United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States Government Accountability Office author aut Government Organization text government publication eng GAOREPORTS Legislative Agency Publications gao legislative 2010-08-12 U.S. Government Printing Office 2002-04-01 monographic deposited born digital 26 p. GA 1.13:GAO-02-393 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-393 P0b002ee1803989c6 f:d02393 DGPO 2010-08-12 2011-03-28 GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-393 machine generated eng fdlp REPORT GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-393 GAO-02-393 Academic achievement Accountability Aid for education Disadvantaged persons Education program evaluation Internal controls Performance measures Schools Standards evaluation State-administered programs Students Other Written Product A02849 Concerned that Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) had not significantly improving the educational achievements of children at risk, Congress mandated major changes in 1994. States were required to adopt or develop challenging curriculum content and performance standards, assessments aligned with content standards, and accountability systems to measure progress in raising student achievement. In return, states were given greater flexibility in the use of Title I and other federal funds. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 augments the assessment and accountability requirements that states must implement and increases the stakes for schools that fail to make adequate progress. The 1994 legislation required states to comply with the requirements by January 2001 but allowed the Department of Education to extend that deadline. Education has granted waivers to 30 states to give them more time to meet all requirements. If states fail to meet the extended timeliness, they are subject to the withholding of some Title I administrative funds. Title I directors indicated that a state's ability to meet the 1994 requirements improved when both state leaders and state agency staff made compliance a priority and coordinated with one another. Most directors said that inadequate funding hindered compliance. Many of the states reported taking action to ensure that Title I assessments were scored accurately, that any exemptions for students with limited English proficiency were justified, and students with disabilities were receiving appropriate testing accommodations. As of March 2002, 17 states had complied with the 1994 assessment requirements; 35 states had not. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-393/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-393.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-393/pdf/GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-393.pdf GAO-02-393 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GAO-02-393 Other Written Product GAO-02-393; Title I: Education Needs to Monitor States' Scoring of Assessments; Academic achievement Accountability Aid for education Disadvantaged persons Education program evaluation Internal controls Performance measures Schools Standards evaluation State-administered programs Students Public Law 98-502 Public Law 103-382 Public Law 107-110