GAO-05-7, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School Choice Provision


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-7 
entitled 'No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide 
Additional Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for 
School Choice Provision' which was released on December 10, 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 the Secretary of Education:

United States Government Accountability Office:

GAO:

December 2004:

No Child Left Behind Act:

Education Needs to Provide Additional Technical Assistance and Conduct 
Implementation Studies for School Choice Provision:

GAO-05-7:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-05-7, a report to the Secretary of Education.

Why GAO Did This Study:

The school choice provision of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 
2001 applies to schools that receive Title I funds and that have not 
met state performance goals for 2 consecutive years, including goals 
set before the enactment of NCLBA. Students in such schools must be 
offered the choice to transfer to another school in the district. GAO 
undertook this review to provide the Congress a report on the first 2 
years of the implementation of NCLBA school choice. GAO reviewed (1) 
the number of Title I schools and students that have been affected 
nationally, (2) the experiences of selected school districts in 
implementing choice, and (3) the guidance and technical assistance that 
Education provided.

GAO collected school performance data from all states, interviewed 
Education officials, and visited 8 school districts in California, 
Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington.

What GAO Found:

About 1 in 10 of the nation’s 50,000 Title I schools were identified 
for school choice in each of the first 2 years since enactment of the 
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001. The proportion of schools 
identified for choice varied by state. About 1 percent of eligible 
children, or 31,000 students, transferred in school year 2003-2004. 
However, little is known about the students who did and did not 
transfer or factors affecting parents’ transfer decisions. Education 
has launched a study that will yield some information on these topics.

Percentages of Title I Schools Identified for School Choice in 2003-
2004 by State: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Officials in most of the 8 districts GAO visited said they welcomed 
NCLBA’s emphasis on improved performance, but had difficulties 
providing choice because of tight timeframes and insufficient classroom 
capacity. Final state determinations of the schools that met state 
yearly performance goals were not generally available before the school 
year started, so offers of transfers were based on preliminary 
determinations. District officials expressed concern that parents had 
inadequate time and information to make an informed decision. Parents 
were offered at least 2 possible schools as transfer options, but many 
of these schools had not met state performance goals in the most recent 
year. Because of limited classroom capacity in 4 of the districts, some 
students did not receive the opportunity to transfer. For students who 
transferred, transportation was provided on school buses, public 
transit or personal cars, and most districts spent less than 7 percent 
of the pool of funds that NCLBA required be set aside for that purpose 
in school year 2003-2004.

Education issued extensive guidance on choice. However, the complexity 
of providing school choice raises a number of issues that have not been 
addressed in guidance available through October 2004, such as how to 
handle cases where schools receiving transfers later are identified for 
choice and how to expand capacity in the short-term within budgetary 
constraints.

What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends that Education monitor issues and promote promising 
practices related to limited classroom capacity, help states develop 
strategies for better informing parents about school choice, and 
include in its planned NCLBA implementation study, an examination of 
the academic outcomes and retention rates of transferring students. 
Education generally agreed with GAO’s recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-7.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Marnie Shaul at (202) 
512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

About 1 in 10 Schools Identified for Choice in the First 2 Years of 
NCLBA, and 1 Percent of Eligible Students Transferred in 2003-2004:

Implementation of Choice Was Challenging in Selected Districts:

Education Issued Extensive Guidance on Choice, but Questions Remain as 
Implementation Proceeds:

Conclusions:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: NCLBA Interventions for Schools Not Meeting Yearly 
Performance Goals Over Time:

Appendix III: Number of Title I Schools in Each State Identified for 
Choice in School Year 2002-2003:

Appendix IV: Number of Title I Schools in Each State Identified for 
Choice in School Year 2003-2004:

Appendix V: Number of Students in Each State Transferring under Choice 
Option in First 2 Years of NCLBA:

Appendix VI: Poverty and Minority Rates of Schools Required to Offer 
Choice and Schools Offered as Transfer Options:

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education:

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Related GAO Products:

Tables:

Table 1: Students Eligible but Not Transferring from Elementary and 
Middle Schools Identified for Choice Compared with Students 
Transferring in 2003-2004 in One District Visited:

Table 2: Milestone Dates for Implementation of Choice for School Year 
2003-2004 in Six Districts We Visited:

Table 3: Transfer Options Offered Parents of Elementary School Students 
in Seven Districts We Visited:

Table 4: Title I Status and Performance of Schools Offered as Transfer 
Options for 2003-2004, by District:

Table 5: Poverty and Minority Rates of Schools Required to Offer Choice 
and Schools Offered as Transfer Options in Fresno:

Table 6: Poverty and Minority Rates of Schools Required to Offer Choice 
and Schools Offered as Transfer Options in Akron:

Table 7: Number of Students Unable to Transfer Due to Capacity 
Limitations in 2003-2004:

Table 8: Transportation Allocations and Projected Expenses for School 
Year 2003-2004, by District:

Table 9: Dates, Type, and Title of Guidance or Technical Assistance 
Provided by Education on School Choice under NCLBA:

Table 10: Characteristics for 2003-2004 of Eight Districts We Visited:

Figures:

Figure 1: Number of Title I Schools and Number Identified for School 
Choice in 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in 
School Years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004:

Figure 2: Demographics of Students Enrolled at Title I Schools 
Identified and Not Identified for Choice in School Year 2003-2004:

Figure 3: Proportion of Schools Identified for Choice at Various Grade 
Spans Compared with All Title I Schools in School Year 2003-2004:

Figure 4: Percentage of Title I Schools Identified for School Choice, 
by State, in School Year 2003-2004:

Figure 5: Number of Title I Students Eligible for Choice and Number 
That Transferred in 42 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 
Rico in School Year 2003-2004:

Figure 6: Timeline for Tacoma Public Schools, 2003:

Abbreviations:

NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act NCESNational Center for Education 
Statistics:

United States Government Accountability Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

December 10, 2004:

The Honorable Rod Paige: 
The Secretary of Education:

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Increased school choice is one of the cornerstones of The No Child Left 
Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001. Signed into law in January 2002, this major 
legislation is designed to improve the academic achievement of all 
students by requiring states to set annual performance goals for 
schools that would result in all students being proficient in reading 
and math by school year 2013-2014. Title I of the act provides 
financial support to improve the education of low-income students in 
high-poverty schools. In 2004, about 50,000 public schools--over half 
of all public schools nationwide--received a share of $12 billion in 
Title I funds. While all public schools are expected to meet state 
performance goals, some of the law's provisions apply only to Title I 
schools, for instance, the school choice requirement. Title I schools 
are identified for choice when performance goals, including goals set 
before the enactment of NCLBA, are not met for 2 or more years in a 
row. In general, all students enrolled in such schools must be offered 
the option of transferring to other schools in the district that have 
not been identified for choice and transportation must be provided. 
Transfer requests cannot be denied for lack of classroom capacity, 
according to federal regulations. While states set the performance 
goals and schools are judged on the performance of their students, the 
nation's 15,000 school districts are held responsible for implementing 
the school choice requirements of NCLBA, starting in school year 2002-
2003.

The school choice provision of NCLBA is intended to provide a unique 
opportunity for students in schools not meeting state goals to attend 
schools that have had greater success meeting these goals. However, 
little is known about how states and districts are implementing the 
provision and how many schools and students are participating. We 
undertook this review to provide the Congress an early report on the 
first 2 years of NCLBA implementation, with a more detailed look at the 
experiences of 8 school districts. Specifically, we address:

1. To what extent have Title I schools been affected by the school 
choice provision of NCLBA in terms of the number of schools identified 
for choice and the number of students transferring?

2. What were the experiences of selected school districts in 
implementing the choice provision?

3. What guidance and technical assistance did the Department of 
Education provide states and districts as they implemented public 
school choice?

To determine the numbers of schools and students affected by choice 
nationwide during the first 2 years of NCLBA, we compiled and analyzed 
data from a variety of sources, including our surveys of state 
education agencies and school districts, Department of Education 
(Education) reports of state agencies' data, and other Education 
databases. We assessed the reliability of these data and determined 
that they were adequate for our purposes. To obtain information on 
district implementation, we visited 8 districts that had schools 
identified for choice and interviewed district and school officials 
about their experiences. Located in seven states--California, Illinois, 
Ohio, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington--these 
districts were selected to achieve variation in geographic, 
demographic, and program characteristics. All but one district we 
visited had students transferring under choice. One rural district --
North Panola, Mississippi--offered supplemental educational services 
instead of transfers under choice, as permitted, because the middle 
school identified for choice was the only middle school in the 
district. To ascertain the role of Education in providing guidance and 
technical assistance, we reviewed regulations and other forms of 
guidance available from Education and interviewed officials at the 
federal, state, and district levels, as well as representatives of 
national educational organizations and other experts in the area. See 
appendix I for a more detailed description of our methodology. We 
conducted our work from October 2003 through November 2004 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

Since passage of NCLBA, about 1 in 10 schools receiving federal funds 
for low-income students under Title I--approximately 1 in 20 public 
schools nationwide--has been identified for school choice. In school 
year 2002-2003, the first year under NCLBA, about 5,300 schools 
attended by 3 million children were identified for choice; in the 
following school year, this number rose to about 6,200 schools. These 
schools had larger proportions of minority and low-income students 
enrolled than Title I schools that were not identified for choice. 
Across states, the percentage of Title I schools identified for choice 
varied considerably. A number of factors may contribute to this 
variation, including differences in the diversity and size of school 
populations, as well as differences in states' approaches to defining 
their yearly performance goals. Overall, about 19,000 students 
transferred under the NCLBA choice option in the first year and an 
additional 31,000 in the second year, representing about 1 percent of 
those eligible. While little is known about the factors that affect 
transfer decisions or about the students involved, Education has 
contracted for a study that will examine the reasons that parents give 
for their transfer decisions and identify students' demographic 
characteristics. Part of this study, still under design, is intended to 
examine achievement outcomes of students who transfer. Our analysis of 
data from one district showed that lower percentages of transferring 
students were minorities and lower percentages were from low-income 
families than was the case for the eligible students who did not 
transfer.

Officials at most of the 8 districts we visited said that they welcomed 
NCLBA's increased emphasis on improved performance but had difficulties 
providing school choice due to tight timeframes and insufficient 
classroom capacity. One district received final data on schools' 
performance about a month before school started in the fall; the other 
seven districts received final data weeks or even several months after 
the school year had begun. In order to notify parents of their options 
before the start of the school year as required by law, most districts 
relied on preliminary data to make school status determinations, 
putting the district at risk of misidentifying schools for choice and 
misinforming parents about their transfer options. District officials 
expressed concerns that parents may not always fully understand their 
options or have adequate time or information to make a fully informed 
decision. The total number of schools offered as transfer options to 
any one parent ranged from 2 to over 30, depending on the district, but 
many schools offered were similar to the students' current schools. 
Limitations in available classroom capacity in 4 districts resulted in 
some eligible students not having an opportunity to transfer. District 
officials provided various explanations for why this occurred, 
including lack of feasible alternatives to increase capacity. Districts 
employed a variety of strategies to provide transportation to 
transferring students, including school buses, subsidized passes on 
public transit, and stipends to parents, and most districts we visited 
spent less than 7 percent of the pool of funds that NCLBA required to 
be set aside for transportation and supplemental services costs.

Education issued guidance and final regulations on school choice in 
December 2002, after the start of the first school year under NCBLA. 
Most districts implemented school choice based on the preliminary 
guidance contained in letters they received in June 2002, but some 
issues remained unclear. Additional assistance was provided 
subsequently in the form of policy letters, training tools, and 
presentations at conferences. Education issued updated guidance in 
February 2004, after the start of the second school year under NCLBA, 
and followed with a handbook on promising practices in the 
implementation of school choice. While district officials we visited 
generally had access to Education's guidance, questions concerning the 
implementation of school choice remained, for example, how to offer 
choice when physical capacity is limited. Other questions involved 
issues that may arise as NCLBA implementation progresses, for instance, 
districts' responsibilities if a school to which students have 
transferred subsequently does not meet state goals and is itself 
required to offer choice.

To help state and district officials in implementing choice, we are 
recommending that Education monitor issues and promote promising 
practices related to limited physical capacity and assist in developing 
strategies to better inform parents about their transfer options. In 
addition, we are recommending that Education undertake a rigorous study 
that will provide more insight on the effects of school choice. In its 
comments on a draft of this report, Education agreed with our 
recommendations on capacity and on parental information. Education also 
agreed to consider including an examination of academic outcomes and 
retention rates of transferring students in its planned NCLBA 
implementation study. Education's comments appear in appendix VII.

