Search

The article focuses on the U.S. Government Accountability Office' report on an "Expert Views of U.S. Accreditation" on higher education. Topics discussed includes prohibiting education from setting and enforcing accreditation standards for student achievement, increasing transparency of accreditation oversight information, and establishment of a higher education quality assurance commission to coordinate with accrediting agencies.

The article offers information on a study conducted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) about the effect on the educational achievements of students who change schools frequently. It shows that students were inclined to gain lower scores on standardized reading and math exams, while drop out of school have higher rates. It notes that schools have enforced federal program Title 1, Part A of Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to address the needs of students.

The article presents a study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) which aims to determine the types, variations and effectiveness of instructional practices used in schools in helping students achieve academic standards. It notes the study's finding of the use of multiple strategies in high-poverty and high-minority schools. It also points out how instructional practices can be positively and negatively influenced by the standards-based accountability systems.

Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), the federal government provides millions of dollars annually to assist schools that have not met state academic goals. In the 2006-2007 school year, over 10,000 such schools were identified for improvement. NCLBA requires states to set aside 4 percent of their Title I funds to pay for school improvement efforts. GAO was asked to determine (1) the extent to which states have set aside these funds and used other resources for school improvement, (2) which schools received improvement funds and the extent funds are tracked, (3) the activities states and schools have undertaken and how activities are assessed, and (4) how Education supports states' improvement efforts. GAO administered a survey to state education officials and received a 100 percent response rate, matched survey data to an Education database, and conducted site visits to five states. A statutory requirement--known as a hold-harmless provision--has limited some states' ability to target the full 4 percent of Title I funds for school improvement to low-performing schools. However, many states have used other federal and state funds for this purpose. While the hold-harmless provision is designed to protect school districts from reductions in their Title I funding, it has also kept 22 states from setting aside the full portion of Title I school improvement funds since 2002 because they did not have enough funds to do so after satisfying the hold-harmless provision. To address this, Education has proposed repealing the hold-harmless provision. However, it is not known how removing this provision would affect districts protected by it. In addition to Title I funds, 38 states have dedicated other federal funds, and 17 have contributed state funds for school improvement. Though states generally target improvement funds to the most persistently underperforming schools, some states did not fulfill key NCLBA requirements. Specifically, 4 states did not follow all requirements to ensure that schools most in need of assistance received funds. Although Education monitors how states allocate improvement funds, it did not identify this issue. Also, 4 states were unable to provide a complete list of schools that received improvement funds, as required by law. Education has not provided guidance on this requirement and does not monitor compliance with it. Schools and states are engaged in a variety of improvement activities, and most states use student data and feedback to assess activities. Most states reported that schools receiving improvement funds used the funds for professional development and for reorganizing curriculum or instruction time. Nearly all states assisted schools with school improvement plans and professional development. Most states use student achievement data and feedback from schools and districts to assess improvement activities. Education provides a range of support for school improvement, including technical... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a group, Asian American and Pacific Islanders represent about 5 percent of the U.S. population and hold about 8 percent of the college degrees. To better understand the educational attainment and average incomes of the subgroups that comprise this population, the Committee asked: 1) What are Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups' educational attainment and household income levels? (2) What challenges, if any, Asian American and Pacific Islander students face in pursuing and completing their post-secondary education? and (3) What federal and institutional resources do institutions with large Asian American and Pacific Islander student enrollment use to address the particular needs of these students? GAO analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Education (Education) and spoke with officials and Asian American and Pacific Islander students at eight postsecondary institutions. As a group, Asian American and Pacific Islanders have attained high levels of education and income, but differences among Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups exist. For example, a greater percentage of Asian Indians and Chinese in the United States had college degrees than Vietnamese, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders and Indochinese--Cambodians, Laotians, and Hmong. Asian Indians had the highest and Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders and Indochinese had the lowest average income among employed Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups. Data limitations, including challenges linking data sources, prevented GAO from fully exploring the reasons for the differences among subgroups. Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups--while in high school--face a range of challenges that may affect their ability to persist in college. According to GAO's analysis of Education's data, Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups differ in their levels of academic preparedness, ability to pay for college, and their need to balance academic, employment, and family obligations. The postsecondary institutions that GAO visited used both federal grants and their own resources to address the needs of Asian American and Pacific Islander students. The schools used federal aid to institutions to provide tutoring services and to supplement Pell Grants for selected students. The schools also applied their own funds to provide a range of services, including outreach to high school students, scholarships, tutoring, and financial aid application and tuition assistance. School officials told GAO that they could benefit from learning about programs and strategies other schools might be using to assist high school and college students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires districts with schools that receive Title I funds and that have not met state performance goals for 3 consecutive years to offer low-income students supplemental educational services (SES), such as tutoring. This testimony discusses early implementation of SES, including how (1) SES participation changed in recent years; (2) providers work with districts to deliver services; (3) states monitor and evaluate SES; and (4) the U.S. Department of Education (Education) monitors and supports SES implementation. This testimony is based on an August 2006 report (GAO-06-758) and also provides information on actions Education has taken that respond to our recommendations. For the report, GAO surveyed all states and a nationally representative sample of districts with schools required to offer SES, visited four school districts, and interviewed SES providers. SES participation increased from 12 to 19 percent between school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. District actions to increase participation have included greater efforts to notify parents. However, timely and effective notification of parents remains a challenge, as does attracting providers to serve certain areas and students, such as rural districts and students with disabilities. To promote improved student academic achievement and service delivery, SES providers took steps to align their curriculum with district instruction and communicate with teachers and parents. However, the extent of these efforts varied, as some providers did not have any contact with teachers in almost 40 percent of districts or with parents in about 30 percent of districts. Both providers and district officials experienced challenges related to contracting and coordination of service delivery. In part because SES is often delivered in school facilities, providers and district and school officials reported that greater involvement of schools can improve SES delivery. While states' monitoring of district and provider efforts to implement SES had been limited in past years, more states reported conducting on-site reviews and other monitoring activities during 2005-2006. Districts also increased their oversight role. However, many states continue to struggle with how to evaluate whether SES providers are improving student achievement. While a few states have completed evaluations, none provides a conclusive assessment of SES providers' effect on student academic achievement. Education conducts SES monitoring in part through policy oversight and compliance reviews of states and districts, and provides SES support through written guidance, grants, and technical assistance. Education monitoring found uneven implementation and compliance with SES provisions, and states and districts reported needing SES policy clarification and assistance in certain areas, such as evaluating SES. Many states also voiced interest in Education's pilot programs that increase SES flexibility,... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires districts with schools receiving Title I funds that have not met state performance goals for 3 consecutive years to offer low-income students enrolled in these schools supplemental educational services (SES), such as tutoring. This testimony discusses early implementation of SES, including (1) how SES participation changed in recent years; (2) how providers work with districts to deliver services; (3) how states monitor and evaluate SES; and (4) how the Department of Education (Education) monitors and supports SES implementation. This testimony is based on an August 2006 report (GAO-06-758). For this report, GAO used the best available data on participation and obtained more recent information on other SES implementation issues through a state survey and a district survey, as well as visits to four school districts and interviews with providers. SES participation increased from 12 to 19 percent between school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Most students receiving services were among the lower-achieving students in school. District actions to increase participation have included greater efforts to notify parents and offering services on school campuses and at various times. However, timely and effective notification of parents remains a challenge, as well as attracting providers to serve certain areas and students, such as rural districts or students with disabilities. SES providers took steps to align their curriculum with district instruction and communicate with teachers and parents, though the extent of their efforts varied. For example, providers reported their efforts to communicate with the teachers of participating students, but some providers did not have any contact with teachers in about 40 percent of districts. Both providers and district officials experienced challenges related to contracting and coordination of service delivery. In part because SES is often delivered in school facilities, providers and officials in the districts and schools GAO visited reported that involvement of school administrators and teachers can improve SES delivery. State monitoring of district and provider efforts to implement SES had been limited in past years; however, more states reported conducting on-site reviews and other monitoring activities during 2005-2006. Districts have also increased their oversight role. While oversight has increased, many states struggle with how to evaluate whether SES providers are improving student achievement. While a few states have completed evaluations, none provides a conclusive assessment of SES providers' effect on student academic achievement. Education conducts SES monitoring in part through policy oversight and compliance reviews of states and districts, and provides SES support through written guidance, grants, and technical assistance. Education monitoring found uneven implementation and compliance with SES provisions, and states and districts... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires that states improve academic performance so that all students reach proficiency in reading and math by 2014 and that achievement gaps close among student groups. States set annual proficiency targets using an approach known as a status model, which calculates test scores 1 year at a time. Some states have interest in using growth models that measure changes in test scores over time to determine if schools are meeting proficiency targets. To determine the extent that growth models were consistent with NCLBA's goals, GAO assessed (1) the extent that states have used growth models to measure academic achievement, (2) the extent that growth models can measure progress in achieving key NCLBA goals, and (3) the challenges states may face in using growth models to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements and how the Department of Education (Education) is assisting the states. To obtain this information, we conducted a national survey and site visits to 4 states. While growth models are typically defined as tracking the same students over time, GAO used a definition that also included tracking schools and groups of students. In comments, Education said that this definition could be confusing. GAO used this definition of growth to reflect the variety of approaches states were taking. Twenty-six states were using growth models, and another 22 were considering or in the process of implementing growth models, as of March 2006. States were using or considering growth models in addition to status models to measure academic performance and for other purposes. Seventeen states were using growth models prior to NCLBA. Most states using growth models measured progress for schools and for student groups, and 7 also measured growth for individual students. States used growth models to target resources for students that need extra help or award teachers bonuses based on their school's performance. Certain growth models can measure progress in achieving key NCLBA goals. If states were allowed to use these models to determine AYP, they might reduce the number of lower-performing schools identified for improvement while allowing states to concentrate federal dollars in the lowest-performing schools. Massachusetts sets growth targets for schools and their student groups and allows them to make AYP if they meet these targets, even if they do not achieve state-wide goals. Some lower-performing schools may meet early growth targets but not improve quickly enough for all students to be proficient by 2014. If these schools make AYP by showing growth, their students may not benefit from improvement actions provided for in the law. States face challenges measuring academic growth--such as creating data and assessment systems to support growth models--that Education's initiatives may help address. The ability of states to use growth models to make AYP determinations depends on the complexity of the model they... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires that states improve academic performance so that all students reach proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014 and that achievement gaps close among student groups. States set annual proficiency targets using an approach known as a status model, which calculates test scores 1 year at a time. Some states have interest in using growth models that measure changes in test scores over time to determine if schools are meeting proficiency targets. The Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce asked GAO to testify on its recent report on measuring academic growth. Specifically, this testimony discusses (1) how many states are using growth models and for what purposes, (2) how growth models can measure progress toward achieving key NCLBA goals, and (3) what challenges states face in using growth models especially to meet the law's key goals. While growth models may be defined as tracking the same students over time, GAO used a definition that also included tracking the performance of schools and groups of students. In comments on the report, Education said that this definition could be confusing. GAO used this definition of growth to reflect the variety of approaches states were taking. Nearly all states were using or considering growth models for a variety of purposes in addition to their status models as of March 2006. Twenty-six states were using growth models, and another 22 were either considering or in the process of implementing them. Most states using growth models measured progress for schools and for student groups, and 7 also measured growth for individual students. States used growth models to target resources for students that need extra help or award teachers bonuses based on their school's performance. Certain growth models are capable of tracking progress toward the goals of universal proficiency by 2014 and closing achievement gaps. For example, Massachusetts uses its model to set targets based on the growth that it expects from schools and their student groups. Schools can make adequate yearly progress (AYP) if they reach these targets, even if they fall short of reaching the statewide proficiency targets set with the state's status model. Tennessee designed a model that projects students' test scores and whether they will be proficient in the future. In this model, if 79 percent of a school's students are predicted to be proficient in 3 years, the school would reach the state's 79 percent proficiency target for the current school year (2005-2006). States face challenges measuring academic growth, such as creating data and assessment systems to support growth models and having personnel to analyze and communicate results. The use of growth models to determine AYP may also challenge states to make sure that students in low-performing schools receive needed assistance. U.S. Department of Education (Education) initiatives may help states address these... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001 established qualification requirements that teachers of core academic subjects must meet by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Congress has appropriated approximately $3 billion a year through the Title II, Part A (Title II), of NCLBA for teacher improvement programs since the law was passed. With the deadline approaching for all teachers to meet the requirements, GAO was asked to examine (1) the status of state efforts to meet NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements, (2) the use of Title II funds in selected districts, and (3) how the U.S. Department of Education (Education) monitors states and assists them with implementation of the requirements. To obtain this information, GAO reviewed teacher qualifications data submitted to Education by 47 states, conducted site visits to 6 states selected for variance in factors such as teacher requirements and geographic location, visited 11 school districts across these states identified as high-need, and interviewed national experts and Education officials. Data reported to