The
department discussed but did not explicitly agree or disagree with our
recommendations. For both recommendations, Education provided new
information that was incorporated, as appropriate, in the report. In
addition, we modified the report to address Education's two technical
comments.
In response to our recommendation that Education provide additional
assistance to states on approaches small rural districts can use, the
department commented that it intends to provide such assistance. In its
comments, Education provided some additional information on the actions
already taken and stated that it plans to take action to help states
and districts, including those districts in rural areas. However, some
of these actions do not address the unique challenges of small rural
school districts, such as those with limited access to the Internet.
Therefore, we continue to recommend that Education focus some
assistance to address the needs of these small rural school districts.
Regarding our second recommendation, that Education use its new
National Research and Development Center on Rural Education to address
the unique challenges small rural districts face, Education commented
that through the center, it would initiate a long-term program of
research to implement and evaluate professional development strategies
to enhance rural students' performance. Education awarded the research
grant to fund this center on September 14, 2004, after it had received
and reviewed our report. Education noted in its comments that the
center will conduct research programs that will be helpful to rural
districts, such as the effectiveness of web-and video-based programs.
However, our findings have shown such programs may not be appropriate
for some small, isolated rural districts that often have limited access
to technology. On the basis of our review of the awarded grant
proposal, we found that it contained no indication that the center
would direct any research to specifically focus on challenges and
strategies applicable to small, isolated rural districts. Therefore, we
continue to recommend that through the center Education conduct studies
on approaches that can help small rural districts meet student
proficiency provisions in light of the unique challenges these
districts face.
Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time,
we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Education,
appropriate congressional committees, and others who are interested. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://
www.gao.gov. If you have any question about this report, please call me
at (202) 512-7215. Key contributors are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Marnie S. Shaul, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
In conducting our work, we administered a mail survey to a nationally
representative sample of 1,215 school district superintendents. The
survey was conducted between January 19, 2004, and March 26, 2004. We
analyzed survey data and identified significant results. The response
rate for the survey was 85 percent.
The study population for the survey consisted of public school
districts contained in the Department of Education's Common Core of
Data (CCD) Local Education Agency (LEA) file for the 2001-02 school
year, the latest year for which data were available. We reviewed the
documentation for this file and conducted electronic testing of the
file we received. Based on these reviews, we determined that the file
was sufficiently reliable for our purposes. In addition, we determined
the data were sufficiently accurate to serve as our study population.
From this file, we identified a population of 14,396 school districts
in the 50 states.
Sample. The sample design for this survey was a stratified sample of
1,215 LEAs in the study population. To enable us to compare rural
districts with nonrural districts, we categorized our sample as
follows:
* Rural districts. We defined districts as rural if they were 55 miles
or farther from a metropolitan statistical area.
* Nonrural districts. We defined districts as nonrural if they were
located less than 55 miles from a metropolitan statistical area.
The distance of 55 miles was chosen because it reflects the 25 percent
of districts in the country located farthest from a metropolitan
statistical area. This definition allowed us to analyze those districts
that may be experiencing special challenges due to their geographic
isolation.
To ensure that we obtained information from most rural school
districts, we further stratified our sample by size as follows:
* Small rural districts. We defined districts as small rural if they
were 55 miles or farther from a metropolitan area and had 300 or fewer
students.
* Other rural districts. We defined districts as other rural if they
were 55 miles or farther from a metropolitan statistical area but had
more than 300 students.
Estimates. All estimates produced from the district sample in this
report were for a target population defined as all public school
districts in the 50 states for the 2003-04 school year. Estimates of
this target population were formed by weighting the survey data to
account for both sample design and the response rates for each stratum.
Sampling error. Because we surveyed a sample of school districts, our
results were estimates of a population of school districts and thus
were subject to sampling errors associated with samples of this size
and type. Our confidence in the precision of the results from this
sample was expressed in the 95 percent confidence intervals. The 95
percent confidence intervals are expected to include the actual results
for 95 percent of the samples of this type. We calculated confidence
intervals for our study results using methods that were appropriate for
a stratified, probability sample. For the percentages presented in this
report, we were 95 percent confident that the results we would have
obtained if we had studied the entire study population were within plus
or minus 10 percentage points of our results, unless otherwise noted.