Background:

The Department of Education is responsible for overseeing state 
implementation of NCLBA, which amended and reauthorized the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. Title I of this act authorizes funds to 
states for local school districts with high concentrations of children 
from low-income families to improve the academic achievement of 
students failing or at risk of failing to meet state standards. Title I 
is the single largest federal program supporting education in 
kindergarten through 12th grade,[Footnote 1] supplying over $12 billion 
in federal funds in 2004. These funds are designed to supplement the 
instructional services and support that districts and schools provide. 
Title I and other federal funding represent about 8 percent of total 
spending on elementary and secondary public education, with the 
remaining 92 percent provided primarily by states and localities. Title 
I funds are distributed by formula to state education agencies, which 
retain a share but pass through most of the funds to school 
districts.[Footnote 2] Districts with at least a minimum number and 
percentage of low-income students receive a share of Title I funds. The 
districts are required to distribute Title I funds first to schools 
with high poverty rates--over 75 percent--and then to eligible schools 
in rank order of poverty either districtwide or within grade spans. 
Because school enrollment numbers and demographics may vary from one 
year to the next and because districts have some discretion in how many 
and which schools receive Title I funds, the status of schools as Title 
I or not Title I can vary from one year to the next. Approximately 25 
million students were enrolled in schools eligible for Title I funds in 
school year 2002-2003 out of a total of about 49 million students in 
all schools nationwide, according to Education.[Footnote 3]

Accountability for Results in All Public Schools under NCLBA and Prior 
Law:

Stronger accountability for educational results is one of several 
education reform principles embodied in NCLBA and it builds on 
requirements in place under prior law. Prior to NCLBA, states were 
expected to have accountability systems that included standards for 
what students should learn and tests every year in certain grade levels 
to measure their knowledge of reading and mathematics.[Footnote 4] Each 
year, increasing percentages of students were expected to demonstrate 
their proficiency on these tests, and schools were judged on their 
ability to make adequate yearly progress in educating students to the 
state's standards--referred to in this report as meeting their yearly 
performance goals. Title I schools that did not meet their goals for 
two consecutive years were to be designated for improvement, provided 
technical assistance, and required to implement improvement plans. 
States were at various stages of implementation when NCLBA was enacted, 
so some states had been identifying schools for improvement for several 
years while others were just beginning the process.

Enactment of NCLBA strengthened accountability requirements by 
specifying timetables for school improvement and by holding all public 
schools, whether or not they receive Title I funds, accountable for the 
academic performance of various subgroups of students. For example, 
schools must reach yearly performance goals set by states that will 
result in 100 percent of students meeting state proficiency standards 
by school year 2013-2014.[Footnote 5] In addition to meeting the 
state's performance goals in general, schools are responsible for 
meeting those goals for specified subgroups of students who (1) are 
economically disadvantaged, (2) represent major racial and ethnic 
minorities, (3) have disabilities, or (4) are limited in English 
proficiency. If any subgroup does not meet the target, the school is 
identified as not having made its yearly performance goal.[Footnote 6]

While NCLBA requires that all 94,000 public schools in the nation be 
held accountable for their performance, it requires specific actions or 
corrective interventions only for Title I schools that repeatedly miss 
their yearly performance goals.[Footnote 7] Two kinds of immediate 
interventions are required for Title I schools that have not met their 
performance goals for two consecutive years. On the one hand, plans are 
set in motion to improve the school's performance. At the same time, 
students must be given the opportunity to transfer to other schools 
under the school choice option. Depending on how often schools continue 
to miss their goals, other required actions range from offering 
students supplemental educational services, such as after-school 
tutoring, to completely restructuring schools. See appendix II for 
further details on the specific actions required in each year.

School Choice under NCLBA:

The first year that Title I schools do not meet performance goals, no 
specific actions are required under NCLBA. However, if the goal is 
missed the next year, districts generally must offer parents of 
students attending these schools the choice to transfer their child to 
another school.[Footnote 8] The district must provide transportation to 
the new school, within limits, and continue to pay for transportation 
until the school from which the student transferred is no longer 
identified for choice.[Footnote 9] Schools are no longer identified for 
choice when they have met their yearly performance goals for at least 2 
consecutive years.

Districts are required by federal regulations to offer parents at least 
two schools from which to choose, if available, and these schools may 
be any public school that is not itself currently identified for 
choice. Thus, under NCLBA offered schools could include Title I schools 
that have missed their yearly performance goals for a single year or 
any school that does not receive Title I funds, regardless of its 
performance. However, states could further limit the schools offered as 
transfer options, for example, by prohibiting transfers to non-Title I 
schools that have not met their yearly performance goals. Under 
circumstances where no viable transfer options exist--as in districts 
with only one school serving particular grade levels or where all 
schools in the district have repeatedly missed their performance goals-
-districts are required, to the extent practicable, to make 
arrangements with other districts to accept their transfer 
students.[Footnote 10]

NCLBA requires that districts notify parents of the choice option by 
the first day of the school year immediately following the test 
administration that resulted in the school being identified for choice. 
For example, if tests given in spring 2003 resulted in the school being 
identified for choice, then the option had to be offered parents by the 
first day of school of the 2003-2004 school year. Notices to parents 
must be in an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent 
practicable, in a language that parents can understand. These notices 
must explain why the school was identified for choice and how it 
compares with others in the district and state. In addition, federal 
regulations require that the notice include information on the academic 
achievement of the schools offered as transfer options.

Districts are not required to give parents their first choice among the 
transfer options provided, but may not deny transfer requests based on 
lack of physical capacity, such as lack of space within a building or 
classroom, according to federal regulations. When deciding which 
schools to offer as transfer options, districts can consider the amount 
of available capacity, but they must offer options for all students 
enrolled in schools identified for choice. When reviewing transfer 
applications, making school assignments, and arranging for 
transportation, districts are required to give priority to the lowest-
achieving low-income students.

About 1 in 10 Schools Identified for Choice in the First 2 Years of 
NCLBA, and 1 Percent of Eligible Students Transferred in 2003-2004:

In each of the first 2 school years following enactment of NCLBA, from 
10 to 12 percent of schools that received federal funds under Title I 
were identified for school choice. Several million students were 
enrolled in the schools identified for choice and were thus eligible to 
transfer. About 31,000 students, representing 1 percent of those 
eligible, transferred in the second year, school year 2003-2004. 
Although Education has recently begun to collect information on the 
number of transferring students, little is known about their 
demographic or academic characteristics. Our analysis of data from one 
district showed that proportionately fewer minority and low-income 
students transferred, compared with students in the same schools who 
did not transfer.

From 10 to 12 Percent of Public Schools Nationwide That Received Title 
I Funds Were Identified for Choice in Each of the First 2 Years of 
NCLBA:

In each of the first 2 school years of NCLBA, about 1 in 10 Title I 
schools--about 1 in 20 public schools nationwide--was identified for 
school choice. About 5,300 schools[Footnote 11] attended by 3 million 
children, were identified for choice in the first year of NCLBA. As 
shown in figure 1, the total number of schools identified for choice 
increased to about 6,200 in year two. Because schools must meet their 
performance goals for 2 consecutive years before they are no longer 
identified for choice, many of the same schools may have been included 
in the total number for both the first and second years.

Figure 1: Number of Title I Schools and Number Identified for School 
Choice in 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in 
School Years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

As figure 2 shows, Title I schools identified for choice enrolled 
larger proportions of minority students and students from low-income 
families than other Title I schools.

Figure 2: Demographics of Students Enrolled at Title I Schools 
Identified and Not Identified for Choice in School Year 2003-2004:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

About 60 percent of all schools identified for choice were elementary 
schools. However, this proportion is smaller than might be expected, 
given that 71 percent of all Title I schools are elementary schools. As 
figure 3 shows, proportionately more middle and high schools were 
identified for choice.

Figure 3: Proportion of Schools Identified for Choice at Various Grade 
Spans Compared with All Title I Schools in School Year 2003-2004:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Most schools identified for choice in school year 2003-2004 were 
located in urban and suburban areas. Although 15 percent of all Title I 
schools were located in rural areas, only 11 percent of the Title I 
schools identified for choice were in rural areas.

Figure 4 shows state variation in the proportion of schools identified 
for choice. In the majority of states, 10 percent or fewer of Title I 
schools were identified for choice in 2003-2004, but in some states a 
much larger percentage was identified. One state, Wyoming, had no 
schools identified for choice in 2003-2004. Among the states with 
relatively few schools identified for choice were some of the nation's 
most rural states, including Maine, Mississippi, and Nebraska, but also 
some more populous states such as Florida and Texas. By contrast, in 22 
states the percentage of Title I schools required to offer choice 
ranged from 11 percent to 48 percent. Among these were several of the 
nation's most populous states, including California, Illinois, and New 
York, but also one of the most rural--Alaska. Georgia and Hawaii each 
had 40 percent or more of their schools identified for choice, higher 
than any other state. See appendixes III and IV for state details for 
each year.

Figure 4: Percentage of Title I Schools Identified for School Choice, 
by State, in School Year 2003-2004:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

A number of factors contribute to state variations in the proportion of 
schools identified for choice, including differences in school 
populations and state accountability systems. Under NCLBA, if a school 
contains a minimum number of students in specific groups--low-income, 
major racial and ethnic minorities, students with disabilities, and 
limited English proficient--schools are held accountable for the 
academic outcomes of those groups, in addition to academic outcomes of 
the entire school. Large or diverse schools are likely to have more 
student groups containing the state-defined minimum number of students, 
and consequently have more performance targets. Because it is harder 
for schools with many targets to meet their overall performance goals, 
states with larger or more diverse schools may be more likely to have a 
higher percentage of schools miss their targets and be identified for 
choice.

Characteristics of states' accountability systems also contribute to 
the variation among states. For example, states use different standards 
and set different annual progress rates for reaching 100 percent 
proficiency. In addition, some states use smaller minimum student group 
sizes than other states. The smaller the size of the group used, the 
more likely a school will include additional student groups in 
accountability, increasing the number of performance targets the school 
must meet.[Footnote 12]

About 1 Percent of Eligible Students Transferred in the Second Year; 
Little Is Known about Their Characteristics:

About 19,000 students transferred under the NCLBA school choice option 
in school year 2002-2003, the first year, and an additional 31,000 
students transferred in the second year.[Footnote 13] As illustrated in 
figure 5, this number transferring in the second year represented about 
1 percent of the students who were eligible. Across states, the number 
of eligible students who transferred under NCLBA in 2003-2004 ranged 
from zero in 6 states to over 7,000 in one state. States also varied in 
the extent to which eligible students exercised the option and 
transferred. Oregon reported the highest proportion of eligible 
students transferring at 17 percent, followed by Florida with 6 
percent. The remaining states had less than 5 percent of eligible 
students transfer. Further, states with more students eligible for 
choice under NCLBA did not necessarily have more students use the 
transfer option. For example, although Hawaii had more students 
eligible for choice, Colorado had about twice as many students 
transfer. The number of eligible students transferring in each year for 
each state is detailed in appendix V.

Figure 5: Number of Title I Students Eligible for Choice and Number 
That Transferred in 42 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 
Rico in School Year 2003-2004:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Overall, the proportion of eligible students transferring in the most 
rural states[Footnote 14] was about the same as in other states; 
however, statewide data may mask differences within states between 
rural and nonrural districts. For example, Kansas, the rural state with 
the most students eligible for choice, provided detailed data showing 
how many student transfers occurred in each district. About 70 percent 
of Kansas transfers were in the:

state's three largest districts--Wichita, Shawnee Mission, and Kansas 
City --although about half of the students eligible for NCLBA transfers 
were located in those districts. Officials in several rural states 
reported that rural districts faced unique challenges implementing 
NCLBA choice. In some rural districts, although students were eligible 
for choice, no transfers took place because there were no other schools 
in the districts that could be offered as transfer options.[Footnote 
15] Where transfer options were available, sometimes the distances 
between schools made transfers difficult.

In the 41 states that could provide student transfer data and had 
schools identified for choice in both years, the total number of 
transferring students rose by about 85 percent.[Footnote 16] This 
increase was driven by several states that had substantial increases, 
such as New York, New Jersey, and South Carolina. However, 8 states 
reported declining numbers of transfers, and 6 of these states also 
reported fewer schools identified for choice in the second year, while 
2 reported increases.[Footnote 17]

Little is known about the demographic characteristics and academic 
performance of students who transferred under NCLBA school choice in 
either year or reasons why parents accept or do not accept transfer 
opportunities. Although Education has requested state data on the 
number of students transferring each year, it has not collected data on 
the characteristics or academic performance of transferring students. 
Education officials told us that they have contracted for a major, 
multi-faceted study of NCLBA that will examine key areas of 
implementation, including school choice.[Footnote 18] Two parts of the 
study relating to school choice are descriptive: one is a descriptive 
comparison of the demographics of students who choose to transfer and 
those who do not. A second part examines reasons that parents give for 
their decisions about whether or not to apply for transfers. A third 
part of the study, still under design, will examine student achievement 
outcomes. This effort would examine the academic outcomes over time of 
transferring students in a sample of districts, but this portion of the 
study is not fully developed. For instance, officials said they are 
still exploring several possibilities for study methodology and whether 
demographic characteristics of these students will be included in the 
achievement analysis.

Our analyses of 2003-2004 demographic and academic data that we were 
able to obtain from one district we visited showed diversity in 
transferring students. Of the students who transferred, 53 percent were 
male, 62 percent were minorities representing all the major racial and 
ethnic groups, and 82 percent were from low-income families as measured 
by their eligibility for the free or reduced-price school lunch 
program. In addition, 10 percent of these transferring students were 
English language learners and 14 percent were enrolled in special 
education.[Footnote 19] In general, proportionately fewer minority and 
low-income students transferred, compared with students who were 
eligible but did not transfer, as shown in table 1. Our analysis of 
available student performance data from state reading and math 
assessments showed little difference between transferring students and 
those not transferring. The proportion of students who met the 
standards was about the same for each group.[Footnote 20]

Table 1: Students Eligible but Not Transferring from Elementary and 
Middle Schools Identified for Choice Compared with Students 
Transferring in 2003-2004 in One District Visited:

School 1; 
Students eligible but not transferring: Percent minority: 76%; 
Students eligible but not transferring: Percent low income: 93%; 
Transferring students (N=15): Percent minority: 47%; 
Transferring students (N=15): Percent low income: 87%.