Education by 47 states suggest that the majority of core academic classes were taught by teachers who met NCLBA requirements during the 2003-2004 school year. States have improved in their ability to track and report the percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers who met NCLBA qualification requirements, but several limitations on the quality and precision of state-reported data make it difficult to determine the exact percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers meeting the requirements. Five of the 6 states that we visited allowed veteran teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency through a state-developed procedure called High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE). Officials in states and districts that we visited said that teachers of multiple subjects, such as teachers in rural schools with a small teaching staff, would likely face challenges meeting the requirements by the 2005-2006 deadline. The 11 school districts that we visited all used Title II funds to provide professional development, and most used Title II funds to reduce class size. Officials in the majority of these districts indicated that NCLBA had led to improvements in the kinds of professional development they funded with Title II funds. Although officials in over half of the districts indicated that they continued to use Title II funds to reduce class size, an activity that was supported under a federal program that predated NCLBA, some district officials told us that they had shifted funds away from class size reduction to initiatives designed to improve teachers' subject matter knowledge and instructional skills, such as professional development. All districts that we visited reported considering student achievement data and targeting Title II funds to improve instruction in the academic subjects in which students were lagging behind. In the 11 districts, few efforts funded with Title II targeted specific groups of teachers, such as teachers in high-poverty schools. Title II funds constituted a small proportion of total funds that districts could use for teacher improvement initiatives, and all districts that we visited used several other funding sources to support their teacher programs. Education monitored state efforts to meet the teacher qualification requirements and offered multiple types of assistance to help teachers meet the requirements. In monitoring states, Education has found several areas of concern, such as states not ensuring that certain newly hired teachers met NCLBA's requirements. Education's assistance has included professional development for teachers and site visits to provide technical assistance to state officials. Education officials said that their Web site has been an important tool for disseminating resources about the requirements, but officials from most states and districts that we visited told us that they were unaware of some of these resources or had difficulty locating them, despite frequently using the Web site. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Charter schools are public schools that are granted increased autonomy by states in exchange for meeting specified academic goals. State law determines who approves the formation of a charter school, often the board of education. As public schools, charter schools are subject to the performance requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) as well. In this environment, states' systems for allowing charter schools flexibility and ensuring school performance and financial integrity assume greater importance. GAO examined (1) how states allow charter schools flexibility, (2) how states promote accountability for school performance and financial integrity for charter schools, (3) the implications of NCLBA for charter schools, and (4) the role the Department of Education (Education) plays in charter school accountability. GAO surveyed the 39 states and jurisdictions with operating charter schools in 2002-03 and interviewed charter school experts and Education officials. In school year 2002-03, some states reported that they provided charter schools flexibility by allowing them to choose their authorizer. Authorizers--state education agencies, local education agencies, universities, and other nonprofit organizations--oversee the formation and operation of charter schools. Also, nearly all states provided flexibility by releasing charter schools from some traditional public school requirements, such as teacher hiring and termination practices, schedules, and collective bargaining agreements. To promote charter school performance and financial integrity, states reported that they took action to oversee charter schools and to oversee and provide assistance to authorizers. About half of the 39 states reported having primary responsibility for enforcing school improvement actions in charter schools not achieving annual school performance goals under NCLBA. Most states reported that they intervened when authorizers were not performing their responsibilities and conducted or required audits of authorizers' finances. About half of the states assisted authorizers with funding for their charter school oversight responsibilities or gave them fee collection authority. NCLBA requires charter schools to meet the same requirements as other public schools, but the law permits certain flexibilities where allowed by state law. Charter schools must be included in the statewide assessment system, and charter schools that receive NCLBA Title I funds must take school improvement actions if they do not meet state performance goals. However, NCLBA allows state law to determine the entity responsible for charter school oversight. In addition, while NCLBA requires certification for all other teachers to meet the highly qualified teacher requirement, the law exempts charter school teachers from this requirement where state law permits. As it does for all public schools, Education administers grant programs that provide funds to charter schools, monitors grant performance, and sponsors research on accountability for academic performance and financial integrity. Under NCLBA, the department and states must ensure that new and expanding charter schools receive timely payment of federal grant funds for which they are eligible and meet the act's academic achievement goals. However, in its monitoring and data collection, Education gathers little information on the timeliness of charter school grant payments or how well the schools perform. Moreover, Education's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reported delays in states' Title I payments to charter schools. Education is in the process of developing new systems that are expected to provide both academic performance and financial reports for the department's major grant programs, but the ability of the new systems to provide financial reports for charter schools is uncertain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) has focused national attention on improving the academic achievement of the nations' 48 million students by establishing a deadline--school year 2013-14--for public schools to ensure that all students are proficient in reading and math. Accordingly, states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico developed plans that set goals for increasing the numbers of students who attain proficiency on state tests each year, with all meeting goals by 2014. To provide information about states' efforts, GAO determined (1) what goals states established for student proficiency and their implications for whether schools will meet these goals; (2) what factors facilitated or impeded selected state and school district implementation efforts; and (3) how the Department of Education (Education) supported state efforts and approved state plans to meet student proficiency requirements. States varied in how they established proficiency goals and measured student progress, which is permitted by NCLBA so that states can address their unique circumstances. For example, states differed in the annual rates of progress they expected schools to make in order to have all of their students academically proficient by 2014 and in methods used to determine whether schools had met state goals. This variation in state approaches could affect how many schools meet their annual goals over time. State and school district officials said that their leadership's commitment to improving student achievement and technical assistance provided by an Education contractor facilitated implementation of NCLBA requirements. However, tight timeframes for determining school progress and problems with student data impeded implementation. Measuring achievement with faulty data can lead to inaccurate information on schools meeting proficiency goals. Education is working on efforts to help states improve their data systems, such as monitoring state data quality policies. Education assisted states in developing their plans for improving student proficiency and by June 10, 2003 approved, fully (11) or conditionally (41), all plans. As of July 31, 2004, Education had fully approved 28 states' plans without conditions; plans from 23 states and the District of Columbia were approved but contained conditions needed to implement NCLBA requirements. To help states, Education asked assessment experts to review all plans and provide states with on-site evaluations. Although Education officials said that they are continually monitoring states whose plans have conditions, the Department does not have a written process that delineates how and when each state will meet its conditions. In addition, by the school year (2005-06) NCLBA requires states to increase assessments. Education has developed guidance for its review and approval of states' expanded standards and assessments. However, it has not established a written plan that clearly identifies the steps required, interim goals, review schedules, and timelines. Without such written plans, states may be challenged to meet NCLBA system requirements by the 2005-06 deadline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To improve the academic achievement of the nation's 48 million school-aged children, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) introduced significant changes to state, district, and school accountability for student performance and teacher qualifications. Congress has raised concerns about difficulties rural districts face implementing NCLBA. GAO is providing NCLBA implementation information on (1) key challenges rural states and districts face, (2) strategies rural districts have developed, (3) expenditures and resources related to rural districts' compliance, and (4) guidance and assistance the Department of Education (Education) is providing. To address these objectives, GAO conducted a nationally representative survey of rural and nonrural school districts. Also GAO interviewed officials in rural states and districts and Education officials. Rural districts faced some challenges in meeting NCLBA provisions to a greater extent than nonrural districts. For example, rural district officials were more likely than nonrural district officials to report challenges presented by a large enrollment of economically disadvantaged students who may live in communities lacking resources such as libraries. Rural districts also identified small school size and geographic isolation as greatly affecting their ability to implement NCLBA. Rural officials we interviewed said that limited access to teacher training facilities and Internet line maintenance difficulties impeded NCLBA implementation efforts. Rural district officials reported using some strategies, such as training for teachers, to the same extent as nonrural respondents, to help meet student proficiency provisions and implement teacher qualification requirements of NCLBA. Rural districts were more likely to increase computer capacity than nonrural districts. However, small rural districts were less likely than other rural districts to report using certain strategies, such as teacher mentoring. Rural state and district officials we interviewed identified some specific expenditures related to NCLBA, such as those related to analyzing assessment results and providing tutoring services to students. However, district officials were unable to determine total expenditures made to implement NCLBA, in part because their accounting records were not maintained in a way that tracked expenditures by NCLBA categories; states we contacted did not require districts to report separately on NCLBA expenditures. Besides state and local funds, officials reported using multiple federal programs to implement NCLBA, such as the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP). Since 2002, Education has provided NCLBA guidance and assistance to all states and districts, and since April 2003, it has focused on rural education issues by issuing new guidance, establishing a task force on rural issues, and awarded a grant in September 2004 for a rural education research center. However, rural officials indicated that further assistance would be helpful for small rural districts that are experiencing difficulties in providing teacher development opportunities and identifying effective remedial services to improve student achievement. Currently, research on the effectiveness of different strategies to improve student performance is limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]