For example, we estimated that 39 percent of small rural school
districts identified geographic isolation as a challenge in meeting the
highly qualified teacher provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLBA). The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate would be
no wider than plus or minus 10 percent, or from 29 percent to 49
percent.
Nonsampling error. In addition to these sampling errors, the practical
difficulties in conducting surveys of this type may introduce other
types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For
example, questions may be misinterpreted, the respondents' answers may
differ from those of the districts that did not respond, or errors
could be made in keying questionnaire data. We took steps to reduce
these errors.
Prior to fielding the questionnaire, we met with two outside experts in
October 2003 to discuss the survey and listen to their suggestions. On
the basis of these suggestions, the survey was revised. It was
pretested with 5 district superintendents in rural and nonrural
districts in November and December of 2003. We conducted these pretests
to ensure that the respondents understood the questions and could
provide the answers to them. Following these pretests, the survey
underwent additional, mostly minor, revisions. Data edits and
estimation programs were independently verified to ensure that
programming errors did not affect our estimates. To reduce nonresponse,
we sent a follow-up mailing to all school districts that had not
responded to the survey by our deadline, followed by telephone calls to
nonresponding districts.
Site visits. To obtain information on rural districts' experiences with
implementing the accountability and teacher quality provisions of
NCLBA, we made site visits and conducted telephone interviews with the
10 most rural states: Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont. These
states represented the most rural states in the country based on the
percentage of their school districts in rural communities, the
percentage of their students attending schools in rural communities,
and the average distance between the school districts in the state and
the nearest metropolitan statistical area as a measure of geographic
isolation. We made site visits to 6 states--Maine, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, visiting state
education officials, as well as officials in two or three local school
districts in each state (see table 9). We selected school districts to
visit on the basis of variation in student enrollment, geographic
isolation, school performance, and demographic characteristics. In
addition, we consulted with state education officials in helping us
select local school districts that were in need of improvement. We
conducted telephone interviews with officials in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas,
and Vermont. We spoke with state education officials in each of these
states, as well as with officials in three Alaska districts. We also
conducted telephone interviews with state education officials in
Wyoming because of the large geographic distance that school districts
in that state cover.
Table 9: Site Visit States and School Districts:
State: Alaska;
Local school district: Haines Borough;
Local school district: Kuspuk;
Local school district: Pelican City.
State: Maine;
Local school district: School Administrative District 34, Belfast;
Local school district: School Administrative District 49, Fairfield;
Local school district: Steuben School Department.
State: Mississippi;
Local school district: Jefferson County;
Local school district: North Panola.
State: Montana;
Local school district: Box Elder;
Local school district: Browning.
State: Nebraska;
Local school district: Creighton;
Local school district: Santee;
Local school district: Wheeler Central.
State: North Dakota;
Local school district: Mandaree;
Local school district: Selfridge.
State: South Dakota;
Local school district: Isabel;
Local school district: Todd County.
Source: GAO data.
Note: Interviews with state and district officials in Alaska were
conducted by telephone.
[End of table]
Other Methodology:
We also conducted interviews with educational association
representatives and other experts, met with Education officials, and
reviewed guidance and data from Education. We conducted our work in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards
between August 2003 and August 2004.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY:
September 15, 2004:
Ms. Marnie S. Shaul:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Shaul:
This is in response to your request for comments on the draft report
entitled "No Child Left Behind: Additional Assistance and Research on
Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts" (GAO-04-909). We
have carefully reviewed the document and appreciate this opportunity to
provide comments to you.
We are pleased that GAO recognized in the report that "Education made
considerable efforts and progress in promulgating regulations,
providing assistance, and working with states in the first two and a
half years of NCLBA implementation." You additionally recognized the
considerable efforts of the States.
Your report first recommends ads that the U.S. Department of Education
"provide additional assistance to states on approaches small rural
districts can use to implement student proficiency provisions and
teacher qualification requirements, including the
application of new flexibilities."