School 2; 
Students eligible but not transferring: Percent minority: 72%; 
Students eligible but not transferring: Percent low income: 92%; 
Transferring students (N=5): Percent minority: 40%; 
Transferring students (N=5): Percent low income: 100%.

School 3; 
Students eligible but not transferring: Percent minority: 63%; 
Students eligible but not transferring: Percent low income: 83%; 
Transferring students (N=75): Percent minority: 57%; 
Transferring students (N=75): Percent low income: 80%.

School 4; 
Students eligible but not transferring: Percent minority: 73%; 
Students eligible but not transferring: Percent low income: 84%; 
Transferring students (N=52): Percent minority: 63%; 
Transferring students (N=52): Percent low income: 81%.

School 5; 
Students eligible but not transferring: Percent minority: 59%; 
Students eligible but not transferring: Percent low income: 78%; 
Transferring students (N=58): Percent minority: 69%; 
Transferring students (N=58): Percent low income: 83%.

Total; 
Students eligible but not transferring: Percent minority: 68%; 
Students eligible but not transferring: Percent low income: 85%; 
Transferring students (N=220): Percent minority: 62%; 
Transferring students (N=220): Percent low income: 82%. 

Source: School district officials.

Note: We were unable to associate 15 of the 220 transferring students 
with the school from which they transferred.

[End of table]

Compared with students in the schools into which they transferred, 
however, transferring students were somewhat lower performing on state 
assessments.[Footnote 21] About 33 percent of transferring students met 
state reading standards, while 43 percent of the other students in the 
receiving schools met these standards. Similarly, about 20 percent of 
transferring students met state math standards, while 34 percent of the 
other students in receiving schools met state math standards. Transfer 
students were also more often from a minority background. About 62 
percent of the transferring students were minorities, but about 52 
percent of the students in receiving schools were minorities.

Implementation of Choice Was Challenging in Selected Districts:

Officials in most of the 8 districts we visited mentioned that they 
supported the NCLBA focus on improved student performance and 
accountability; however, they had difficulties providing school choice, 
primarily because of tight timeframes and insufficient capacity. To try 
to get notices out to parents before school started, most districts 
took a risk and acted on preliminary data on school performance that 
they received from the state in late summer because final data were not 
available. Parents of eligible students were presented at least two 
schools as transfer options, but many of these alternatives were 
similar to the schools students were currently attending. Some 
districts were not able to accommodate all transfer requests because 
the demand for some schools exceeded their capacity. Districts employed 
a variety of strategies to provide transportation to transferring 
students, including school buses, public transportation, and cash 
stipends.

Short Timeframes Created Challenges:

Although the law requires districts to notify parents of the choice 
option by the start of the school year, 7 of 8 districts we visited did 
not receive final results of school performance for the most recent 
year from the state in time to meet the requirement. Consequently, many 
used preliminary data to identify schools for choice. Akron was the 
only district that had final results from the state when notices were 
sent to parents. Four districts used preliminary data to identify which 
schools had to offer choice and notified parents before school started. 
A fifth district also used preliminary data but did not receive the 
data until after school started. Using preliminary data can put 
districts at risk of incorrectly identifying schools as having to offer 
choice and consequently misinforming parents.[Footnote 22] One district 
included language in the notification letter to parents explaining that 
the transfer offer could be revoked if final determinations by the 
state were different. Table 2 shows key testing and notification dates 
in 6 of the districts we visited.

Table 2: Milestone Dates for Implementation of Choice for School Year 
2003-2004 in Six Districts We Visited:

School district: Akron, Ohio; 
Month tests given (2003): March; 
Preliminary results in from the state on schools' yearly performance 
(2003): June (early); 
District notices sent to parents (2003): July 25; 
Start of school year 2003-2004: August 27; 
Final results from the state on schools' yearly performance (2003 or 
later as noted): July 21.

School district: Chicago, Ill.; 
Month tests given (2003): March/April; 
Preliminary results in from the state on schools' yearly performance 
(2003): July 28; 
District notices sent to parents (2003): August 9; 
Start of school year 2003-2004: September 2; 
Final results from the state on schools' yearly performance (2003 or 
later as noted): December 19.

School district: Elgin, Ill.; 
Month tests given (2003): March/April; 
Preliminary results in from the state on schools' yearly performance 
(2003): July 30; 
District notices sent to parents (2003): August 6; 
Start of school year 2003-2004: August 25; 
Final results from the state on schools' yearly performance (2003 or 
later as noted): June 2004.

School district: Pittsburgh, Pa.; 
Month tests given (2003): March/ April; 
Preliminary results in from the state on schools' yearly performance 
(2003): August 5; 
District notices sent to parents (2003): August 28; 
Start of school year 2003-2004: September 7; 
Final results from the state on schools' yearly performance (2003 or 
later as noted): September 23.

School district: Tacoma, Wash.; 
Month tests given (2003): April/May; 
Preliminary results in from the state on schools' yearly performance 
(2003): July 28; 
District notices sent to parents (2003): August 12; 
Start of school year 2003-2004: September 3; 
Final results from the state on schools' yearly performance (2003 or 
later as noted): September 17.

School district: North Panola, Miss.[A]; 
Month tests given (2003): April/May; 
Preliminary results in from the state on schools' yearly performance 
(2003): August 8; 
District notices sent to parents (2003): September 3; 
Start of school year 2003-2004: August 5; 
Final results from the state on schools' yearly performance (2003 or 
later as noted): November 21. 

Source: School district officials.

[A] North Panola, a rural district in Mississippi, did not offer school 
choice, because the middle school identified was the only one in the 
district. Instead, the district notified parents and offered 
supplemental educational services.

[End of table]

The remaining 2 districts we visited, Memphis and Fresno, did not use 
preliminary data from the most recent testing period, but rather used 
data from the previous year to determine the schools that would have to 
offer choice.[Footnote 23] Officials said they were aware this delay 
was not in accord with Education guidance but took this action to 
combine NCLBA choice with their voluntary choice programs, which permit 
all students to request transfers in the spring. Memphis officials said 
that they planned to change their procedures and offer school choice 
twice in 2004--first in the spring, during the open enrollment process, 
for schools that they already know must offer choice and again in the 
fall when they receive the results of the spring 2004 assessments. 
Fresno officials did not indicate that they would be changing their 
procedures.

Given the tasks that districts must complete to offer school choice 
before school starts, officials expressed concerns that little could be 
done to mitigate these timeframe problems. Districts must first 
administer state tests in the spring, which are sometimes sent to 
contractors to be scored. Next, after receiving the preliminary test 
results from the state, districts assess the scores to verify the 
accuracy of the data, use these data to identify schools likely to be 
required to offer choice, and notify schools. Schools may appeal this 
decision to the state. Only after reviewing such appeals do states 
release final determinations of which schools are required to offer 
choice. Most districts we visited did not have the final performance 
data before school started in the fall. Figure 6 shows the timeline of 
events in one school district we visited; similar patterns occurred in 
most others.

Figure 6: Timeline for Tacoma Public Schools, 2003:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The compressed timeframe for making school status determinations and 
implementing the choice option left parents little time to make 
transfer decisions, and district and school officials expressed 
concerns that parents did not have adequate time to make an informed 
decision. In most of the districts we visited, parents had 3 weeks or 
less to make their transfer decisions. In addition, in districts and 
schools with highly mobile populations, reaching parents can be time-
consuming. Akron and Memphis officials told us that many letters 
notifying parents of the transfer option were sent to addresses found 
to be incorrect. To ensure that parents had a greater chance of 
learning about school choice, some districts used a variety of 
additional notification strategies--fliers, newspaper articles, 
postings to the district Web site, and public meetings. In addition, 
they provided parents several ways to communicate their desires such as 
through the mail, by telephone, or going to the district in person.

Officials in some districts also expressed concern that the information 
provided to parents was not always clear and that it may not have been 
sufficient for them to base their decisions.[Footnote 24] Letters sent 
to parents generally explained what it meant to be identified for 
choice, gave the reasons for the identification, described the process 
for applying for transfer, and listed the transfer school options. 
However, little information was provided about the transfer schools. In 
some districts, school officials were concerned that the wording of the 
letters may have been confusing. They said that parents did not always 
understand the meaning of the school choice option as explained in the 
letter and needed more time to consult with district or school 
officials. For example, officials in 2 districts told us that some 
parents misunderstood the letter and believed that they were required 
to transfer their child to another school. Other school officials 
talked about the need for parents to have additional information about 
specialized services and instructional support that certain schools 
provide in order to understand the educational implications of their 
decisions. Officials in one district told us that some parents who 
chose a transfer school later changed their minds when they found that 
student support services their child had received at their Title I 
school, such as extended day programs and after school tutoring made 
possible by Title I funds, were not available at the non-Title I 
transfer school.

Schools also faced challenges in implementing choice within the 
timeframes, particularly in adjusting staffing and scheduling, when 
they learned shortly before the start of school that they would be 
receiving students under the NCLBA school choice program. For example, 
a Tacoma middle school principal said that she faced a variety of 
challenges when she was notified a month before school started that the 
school was to receive NCLBA transfer students. Based on spring 
predictions of the school's student population and student needs, she 
had released six teachers. However, when notified the school was 
receiving 57 NCLBA transfers in the fall, she had to quickly hire two 
new teachers and reconfigure the schedule to include more remedial 
classes to accommodate the learning needs of the transferring students. 
In addition, school officials did not receive records for some students 
from the schools they left until after school started, and some 
students were initially placed in the wrong classes.

Most Districts Offered Parents a Number of Schools as Choices, but Many 
of These Alternatives Were Similar to the Student's Current School:

Whenever possible, districts offered each parent at least 2 schools as 
transfer options, as required by federal regulations, but some 
districts offered more than 30 schools. The locations varied by 
district. Table 3 shows the number and location of elementary schools 
offered in the districts we visited. Some districts offered schools 
based on geographic location within the district and some offered 
schools districtwide. For example, as table 3 shows, students in 
Memphis attending one of the 40 schools identified for choice selected 
from among 3-10 transfer schools that were in the same general area of 
the city, while students in each of the 6 schools identified in Akron 
selected from a group of 33 schools spread across the district. 
Elementary schools offered as transfer options were more commonly 
selected for their proximity to sending schools than middle and high 
schools, which were generally offered districtwide. Although not shown 
in table 3, parents generally were offered fewer transfer options for 
middle and high school students, because districts tend to have fewer 
middle and high schools than elementary schools.

Table 3: Transfer Options Offered Parents of Elementary School Students 
in Seven Districts We Visited:

District: Akron, Ohio; 
Number of elementary schools required to offer choice: 6; 
Number of elementary schools offered as transfer options to parents for 
each school required to offer choice: 33; 
Number of schools parents instructed to select: 1; 
Location: Districtwide or geographic area within district: 
Districtwide.

District: Chicago, Ill.; 
Number of elementary schools required to offer choice: 305; 
Number of elementary schools offered as transfer options to parents for 
each school required to offer choice: 37; 
Number of schools parents instructed to select: 2; 
Location: Districtwide or geographic area within district: 
Districtwide.

District: Elgin, Ill.; 
Number of elementary schools required to offer choice: 6; 
Number of elementary schools offered as transfer options to parents for 
each school required to offer choice: 16; 
Number of schools parents instructed to select: 3; 
Location: Districtwide or geographic area within district: 
Districtwide.

District: Fresno, Calif.; 
Number of elementary schools required to offer choice: 23; 
Number of elementary schools offered as transfer options to parents for 
each school required to offer choice: 2; 
Number of schools parents instructed to select: 2; 
Location: Districtwide or geographic area within district: 
Geographic.

District: Memphis, Tenn.; 
Number of elementary schools required to offer choice: 40[A]; 
Number of elementary schools offered as transfer options to parents for 
each school required to offer choice: 3-10; 
Number of schools parents instructed to select: 2; 
Location: Districtwide or geographic area within district: Geographic.

District: Pittsburgh, Pa.; 
Number of elementary schools required to offer choice: 11; 
Number of elementary schools offered as transfer options to parents for 
each school required to offer choice: 11-19; 
Number of schools parents instructed to select: 2; 
Location: Districtwide or geographic area within district: Geographic.

District: Tacoma, Wash.; 
Number of elementary schools required to offer choice: 2; 
Number of elementary schools offered as transfer options to parents for 
each school required to offer choice: 2; 
Number of schools parents instructed to select: 2; 
Location: Districtwide or geographic area within district: Geographic. 

Source: School district officials.

[A] Memphis schools are those the state identified for choice in school 
year 2002-03.

[End of table]

Many schools that districts offered as transfer options had not met 
state performance goals in the prior year, and some were at risk 
themselves of having to offer choice in the following year. Among the 
seven districts that offered transfers, all had some schools offered as 
choices that had not met the state's yearly performance goals, based on 
the spring 2003 assessments. Table 4 provides more detail on the status 
of schools offered as transfer options by district. Because many of 
these schools were Title I schools and, therefore, subject to NCLBA 
requirements, those that did not meet their yearly performance goals 
for a second consecutive year would have to offer school choice the 
following year. For example, in Memphis 37 Title 1 schools were offered 
as transfer options, and 29 of these had not met yearly performance 
goals based on spring 2003 tests. Some schools offered were not Title I 
schools and, therefore, were not required to offer transfers, 
regardless of the performance of the school. Overall, as shown in Table 
4 for the districts we visited, from 21 to 73 percent of all schools 
offered, Title I and non-Title I, had met yearly performance goals.

Table 4: Title I Status and Performance of Schools Offered as Transfer 
Options for 2003-2004, by District:

District: Akron, Ohio; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Title I: 32; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Other schools: 5; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Title I: 11; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Other schools: 3; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Number Title I 
and other: 23; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Percentage 
Title I and other: 62%. 

District: Chicago, Ill.; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Title I: 21; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Other schools: 19; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Title I: 12; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Other schools: 11; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Number Title I 
and other: 16; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Percentage 
Title I and other: 40%. 

District: Elgin, Ill.; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Title I: 0; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Other schools: 16; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Title I: 0; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Other schools: 6; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Number Title 
I and other: 10; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Percentage 
Title I and other: 62%. 

District: Fresno, Calif.; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Title I: 15; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Other schools: 3; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Title I: 10; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Other schools: 1; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Number Title I 
and other: 7; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Percentage 
Title I and other: 39%. 

District: Memphis, Tenn.; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Title I: 37; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Other schools: 10; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Title I: 29; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Other schools: 6; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Number Title I 
and other: 10[A]; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Percentage 
Title I and other: 21%. 

District: Pittsburgh, Pa.; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Title I: 51; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Other schools: 0; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Title I: 14; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Other schools: 0; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Number Title I 
and other: 37; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Percentage 
Title I and other: 73%. 

District: Tacoma, Wash.; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Title I: 4; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options: Other schools: 4; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Title I: 1; 
Number of schools offered as transfer options that did not meet yearly 
performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Other schools: 3; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Number Title I 
and other: 3[A]; 
Number and percentage of all schools offered as transfer options that 
met yearly performance goals based on spring 2003 tests: Percentage 
Title I and other: 38%. 

Source: GAO analysis of school data from state or district education 
agency Web sites.

[A] In Memphis and Tacoma numbers do not add to totals because test 
data are not available for schools that were new as of 2003-2004 and 
did not have a testing history; in Tacoma there was one such school; in 
Memphis, there were two. In addition, there was one school in Chicago 
that did not have test data for 2002-2003.

[End of table]

Officials from large urban districts such as Fresno and Memphis said 
that they would have few schools to offer as choices if they did not 
offer Title I schools that had failed to meet the performance goals for 
only one year. Officials in some districts expressed concerns that, as 
the bar for meeting yearly performance goals is raised, more schools 
would fail and few schools would be available as transfer options. In 
these districts, over 80 percent of schools received Title I funds and 
many more students could become eligible for transfer under NCLBA.

In districts such as Chicago, Fresno, and Memphis with high proportions 
of Title I schools, the majority of the schools offered as transfer 
options were often demographically similar to those attended by 
students eligible for transfer. Specifically, the schools offered as 
transfer options served many poor students and had high minority 
populations. As shown in table 5, for example, 34 of Fresno's 39 
schools required to offer choice--about seven-eighths--had poverty 
rates that exceeded 75 percent, as did over half of the 18 schools 
offered as transfer options.

Table 5: Poverty and Minority Rates of Schools Required to Offer Choice 
and Schools Offered as Transfer Options in Fresno:

School enrollment percentage: 0-25%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 3; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 0.

School enrollment percentage: 26-50%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 1; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 4; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 3.

School enrollment percentage: 51-75%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 4; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 1; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 1; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 7.

School enrollment percentage: 76-100%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 34; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 10; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 38; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 8.

Source: GAO analysis of school data from state or district education 
agency Web sites.

[End of table]

In contrast, other districts that we visited tended to offer more 
transfer options that differed demographically from the schools 
required to offer choice. As shown in table 6, for example, 7 of 
Akron's 8 schools required to offer school choice had poverty rates 
that exceeded 75 percent, but less than one-third of schools offered as 
transfer options had such rates. See appendix VI for poverty and 
minority rates of schools in seven districts that we visited.

Table 6: Poverty and Minority Rates of Schools Required to Offer Choice 
and Schools Offered as Transfer Options in Akron:

School enrollment percentage: 0-25%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 1; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 11.

School enrollment percentage: 26-50%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 9; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 11.

School enrollment percentage: 51-75%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 1; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 16; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 4; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 7.

School enrollment percentage: 76-100%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 7; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 11; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 4; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 8.

Source: GAO analysis of school data from state or district education 
agency websites.

[End of table]

Several Districts We Visited Cited Lack of Sufficient Capacity as 
Limiting the Number of Transfers:

Despite the fact that all districts offered parents a choice of 
schools, officials in four districts told us that they were unable to 
accommodate some requests for transfers because of constraints on 
classroom capacity, as shown table 7. In two districts in Illinois-- 
Elgin, and Chicago--officials said that they believed that state law 
did not allow their districts to offer choice under NCLBA if it led to 
overcrowding in schools.[Footnote 25] Akron officials told us that they 
were seeking clarification from the state about whether any transfers 
in their district would be prohibited by Ohio state law. Memphis 
officials told us that demand exceeded the capacity at certain schools 
that were already overcrowded, and use of portables to expand capacity 
was unrealistic because of the expense and lack of sufficient space on 
school campuses.

Table 7: Number of Students Unable to Transfer Due to Capacity 
Limitations in 2003-2004:

District: Akron, Ohio; 
Number of students that applied for a transfer: 114; 
Number of students that transferred to another school: 76; 
Number of students unable to transfer because of capacity: 19; 
Number of students not transferring for other reasons: 19.

District: Chicago, Ill.; 
Number of students that applied for a transfer: 19,000; 
Number of students that transferred to another school: 548; 
Number of students unable to transfer because of capacity: 17,903; 
Number of students not transferring for other reasons: 549.

District: Elgin, Ill.; 
Number of students that applied for a transfer: 113; 
Number of students that transferred to another school: 60; 
Number of students unable to transfer because of capacity: 14; 
Number of students not transferring for other reasons: 39.

District: Fresno, Calif; 
Number of students that applied for a transfer: 465; 
Number of students that transferred to another school: 101; 
Number of students unable to transfer because of capacity: 0; 
Number of students not transferring for other reasons: 364.

District: Memphis, Tenn.; 
Number of students that applied for a transfer: 830; 
Number of students that transferred to another school: 388[A]; 
Number of students unable to transfer because of capacity: 442; 
Number of students not transferring for other reasons: 0.

District: Pittsburgh, Pa.; 
Number of students that applied for a transfer: 161; 
Number of students that transferred to another school: 151; 
Number of students unable to transfer because of capacity: 0; 
Number of students not transferring for other reasons: 10.

District: Tacoma, Wash.; 
Number of students that applied for a transfer: 253; 
Number of students that transferred to another school: 253; 
Number of students unable to transfer because of capacity: 0; 
Number of students not transferring for other reasons: 0.

Source: School district officials; 
Chicago data from The Center for Education Policy, From the Capitol to 
the Classroom, January 2003.

[A] Memphis approved 388 student transfers but did not collect data on 
the number of students that actually transferred. 

[End of table]

In some districts with capacity constraints, open enrollment programs 
could limit the ability of students to transfer under NCLBA. In all but 
2 of the districts we visited, school choice was available to all 
students through open enrollment programs. These programs offered 
students the chance to apply for transfers, typically during the winter 
and spring months, and, in several districts, allowed transferring 
students to learn which school they would attend before the end of that 
school year. In contrast, students in most districts transferring under 
NCLBA did not know about their opportunity until just before the next 
school year started. Unless these districts took special care, schools 
could be filled to capacity with transfers approved under the open 
enrollment program before NCLBA students had the opportunity to apply. 
To avoid this situation, Akron gave NCLBA transfers priority and 
delayed decisions on requests for transfers under its open enrollment 
program until the decisions on NCLBA transfers had been made.

Officials in Fresno, Pittsburgh, and Tacoma reported that they had not 
yet experienced problems with capacity because few students had 
transferred. However, some officials expressed concern that capacity 
could pose a challenge in their district in the future. Specifically, 
officials in Fresno, Memphis, and Tacoma noted that if more schools 
were required to offer choice in the future, the number of students 
eligible to transfer could increase and capacity could become a 
problem.

Districts Used Different Strategies to Meet Transportation Requirement:

The districts we visited arranged and paid for the transportation of 
students who transferred, as required under NCLBA, but did so in a 
variety of ways as allowed under the law. For instance, some districts 
provided school buses, while others paid for public transportation or 
provided cash stipends to cover public or private transportation. In 5 
of the 7 districts, school buses picked up elementary students who 
lived more than 1-2 miles from their schools. For middle and high 
school students, some districts paid for public transportation by 
giving students passes or tokens. Finally, Akron gave parents a $170 
transportation subsidy at the end of the school year in which students 
transferred to subsidize the costs of public transit or defray the 
gasoline costs of driving their child to school.

In providing transportation, districts used relatively little of the 
funding that was required to be set aside for school choice 
transportation and for supplemental services because few students 
transferred. In 2003-2004, the estimated expenditures for 
transportation represented less than 7 percent of the set-aside funds 
in all but one district we visited. As shown in table 8, the 
proportions ranged from less than 1 percent in Akron to about 25 
percent in Elgin. Most district officials did not expect to spend the 
full amount that had to be set-aside for the combined costs of choice-
related transportation and supplemental educational services.[Footnote 
26] However, some district officials said they anticipated that as more 
schools have to offer school choice and more students become eligible 
to transfer, it is likely that transportation expenditures will 
increase.

Table 8: Transportation Allocations and Projected Expenses for School 
Year 2003-2004, by District:

District: Akron, Ohio; 
Total Title I allocation: $12,463,428; 
Required set-aside for transportation and supplemental services: 
$2,492,686; 
Projected dollars spent on transportation: $13,416; 
Number of students provided transportation: 76; 
Percent of set-aside used to provide transportation: 0.54%. 

District: Chicago, Ill.; 
Total Title I allocation: $240,829,945[A]; 
Required set-aside for transportation and supplemental services: 
$48,165,989[A]; 
Projected dollars spent on transportation: $1,000,000; 
Number of students provided transportation: 548; 
Percent of set-aside used to provide transportation: 2.08%. 

District: Elgin, Ill.; 
Total Title I allocation: $2,323,966; 
Required set-aside for transportation and supplemental services: 
$464,793; 
Projected dollars spent on transportation: $117,934; 
Number of students provided transportation: 51; 
Percent of set-aside used to provide transportation: 25.37%. 

District: Fresno, Calif.; 
Total Title I allocation: $40,225,930; 
Required set-aside for transportation and supplemental services: 
$8,045,186; 
Projected dollars spent on transportation: $385,900; 
Number of students provided transportation: 101; 
Percent of set-aside used to provide transportation: 4.80%. 

District: Memphis, Tenn.; 
Total Title I allocation: $38,653,432; 
Required set-aside for transportation and supplemental services: 
$7,730,686; 
Projected dollars spent on transportation: $526,070; 
Number of students provided transportation: [B]; 
Percent of set-aside used to provide transportation: 6.80%. 

District: Pittsburgh, Pa.; 
Total Title I allocation: $17,014,258; 
Required set-aside for transportation and supplemental services: 
$3,402,852; 
Projected dollars spent on transportation: $103,600; 
Number of students provided transportation: 136; 
Percent of set-aside used to provide transportation: 3.04%. 

District: Tacoma, Wash.; 
Total Title I allocation: $8,854,322; 
Required set-aside for transportation and supplemental services: 
$1,770,864; 
Projected dollars spent on transportation: $72,070; 
Number of students provided transportation: 253; 
Percent of set-aside used to provide transportation: 4.07%. 

Source: School district officials except where otherwise shown.

[A] Department of Education estimated allocation for fiscal year 2003.

[B] Memphis provided information on the number of transfers approved 
but did not collect data on the number of students that actually 
transferred.

[End of table]

Education Issued Extensive Guidance on Choice, but Questions Remain as 
Implementation Proceeds:

Education issued final regulations and guidance on school choice within 
a year of NCLBA enactment, but did so after districts had begun their 
first year of implementation, and some issues remain unclear. Extensive 
additional guidance and technical assistance in the form of policy 
letters, training tools, presentations at conferences, and a handbook 
on promising practices became available at various times throughout the 
first and second years of implementation. While district officials we 
visited generally had access to Education's guidance, questions 
concerning the implementation of school choice remained, as might be 
expected in initial years of implementation. For example, there were 
"how to" questions about ways to offer choice when building capacity is 
limited. There were also "what if" questions involving issues that may 
arise as NCLBA implementation progresses, such as districts' use of 
Title I funds for transportation when students choose to remain at a 
school to which they have transferred if that school subsequently does 
not meet its yearly performance goals and is itself required to offer 
choice. Some of these questions have been addressed in guidance but 
others remain.

In the First Year, Districts Implemented Choice Using Preliminary 
Guidance Released through Letters to Superintendents:

Responding to the need to get information out quickly, Education issued 
preliminary guidance in June 2002 before the start of the first school 
year. The information provided, however, was not always clear or 
complete. The preliminary guidance was sent out in the form of a "Dear 
Colleague" letter directly to school district superintendents as well 
as state education agency officials. In the letter, Education 
acknowledged that its preliminary guidance was necessarily brief and 
not as comprehensive as guidance that would be forthcoming. The letter 
highlighted key topics such as notices to parents, designation of 
sending and receiving schools, prioritization of students, capacity and 
transportation. The letter stated that choice had to be provided, 
unless prohibited by state law, to all eligible students, "subject to 
health and safety code requirements." Some district officials believed 
this language allowed them to limit the number of transfers based on 
state or local health and safety codes or classroom size requirements.

Subsequent guidance provided additional information about Education's 
position on capacity and other issues. Final regulations and draft 
guidance on choice were issued in December 2002, after the start of the 
first school year. The final regulations applied to all aspects of 
Title I, while the draft guidance applied specifically to school choice 
and was characterized as "non-regulatory" guidance. The final 
regulations clarified some key information and the December guidance 
added extensively to material in the June 2002 letter. For example, in 
response to numerous requests for clarification of its language on 
capacity, Education's regulations made it explicit that districts were 
required to accommodate all transfer requests while complying with all 
applicable state and local health and safety codes as well as classroom 
size requirements. Districts had to offer all students at schools 
identified for choice the option of transferring and could not use lack 
of capacity as a reason to deny students this option. The regulations 
explained that state law exempts districts from offering choice only if 
the state law prohibits choice through restrictions on public school 
assignments or the transfer of students from one public school to 
another public school. The December guidance went further to help 
clarify Education's position by contrasting its regulations on capacity 
before and after enactment of NCLBA and providing an explanation for 
the differences. Because there had been no mention of capacity in NCLBA 
and some district representatives were uncertain about the meaning of 
the preliminary guidance in the June letter, the final regulations and 
December guidance represented an important clarification of Education's 
official position on the issue. In these December documents, Education 
also suggested ways that districts might expand capacity, for example, 
by adding classes and additional teachers, in order to be able to offer 
choice to students while adhering to state classroom size requirements 
and health and safety codes.

Additional Guidance and Technical Assistance Provided in the Second 
Year of Implementation:

In the second year of NCLBA implementation, Education updated and 
expanded its draft guidance and published a handbook on promising 
practices in the provision of school choice. Education also provided 
additional assistance in the form of training materials, presentations 
at various conferences and a toll-free hotline for district 
superintendents in both the first and second years. See table 9 for a 
chronology of the various types of guidance on choice issued by 
Education.

Table 9: Dates, Type, and Title of Guidance or Technical Assistance 
Provided by Education on School Choice under NCLBA:

Year: 2002; 
Date: February 15; 
Guidance, information, or action: Policy letter to Chief State School 
Officers on timetable for required actions in school year 2002-2003, 
including provision of choice. 
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/020215.html.

Year: 2002; 
Date: June 14; 
Guidance, information, or action: Year: Preliminary guidance: Letter to 
District Superintendents and Chief State School Officers on school 
choice and supplemental educational services. 
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/020614.html.

Year: 2002; 
Date: September; 
Guidance, information, or action: Year: Summary of law: NCLB: A Desktop 
Reference. 
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/index.html.

Year: 2002; 
Date: December 2; 
Guidance, information, or action: Year: Final regulations to implement 
Title I under NCLBA. 
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2003-4/120903a.html.

Year: 2002; 
Date: December 4; 
Guidance, information, or action: Year2003: Draft non-regulatory 
guidance: Public School Choice. (23 pp.).

Year: 2003; 
Date: February; 
Guidance, information, or action: Training materials: Choice Provisions 
of NCLBA (power point slides).

Year: 2003; 
Date: March 24; 
Guidance, information, or action: Year: Draft non-regulatory guidance: 
Impact of the New Title I Requirements on Charter Schools. (12 pp.).

Year: 2003; 
Date: Summer; 
Guidance, information, or action: Year: Letters to some states on 
additional steps needed to comply with choice and other requirements.

Year: 2003; 
Date: August 21; 
Guidance, information, or action: Year: Non- regulatory guidance: Local 
Educational Agency (LEA) Identification and Selection of School 
Attendance Areas and Schools and Allocation of Title I Funds to Those 
Areas and Schools. 
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/edpicks.jhtml?src=fp.

Year: 2003; 
Date: August 28; 
Guidance, information, or action: Year: Policy letter to Chief State 
School Officers allowing carry over of Title I funds set aside for 
school choice transportation. 
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/030828.html.

Year: 2003; 
Date: December 22; 
Guidance, information, or action: Consolidated State Performance 
Reports due, including data on implementation on choice.

Year: 2004; 
Date: January 7; 
Guidance, information, or action: Non- regulatory guidance: LEA and 
School Improvement. 
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/
guid/list.jhtml?page=12&size=10&sort=date&desc=show.

Year: 2004; 
Date: January; 
Guidance, information, or action: Year: Letter to school 
superintendents regarding hotline. 
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/040101.html.

Year: 2004; 
Date: February 6; 
Guidance, information, or action: Year: Draft non-regulatory guidance: 
Public School Choice. (29 pp.) 
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/edpicks.jhtml?src=fp.

Year: 2004; 
Date: May; 
Guidance, information, or action: Year: Technical Assistance Handbook: 
Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice 
Programs. 
http://ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/choiceprograms/index.html.

Year: 2004; 
Date: July; 
Guidance, information, or action: Year: Non- regulatory guidance: 
Impact of the New Title I Requirements on Charter Schools. (16 pp.) 
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/edpicks.jhtml?src=fp.

Year: 2004; 
Date: August 18; 
Guidance, information, or action: Year: Policy letter to Chief State 
School Officers on how to calculate the portion of transportation 
expenses related to choice when no additional costs are incurred. 
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/stateletters/
choice/choice081804.html.

Year: 2004; 
Date: October 12; 
Guidance, information, or action: Policy letter to Chief State School 
Officers on reallocating reserved Title I funds, use of set- asides, 
and handling of schools that change Title I status. 
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/stateletters/uofcssos.html. 

Source: Education officials and Education's Web site www.ed.gov.

[End of table]

The February 2004 guidance was developed in response to state 
questions, often made at the request of districts, for further 
clarification of several issues. Although Education's primary 
relationship was with state agencies, Education officials also made 
appearances at conferences attended by district and school officials 
and made a concerted effort to alert local education officials and 
other interested parties when it released its latest guidance through 
electronic mailing lists to subscribers and through its Web site. In 
many of the districts that we visited, officials told us that they had 
access to Education's guidance, either directly from Education's Web 
site, from the state agency or from a national organization 
representing their interests, such as the Council of the Great City 
Schools.

One of the major changes in the February 2004 guidance was a list of 10 
ways that districts might increase capacity in order to provide school 
choice for all eligible students requesting transfers. The guidance 
suggested that districts "employ creativity and ingenuity" in 
developing ways to expand capacity, such as setting up "virtual" 
schools, reallocating portable classrooms, or creating "schools within 
schools" that would be new, distinct schools, with separate faculty, 
within the physical sites of schools required to provide choice. Some 
district officials we interviewed expressed their reservations about 
the feasibility of Education's suggestions on how to develop the needed 
capacity, in part because of concerns about the costs of implementing 
the suggestions.

The May 2004 technical assistance handbook describes promising 
practices in several key areas, including capacity, that have been 
employed to implement choice in 5 school districts. The most detailed 
and thorough description covers strategies that these districts have 
used to deal with parental notification and decision-making, but other 
chapters deal with capacity and transportation, support for sending and 
receiving schools, use of databases and surveys for planning, and 
factors leading to success. With respect to capacity, the handbook 
lists the actions that certain districts have taken but does not 
describe them in detail. For example, the handbook states that 
Milwaukee established a special team that spent 2 months assessing 
available capacity; Miami-Dade used portables; Denver used teacher 
lounges and resource rooms as classrooms, and Mesa created new schools. 
Individuals interested in more details could contact the districts 
involved to find out more about timetables and costs of these various 
strategies at the postal or Web site addresses listed in the handbook. 
Education officials told us that within the first 6 months following 
its publication they had sent out over 16,000 copies of handbook to 
state officials and to organizations representing local education 
officials, such as the National School Boards Association and the 
National Alliance of Black School Educators.

Complexity of Implementing Choice Raises Issues Not Addressed in 
Guidance:

Numerous questions concerning current or future implementation issues 
were raised during our visits with district and school officials that 
were not answered clearly in Education's February 2004 guidance on 
choice. The issues involved how best to handle, within the context of 
federal regulations and guidance, certain complex situations involving 
timetables, schools receiving transfers, transportation, and capacity. 
With respect to timetables for parental notification, district 
officials we visited in two states were concerned about the accuracy of 
preliminary state determinations of the schools that made or did not 
make yearly performance goals. Because NCLBA required that they offer 
choice by the start of school, the districts were acting on preliminary 
but possibly inaccurate determinations made by states and were 
uncertain if there were any circumstances that would permit them to 
delay choice until they received final determinations. Basically, the 
questions involved how best to mitigate the risks for all involved--
districts, schools, parents and students. Notices sent to parents had 
included warnings--either that the school status might change within a 
month or that the offer of choice might be withdrawn. However, there 
was interest in finding better ways to deal with the uncertainty 
involved, including what steps should be taken on behalf of parents and 
students when transfers have occurred either into or out of schools 
that were designated incorrectly.

Even where school designations were known, planning for future 
contingencies raised a number of questions about schools offered as 
transfer options and about transportation arrangements. District 
officials explained that they are operating in a dynamic environment 
where school performance can change from one year to the next and their 
status as Title I or not Title I schools can also change.[Footnote 27] 
Officials in one district we visited asked for confirmation that, if 
they could not find reasonable alternatives, they would be permitted to 
offer as transfer options those schools that had missed their 
performance goals for one or more years, as long as they were not Title 
I schools. Confirmation could be inferred from the February 2004 non-
regulatory guidance on choice, but was not clear-cut. Considerations of 
schools offered as transfer options led into further questions about 
transportation provided for students who transferred, for example if 
students could continue to receive Title I-funded transportation if 
they had transferred into a Title I school offered as a transfer option 
that later missed its yearly performance goals for 2 consecutive years.

In several districts we visited, we found that officials were 
struggling to find practical and realistic ways to offer choice when 
building capacity, budgets and timeframes were limited. Some of these 
officials had studied the suggestions offered in Education's February 
guidance but considered creation of virtual or charter schools to be 
long-term projects that could not provide capacity in time to meet 
short deadlines. Other officials commented that they did not know what 
steps to take to create "schools within schools," as suggested, or how 
to estimate the costs. Cost considerations were a major issue in 
several districts where capacity constraints had limited the number of 
transfers under NCLBA.

Education officials told us in November 2004 that they believed that 
the guidance and technical assistance that they had provided thus far 
was sufficient to meet the needs identified by states and district 
officials with whom they were in contact. At that time, they had no 
specific plans to issue further guidance or provide additional 
technical assistance on these issues. However officials added that 
policy letters will continue to be issued as needed in response to 
questions raised by states that have not been addressed elsewhere.

Finally, some issues that district officials raised during our site 
visits were not ones for which Education could provide guidance. These 
issues involved distinctions between federal and state requirements 
that individual states would be expected to resolve for their 
districts. For example officials in one district sought clarification 
as to whether or not their state applied the NCLBA interventions both 
to schools not receiving Title I funds and to Title I schools. 
Officials in another district were unsure about whether their state 
exempted schools that did not receive Title I from some NCLBA 
interventions, such as school choice and supplemental services, but not 
from other interventions, such as corrective action and restructuring 
after repeatedly missing yearly performance goals.

Conclusions:

NCLBA is an important and complex piece of legislation, and as 
implementation proceeds, Education will need to continue to help states 
and districts address the many issues they face in providing school 
choice. State and districts officials, although positive about the 
intent of NCLBA, nevertheless identified a variety of challenges in 
implementing the law. Half of the districts we visited did not grant as 
many transfers as were requested because of constraints on the building 
capacities at many of their schools. Difficulties related to building 
capacity are unlikely to diminish in the future, and could become more 
pronounced if the number of students eligible to transfer increases and 
the number of schools available as potential transfer options 
decreases. In the first 2 years under NCLBA, Education data show that 
the number of schools not making their yearly performance goals 
increased. Several state officials suggest that this trend will 
continue. Consequently, it is likely that more schools will be 
identified for choice, which would increase the number of students 
eligible for transfer while decreasing the pool of possible transfer 
schools. Further, new challenges may arise if the schools to which 
students have transferred in the early years of NCLBA do not themselves 
make their yearly performance goals.

In addition, our work raised questions about how well-informed parents 
are about the school choice option. In the second year of NCLBA, about 
1 percent of eligible students transferred, and without more 
information on the reasons parents do or do not take advantage of the 
transfer option, policy makers and school officials may miss 
opportunities to better serve parents and students through the choice 
option. In addition, it is unclear whether or not parents are receiving 
adequate information to make fully informed transfer decisions. It may 
be that parents do not fully understand why their child's school was 
identified for choice or the educational services available in the 
transfer school. Education's longitudinal study of NCLBA will address 
some of these questions. The parental survey will explore the reasons 
parents do or do not exercise the transfer option and the circumstances 
that facilitate or hinder their decisions. The result of the survey may 
give Education and policymakers insight into the reasons behind the 
numbers of students who have transferred, as well as assist school 
officials in assuring that parents are aware of the option. In 
addition, the technical assistance handbook that Education issued in 
May 2004 provides some suggestions that may help districts improve 
their communications with parents, but this information is based on the 
experiences of only a small number of school districts. Districts may 
need additional help in various ways, including how to provide 
information on choice options that can be easily understood by parents 
and how to provide additional information parents need to make an 
informed decision.

Finally, little is known about transferring students or the effects of 
transfers, but Education's plans for its major study of NCLBA are 
promising. As planned, the study should provide insight into the 
demographic characteristics of students transferring under the school 
choice provision and the extent to which the lowest achieving students 
from low-income families, identified for priority consideration under 
the law, are exercising the transfer option. Equally important is 
Education's proposed analysis of how transfers may affect the 
subsequent academic performance of students who change schools under 
the choice provision of NCLBA. This portion of Education's proposed 
study is critical to informing policy makers and school officials about 
whether or not the school choice option is achieving its intended 
outcome of improving student achievement; however, this part of the 
study is still in the design phase.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

To help states and districts implement choice and to gain a better 
understanding of its impact, we recommend that the Secretary of 
Education:

* Monitor issues related to limited classroom capacity that may arise 
as implementation proceeds, in particular, the extent to which capacity 
constraints hinder or prevent transfers. Based on this monitoring, 
Education should consider whether or not additional flexibility or 
guidance addressing capacity might be warranted.

* Collect and disseminate additional examples of successful strategies 
that districts employ to address capacity limitations and information 
on the costs of these strategies.

* Assist states in developing strategies for better informing parents 
about the school choice option by collecting and disseminating 
promising practices identified in the course of working with states and 
districts. For instance, Education might collect and share examples of 
clear, well-written, and particularly informative notices. In addition, 
Education should make the results of its parental surveys, conducted as 
part of its national study, widely available for use by states and 
districts to help them better refine their communications with parents 
regarding school choice.

* For its student outcomes study, Education should use the methodology 
with the greatest potential to identify the effects of the school 
choice transfer on students' academic achievement. The methodology 
selected should allow it to compare academic outcomes for transferring 
students over several years with outcomes for similar students not 
transferring, while accounting for differences in student demographics. 
The study should also examine the extent to which transferring students 
remain in the schools to which they transfer.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for 
review and comment. Education's written comments appear in appendix 
VII. Recommended technical changes have been incorporated in the report 
as appropriate.

Education said that the report would be a useful addition to the 
literature on the public school choice provision and indicated its 
intent to use the findings and recommendations in the report to improve 
Education's technical assistance to states and districts and to 
strengthen its implementation studies. Specifically, Education agreed 
with our recommendations concerning monitoring capacity and 
disseminating successful strategies to meet capacity challenges, noting 
several projects under development that might assist in carrying out 
these recommendations. Education also strongly supported our 
recommendation that it assist states in better informing parents about 
the school choice option and related some of its plans for doing so. 
Regarding our recommendation concerning the department's study of 
choice implementation, Education said that it is working to design a 
rigorous analysis of student outcomes and will take our recommendation 
into consideration as it refines the design for the study.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 
committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties. 
Copies will be made available to other interested parties upon request. 
In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web 
site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any question 
about this report, please call me at (202) 512-7215. Key contributors 
are listed in appendix VIII.

Signed by: 

Marnie S. Shaul: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

The objectives of this report were to determine (1) the extent to which 
Title I schools have been affected by the school choice provision of 
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001 in terms of the number of 
schools identified for choice and the number of students exercising the 
option; (2) the experiences of selected school districts in 
implementing the choice provision; and (3) the kinds of guidance and 
technical assistance that the Department of Education provided states 
and districts as they implemented public school choice.

To determine the extent that schools have been affected by school 
choice in terms of the number of schools required to offer choice and 
the number of students exercising the option, we analyzed data for 
school years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 using two sources: our survey of 
state education agencies and state reports to Education. To obtain data 
on the number of schools that had to offer choice, we used a different 
source for each school year. For 2002-2003, we surveyed state education 
agencies in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; 
for 2003-2004, we obtained data from Education that had been reported 
by each state in its Consolidated State Performance Report: Part I. 
Information on the number of students that chose to transfer to another 
school for school year 2002-2003 was obtained from the Consolidated 
State Performance Report: Part I; for 2003-2004, the data were obtained 
from our survey of the state education agencies, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Although there was a 100 percent response 
rate to our survey and to Education's report, not all states provided 
complete information. Seven states did not provide any transfer 
information for 2003-2004 because they did not plan to collect this 
information until later in school year 2004-2005.

To test the reliability of these data, we performed a series of tests, 
which included checking that data were consistent, that subtotals added 
to totals and that data provided for one year bore a reasonable 
relationship to the next year's data and to data reported elsewhere, 
including state education websites. Where we found discrepancies or 
sought clarification, we followed up with state officials. In several 
states, officials revised the numbers that they had initially reported 
to us or to Education. We determined these data to be sufficiently 
reliable for our purposes.

In addition, we sought information on schools and students from several 
sources. The grade span and location of schools (urban or rural) 
identified for choice and the demographics of their students was 
available from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). We 
were not able to describe the characteristics of the schools required 
to offer choice in 2002-2003 because the list of schools was not 
available. We analyzed data for the nation as a whole and by state, 
expressing the results in relation to the universe of all Title I 
schools or all public K-12 schools. When we compared results in the 
first school year with results in the second, we compared only states 
that provided information for both years and eliminated any states that 
provided data only for a single year. Because NCES data were not 
available for 2003-2004, the year for which we obtained lists of 
schools identified for choice, we used as a proxy the 2002-2003 
enrollment data for these schools including student numbers, minority 
status and eligibility for the free or reduced price school lunch 
program as a measure of the family income. Because these were the only 
data available, and because we considered them adequate for our 
purposes, we used 2002-2003 enrollment data to characterize schools in 
2003-2004, based on an assumption that at the aggregate levels the 
numbers and characteristics did not differ significantly from one year 
to the next. We discussed this assumption with education officials at 
NCES, and for a sample of states, tested it by checking the changes 
from 2001-2002 to the following year for schools identified. We also 
tested the reliability of the NCES data by comparing our numbers to 
published totals and by reviewing documentation. We considered these 
data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To determine the experiences of selected school districts' 
implementation of NCLBA school choice, we visited eight districts that 
had schools required to offer choice. On the basis of our discussions 
with state officials and our own research, we selected districts 
located in seven states--California, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, 
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington. Districts selected were based 
on geographic location and district profile in terms of the number of 
schools required to offer school choice, student population, and 
demographic profile. (See table 10 for district characteristics.) 
During our visits, we interviewed officials in school district offices 
and in most districts, also interviewed principals of schools that were 
required to offer school choice as well as principals of schools that 
received transferring students. In each of these districts, we 
attempted to obtain data on the characteristics of students--such as 
race, poverty, and academic achievement--that had transferred to 
another school under NCLBA school choice in school year 2003-2004; we 
had limited success at obtaining such information from most schools. We 
were able to obtain information on transferring students' academic 
achievement from one district but most districts had not collected this 
information.

Table 10: Characteristics for 2003-2004 of Eight Districts We Visited:

District Characteristic: Geographic area; 
Akron Public Schools, Ohio: Midwest; 
Chicago Public Schools, Ill.: Midwest; 
Elgin (School District U-46), Ill.: Midwest; 
Fresno Unified School District, Calif.: West; 
Memphis Public Schools, Tenn.: South; 
North Panola School District, MS: South; 
Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pa.: Northeast; 
Tacoma Public Schools, Wash.: West.

District Characteristic: Total schools in district[A]; 
Akron Public Schools, Ohio: 58; 
Chicago Public Schools, Ill.: 588; 
Elgin (School District U-46), Ill.: 51; 
Fresno Unified School District, Calif.: 86; 
Memphis Public Schools, Tenn.: 176; 
North Panola School District, MS: 5; 
Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pa.: 85; 
Tacoma Public Schools, Wash.: 54.

District Characteristic: Total enrollment in district; 
Akron Public Schools, Ohio: 28,100; 
Chicago Public Schools, Ill.: 426,000; 
Elgin (School District U-46), Ill.: 39,500; 
Fresno Unified School District, Calif.: 80,300; 
Memphis Public Schools, Tenn.: 114,800[B]; 
North Panola School District, MS: 1,820[C]; 
Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pa.: 33,800; 
Tacoma Public Schools, Wash.: 31,700.

District Characteristic: Number of schools required to offer choice; 
Akron Public Schools, Ohio: 8; 
Chicago Public Schools, Ill.: 368; 
Elgin (School District U-46), Ill.: 6; 
Fresno Unified School District, Calif.: 39; 
Memphis Public Schools, Tenn.: 71[D]; 
North Panola School District, MS: 1; 
Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pa.: 21; 
Tacoma Public Schools, Wash.: 5.

District Characteristic: Number of students eligible for choice; 
Akron Public Schools, Ohio: 2,960; 
Chicago Public Schools, Ill.: 250,000; 
Elgin (School District U-46), Ill.: 2,460; 
Fresno Unified School District, Calif.: 34,005; 
Memphis Public Schools, Tenn.: 52,600; 
North Panola School District, MS: 390; 
Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pa.: 6,800; 
Tacoma Public Schools, Wash.: 2,480.

District Characteristic: Number of students that transferred; 
Akron Public Schools, Ohio: 76; 
Chicago Public Schools, Ill.: 548[E]; 
Elgin (School District U-46), Ill.: 60; 
Fresno Unified School District, Calif.: 101; 
Memphis Public Schools, Tenn.: 388[F]; 
North Panola School District, MS: 0; 
Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pa.: 151; 
Tacoma Public Schools, Wash.: 253.

District Characteristic: Percentage of eligible students that 
transferred; 
Akron Public Schools, Ohio: 2.6%; 
Chicago Public Schools, Ill.: 0.2%; 
Elgin (School District U-46), Ill.: 2.4%; 
Fresno Unified School District, Calif.: 0.3%; 
Memphis Public Schools, Tenn.: 0.7%; 
North Panola School District, MS: 0%; 
Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pa.: 2.2%; 
Tacoma Public Schools, Wash.: 10.2%.

District Characteristic: Percentage of students economically 
disadvantaged; 
Akron Public Schools, Ohio: 56%; 
Chicago Public Schools, Ill.: 85%; 
Elgin (School District U-46), Ill.: 32%; 
Fresno Unified School District, Calif.: 75%; 
Memphis Public Schools, Tenn.: 65%; 
North Panola School District, MS: 94%; 
Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pa.: 63%; 
Tacoma Public Schools, Wash.: 55%.

District Characteristic: Voluntary school choice program; 
Akron Public Schools, Ohio: Yes; 
Chicago Public Schools, Ill.: Yes; 
Elgin (School District U-46), Ill.: No; 
Fresno Unified School District, Calif.: Yes; 
Memphis Public Schools, Tenn.: Yes; 
North Panola School District, MS: No; 
Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pa.: Yes; 
Tacoma Public Schools, Wash.: Yes.

Source: GAO analysis of school data from state or district education 
agency Web sites and school district officials.

[A] Includes district charter and magnet schools; 
excludes specialized and alternative schools.

[B] Memphis student enrollment is average daily membership.

[C] The student count for North Panola is from the NCES Common Core of 
Data for 2002.2003.

[D] Memphis schools are those the state identified for choice in school 
year 2002-03.

[E] Chicago approved 1,097 student transfers and about half of the 
students actually transferred.

[F] Memphis approved 388 student transfers but did not collect data on 
the number of students that actually transferred.

[End of table]

To determine the kinds of guidance and technical assistance that 
Education provided states and districts as they implemented NCLBA 
public school choice, we reviewed regulations, policy letters, and non-
regulatory guidance provided to states and districts. We also 
interviewed Education officials involved with developing the guidance 
and providing assistance to states in implementing school choice. To 
obtain the perspective of officials using the guidance provided by 
Education, we interviewed district officials at all eight sites and 
state agency officials in 2 states. In addition, to obtain a national 
perspective on the effectiveness of Education's guidance and assistance 
to the states and districts, we interviewed officials at the Council of 
the Great City Schools, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and 
the Center on Education Policy.

[End of section]

Appendix II: NCLBA Interventions for Schools Not Meeting Yearly 
Performance Goals Over Time:

Number of years of missing performance goals based on tests 
administered in prior school year: First year missed; 
NCLBA interventions for schools that do receive Title I funds: None; 
NCLBA interventions for schools that do not receive-Title I funds: 
None; states may set their own.

Number of years of missing performance goals based on tests 
administered in prior school year: Second year missed; 
NCLBA interventions for schools that do receive Title I funds: In first 
year of school improvement, required to offer choice; 
NCLBA interventions for schools that do not receive-Title I funds: 
None; states may set their own.

Number of years of missing performance goals based on tests 
administered in prior school year: Third year missed; 
NCLBA interventions for schools that do receive Title I funds: In 
second year of school improvement, required to offer choice and 
supplemental educational services; 
NCLBA interventions for schools that do not receive-Title I funds: 
None; states may set their own.

Number of years of missing performance goals based on tests 
administered in prior school year: Fourth year missed; 
NCLBA interventions for schools that do receive Title I funds: In 
corrective action,[A] required to offer choice and supplemental 
services; 
NCLBA interventions for schools that do not receive-Title I funds: 
None; states may set their own.

Number of years of missing performance goals based on tests 
administered in prior school year: Fifth year missed; 
NCLBA interventions for schools that do receive Title I funds: In 
planning for restructuring,[B] required to offer choice and 
supplemental services; 
NCLBA interventions for schools that do not receive-Title I funds: 
None; states may set their own.

Number of years of missing performance goals based on tests 
administered in prior school year: Sixth year missed; 
NCLBA interventions for schools that do receive Title I funds: In 
implementation of restructuring, required to offer choice and 
supplemental services; 
NCLBA interventions for schools that do not receive-Title I funds: 
None; states may set their own.

Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA.

[A] Corrective action is a significant intervention in a school that is 
designed to remedy the school's persistent inability to make adequate 
progress toward all students becoming proficient in reading and 
mathematics.

[B] Restructuring is a major reorganization of a school, involving 
fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school's 
staffing and governance.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Number of Title I Schools in Each State Identified for 
Choice in School Year 2002-2003:

State: Hawaii; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 139; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 82; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 58.99%. 

State: Georgia; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,064; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 600; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 56.39%. 

State: Indiana; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 791; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 236; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 29.84%. 

State: Maryland; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 361; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 105; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 29.09%. 

State: New Mexico; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 533; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 116; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 21.76%. 

State: Illinois; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 2,433; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 526; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 21.62%. 

State: Arizona; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,021; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 193; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 18.90%. 

State: Delaware; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 106; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 20; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 18.87%. 

State: New Jersey; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,379; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 259; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 18.78%. 

State: Idaho; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 403; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 72; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 17.87%. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,129; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 195; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 17.27%. 

State: Arkansas; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 825; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 123; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 14.91%. 

State: California; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 5,467; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 814; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 14.89%. 

State: New York; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 2,941; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 431; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 14.65%. 

State: Colorado; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 582; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 80; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 13.75%. 

State: Tennessee; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 856; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 114; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 13.32%. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 149; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 17; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 11.41%. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,892; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 198; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 10.47%. 

State: Nevada; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 117; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 12; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 10.26%. 

State: Michigan; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 2,196[A]; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 216; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 9.84%. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 172; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 15; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 8.72%. 

State: Utah; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 216; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 18; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 8.33%. 

State: Ohio; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 2,052; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 161; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 7.85%. 

State: Kansas; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 648; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 50; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 7.72%. 

State: Montana; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 643; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 45; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 7.00%. 

State: North Dakota; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 443; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 29; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 6.55%. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,083; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 68; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 6.28%. 

State: Alabama; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 872; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 52; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 5.96%. 

State: Minnesota; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,007; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 60; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 5.96%. 

State: Alaska; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 299; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 17; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 5.69%. 

State: Nebraska; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 497; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 27; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 5.43%. 

State: South Carolina; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 534; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 27; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 5.06%. 

State: Washington; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 997; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 48; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 4.81%. 

State: Virginia; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 785; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 34; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 4.33%. 

State: South Dakota; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 345; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 13; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 3.77%. 

State: Iowa; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 712; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 26; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 3.65%. 

State: Puerto Rico; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,511; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 48; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 3.18%. 

State: Kentucky; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 866; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 25; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 2.89%. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,188; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 30; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 2.53%. 

State: West Virginia; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 452; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 8; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.77%. 

State: Missouri; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,277; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 21; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.64%. 

State: Connecticut; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 528; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 8; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.52%. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 269; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 4; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.49%. 

State: Mississippi; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 668[A]; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 9; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.35%. 

State: North Carolina; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,131; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 15; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.33%. 

State: Louisiana; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 943; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 11; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.17%. 

State: Maine; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 442; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 4; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 0.90%. 

State: Oregon; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 582; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 5; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 0.86%. 

State: Texas; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 4,823; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 37; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 0.77%. 

State: Florida; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,374; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 0; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 0.00%. 

State: Vermont; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 214; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 0; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 0.00%. 

State: Wyoming; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 171; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 0; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 0.00%. 

Total; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 52,128; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 5,324.

Source: GAO survey, Education's Consolidated State Performance Report.

[A] Michigan and Mississippi did not report the number of Title I 
schools for school year 2002-2003. Michigan suggested and we agreed to 
use the number in school year 2001-2002 as a proxy. For Mississippi, we 
used a proxy from the National Center for Education Statistics.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Number of Title I Schools in Each State Identified for 
Choice in School Year 2003-2004:

State: Georgia; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,115; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 533; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 47.80%. 

State: Hawaii; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 204; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 82; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 40.20%. 

State: Arkansas; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 824; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 230; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 27.91%. 

State: Maryland; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 380; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 102; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 26.84%. 

State: Illinois; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 2,357; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 562; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 23.84%. 

State: Nevada; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 117; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 27; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 23.08%. 

State: New Mexico; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 546; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 120; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 21.98%. 

State: California; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 5,521; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 1205; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 21.83%. 

State: Alaska; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 296; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 64; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 21.62%. 

State: Arizona; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,021; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 220; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 21.55%. 

State: New Jersey; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,379[A]; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 262; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 19.00%. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,163; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 208; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 17.88%. 

State: New York; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 3,006; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 528; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 17.56%. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,724; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 298; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 17.29%. 

State: South Carolina; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 549; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 90; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 16.39%. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 147; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 24; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 16.33%. 

State: Michigan; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 2,196[A]; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 352; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 16.03%. 

State: Indiana; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 786; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 97; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 12.34%. 

State: Colorado; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 659; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 80; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 12.14%. 

State: Delaware; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 104; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 12; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 11.54%. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 138; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 15; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 10.87%. 

State: Idaho; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 399; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 43; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 10.78%. 

State: South Dakota; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 336; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 32; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 9.52%. 

State: Puerto Rico; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,494; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 140; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 9.37%. 

State: Ohio; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 2,116; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 191; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 9.03%. 

State: Louisiana; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 945; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 69; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 7.30%. 

State: Tennessee; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 856; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 56; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 6.54%. 

State: North Dakota; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 365; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 23; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 6.30%. 

State: Montana; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 678; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 40; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 5.90%. 

State: Virginia; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 791; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 44; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 5.56%. 

State: Alabama; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 859; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 46; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 5.36%. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,095; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 52; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 4.75%. 

State: Kansas; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 665; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 30; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 4.51%. 

State: Washington; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 995; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 44; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 4.42%. 

State: Minnesota; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,006; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 38; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 3.78%. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,238; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 46; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 3.72%. 

State: North Carolina; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,154; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 35; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 3.03%. 

State: Florida; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,426; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 43; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 3.02%. 

State: Kentucky; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 874; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 25; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 2.86%. 

State: Utah; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 218; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 6; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 2.75%. 

State: Missouri; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 1,275; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 32; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 2.51%. 

State: Connecticut; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 499; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 12; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 2.40%. 

State: Vermont; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 209; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 4; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.91%. 

State: West Virginia; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 409; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 7; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.71%. 

State: Iowa; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 694; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 11; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.59%. 

State: Maine; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 461; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 6; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.30%. 

State: Nebraska; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 494; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 6; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.21%. 

State: Oregon; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 595; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 7; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.18%. 

State: Mississippi; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 668[A]; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 7; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 1.05%. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 248; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 2; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 0.81%. 

State: Texas; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 5,061; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 9; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 0.17%. 

State: Wyoming; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 184; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 0; 
Percent of Title I schools identified for choice: 0.00%. 

Total; 
Number of schools that received Title I funds: 52,539; 
Number of schools identified for choice: 6,217.

Source: GAO survey, Education's Consolidated State Performance Report.

[A] Michigan, Mississippi, and New Jersey did not report the number of 
Title I schools in school year 2003-2004. Michigan suggested and we 
agreed to use the number in school year 2001-2002 as a proxy. For 
Mississippi, we used a proxy from the National Center for Education 
Statistics for the 2002-2003 school year. For New Jersey, we used the 
number of Title I schools the state reported for the 2002-2003 school 
year.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix V: Number of Students in Each State Transferring under Choice 
Option in First 2 Years of NCLBA:

State: Oregon; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 742; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 873; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 17.40%. 

State: Florida; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: Not applicable; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 1,820; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 6.28%. 

State: South Carolina; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 519; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 1,772; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 4.28%. 

State: West Virginia; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 49; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 90; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 4.14%. 

State: New Mexico; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 529; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 1,699; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 3.72%. 

State: Kentucky; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 229; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 384; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 3.66%. 

State: Alabama; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 777; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 740; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 3.50%. 

State: North Carolina; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 93; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 337; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 3.42%. 

State: Connecticut; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 7; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 262; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 3.32%. 

State: Delaware; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 0; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 195; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 2.92%. 

State: Utah; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 204; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 58; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 2.85%. 

State: Tennessee; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 810; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 929[B]; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 2.82%. 

State: Indiana; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 1,301; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 1,199; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 2.52%. 

State: Virginia; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 277; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 432; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 2.26%. 

State: Kansas; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 202; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 212; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 2.18%. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 192; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 197; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 2.18%. 

State: Maryland; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 709; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 1,050; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 2.01%. 

State: New Jersey; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 257; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 2,738; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 1.80%. 

State: Minnesota; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: Not available; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 270[B]; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 1.68%. 

State: New York; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 1,507; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 7,373; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 1.51%. 

State: Iowa; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 170; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 60; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 1.48%. 

State: Ohio; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 698; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 1,169; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 1.24%. 

State: Washington; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 620; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 270[B]; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 1.21%. 

State: Nevada; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 127; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 226; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 1.20%. 

State: Louisiana; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 18; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 371; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.88%. 

State: Colorado; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 194; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 299[B]; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.86%. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 110; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 1,126; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.56%. 

State: Illinois; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 1,418[C]; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 1,364[C]; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.34%. 

State: Hawaii; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 21; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 154; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.31%. 

State: Alaska; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 2; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 26; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.31%. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 845; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 304[B]; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.31%. 

State: California; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 3,139; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 3,419; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.28%. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 1; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 2; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.23%. 

State: Mississippi; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 4; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 7; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.19%. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 17; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 27[B]; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.19%. 

State: Missouri; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 91; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 16; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.13%. 

State: South Dakota; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 1; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 5; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.07%. 

State: Idaho; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 0; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 4; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.03%. 

State: Maine; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 0; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 0; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.00%. 

State: Nebraska; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 0; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 0; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.00%. 

State: North Dakota; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 11; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 0; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.00%. 

State: Puerto Rico; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 0; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 0; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.00%. 

State: Texas; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 59; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 0; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.00%. 

State: Vermont; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: Not applicable; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 0; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: 0.00%. 

State: Arizona; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 83; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: Not available; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: Not 
available. 

State: Arkansas; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 171; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: Not available; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: Not 
available.

State: Georgia; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 1,874; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: Not available; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: Not 
available.

State: Montana; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 38; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: Not available; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: Not 
available.

State: Oklahoma; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 549; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: Not available; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: Not 
available.

State: Wisconsin; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 111; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: Not available; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003-2004: Not 
available.

State: Michigan; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: Not available; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: Not available; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003- 2004: Not 
available.

State: Wyoming; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: Not applicable; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: Not applicable; 
Percent of eligible students[A] who transferred in 2003- 2004: Not 
applicable.

Total; 
Number of students who transferred in 2002-2003: 18,732; 
Number of students who transferred in 2003-2004: 31,479.

Source: GAO survey, Education's Consolidated State Performance Report.

[A] To calculate percents, we used NCES 2002-2003 school year 
enrollment figures for all schools identified for choice in the 2003-
2004 school year. See app. I.

[B] Transfer figures shown may be understated, because they represent 
transfers in large districts in these 6 states: Colorado, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington.

[C] In both years, Illinois state officials reported transfers for most 
but not all districts. In 2002-2003, the state report included Chicago; 
in 2003-2004, the state report excluded Chicago and we added the 
transfer figure provided by Chicago.

Note: Michigan officials told us that they were not able to distinguish 
the number of NCLBA transfers from the other transfers under their 
statewide open enrollment programs.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix VI: Poverty and Minority Rates of Schools Required to Offer 
Choice and Schools Offered as Transfer Options:

Akron, Ohio; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 0-25%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 1; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 11.

Akron, Ohio; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 26-50%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 9; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 11.

Akron, Ohio; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 51-75%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 1; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 16; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 4; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 7.

Akron, Ohio; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 76-100%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 7; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 11; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 4; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 8.

Chicago, Illinois; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 0-25%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 1; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 1; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 2.

Chicago, Illinois; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 26-50%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 5; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 2.

Chicago, Illinois; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 51-75%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 2; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 11; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 3; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 6.

Chicago, Illinois; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 76-100%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 365; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 23; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 365; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 29.

Elgin, Illinois; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 0-25%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 13; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 4.

Elgin, Illinois; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 26-50%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 3; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 9.

Elgin, Illinois; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 51-75%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 3; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 1; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 3.

Elgin, Illinois; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 76-100%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 2; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 4; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 0.

Fresno, California; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 0-25%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 3; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 0.

Fresno, California; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 26-50%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 1; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 4; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 3.

Fresno, California; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 51-75%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 4; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 1; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 1; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 7.

Fresno, California; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 76-100%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 34; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 10; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 38; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 8.

Memphis, Tennessee[B]; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 0-25%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 1; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 0.

Memphis, Tennessee[B]; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 26-50%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 9; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 2.

Memphis, Tennessee[B]; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 51-75%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 5; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 5; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 3; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 7.

Memphis, Tennessee[B]; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 76-100%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 66; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 30; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 68; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 36.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 0-25%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 6.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 26-50%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 11; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 15.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 51-75%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 2; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 17; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 8; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 17.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 76-100%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 19; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 23; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 13; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 13.

Tacoma, Washington; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 0-25%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 0.

Tacoma, Washington; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 26-50%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 1; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 3.

Tacoma, Washington; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 51-75%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 0; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 3; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 4; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 5.

Tacoma, Washington; 
School enrollment percentage by district: 76-100%; 
Poverty: Number of schools required to offer choice: 5; 
Poverty: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 3; 
Minorities: Number of schools required to offer choice: 1; 
Minorities: Number of schools offered as transfer options: 0.

Source: GAO analysis of school data from state or district education 
agency Web sites.

[A] For Chicago, minority data were not available for one of the 40 
transfer schools.

[B] Two of the 47 transfer schools in Memphis were new in school year 
2003-2004, and no data were available on the poverty or minority rates 
for the student enrollment at these two schools.

[C] One of the 8 transfer schools in Tacoma was new in school year 
2003-2004, and no data were available on the poverty rate for the 
student enrollment at this one school.

[End of table]

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY:

December 3, 2004:

Ms. Marnie S. Shaul: 
Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues: 
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Shaul:

I am writing in response to your request for comments on the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report (GAO-05-7) dated December 2004 
and entitled, "No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide 
Additional Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for 
School Choice Provision." I believe that this study will be a useful 
addition to the literature on the public school choice provision of 
Title 1, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), 
as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and appreciate 
receiving the information about the implementation of this provision.

As you report, the Department has issued guidance and technical 
assistance on public school choice on numerous occasions throughout the 
last few years, providing the field with two versions of guidance on 
public school choice, policy letters, and the guidebook, Creating 
Strong District School Choice Programs, of which we currently have 
distributed 26,000 copies. Also, as you report, we have disseminated 
these materials aggressively and have presented information to 
policymakers and practitioners in myriad ways, through workshops at 
education conferences, symposia, webcasts, and more. It is encouraging 
to see, as you discovered, that the number of students who transferred 
under the public school choice provision increased significantly 
between 2002-03 and 2003-04. We believe that the Department's efforts 
contributed to that increase.

We are aware, as the report points out, that some parents may not be 
transferring their children because they have not been well informed 
about the school choice option by their district. The Department has 
been working tirelessly with States, districts, and grassroots 
organizations to inform parents around the country of the choice 
option. Through several grants made under the Fund for the Improvement 
of Education and through Parental Information and Resource Centers, the 
Department has provided outreach and information to parents on a 
national level about the school choice option. We know that our efforts 
have led to parents learning about, and taking advantage of, their 
opportunity to transfer their children. Much remains to be done, 
however.

I would like to use the remainder of this letter to respond to the 
recommendations that you make to the Secretary. I appreciate the 
thoughtfulness of these recommendations, which I believe are important 
and reasonable.

Your first two recommendations address the challenge of districts' 
limited classroom capacity to implement choice. You suggest that the 
Department monitor issues related to limited classroom capacity and 
based on this monitoring, consider whether to provide additional 
flexibility or guidance to address capacity challenges. You also 
recommend that the Department collect and disseminate examples of 
successful strategies that districts have used to overcome capacity 
limitations and provide information on what these strategies cost 
districts. I agree with both of these recommendations and would like to 
share with you some of the steps the Department is already taking 
related to these recommendations and the challenges concerning 
capacity.

Recently, the Department held a workshop for districts seeking to 
create or expand their school choice programs as a way to improve 
student achievement in their schools. The workshop was dedicated to 
practical matters that districts must consider in addressing choice, 
such as staffing, transportation, funding and resources, and 
professional development for school staff. It offered an opportunity 
for district officials to learn from their peers about techniques and 
strategies to overcome these challenges. The Department plans to 
replicate this highly successful workshop in the coming year.

Additionally, in the past two years, the Department has funded three 
major projects to help States and districts design and implement 
effective public school choice programs:

* The Department recently awarded a grant to the Center for Education 
Innovation-Public Education Association to work with five large, urban 
communities around the country (New York City, Philadelphia, 
Pittsburgh, Columbus, and Cleveland). The project will establish 
"Centers for Quality Public School Choice" that reflect local needs, 
evolve via local initiative, and are sustained by becoming 
institutionalized within each of the school districts. The primary 
objective of the Centers will be to restructure large public schools 
for the purpose of improving educational opportunities and creating 
additional capacity for choice. The Department will share the work of 
this grant, including lessons learned, with communities around the 
country.

* The Department also awarded a joint grant to the University of 
Minnesota and the National Governors Association. This grant has two 
goals: (1) to provide timely, useful information for State policymakers 
about school choice as one tool to increase student achievement and 
reduce the achievement gap; and (2) to provide in-depth technical 
assistance to five States wishing to expand or improve their school 
choice system(s). The project will develop policy primers that identify 
State policy best practices relating to the full range of school choice 
programs.

* Finally, the Department funded the organization Public Impact and the 
Education Commission of the States, which have collaborated to produce 
a guide for State. policymakers regarding how to use charter schools 
and other mechanisms to create new choice capacity. These organizations 
are also organizing meetings with State officials to develop and share 
ideas on this front.

The Department is also focusing on expanding capacity for public school 
choice through some of its larger discretionary grant programs, such as 
the Charter Schools program and the Magnet Schools Assistance program. 
And we continue to promote innovative solutions to public school choice 
challenges through our Voluntary Public School Choice program.

The Department also supports strongly your third recommendation, to 
assist States in developing strategies for better informing parents 
about the school choice option by collecting and disseminating best 
practices. The Department has begun to do this through its Innovations 
in Education guidebook on school choice and plans to post online 
examples of clear, well-written, and informative notices as well as 
other templates and tools. We will also share with States and districts 
examples of well-written letters informing parents of school choice, 
through our national meetings and our Title I monitoring visits to 
States. Additionally,,the Department will share the results of its 
parental surveys, conducted as part of its national evaluation of NCLB, 
with local and State officials so they can learn from the findings and 
improve their outreach and communication with parents.

Your final recommendation is that the Department utilize, as part of 
its national evaluation of NCLB, a methodology that will allow it to 
compare -academic outcomes for transferring students over several years 
with outcomes for similar students not transferring, while accounting 
for differences in student demographics. You also recommend that the 
study examine the extent to which transferring students remain in the 
schools to which they transfer. The Department is working to design a 
rigorous analysis of student outcomes associated with participation in 
the Title I transfer option, and we will take your recommendations into 
consideration as we refine the design for this part of the study.

Thank you again for taking the time to research and report on the 
public school choice provision. The Department will use the findings 
and recommendations made in this report to improve its technical 
assistance to States and districts and to strengthen its own 
implementation studies.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Eugene W. Hickok: 

[End of section]

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Deborah L. Edwards: 
(202) 512-5416 or edwardsd@gao.gov 

Patricia L. Elston: 
(202) 512-3016 or elstonp@gao.gov 

Staff Acknowledgments:

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made 
important contributions to this report: Nancy Purvine, Sara Margraf, 
Scott Spicer, John Mingus, Amy Buck, and Margaret Armen.

[End of section]

Related GAO Products:

No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process 
for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734. 
Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.

No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on 
Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909. 
Washington, D.C: September 23, 2004.

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.

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.

Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses: Information 
Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO-03-389. Washington, 
D.C.: May 8, 2003.

Disadvantaged Students: Fiscal Oversight of Title I Could Be Improved. 
GAO-03-377. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2003.

Title I: Education Needs to Monitor States' Scoring of Assessments. 
GAO-02-393. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2002.

Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit Though Funding Per Poor Child 
Differs. GAO-02-242. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2002.

Title I Program: Stronger Accountability Needed for Performance of 
Disadvantaged Students. GAO/HEHS-00-89. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2000.

FOOTNOTES

[1] In this report, we refer to Title I, Part A of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act as "Title I." Other Parts of Title I (Parts B, 
C, and D) are targeted at specific populations or purposes and are 
commonly referred to by their program names, such as Even Start. 

[2] State agencies may retain 1 percent for administration with the 
smallest states permitted to retain a slightly higher amount, and, 
starting in school year 2004-2005, must reserve 4 percent for school 
improvement activities. In the 2 earlier years, state agencies were 
required to set aside 2 percent for school improvement.

[3] Education's National Center for Education Statistics maintains 
information on schools "eligible" for Title I funds, based on the data 
used in the formula for distribution of funds. Given districts' 
discretion, however, some eligible schools may not actually receive 
funds. 

[4] In this report, when we refer to states, we are including the 
jurisdictions of the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

[5] For more information on state accountability systems, see GAO, No 
Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process for 
Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions, GAO-04-734 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004).

[6] The school can meet the state performance goal under the "safe 
harbor" provision even when a student subgroup does not otherwise meet 
the goal. To do so, the school must reduce the percentage of students 
in the subgroup who are not proficient by at least 10 percent and that 
subgroup must also show progress on another academic indicator that the 
state uses to determine performance. For example, if a subgroup does 
not make the state's goal for the percentage of students proficient in 
reading, but the percentage in that subgroup who are not proficient 
declines by 10 percent and the graduation rate for that subgroup 
improves, the school could make its performance goal for that year.

[7] States may, at their discretion, apply these interventions to other 
schools as well. 

[8] NCLBA states that the opportunity to transfer must be offered 
unless such transfers are prohibited by state law.

[9] The student may remain in the new school until he or she completes 
the highest grade level in the new school, but the district is no 
longer required to pay for transportation when the school from which 
the student transferred is no longer identified for choice.

[10] In addition to making such arrangements for choice, districts have 
the option of offering supplemental educational services to students 
attending schools that have missed their yearly performance goals for 
two consecutive years. If schools miss their yearly performance goals 
for three or more years, districts are required to provide supplemental 
educational services as well as choice.

[11] The 5,300 schools shown for school year 2002-2003 are derived from 
state data reported in 2004. Although Education released a list in July 
2002 estimating that there were over 8,600 such schools for school year 
2002-2003, many states later revised these numbers. For example, 
Education estimated that 760 Ohio schools were identified for choice in 
2002-2003, but Ohio reported that only 161 schools were identified for 
choice in that year.

[12] For more information on differences in state accountability 
systems, see GAO-04-734.

[13] For the first year, Education reported 45,000 actual transfers 
based on data from 48 states, but this figure included one state that 
subsequently determined it had overstated its number by about 28,000 
students. The 19,000 number we report is based on revised data for 50 
states. For the second year, Cynthia G. Brown, et al, estimated that 
about 65,000 students requested transfers and 20,000 actually 
transferred based on data from 10 states and 68 districts (Choosing 
Better Schools: A Report on Student Transfers under the No Child Left 
Behind Act, The Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, (Washington, D.C: 
May 2004)). Although higher, our 31,000 figure may still understate the 
actual numbers transferring because we could not obtain any transfer 
data for 7 states. See app.V for more information.

[14] The states are Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, 
Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont, although Montana was 
unable to provide data for the second year and was not included in the 
analysis. These 10 states represent 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 states' school 
districts and the nearest metropolitan statistical area. See GAO No 
Child Left Behind Act: Research on Effective Strategies Need for Small 
and Isolated Rural Districts, GAO-04-909 (Washington, D.C: Sept. 23, 
2004).

[15] Where districts lack other schools to offer as transfer options, 
districts are required, to the extent practicable, to make transfer 
agreements with neighboring districts, but we are not aware of any 
locations where such interdistrict transfers have occurred.

[16] The increase may be understated, because second year data for some 
states were not available statewide and instead represents numbers for 
large districts in these states. Florida, Vermont, and Wyoming were not 
included among the 41 states, because they had no schools identified 
for choice the first year, although in the second year, Florida 
accounted for about 1,800 transfers. See app. V for details.

[17] The 8 states were Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, North Dakota, 
Texas, Utah and Missouri. Illinois and Missouri reported increases in 
the number of schools identified the second year. Not included here are 
Massachusetts and Washington because the transfers for the second year 
are based only on the numbers in large districts, and thus may be 
understated. See app. III and IV for the number of schools identified 
in each year and app. V for the students transferring.

[18] Education refers to this study as the National Longitudinal Study 
of No Child Left Behind. Data will be collected for school years 2004-
05 and 2006-07, with a report expected in September 2007.

[19] Demographic categories used are not mutually exclusive.

[20] Assessment data were available for about one-quarter of the 
students in each group, because assessments were administered to 
students in only one grade at each school.

[21] Based on 2002-03 reading and math assessments.

[22] For example, Mississippi state officials told us that 3 of 10 
schools identified for choice in 2003-04 based on preliminary data were 
later found to have met their goals. Mississippi requires districts to 
provide choice based on preliminary results and to honor its commitment 
to choice even when the final data yield different results. However, 
the school in N. Panola was not among the three incorrectly identified. 


[23] Tennessee did not provide Memphis with preliminary data prior to 
the start of school. California provided incomplete data prior to the 
start of school and final results in February 2004.

[24] Researchers in Colorado and Massachusetts echoed the districts' 
concerns. See Pamela Benigno, No Child Left Behind Mandates School 
Choice: Colorado's First Year (Independence Institute: June 2003) 
http://www.independenceinstitute.org/edpublications.aspx downloaded 
November 5, 2004. See also William Howell, "Fumbling for an Exit Key: 
Parents, Choice, and the Future of NCLB" in Frederick M. Hess and 
Chester E. Finn, Jr, editors, Leaving No Child Behind? Options for Kids 
in Failing Schools (New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, Oct. 2004) 161-
190.

[25] Elgin and Chicago cited an Illinois law, effective July 1, 2002, 
that limits transfer options when the receiving school would exceed 
capacity as a result of the transfer. 

[26] Generally districts are permitted to carry over up to 15 percent 
of their Title I funds for use in the following year. 

[27] Title I funds must be provided to schools with high poverty rates. 
Schools that previously received no Title I funds may become eligible 
with changes in their student enrollment or may lose their eligibility. 
Also, districts have the option to extend Title I funding to other 
eligible schools with lower poverty rates, or having done so in the 
past, to alter their decision. For example, Memphis officials told us 
that they expanded the number of schools receiving Title I funds in 
school year 2004-2005.

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: