States Work Hard to Implement NCLB’s ‘State Systems of Support’ Requirement to 
Help Low-Performing Schools, But Face Challenges

Limitations in Staff, Political Support and Expertise in the Areas of English 
Language Learners and Special Education are Cited by State Officials

Washington – Only one-third of state education officials say their departments 
have adequate capacity to help improve low-performing schools as required by 
the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), according to a survey of all 50 states by 
the American Institutes for Research (AIR).

The study, conducted with a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 
found that states—which were already struggling with shrinking budgets—were 
constrained to design their NCLB support systems around what they thought they 
could accomplish. This leaves open the question of whether the supports 
provided were those needed by schools.  Research on effective state systems of 
support was lacking when NCLB was enacted, but as part of this study, AIR 
shares a research-based framework for state officials and policy analysts for 
assessing and refining their systems.

The online survey was designed to study states’ capacity to develop and deploy 
systems of support for schools identified for improvement under NCLB.  To 
provide support commensurate with the challenges facing low-performing schools, 
state education agencies need adequate capacity – including infrastructure, 
professional resources and political support.

Respondents were state officials, from all 50 states, with primary 
responsibility for their state’s system of support for schools and districts 
identified for improvement.  The findings include:

* State officials were more likely to report limitations to their capacity than 
strengths. Only 16 states gave overall positive responses to questions about 
their capacity to support low-performing schools.

* State officials generally perceive the expertise within their education 
agencies to be a strength, but report lower levels of expertise regarding 
English language learners.  More than half of states (31) reported that staff 
expertise was a strength, however, 19 states reported expertise related to 
English language learners as a specific constraint to their abilities, and 11 
reported similar weaknesses with expertise related to special education.
 
* Three-quarters of respondents (36 states) indicated that a lack of state 
funding for school improvement was a constraint, and 27 states reported that a 
lack of federal funding constrained their capacity as well. 

* States with the most capacity limitations have more schools identified for 
improvement. An average of 19 percent of schools were identified for 
improvement last year in states with limited capacity, compared with 15 percent 
in all other states. One state official responded simply, “The problems are 
many and we are few.”

States are directed to use a percentage of their Title I dollars to fund these 
school improvement efforts, but state officials report these funds are spread 
too thinly. One state official noted, “We are a small, minimum-funded state, 
which means our administration amount is capped and never increases.  It is 
extremely difficult to meet the federal requirements pertaining to the 
statewide system of support with the minimal amount of funds we receive from 
the Title I program.”

The survey findings and more are reported in two briefs from AIR –  Help 
Wanted: State Capacity for School Improvement and State Systems of Support 
Under NCLB: Design Components and Quality Considerations. Both are available on 
www.air.org.

State agencies are required under NCLB to “establish a statewide system of 
intensive and sustained support and improvement for local educational agencies 
and schools” to include school support teams, distinguished teachers and 
principals to act as external consultants and other support structures.  All 
states provide some level of support, but they have varying degrees of 
expertise, capacity, resources and political support.

“As NCLB is being considered for reauthorization, these findings suggest that 
lawmakers should consider ways to increase state capacity to develop systems of 
support,” observed Kerstin Le Floch, an AIR principal research analyst and the 
lead author of both briefs. “High-quality state assistance is an important 
piece of the school improvement puzzle.”

Adequate capacity implies that state education agencies have resources to 
provide sufficient staff, generate timely data, deliver professional 
development, offer grant monies and leverage relevant expertise.  Challenges 
differ from school-to-school, and the education departments need the capacity 
to deal with each school’s individual needs.

As part of this project, AIR researchers are providing state officials and 
policy analysts a framework with which to assess and refine current and planned 
systems.  That framework is detailed in the brief, State Systems of Support 
Under NCLB: Design Components and Quality Considerations, and explains key 
components of successful systems as well as eight indicators of quality state 
support (including coherence, comprehensiveness, responsiveness and 
“prescriptiveness”).

ABOUT AIR
Established in 1946, with headquarters in Washington, D.C., the American 
Institutes for Research (AIR) is an independent, nonpartisan not-for-profit 
organization that conducts behavioral and social science research and delivers 
technical assistance both domestically and internationally in the areas of 
health, education, and workforce productivity.

www.air.org