We appreciate the concerns that you have expressed concerning the
unique challenges that small rural districts face and recognize there
is a continuing need for additional assistance in confronting those
challenges. While we intend to provide such additional assistance, the
authors of the report may not understand all the actions we have
already taken in this area, and the report might be revised to include
more information on those actions.
As you noted in your report, we have taken a number of steps to address
the challenges faced by small rural districts. These steps include the
formation of a rural task force, updates to the Title II, Part A non-
regulatory guidance Teacher Assistance Corps visits, new flexibility
for meeting the "highly qualified teacher" requirements provided in
guidance last March, and a variety of workshops. Other activities we
have undertaken to help improve student achievement in rural districts
and help those districts implement the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
include the following.
In March and July of this year, we conducted two major Technology
Leadership Summits that provided technical assistance on how technology
can assist States and districts in the implementation of NCLB. For each
summit, we made a special effort to invite and encourage participation
from small and low-income rural school districts. The first summit
provided technical assistance in identifying technology tools and
resources that are available to support the accountability, student
info information and data collection and reporting requirements of
NCLB, promoting the benefits of online assessment, illustrating how
online assessments can inform instruction at the classroom level
(through, for example, diagnostic tests, real-time reporting, and the
use of performance-based assessments) and focusing on strategies to
make assessment results useful. The second summit focused on
increasing options though "e-learning." This summit explored virtual
education - distance learning, virtual schools and other online
education courses - as a powerful technology innovation expanding
opportunities for learning in support of NCLB. A major feature of the
summit was a "Virtual Schoolhouse" in which students from a rural
school demonstrated how technology has increased their learning
options.
We also have conducted Webcasts with State Title I directors and
district Federal program coordinators in which Federal, State,
district, and other officials discuss NCLB requirements and strategies
for addressing them. In addition, we are expanding the use of Web
conferencing technology as another strategy for providing information
to, and sharing information among, States in order to assist all
districts including rural and low-income school districts in
understanding and meeting the requirements of NCLB. We have a contract
with the Council of Chief State School Officer to provide technical
assistance to States. One area of focus is technical assistance to
States with small districts and small schools regarding different
strategies four making adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations.
Such districts and schools have enrollments in tested grade that
require them to go through a separate review process to make AYP
determinations since the total number of students doesn't meet the
State's minimum size requirements ("group size" for making
accountability determinations in the same manner as other, larger
schools.
As a part of our continuing outreach to rural districts and schools,
our Teacher-to-Teacher initiative, which is designed to support
teachers in raising student achievement, is planning four Saturday
workshops this fall, two of which will be in rural areas. Next summer
we will hold an additional six workshops throughout the country. To
provide further e-learning opportunities for teachers, the Department
will make available, on line, eleven presentations focusing on reading,
math, and science from this summer's Teacher-to-Teacher workshops, and
we plan to add twelve more reading and math presentations from the fall
workshops mentioned above. To access these presentations visit
www.ed.gov/teacherinitiative. Teachers will be able to access this
high-quality professional development free of charge.
Your report recommends, secondly, that the Department "through
its recently established National Research and Development Center on
Rural Education - focus on effective, scientifically-based methods to
improve student performance, and that it conduct studies on the
services that can help small rural districts meet student proficiency
provisions in light of the unique challenges that these districts
face."
On February 4, the Institute of Education Sciences released a Request
for Applications (RFA) for its Education Research and Development
Center Grants competition. The requirements for the proposed research
and development centers were published in that RFA. Prior to receiving
the GAO's report, the Institute awarded a research grant to fund a
national research and development center on rural education. The he
grantee proposed, and the Institute is funding, a focused, long-term
program of research to implement and evaluate professional development
strategies for rural schools aimed at establishing schoolwide
strategies that enhance rural students' academic, behavioral, and
social adjustment across the elementary and middle school years. As
part of its program of research, the center will evaluate the
effectiveness of delivering a teacher professional development program
via Web-based training and video-conferencing consultation, an approach
that may prove to be extremely useful for small, isolated rural school
districts. The primary purpose of the National Research and
Development Center on Rural Education is to conduct rigorous research
to identify which education practices are effective for increasing
student achievement and improving the teaching and learning
environment and not to provide technical assistance. However,
approximately one quarter of the effect of the Department's regional
laboratories is devoted to providing support and technical assistance
for rural schools.
As you complete this report, there are two other comments we would
like to offer.
We recommend that the report specifically note that, by statute, the
"Rural-Flex" authority to use funds for alternative purposes is
available only to those districts that meet the specific eligibility
requirements of the Small, Rural School Achievement program as set
forth in 6211 (b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as
amended.
In the report, reference is made to a requirement by NCLB "to ensure
that every student becomes proficient in reading, math and science by
school year 2013-14." NCLB requires student proficiency in reading/
language arts and math by 2013-14. Proficiency in science is not an
NCLB accountability requirement.
Again, we appreciate your efforts in preparing this report and
providing us with an opportunity to submit these comments. Please feel
free to contact us if you would like to discuss any of these matters
further.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Eugene W. Hickok:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Harriet C. Ganson (202) 512-7042 or gansonh@gao.gov
Mary E. Roy (202) 512-7072 or roym@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, the following individuals made
important contributions to this report: Natalya Bolshun, Daniele
Schiffman, Cynthia Decker, Kris Braaten, Jessica Botsford, Jean
McSween, John Mingus, Corinna Nicolaou, Robert Owens, and Jay Smale.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination Needed
among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher
Requirements. GAO-04-659. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004.
Student Mentoring Programs: Education's Monitoring and Information
Sharing Could Be Improved. GAO-04-581. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2004.
Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information
Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO-03-389. Washington,
D.C.: May 8, 2003.
No Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help States Determine
Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified. GAO-03-631. Washington, D.C.: July
17, 2003.
Elementary and Secondary Education: Ed-Flex States Vary in
Implementation of Waiver Process. GAO/HEHS-99-17. Washington, D.C.:
November 13, 1998.
Rural Development: Profile of Rural Areas. GAO/RCED-93-40FS.
Washington, D.C.: April 29, 1993.
Rural Development: Rural America Faces Many Challenges. GAO/RCED-93-35.
Washington, D.C.: November 20, 1992.
FOOTNOTES
[1] NCLBA was signed into law as Pub. L. No.107-110.
[2] Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
allocated almost $12 billion in fiscal year 2003 to serve disadvantaged
children in approximately 90 percent of the nation's school districts.
[3] NCES is part of the Department of Education and is the primary
federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to
education in the United States and other nations.
[4] All percentage differences reported from the survey have sampling
errors of no more than plus or minus 10 percentage points, at a 95
percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted. In our analysis of
the survey data, we combined responses that were reported to a "great"
or "very great" extent. References in the report that describe the
frequency of occurrence of a particular response reflect this combined
category. For example, all reported responses for challenges to
implementation were identified by respondents as occurring to a "great"
or "very great" extent.
[5] See GAO, DOD Overseas Schools: Compensation Adequate for Recruiting
and Retaining Well-Qualified Teachers, GAO-03-19 (Washington, D.C.:
December 2002).
[6] In March 2004, Education issued guidance with new flexibility for
states to allow some rural districts up to 3 years for multiple subject
teachers who are highly qualified in one subject to become highly
qualified in the additional subjects they teach.
[7] The term "educational service agency" refers to a regional public
multiservice agency authorized by state statute to develop, manage, and
provide services or programs to school districts.
[8] Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, an
individualized education program must be developed for each student
with a disability to state the student's current levels of education
performance, establish measurable annual goals, and outline special
education and related services to be provided to the student. A state
discussed here, however, adopted this practice for all students, not
just those with disabilities.
[9] These studies included Driscoll, William, and Howard Fleeter,
Projected Costs of Implementing the Federal "No Child Left Behind Act"
In Ohio (Columbus, OH: Levin, Driscoll , & Fleeter, December 12, 2003);
AccountabilityWorks, NCLB under A Microscope: A Cost Analysis of the
Fiscal Impact of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 on States and
Local Education Agencies (Washington, D.C.:Education Leaders Council,
January 2004); Mathis, William J., The Federal "No Child Left Behind"
Law: Should Vermont Take the Money? (Vermont Society for the Study of
Education, October 22, 2002); New Hampshire School Administrators
Association, Analysis of Cost Impact of ESEA No Child Left Behind Act
on New Hampshire (Penacook, NH: November 19, 2002); the Minnesota
Office of the Legislative Auditor, Evaluation Report: No Child Left
Behind (St. Paul, MN: Program Evaluation Division, March 2004). A
number of studies have estimated the cost of providing a certain level
of education, yet they did not directly estimate the cost of NCLBA. For
example, see Myers, John, and Justin Silverstein, Calculation of the
Cost of a Suitable Education in Montana in 2001-2002 Using the
Professional Judgment Approach (Denver, CO: Augenblick & Myers, Inc.,
August 2002) and Duncombe, William, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate
Education in New York (Syracuse, NY: Center for Policy Research,
Syracuse University, February 2002). While these studies may be helpful
in thinking about potential approaches to estimating total expenditures
related to NCLBA, they were not directly relevant to NCLBA
implementation efforts. We also reviewed NCLBA cost estimates developed
by Kansas State Department of Education and a school district in Utah.
[10] In its recent study, GAO developed a model for estimating states'
assessment expenditures by analyzing expenditure data from seven
states. The study provided three estimates of total state spending
between fiscal years 2002 and 2008 for test development,
administration, scoring, and reporting--ranging from $1.9 billion to
$5.3 billion--largely depending on the type of scoring method that
tests chosen by the states would require. For example, GAO estimated
that total state expenditures will be about $1.9 billion if states use
all multiple choice questions, which are machine-scored, but $5.3
billion if states choose tests with a mixture of multiple-choice
questions and a limited number of open-ended questions that require
students to write their responses and that have to be hand-scored. See
GAO, Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses;
Information Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies, GAO-03-389
(Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2003).
[11] Title II, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund, provides grants to
state and local educational agencies, state higher education agencies,
and eligible partnerships to implement strategies for improving teacher
and principal quality, as well as to increase the number of highly
qualified teachers, principals, and assistant principals. For fiscal
year 2004, $2.93 billion was appropriated under this program.
[12] Portfolio-based assessment provides for teachers' subject-matter
competency to be determined on the basis of teachers' educational and
professional credentials and experiences.
[13] The Impact Aid program (now Title VIII of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act) provides assistance to school districts with a
large number of children living on Indian reservations, military bases,
low-rent housing properties, or other federal lands. School districts
use Impact Aid for various purposes, including salaries of teachers and
teacher aides, textbooks, after-school and special enrichment programs,
and remedial tutoring. For fiscal year 2004, $1.2 billion was
appropriated under this program.
[14] REAP was designed to help rural districts that may lack the
personnel and resources to compete effectively for federal competitive
grants. It is composed of two programs: (1) the Small, Rural School
Achievement program authorizes the Secretary of Education to award
formula grants directly to eligible school districts; (2) the Rural and
Low-Income Schools program is designed to address the needs of rural,
low-income schools and authorizes the Secretary to award formula grants
to state educational agencies, which in turn award subgrants to
eligible school districts either competitively or on a formula basis.
[15] Rural districts eligible for REAP funds have the flexibility to
use funds under the following programs for activities beyond those that
the programs intend: Subpart 2 of Part A of Title II (Improving Teacher
Quality State Grants); Part D of Title II (Educational Technology State
Grants); Part A of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities); Part A of Title V (State Grants for Innovative Programs).
Funds can be used for activities authorized under the following
programs: Part A of Title I (Improving the Academic Achievement of the
Disadvantaged); Part A of Title II (Improving Teacher Quality State
Grants) and Part D of Title II (Educational Technology State Grants);
Title III (Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and
Immigrant Students); Part A of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities), Part B of Title IV (21st Century Community Learning
Centers); and Part A of Title V (State Grants for Innovative Programs).
Additional information on these programs is available on Education's
website at www.ed.gov.
[16] The E-Rate program, created as part of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, provides discounts on telecommunications services, Internet
access, and internal connections to libraries and schools in the United
States. Through disbursement of over $10 billion in discounted services
since 1997, the E-Rate has helped ensure Internet access in most
schools and libraries in the country.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: