![](media/image1.jpeg){width="8.542361111111111in" height="11.0875in"}

**Case Studies of Supplemental Services**

**Under the *No Child Left Behind Act*:**

##### Findings From 2003-04

Leslie M. Anderson

Katrina G. Laguarda

Policy Studies Associates, Inc.

Washington, D.C.

Under Subcontract to SRI International

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

2005

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract Number ED01CO0091 with SRI International. The project monitors
were Kirsten Duncan and Collette Roney. The views expressed herein do
not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of
Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education
is intended or should be inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Margaret Spellings

*Secretary*

## Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Tom Luce

*Assistant Secretary*

**Policy and Program Studies Service**

Alan Ginsburg

*Director*

**Program and Analytic Studies**

David Goodwin

*Director*

September 2005

This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the
front cover, which is used with permission and copyright, 2005, Getty
Images. Authorization to reproduce this report in whole or in part is
granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary,
the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies
Service, Case *Studies of Supplemental Services Under the* No Child Left
Behind Act: *Findings From 2003-04*. Washington, D.C., 2005.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U. S. Department of Education

P. O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

or via electronic mail, send your request to: <edpubs@inet.ed.gov>.

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877
service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN); Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to:
[www.ed](http://www.ed/)pubs.org.

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at
www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/supplementalyear2 and Policy and Program
Studies Service's Web site at
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as
Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at
(202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

**Contents**

**Page**

List of Exhibits iv

Executive Summary v

Introduction 1

Implementation of Supplemental Services in Year One (2002-03) 2

Data Collection in 2003-04 3

Supplemental Services: A View from the Ground 4

States' Efforts to Implement Supplemental Services 7

Approving Supplemental Service Providers 7

Monitoring Providers 12

Districts' Role in Implementing Supplemental Services 15

District Efforts to Reach Parents 15

Targeting Students for Services 20

District Relationships with Supplemental Service Providers 20

The Role of Identified Schools in Implementing Supplemental Services 27

District Funding for the Supplemental Services 31

Student Participation in Supplemental Services 35

Supplemental Service Providers and Services 39

Number and Types of Providers Operating in Sampled Districts 39

Organizing and Delivering Services 42

Student Attendance 45

Provider Curricula and Instructional Approaches 46

Provider Staff 49

Communicating with Parents and Teachers on Student Progress 50

Parents' Role in Supplemental Services 53

Context for Choosing Supplemental Services 53

Parents' Criteria for Selecting Providers 54

Parent Satisfaction with Provider Services 58

Conclusions 61

Implementation Progress 61

Implementation Challenges 62

Appendix.....................................................................................................A-1

**Exhibits**

**Page**

Exhibit ES-1: Student Participation Rates in 2003-04 viii

Exhibit 1: Change in Number of Providers, by State 10

Exhibit 2: Types of Supplemental Service Providers, by State and

Nationwide, May 2004 11

Exhibit 3: Characteristics of Supplemental Services in Sampled Districts
in 2003-04 16

Exhibit 4: Changes in Number of Schools and Providers, and the Timing of
Supplemental Services in Sampled Districts Between 2002-03 and 2003-04
24

Exhibit 5: Districts' Capacity to Serve Eligible Students in 2003-04 33

Exhibit 6: Changes in Supplemental Services Eligibility, Spending, and
Participation

> Between 2002-03 and 2003-04, by District 37

Exhibit 7: Number of Providers in Sampled Districts and States 40

Exhibit 8: Types of Supplemental Service Providers Operating in Case
Study Districts, Spring 2004 41

Exhibit A-1: Characteristics of All District Supplemental Service
Providers, 2003-04 A-2

Exhibit A-2: Characteristics of Sampled Supplemental Service Providers,
2003-04 A-6

**Executive Summary**

*The* *No Child Left Behind Act* (NCLB), signed into law in January
2002, provides for children from low-income families enrolled in Title I
schools that have not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) for three
years or more to receive supplemental services, including tutoring,
remediation, and other academic instruction.

Implementing the supplemental services provisions of NCLB involves
states, districts, schools, parents, and providers. Each state is
required to develop criteria for selecting supplemental service
providers and to publish a list of approved providers. School districts
are responsible for notifying parents of their children's eligibility to
receive supplemental services and for providing parents with adequate
information to select providers for their children. Parents may select
any approved provider in the area served by the school district or
within a reasonable distance of the school district. Supplemental
service providers are required to offer academic services that are
consistent with the state's academic content standards and with the
instruction provided by the school district. Providers are also required
to measure students' progress toward meeting their educational goals and
report regularly on that progress to teachers and parents.

This report presents findings from case studies conducted during the
2003-04 school year, the second year that the supplemental services
provisions of NCLB had been in effect. It follows up on baseline data
collected the previous school year.[^1] This study conducted interviews
in a purposive sample of six states and nine school districts, which
were selected to include those that appeared to be relatively far along
in implementing supplemental services provisions. It is important to
note that the findings presented in this report do not provide a
nationally representative picture of the implementation of the
supplemental services provisions, both because the sample is very small
and because the sample was purposively selected from states and
districts that were considered to be further along than others. The
purpose of the study was not to evaluate supplemental services but
rather to gain insights from the early efforts of these states and
districts that could assist others in improving implementation of
supplemental services. [^2]

Four of the nine districts included in the original case study sample in
2002-03 were not providing supplemental services in 2003-04 because they
no longer had schools in their second year or later of improvement. To
compensate for these changes, four new districts in two new states were
added to the study sample. Case study teams conducted telephone
interviews with state administrators responsible for administering the
supplemental services provisions of NCLB in each of six sampled states.
Between January and April 2004, case study teams visited each of the
nine districts in the revised sample. Respondents in each district
included district staff involved in planning or implementing
supplemental services; teachers and principals in up to three schools;
three supplemental service providers; and groups of parents in up to
three schools, including those who had enrolled their children for
services and those who had not. Schools with the highest number of
students receiving services in a given district were selected into the
study sample. However, in cases where a district had middle schools and
high schools required to offer supplemental services, those schools were
always included in the study sample. Similarly, providers serving the
largest number of students were selected into the study sample. However,
districts that were themselves state-approved providers were always
included among the sample of providers for a given district.

**Supplemental Services: The View from the Ground**

States, districts, schools, and providers are key actors in the
implementation of supplemental services, and this report examines the
role of each of these agents in turn. The first question to consider,
however, is what do supplemental services look like, from a student's
perspective? In the case study sites in 2003-04, providers typically
offered tutoring services immediately after school, two to three times a
week, in sessions lasting 1-2 hours each. Providers worked in school
buildings whenever possible, and students usually chose to attend
tutoring programs in the same buildings where they attended school. In
most cases, providers hired teachers from those same schools or from the
district at-large to provide services.

The content and structure of tutoring services varied widely across the
case study sites, depending on the provider and in some cases, on the
individual tutor. Providers represented a range of philosophies and
approaches to the teaching of reading and math. Most providers offered
services that focused on reading, with instructional approaches that
ranged from detailed diagnosis and scripted lessons to more general help
with homework. Some providers had conducted alignment studies and
purchased additional instructional materials to ensure that all state
standards would be covered; others used state assessment results to
develop tutoring plans for individual students; still others were unable
to describe any strategy for aligning their services with state
standards.

Providers in the case study sites most often worked with students in
small groups, where tutor-student ratios ranged from 1:5 to 1:10. With
larger groups, tutors used whole-group instruction and individual
seatwork to keep students engaged for the entire tutoring session. The
total number of tutoring hours each student received also ranged widely,
from a low of 18 in our case study districts to a high of 120. At the
rate of two to six hours a week, students tended to "cycle out" of
supplemental services after 10-20 weeks. As a result, some providers who
began services early served two cohorts of students in one academic
year.

Student attendance at after-school tutoring was a challenge in each of
the case study sites, especially at the middle and high school levels.
Several supplemental service providers offered incentives for students
to attend regularly, and others were considering the use of incentives.

In the nine case study sites, provider communication with parents and
teachers was seldom very effective. Providers sent progress reports to
districts as required under the terms of their contracts, and some
providers in the study sample reported that they also sent information
home to parents monthly or every six weeks. None of the parents or
teachers interviewed for the study, however, recalled receiving written
progress reports. Many of the teachers interviewed did not know which of
their students were receiving supplemental services.

Three of the school districts in the case study sample were approved as
supplemental service providers; their services resembled those offered
by other providers in the case study sample.

***Participation rates varied across the districts, and in most
districts participation rates did not exceed the number of students the
districts could provide services to with the maximum amount they were
required to spend on supplemental services.*** In six districts,
participation rates were between 13 and 62 percent of the students the
districts could serve with the maximum required amount of funding. One
of these districts went to great lengths to recruit parents and sign
students up for services and reached a participation rate of only 28
percent. The other three districts provided supplemental services to 86
percent or more of the students they could provide services to with the
maximum amount they were required to spend on supplemental services and
one of these three districts went beyond its funding capacity to serve
an additional 126 eligible students who requested services in 2003-04
(See Exhibit ES-1).

In six of the case study districts, more students were eligible for
supplemental services than the number the district could provide
services to with the maximum required amount of funding. The remaining
three districts could have provided supplemental services to all
eligible students with the maximum required amount of funding. However,
in only one district did participation rates among eligible students
reach the maximum the district could support using the required amount
of funding.

**Exhibit ES-1**

**Supplemental Services**

**Student Participation Rates in 2003-04**

**States' Efforts to Implement Supplemental Services**

In 2003-04, the six states included in the case study sample had
improved, refined, or expedited procedures related to the implementation
of supplemental services.

-   ***The number of supplemental service providers approved for the
    2003-04 school year increased in all six states, in line with a
    nationwide increase in the number of approved providers.***
    Nationwide, the number of approved providers increased from 997 in
    late April 2003 to 1,890 in early May 2004, an increase of 90
    percent. Among the six states sampled for this study in 2003-04, the
    rate of increase was much higher in three, with the number of
    providers doubling or tripling by 2003-04 (these states had all
    approved fewer than 25 providers in 2003). Two other states in the
    study sample increased the number of approved providers by half, and
    a sixth state, which had a large number of approved providers in
    2003, had an increase of 10 percent.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Very few providers had been removed from state lists in the six
    sampled states.*** In a few instances, providers had been removed
    for financial irregularities, or because they were not actually
    offering tutoring services. There were no examples of providers who
    had been removed from the lists because the state had determined
    that the quality of their services was not adequate. However, states
    are not required to make this determination until providers have
    been serving students for two years. At the time of this data
    collection, states had not yet reached that target date.

-   ***State supplemental services coordinators reported that small
    districts and rural districts continued to be underserved, compared
    with urban areas.*** While state administrators of supplemental
    services reported that some providers were approved to serve all
    schools required to offer services in the state, they remained
    concerned about the limited supply of providers in small and rural
    districts. In several states, providers approved to operate
    statewide were not operating in small and rural districts; in one
    state, many of the rural areas were only serviced by online
    providers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***In 2003-04, sampled states continued to consider ways to monitor
    provider performance, and several had begun the process of
    contracting with external evaluators to assist with monitoring.***
    In most cases, states had not yet put full-blown monitoring systems
    in place, although they had put some work into planning them. The
    law requires states to remove providers from the approved list if
    they fail to increase student achievement after two years, so states
    had to begin implementing systems for this at the end of the 2003-04
    school year. Several states relied heavily on districts for
    information about the performance of supplemental service providers.

**The Districts' Role in Implementing Supplemental Services**

District responsibilities for implementing the supplemental services
provisions of NCLB continue to challenge some administrators, but many
had developed systems and methods for streamlining operations and
procedures to simplify their work, as well as provide supplemental
services to families sooner.

######  District Efforts to Reach Parents

-   ***In 2003-04, districts' efforts to inform parents of the
    availability of supplemental services appeared organized and focused
    on helping parents understand the services districts were offering
    them.*** Most of the nine districts in the study sample were mailing
    letters home to parents that were accompanied by packets of
    materials that included descriptions of provider services, a
    selection form for parents to rank their choice of provider, and
    provider-generated brochures. Examples of district efforts to reach
    parents included hosting provider fairs, mailing fliers, visiting
    homes to encourage parents to sign up their children for services,
    placing announcements in local newspapers, and sponsoring television
    and radio ads to advertise the availability of a provider fair.

-   ***Contacting and communicating clearly with parents about the
    availability of supplemental services still presented challenges to
    school districts.*** Although districts generally thought that they
    were doing a good job informing parents of the availability of
    supplemental services, providers, teachers, and principals in one
    district said that the packets of materials districts sent to
    parents were too complicated and confusing to be helpful.

**District Relationships with Supplemental Service Providers**

-   ***In 2003-04, sampled districts were adept at entering into
    contracts with service providers.*** In 2003-04, many districts
    began using boilerplate contracts for providers. These contract
    templates were created---and vetted---in 2002-03 by many of the
    districts in the study sample. Accordingly, no confusion or
    consternation about creating provider contracts was evident in
    2003-04.

-   ***Most of the nine districts in the study had begun to put in place
    systems for communicating with providers.*** Among districts that
    participated in the study in 2002-03 and 2003-04, there was a
    distinct increase in the number of providers offering services in
    2003-04 than was the case in 2002-03. To some extent, this created a
    more pressing need among these districts to develop systems to
    manage relationships and communicate with providers. In addition,
    however, these districts had learned from their experience
    implementing supplemental services in the previous year that
    communicating directly with providers was necessary to ensure that
    services ran smoothly.

**The Role of Identified Schools in Implementing Supplemental Services**

-   **In 2003-04, many districts in the study sample involved schools
    directly in the process of enrolling students in supplemental
    services**. Principals in several districts said they often helped
    with outreach efforts by calling the parents of students they
    believed could benefit from the services. Many districts also
    involved schools in the recruitment process by providing schools
    with sample letters to personalize and send home to the families of
    students who were eligible for supplemental services. In addition,
    schools in several districts held parent meetings to discuss the
    availability of supplemental services and to describe the services
    providers were offering.

-   ***In 2003-04, districts in the study sample increasingly relied
    upon principals and teachers to help coordinate the implementation
    of supplemental services.*** Principals in some districts, for
    example, noted that implementation of supplemental services often
    required that they get involved in the logistics, including making
    sure space was available in their schools for providers and that
    parents turned in their permission slips for students to receive
    services.

> **District Funding for the Supplemental Services**

-   ***Districts varied widely in the percent of their Title I, Part A,
    allocation that they opted to set aside for choice-related
    transportation and supplemental services.*** Funds districts set
    aside in 2003-04 for supplemental services ranged from a minimum of
    2 percent to 21 percent. In the four districts that set aside less
    than 20 percent of their Title I allocation, all four administrators
    explained that they based their Title I set aside on the previous
    year's demand for both choice-related transportation and
    supplemental services. This practice of setting aside Title I
    resources before gauging demand is likely to bring districts up
    short if the demand for services exceeds a district's reserve of
    resources, and may raise compliance problems as districts are
    required to spend an amount equal to 20 percent of their Title I,
    Part A, allocation on supplemental services and Title I choice if
    demand is sufficient.

-   ***The average district per-pupil expenditure for supplemental
    services among the nine districts included in the study sample was
    \$1,408 in 2003-04.*** Among the five districts included in both the
    year one and year two samples, the average per-pupil expenditure for
    supplemental services increased approximately \$300 from an average
    of \$967 per student in 2002-03 to an average of \$1,280 per student
    in 2003-04.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Several sampled districts expressed concern about the
    administrative costs associated with implementing the supplemental
    services provisions of NCLB.*** District administrators explained
    that there continue to be tremendous costs associated with the
    mailings to parents informing them of the availability of choice and
    supplemental services, as well as costs associated with working with
    the providers.

## Supplemental Service Providers

The supply of supplemental service providers had increased slightly
among the five districts that participated in both years of the study;
among the nine districts participating in the study in 2003-04, some
common approaches to providing supplemental services emerged.

-   ***The number of providers offering services in case study districts
    increased slightly in 2003-04, but the increases were more modest
    than increases reported by some states in the sample or all states
    nationwide.*** In 2003-04, the number of supplemental service
    providers ranged from 5 to 14 in all but one of the case study
    districts; one very large urban district had 27 providers operating.
    The number of providers offering services in each of the five
    districts included in the study sample in both years of data
    collection increased in four of the five districts. Online and
    faith-based providers were relatively rare among the nine districts
    in the study sample.

-   ***In the case study sample, school districts made up a small
    proportion of all providers available to students, although they
    enrolled the lion's share of students in two of the three districts
    where they were offering services.*** There were only three school
    district providers in the nine case study sites, although
    nationwide, intermediate education agencies (IEAs), school districts
    and public schools made up 25 percent of all supplemental service
    providers. District-sponsored tutoring programs in Plainfield and
    Longwood enrolled 49 and 76 percent of all the students
    participating in supplemental services in those districts,
    respectively. In a third district, the district's policy for
    assigning school space to providers led to a relatively even
    distribution of students among the 10 providers available to
    students.

-   ***In general, school and district staff reported that existing
    providers were able to accommodate the needs of students in the
    sampled districts.*** In the three sampled districts with
    significant proportions of English language learners, district and
    school staff reported that those students had been able to find
    tutoring. In none of the sampled sites did district or school staff
    report problems with special education students' access to services.
    None of the districts included in the case study sample was small,
    however, or located in a rural area where state administrators had
    expressed concern about the limited supply of providers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Some providers required a minimum number of students to enroll at
    each site to make their program financially viable, although this
    minimum varied widely across providers.*** In nearly all districts,
    some providers opted not to offer services because demand was too
    low. For some providers, the minimum number needed to make their
    program viable was 10 students per site; for others, the minimum was
    as high as 80.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***In 2003-04, the majority of providers interviewed for this study
    hired only certified teachers to staff their programs, typically
    from the districts where the provider was offering services.***
    Fifteen of the 24 providers included in the study reported that a
    teaching certificate was a requirement for employment. A handful of
    providers had less stringent staff requirements.

-   ***About half of the providers interviewed for this study sought to
    hire tutors and site coordinators directly from the staffs of the
    schools where they provided services.*** Many providers went out of
    their way to recruit these teachers as tutors.

**Parents' Role in Supplemental Services**

Most parents of children receiving supplemental services interviewed for
the case studies were pleased that this resource was available to their
children. Nevertheless, some parents had difficulty sorting out the
options available to them, others had chosen not to enroll their
children in services, and other parents who had enrolled their children
gave mixed reviews of the effectiveness of services.

**Parents' Criteria for Selecting Providers**

-   ***Many parents interviewed for the study reported that they had
    received enough information to choose good providers for their
    children; nearly as many, however, reported that they knew little or
    were confused about the services available to them.*** By studying
    the provider brochures sent out by districts, some parents were
    well-informed about provider services; other parents had attended
    open houses where providers had made presentations, or had spoken
    with providers at their child's school. Some parents, however, were
    not clear about the range of choices available; they did not realize
    that they could have selected a provider other than the one
    operating at the school, or they assumed that the two or three
    providers most visible in the school were the only choices
    available.

-   ***Parents continued to pay careful attention to teacher and
    principal recommendations in deciding whether to enroll their
    student in supplemental services and in choosing a provider.***
    Teachers employed by supplemental service providers played a key
    role in recruiting parents at their schools in all nine of the case
    study sites. In at least two districts, the schools where teachers
    and the principal were actively involved in recruiting parents to
    sign their children up for services had much higher participation
    rates than schools where teachers and the principal were less
    active.

-   ***In addition to teacher recommendations, parents considered
    location, hours of operation, and availability of transportation in
    selecting providers.*** Parents tended to consider those providers
    offering services in their child's school first; among the parents
    interviewed, almost none sent their children off-site when given the
    choice to have their children attend tutoring at the school. As in
    2002-03, parents reported that the availability of transportation to
    and from the school was critical in selecting a provider.

> **Parent Satisfaction with Provider Services**

-   ***Many of the parents interviewed for the study reported that they
    were satisfied with the services their children had received and
    believed that after-school tutoring had helped their children.***
    Some parents noted that their children's grades had improved. Others
    pointed to improved math or reading skills or credited tutors with
    improving their children's attitude toward school.

-   ***Other parents reported that they observed little benefit from the
    services.*** Some parents reported that they were disappointed with
    the services and saw no improvement in their children's reading and
    math skills. Others questioned whether a few extra hours of tutoring
    each week could really be expected to make a difference for their
    children. A few parents objected to the instructional approach of
    the providers they had selected.

**Conclusions**

After nearly two full years, there was ample evidence from the study
sample that the states, districts, and providers were building on their
implementation experiences with supplemental services. The six states
had established routines for reviewing applications and with each round
of applications, the list of approved providers continued to expand,
both statewide and within districts. Sampled districts developed systems
and methods for streamlining operations to simplify their work and to
provide supplemental services to families sooner. Case study districts
also included schools in the work of implementing, coordinating, and
monitoring supplemental services. In 2003-04, many of the parents
interviewed for the study reported that they had received helpful
information about the services available to them, especially from
teachers and face-to-face contacts with providers. Many of the parents
interviewed reported that they were pleased with the services their
children had received, and believed that their children had benefited
from the tutoring provided.

Despite progress, significant challenges remained. The experience of
case study sites suggests that support and guidance would likely be
useful in the following areas: Increasing participation rates, improving
student attendance, maximizing both the number of contact hours and the
quality of services provided, evaluating provider performance, improving
communication with parents, managing administrative costs, and arranging
fair systems for paying providers when student attendance is uneven.

**Introduction**

*The No Child Left Behind Act* (NCLB), signed into law in January 2002,
expanded the range of choices available to parents whose children attend
Title I schools identified for improvement. Children from low-income
families enrolled in schools that have not made adequate yearly progress
(AYP) for three years or more are eligible to receive supplemental
services, including tutoring, remediation, and other academic
instruction. Supplemental services are intended to increase the academic
achievement of students in low-performing schools.

Implementing the supplemental services provisions of NCLB involves
states, districts, schools, parents, and providers. Each state is
required to develop criteria for approving supplemental service
providers and to provide school districts a list of available approved
providers serving their geographic locations. School districts that have
schools that are in their second year or later of improvement are
responsible for notifying parents of their children's eligibility to
receive supplemental services and for providing parents with adequate
information to select providers for their children. Parents may select
any approved provider in the area served by the school district or
within a reasonable distance of the school district. School districts,
in consultation with parents and providers, must develop specific
educational goals for each student. Supplemental service providers must
measure students' progress toward meeting their educational goals and
report regularly on that progress to teachers and parents. NCLB requires
that supplemental services be consistent with the state's academic
content standards and with the instruction provided by the school
district. In addition, services must be provided outside of the regular
school day.

The purpose of the study was not to evaluate supplemental services but
rather to gain insights from the early efforts of states and districts
that could assist others in improving implementation of supplemental
services.[^3] This report presents findings from case studies conducted
during the 2003-04 school year, the second year that the supplemental
services provisions of NCLB were in effect, and follows up on baseline
data collected the previous school year.[^4] It is important to note
that the findings presented are based on a small sample purposively
selected from states and districts that were considered to be further
along than others and, as a result, do not provide a nationally
representative picture of the implementation of the supplemental
services provisions.

In both years, the study conducted interviews in a purposive sample of
six states and nine school districts, which were selected to include
those that appeared to be relatively far along in

implementing supplemental services provisions.[^5] The six states
initially included in the study sample were selected based on whether
states had provider lists in place as of late October or early November
2003. States that had finalized their provider lists were contacted and
asked to identify districts that were either already offering
supplemental services to students or were about to begin offering
services. Nine districts that appeared to be relatively far along in
implementing supplemental services and that represented the greatest
possible variation in terms of size, location, student population
served, and range of providers were purposively selected from that list.
Four of the nine districts included in the baseline study were no longer
providing supplemental services in 2003-04 because they no longer had
schools in their second year of improvement or later. To adjust for
these changes, four new districts in two new states were added to the
study sample. These new districts and states were purposively sampled,
using the same criteria employed as in 2002-03.

**Implementation of Supplemental Services in Year One (2002-03)**

The report on the first year of data collection conducted for this
study, *Early Implementation of Supplemental Educational Services Under
the* No Child Left Behind Act: *Year One Report* (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004) found that implementing the supplemental services
provisions of NCLB in 2002-03 had thrust states, districts, schools, and
providers into uncharted territory. In the process of administering
supplemental services for the first time, state administrators learned
that the provider application process needed to start sooner, require
more information about the range of services providers offered, and
require more assurances of provider competency and commitment. In
addition, states learned that the application process must result in a
wider range of applicants with respect to the services they provide, the
grade-levels they serve, and the areas in which they work.

District administrators recognized that they had to articulate more
clearly to parents what the supplemental services options offer them and
their children. They also understood that they needed to make provider
services available to students earlier in the school year. In addition,
districts learned that the process of contracting with providers was
complicated and time-consuming, yet they had few ideas about ways to
lessen the burden. Schools learned that they knew little about their
role in the implementation of supplemental services---they were usually
willing to do what they could to help but required more direction from
the district regarding how. Finally, service providers learned that they
could be putting themselves into something of a bind from a business
perspective. While providers wanted to work with school districts, they
had few guarantees that providing supplemental services would allow them
to generate enough income to cover their costs on a consistent basis.
What no one seemed to fully grasp was how to monitor and evaluate
provider performance.

Finally, most district administrators believed that although start-up
activity in the first year of implementation, in 2002-03, was difficult
and error-prone, most of the challenges faced with respect to
identifying providers, identifying schools, identifying eligible
students, and notifying parents would not dissipate by the second year
of implementation. That is, unlike other programs, these case study
districts believed that implementing supplemental services would present
many of the same challenges with each passing year. Every year, there
would be new providers, new schools, different numbers of students, and
different needs to serve.

**Data Collection in 2003-04**

Data collection for the study in 2003-04 consisted of telephone
interviews with state administrators from each of the six states who
were responsible for administering the supplemental services provisions
of NCLB. Because two of the states were new to the study sample in
2003-04, the interview protocol included specific questions about the
state's administration of supplemental services in 2002-03, so that
longitudinal comparisons would be possible with the full sample of six
states. In addition, two-person teams conducted site visits between
January and April 2004 to each of the nine districts. Site visit teams
conducted personal interviews with district staff involved in planning
or implementing supplemental services. Each team visited up to three
schools in each district and interviewed principals, conducted teacher
focus groups, and conducted either personal interviews or focus groups
with parents of children eligible to receive supplemental services. The
site visit teams also interviewed up to three supplemental service
providers in each of the nine districts. Schools with the highest number
of students receiving services in a given district were selected into
the study sample. However, in cases in which a district had middle
schools and high schools required to offer supplemental services, those
schools were always included in the study sample. Similarly, providers
serving the largest number of students were selected into the study
sample. However, districts that were themselves state-approved providers
were always included among the sample of providers for a given district.
Again, because four of the districts were new to the case study sample,
interview protocols included some questions about the district's
implementation of supplemental services in 2002-03, so that longitudinal
comparisons for these topics would be possible with the full sample of
nine districts. Other longitudinal comparisons are limited to the five
districts in both years of the study.

In 2003-04, as in 2002-03, the study focused on the successes and
challenges states, districts, schools, and providers faced in
implementing the supplemental services under NCLB. Key evaluation
questions included the following:

-   How were states and school districts implementing supplemental
    services?

-   How were states selecting providers?

-   How were school districts reaching out to and involving parents
    regarding supplemental services?

-   What services were provided?

-   What types of providers were offering and providing services?

-   What were the challenges and successes regarding implementation?

This report describes and analyzes these important areas of activity in
2003-04 related to implementation of the supplemental services
provisions of NCLB. Specifically, it describes the services themselves
and the ongoing implementation experiences of: states, school districts,
schools, and supplemental service providers. In addition, it describes
the experiences of parents who, on behalf of their children, were
attempting to access available educational services. The final section
of this report summarizes early successes and the challenges to
implementation that remain.

**Supplemental Services: The View from the Ground**

As described above, the implementation of supplemental services begins
with the state, which approves providers, and continues with the
district, which recruits parents to sign up for services and negotiates
contracts with providers. Schools also can play an important part in
outreach to parents and coordination with providers. The remainder of
this report examines the successes and challenges faced by each of these
actors in turn.

What, however, do supplemental services look like, from a student's
perspective? To set some context for the remainder of the report, a
brief overview of the supplemental services provided in the nine case
study districts in 2003-04 follows. While this description is not
representative of all supplemental services nationwide, it provides a
summary of the basic features of the services being delivered in the
case study sites in 2003-04 under the supplemental services provisions
of NCLB.

Supplemental service providers in the nine case study sites typically
offered tutoring immediately after school, two to three times a week.
Tutoring sessions lasted between one and two hours. Supplemental service
providers worked in schools whenever possible; students typically
attended tutoring programs in the same buildings where they attend
school. In most cases, providers hired teachers from those same schools
or from the district at large to provide services.

Tutors generally worked with students in small groups, where
tutor-student ratios ranged from 1:5 to 1:10. (One-on-one tutoring for
an entire session was rare among the providers included in this study.)
With larger groups, tutors used whole-group instruction and individual
seatwork to keep students engaged for the entire tutoring session.

The content and structure of tutoring services varied widely, depending
on the provider and in some cases, on the individual tutor. Providers
represented a range of philosophies and approaches to the teaching of
reading and math. Many students took diagnostic assessments developed by
the provider or built from state assessment items. The results of those
assessments then dictated the instructional objectives to be covered in
tutoring. With some providers, whole-group reading instruction included
guided reading of authentic literature, group discussions, and extension
activities to help students develop oral fluency, build vocabulary, and
improve comprehension. Other providers focused on developing phonics and
decoding skills. Some providers offered self-paced worksheet programs
designed to strengthen mastery of basic skills. Other providers did not
use a prescribed curriculum, choosing instead to work with students on
class work or home work, organizational strategies, taking notes in
class, critical thinking skills, and test preparation. The extent to
which providers had aligned their curriculum with state standards was
unclear. Some providers had conducted alignment studies and purchased
additional instructional materials to ensure that all state standards
would be covered; others used state assessment results to develop
tutoring plans for individual students; still others were unable to
describe any strategy for aligning their services with state standards.

The total number of hours each student received ranged widely, from a
low of 18 in the case study districts to a high of 120. At the rate of
two to six hours a week, students tended to "cycle out" of supplemental
services after 10-20 weeks.

Some providers organized their programs so that they could be attended
in combination with other activities. For example, after-school programs
of various kinds may operate for three or four hours after school, with
tutoring supported by Title I supplemental services taking place for one
or two of those hours. In the time remaining, students could participate
in character education, leadership development and drug prevention
programs, music education, recreation, service learning, and field
trips.

Student attendance at after-school tutoring was a challenge in each of
the case study sites, especially at the middle and high school levels.
Supplemental service providers did not collect comparable information on
attendance across sites (the nature of the attendance data collected and
reported to districts depended on the terms of their contracts with
districts.) In several middle schools visited for the study, teachers
and principals estimated that fewer than half of students signed up for
services attended tutoring on any given day. In elementary schools,
attendance rates were higher, approaching 95 percent in some cases.
Several supplemental service providers offered incentives for students
to attend regularly, and others were considering the use of incentives.

Some providers in the study sample reported that they sent information
on student progress home to parents monthly or every six weeks; others
reported that they preferred to communicate informally with parents.
None of the parents interviewed for the study, however, recalled
receiving written progress reports from supplemental service providers.
Instead, they relied on contact with teachers at the school to stay
abreast of their child's progress in tutoring. A handful of providers
reported that they had developed formal mechanisms for communicating
with teachers. However, many of the teachers interviewed did not know
which of their students were receiving supplemental services, and none
had received written progress reports from providers. In cases where
school staff worked as tutors for supplemental service providers, they
kept classroom teachers informed through informal conversations.

Participation rates varied across the districts. Three districts
provided supplemental services to 86 percent or more of the students
they could provide services to with the maximum amount they were
required to spend on supplemental services. In the six other districts,
participation rates were between 13 percent and 62 percent of the number
of students the districts could serve with the maximum required amount
of funding. Later sections of this report explore some of the factors
that contributed to these participation rates.

**States' Efforts to Implement Supplemental Services**

By 2003-04, the six states included in the case study sample had
improved, refined, or expedited the implementation of the supplemental
services under NCLB, compared with their efforts in 2002-03. These six
states issued updated lists of approved providers somewhat earlier in
the 2003-04 school year, compared with 2002-03. In addition, they
continued to refine their application process and their criteria for
evaluating providers. The number of approved providers increased in
nearly all of the states, although state administrators continued to
express concerns about the limited service available in small and rural
districts. Although states continued to work on developing systems for
monitoring provider performance, efforts were still limited.

**Approving Supplemental Service Providers**

***In 2003-04, five of the six states in the 2003-04 study sample issued
an updated list of approved providers much sooner than they had done in
2002-03.*** Indeed, all six issued lists before the start of the 2003-04
school year. Four of the six issued lists by June 2003, well in advance
of the new school year; the remaining two issued their lists over the
summer, in July and August. (It is important to note, however, that at
least three districts in the case study sample reported receiving the
lists from their states several months after the state had reported
publishing them, even though states posted their lists online.)

Three of the six states in the sample continued to review and approve
additional applications during the school year. Two of these three
states reviewed applications on a rolling basis; one issued an
additional list of approved providers in November 2003.

***In 2003-04, each of the six states in the case study sample followed
legislative requirements and the Department of Education's
non-regulatory guidance with respect to establishing selection criteria
for supplemental service providers.*** States required providers to meet
the following criteria---included in the legislation or
regulations---for selection:

-   Provider has a demonstrated record of effectiveness in improving
    student academic achievement;

-   Provider will use instructional strategies that are high-quality,
    based upon research, and designed to increase student academic
    achievement;

-   Provider will provide services that are consistent with the
    instructional program of the local education agency (LEA) and with
    state academic content and achievement standards;

-   Provider is financially sound;

-   Provider will provide supplemental services consistent with
    applicable federal, state, and local health, safety, and civil
    rights laws;

-   All instruction and content provided by the provider will be
    secular, neutral and non-ideological;

-   Provider's services will be provided in addition to instruction
    provided during the school day.

In the case of the first four criteria (record of effectiveness,
instructional strategies, alignment, and financial soundness), all state
applications asked providers to submit evidence that they met these
criteria. In the case of the last three criteria, some applications
asked providers to simply submit assurances that these criteria would be
met, and others required that providers submit evidence.

In addition, all six states also added criteria to their provider
applications for 2003-04 that went above and beyond legislative
requirements. For example, all six states required applicants to discuss
their capacity to serve special populations of students (e.g., students
with disabilities and English language learners). One state required
providers serving areas where the student population was composed in
large part of English language learners to demonstrate experience in
improving the achievement of these students. Five of the six states
required that providers communicate with parents in their native
language. All six states required providers to produce evidence of
qualified staff. One state required assurances that staff of
supplemental service providers meet the paraprofessional requirements
that govern staffing of in-school Title I programs. Specifically, the
state application requires that all staff providing tutoring meet at
least the standards of quality for new paraprofessionals under NCLB. In
addition, the state required that all staff meeting only the
qualifications for new paraprofessionals work under the supervision of
another staff member who meets the criteria for "highly qualified"
teacher under NCLB, though this is not allowable under the Title I
regulations. Also, in an effort to address liability and safety issues,
all six states required that provider applicants produce evidence that
their employees had undergone background checks.

One state had a concern about applicants who do not provide academic
services, but who work on related skills that could conceivably enable
children to perform better in the classroom. For example, one potential
provider trained children to walk on balance beams to help them learn to
control the movement of their eyes. This applicant had research
demonstrating the effectiveness of this technique for helping children
follow a line of text effectively in reading. This state did not approve
the organization's application, but worried about the decision, because
the applicant claimed the approach was research-based. For some
services, the link to state academic standards was indirect, and state
coordinators wondered whether these providers should be approved to
offer services. In an interview, one supplemental services coordinator
asked:

> *We are getting other kinds of people who might want to apply who are
> not connected to state academic standards, but want to help kids with
> organizational skills. How loose or how far from this idea of academic
> standards does the state have latitude to let other kinds of providers
> in under supplemental services?*

***By 2003-04, states had refined their application review process,
developing evaluation criteria and rubrics for scoring provider
applications and organizing committees of reviewers with representation
from stakeholder groups.*** All of the states in the study sample had
developed a rubric that would allow them to evaluate applications from
potential providers and to use multiple reviewers. An example of one
such rubric, developed by one mid-central state, is included in the box
below. This rubric requires that providers score at least 28 points out
of a possible 42 to be approved.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **A Rubric for Scoring Supplemental Services Provider Applications**  |
|                                                                       |
| (1) *Program (10 points):* Evidence of specific program elements,     |
|     such as alignment of program to the state's model academic        |
|     content standards and student academic achievement standards,     |
|     consistency of instruction between program and local school,      |
|     location of service delivery, etc.                                |
|                                                                       |
| (2) *Staff (7 points):* Evidence of the qualifications and ongoing    |
|     support staff will receive.                                       |
|                                                                       |
| (3) *Program Effectiveness (10 points):* Evidence of the program's    |
|     effectiveness in increasing student achievement and evidence that |
|     high-quality, research-based instruction supports the program.    |
|                                                                       |
| (4) *Evaluation/Monitoring (10 points):* Evidence that the program    |
|     will be monitored for effectiveness, that the progress of         |
|     students receiving supplemental services will be measured and     |
|     that the district, parents, and teachers will be notified of the  |
|     student's progress, in their native language, if necessary.       |
|                                                                       |
| (5) *Pricing for SES (5 points):* Indication of the pricing structure |
|     for providing supplemental services.                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

***The number of supplemental service providers approved for the 2003-04
school year increased in five of six states, in line with a nationwide
increase in the number of approved providers.*** Nationwide, the number
of approved providers rose from 997 in April 2003 to 1,890 in May 2004,
an increase of 90 percent (see Exhibit 1). Among three states sampled
for this study, the rate of increase was well above the national rate,
with the number of providers doubling or tripling by 2003-04. These
three states had approved just a few providers (fewer than 25) the year
before. Two other states increased the number of providers by half or
more. A sixth state, which had a large number of approved providers in
2003, increased that number by just over 10 percent.

States reported only limited attempts to encourage potential providers
to apply to become supplemental service providers. Despite these limited
attempts at outreach, the number of organizations expressing interest in
becoming supplemental service providers continued to grow.

##### Exhibit 1

**Change in Number of Providers, by State**

  ----------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------
  **State**         **Total                                   
                    Number of                                 
                    Providers                                 
                    Operating in                              
                    the State**                               

                    **April       **May 3-5,    **Number      **Percentage
                    28-30, 2003** 2004**        Increase**    Increase**

  State I           17            65            48            282%

  State II          24            74            50            208%

  State III         13            31            18            138%

  State IV          16            27            11            69%

  State V           119           180           61            51%

  State VI          174           193           19            11%

  **All states\***  **997**       **1,890**     **893**       **90%**
  ----------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------

\* Includes the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
State lists were not available for nine states in 2003 and three states
in 2004.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies
Service. "Supplemental Service Providers on State Web Sites," (May 3-5,
2004 and April 28-30, 2003), unpublished database.

***As of 2003-04, few providers had been removed from state lists.*** In
a few instances, providers had been removed for financial
irregularities, or because they were not actually offering tutoring
services, only the use of their curriculum materials. These cases were
relatively rare, however. There were no examples of providers who had
been removed from the lists because the state had determined that the
quality of their services was not adequate. The law requires states to
remove providers from the approved list only if they fail to increase
student achievement after two years, so states did not anticipate
removing providers from their approved lists for this reason until the
end of the 2003-04 school year.

***State supplemental services coordinators reported that small
districts and rural districts continued to be underserved, compared with
urban districts.*** While state administrators of supplemental services
reported that some providers were approved to serve all schools required
to offer services in the state, they remained concerned about the
limited supply of providers in small and rural districts. In several
states, providers approved to operate statewide were not operating in
small and rural districts. In one state, many of the rural areas were
only served by online providers. This was especially problematic for
rural schools that lacked the computers and high-speed Internet
connection to support a Web-based tutoring program. In another state,
the supplemental services coordinator criticized providers who, she
said, found it difficult to serve students outside of major metropolitan
areas. She gave an example of one provider who claimed to be able to
serve the whole state but then declined to set up services in several
small towns. She noted, "They don't go everywhere. In the really little
towns, no one wants to go."

***Private providers other than faith-based and online providers were
the dominant provider types in four of the six case study states as well
as nationally.*** Intermediate education agencies (IEAs), school
districts, and public school-based providers were somewhat more common
in four of the six case study states than they were nationwide; the
ratio of faith-based and online providers is the same in the case study
states as it is nationwide. IEAs, school districts, and school-based
providers made up 25 percent of providers nationwide (see Exhibit 2). In
four of the six case study states, IEA, school district, and
school-based providers were even more common, representing between 31
and 46 percent of providers. In the remaining two states, they were
somewhat less common. Where school districts made up a larger share of
providers, private providers tended to made up a smaller share; the
proportion of online and faith-based providers was low in the six case
study states and nationwide. (There was one exception, where 22 percent
of providers offered online services in one state.)

##### Exhibit 2

**Types of Supplemental Educational Service Providers,**

**by State and Nationwide, May 2004**

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="3"><strong>State</strong></td>
<td colspan="14"><strong>Number of Providers, by Provider
Type</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Other Private</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Faith-Based</strong></p>
<p><strong>(private)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Online</strong></p>
<p><strong>(private)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Intermediate Educational Agencies, School
Districts and Public Schools</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Colleges and Universities</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Other/</strong></p>
<p><strong>Unknown</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>TOTAL</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>#</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>#</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>#</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>#</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>#</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>#</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>#</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>State III</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>100</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>State IV</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>78</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>100</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>State II</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>100</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>State I</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>100</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>State V</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>180</td>
<td>100</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>State VI</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>193</td>
<td>100</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>All States*</strong></td>
<td><strong>1,033</strong></td>
<td><strong>55</strong></td>
<td><strong>109</strong></td>
<td><strong>6</strong></td>
<td><strong>172</strong></td>
<td><strong>9</strong></td>
<td><strong>464</strong></td>
<td><strong>25</strong></td>
<td><strong>45</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>67</strong></td>
<td><strong>4</strong></td>
<td><strong>1,890</strong></td>
<td><strong>100</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

\* Includes the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
State lists were not available for three states. "Other private"
providers were private providers that were not faith-based or online.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies
Service. "Supplemental Service Providers on State Web Sites," (May 3-5,
2004), unpublished database.

The 13 most commonly approved providers across the nation, all
for-profit companies, some of which offered services online, represented
20 percent of all state-approved providers. In the case study states,
these providers represented 15 percent of all approved providers.
Seventy-two percent of providers in the case study states were approved
only in one instance, compared with 60 percent nationally. (Source: U.S.
Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service.
"Supplemental Service Providers on State Web Sites," (May 3-5, 2004),
unpublished database.)

**Monitoring Providers**

***In 2003-04, the states in the study sample continued to consider ways
to monitor provider performance, and several began the process of
contracting with external evaluators to assist with monitoring.*** The
task of monitoring supplemental service providers and of evaluating
their performance continued to be a challenge for states. In most cases,
states had not yet put full-blown monitoring systems in place, although
they had put some work into planning them. The law requires states to
remove providers from the approved list if they fail to increase student
achievement after two years, so states had to begin implementing systems
for this at the end of the 2003-04 school year. For example, as of May
2004, one state planned to begin on-site visits to supplemental service
providers across the state. Data collection was to include surveys of
district administrators and parents, evaluation of academic performance
measures (i.e., assessment data), and an examination of staff quality.

Several states relied heavily on districts for information about the
performance of supplemental service providers. In this vein, one state
conducted what it called "desktop monitoring," reviewing data sent by
districts on the number of students served, the number that had left,
and documents sent to parents. In general, the case study states made no
attempt to monitor the number of contact hours provided per child or
provider costs.

One state supplemental services coordinator reported that her state
still had not developed a monitoring process because, she said, "We just
don't have the expertise to do it." In her view, an expert evaluator,
who can take into account the differences among provider programs and
the context within which they work, was needed and the SEA was trying to
find someone for this task. Two other states had already contracted with
external evaluators to help with monitoring. One state contracted with a
local university to develop an evaluation process for providers. Another
state used their Comprehensive Assistance Center to develop a survey of
districts, students, and parents on supplemental service providers. This
particular state used the survey data they had collected for purposes of
approving providers for the 2003-04 school year.

While the case study states generally understood the NCLB requirement
that providers be removed from state lists if they fail, for two
consecutive years, to contribute to increased academic proficiency
relative to state standards, they had not yet developed criteria for
evaluating providers. One state, an exception, had developed a clear
target for provider performance in reading: 90 percent of students
served by a provider must show progress on an Individual Reading
Inventory (IRI) administered by the student's school. In this same
state, however, targets for provider performance in serving students in
math remained under development.

Several respondents indicated that they would welcome assistance from
the U.S. Department of Education with respect to monitoring providers.
They asked for templates or sample data collection instruments that
could be used to monitor providers, as well as more frequent interaction
with the U.S. Department of Education on these issues.

**Districts' Role in Implementing Supplemental Services**

District responsibilities for implementing the supplemental services
provisions of NCLB challenged district administrators in 2003-04, but
many of them had developed systems and methods for streamlining
operations and procedures to simplify their work as well as provide
supplemental services to families sooner. District administrators are
responsible for identifying eligible students, determining which
providers on the state-approved provider list were willing to operate in
the district, informing parents of the available services, collecting
parent applications and signatures, coordinating provider activities
with schools, identifying funding sources, estimating service capacity,
contracting with providers to provide services to students who request
them, and communicating with providers. Most districts knew that states
would remove providers from state lists if the provider failed to
contribute to increased student proficiency for two consecutive years.
Most districts also expected their state department of education would
request that they collect and send data on provider performance.

As was true in 2002-03, the snapshot of districts taken in 2003-04 again
revealed that districts varied tremendously by the number of schools
they had to work with, the number of providers they had available to
students, when they notified parents, and when they began providing
services (see Exhibit 3). Accordingly, districts approached the
implementation, management, and evaluation of supplemental services in a
variety of ways.

**District Efforts to Reach Parents**

***In 2003-04, districts' efforts to inform parents of the availability
of supplemental services appeared organized and focused on helping
parents understand the services districts were offering them.*** Most
district administrators in the study sample in 2003-04 reported
beginning their administration of supplemental services by first
contacting all the providers on the state-approved list to determine
their availability to offer services in their respective districts.
District administrators asked providers to submit a short profile of the
type of services they offered, as well as the frequency and duration of
those services, the age group providers served, whether they intended to
offer transportation (if services were offered outside of the schools),
and whether they served the needs of special populations of
students.[^6] Comments from administrators in at least one of the nine
districts indicated that the provider vetting process went beyond
determining whether a provider was "able" to serve the district to which
providers offered the services. As one administrator explained, "We
looked at enrollment and tried to get a balance at the schools with what
\[providers\] offered. Some providers were selected because they offered
more language or math, for example." Such vetting by district staff,
however, is not allowable under the statute, according to an August 2004
letter issued by the U.S. Department of Education (Simon and Rees, Aug.
26, 2004). The letter, issued after the data were collected for this
study, informs states that approving providers is the responsibility of
the state departments of education, and school districts may not alter
or add to criteria related to program design.

**Exhibit 3**

**Characteristics of Supplemental Services in Sampled Districts in
2003-04**

+--------------+---------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------+
| **District   | **Demog       | **N   | **     | **Date of | **Date  |
| Name**       | raphics**[^7] | umber | Number | Parent    | S       |
|              |               | of    | of     | Notif     | ervices |
|              |               | Sc    | Pro    | ication** | Began** |
|              |               | hools | viders |           |         |
|              |               | Req   | in     |           |         |
|              |               | uired | Dist   |           |         |
|              |               | to    | rict** |           |         |
|              |               | Offer |        |           |         |
|              |               | Servi |        |           |         |
|              |               | ces** |        |           |         |
+==============+===============+=======+========+===========+=========+
| Brooktown    | Large Central | 24    | 14     | October   | D       |
| School       | City;         |       |        | 2003      | ecember |
| District     |               |       |        |           | 2003    |
|              | 80% minority; |       |        |           |         |
|              |               |       |        |           |         |
|              | 27% LEP       |       |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Plainfield   | Large Central | 1     | 5      | May 2003  | Se      |
| School       | City;         |       |        |           | ptember |
| District     |               |       |        |           | 2003    |
|              | 56% minority; |       |        |           |         |
|              |               |       |        |           |         |
|              | 7% LEP        |       |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Oakwood      | Mid-size      | 20    | 6      | November  | March   |
| School       | Central City: |       |        | 2003      | 2004    |
| District     |               |       |        |           |         |
|              | 99.4%         |       |        |           |         |
|              | minority\     |       |        |           |         |
|              | 1% LEP        |       |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Sunnydale    | Large Central | 42    | 10     | July 2003 | Se      |
| School       | City;         |       |        |           | ptember |
| District     |               |       |        |           | 2003    |
|              | 91% minority; |       |        |           |         |
|              |               |       |        |           |         |
|              | 2% LEP        |       |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Emory Public | Urban Fringe  | 3     | 12     | September | N       |
| Schools      | of Large      |       |        | 2003 (ES) | ovember |
|              | City;         |       |        | and March | 2003    |
|              |               |       |        | 2004 (MS) |         |
|              | 23% minority; |       |        |           |         |
|              |               |       |        |           |         |
|              | LEP N/A       |       |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Springvale   | Mid-size      | 4     | 12     | October   | N       |
| School       | Central City  |       |        | 2003      | ovember |
| District     |               |       |        |           | 2003    |
|              | 70% minority; |       |        |           |         |
|              |               |       |        |           |         |
|              | 7% LEP        |       |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Redding      | Mid-size      | 10    | 6      | September | January |
| School       | Central City; |       |        | 2003      | 2004    |
| District     |               |       |        |           |         |
|              | 71% minority; |       |        |           |         |
|              |               |       |        |           |         |
|              | 1% LEP        |       |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Trainville   | Large Central | 5     | 5      | September | October |
| School       | City;         |       |        | 2003      | 2003    |
| District     |               |       |        |           |         |
|              | 77% minority; |       |        |           |         |
|              |               |       |        |           |         |
|              | 28% LEP       |       |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Longwood     | Large Central | 104   | 27     | September | January |
| Public       | City;         |       |        | 2003      | 2004    |
| Schools      |               |       |        |           |         |
|              | 90% minority; |       |        |           |         |
|              |               |       |        |           |         |
|              | 43% LEP       |       |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------+

Once districts collected all the relevant information from providers,
district administrators began mailing letters home to parents informing
them of the availability of supplemental services. Most of the nine
districts in the study sample accompanied those letters with packets of
materials that included descriptions of provider services, a selection
form for parents to rank their choice of provider (which sometimes
included a prepaid envelope for parents to mail their form back to the
district---in other cases, parents were expected to either mail the form
back on their own, call the district, or call the school), and
provider-generated brochures. Some districts even included answers to
frequently asked questions among the materials they sent home to
parents, as well as checklists for applying for supplemental services
and dates when applications and provider selection forms were due back
to the district. One district included a set of questions that parents
could ask when talking to providers about the services they offered.

In addition to the provider information and materials, most districts in
the study sample sent parents a short letter. Less than a page long,
these letters were relatively straight-forward, and referenced the
availability of "tutorial services" or "extra help" for children in
reading and math. Several districts in the study sample did not mention
the *No Child Left Behind Act* in the letters they sent home to parents.
The following are excerpts from letters to parents sent by three
separate districts:

> *District 1: I am sending you this letter to strongly encourage you to
> enroll your child in the Supplemental Services After-School Tutoring.
> This is a wonderful opportunity for your child to receive extra help
> and assistance in reading and math. This extra tutorial assistance is
> offered at* **NO COST** *to you.*
>
> *District 2: We are pleased to inform you that your child has been
> approved to receive free tutoring services for the 2003-2004 school
> year. You have the right to choose the tutoring service you prefer for
> your child. Attached you will find flyers for supplemental service
> providers who will be tutoring eligible students in the \[school
> district\].*
>
> *District 3: The \[DISTRICT NAME\] is on the move in addressing
> improved student achievement and our number one goal is to close the
> achievement gap and to provide the support necessary to ensure all
> students have ample opportunities to improve their academic
> achievement. With this goal in mind, we are pleased to inform you that
> your child may be eligible for extra academic assistance under the
> federal law, The No Child Left Behind Act.*

Two of the districts lapsed into legislative jargon when describing
supplemental services to parents. The parents in one of the districts,
in fact, complained that the language of NCLB was inaccessible to them.
For instance, terms such as "Supplemental Services" and "Adequate Yearly
Progress" did not have much meaning for some parents in this community.
The following is an example of a jargon-filled school district letter:

The \[DISTRICT NAME\] has always worked to provide our students with a
positive educational experience. Our district receives funding from many
sources, one of which is Title I, Part A, a grant provided by the
federal government through the recent legislation, No Child Left Behind.
As a requirement for receiving funds under this program each school must
meet the guidelines for 'adequate yearly progress' in each subject area
using a system approved by the \[STATE\] Board of Education. The Title I
program's assessment of this school indicates that we need to strengthen
achievement in the areas of reading and mathematics. As an option of the
No Child Left Behind legislation, some students in your school have the
opportunity to receive supplemental services. This letter is to inform
you that your student has been identified to participate in this
program.

As the parent coordinator at one of the high schools where students were
eligible to receive supplemental services explained: "\[It's a problem
because\] a lot of times parents are afraid to say that they don't
understand the jargon of the law." A parent of an eligible student had
this to say about the letter:

> *The language of the parent letter is not something that parents can
> easily understand.... There was a good amount of confusion.... It was
> a very lengthy letter.*

In addition to the print materials districts sent home to parents, other
efforts were made to reach parents. Indeed, districts reported being
eager to reach parents. For example, one district held two provider
fairs at the schools required to offer supplemental services and sent
fliers and other reminders home starting in the spring on at least five
separate occasions. The principal reported that staff visits were also
made to homes to encourage parents to enroll their children in
supplemental services. Another district placed an announcement about the
availability of tutoring services in the local newspaper; the
announcement ran for two days. A third district sent fliers and
sponsored television and radio ads to advertise a provider fair. A
fourth district decided to call eligibility for tutoring "scholarships"
because it had learned from another district that this approach gave
supplemental services a more positive spin and might yield higher
participation rates. One district's efforts to reach parents, however,
seemed well above the norm among the nine districts included in the
study sample. This district described its outreach process as
encompassing nine steps, each of which suggested a good deal of time,
thought, and energy was devoted to the task of reaching parents (see
box, next page). This district served a total of 336 students or 28
percent of the eligible students it had the funding capacity to serve.

***Contacting and communicating effectively with parents about the
availability of supplemental services challenged most school
districts.*** Although districts generally thought that they were doing
a good job informing parents of the availability of supplemental
services, some providers, teachers, and principals disagreed. In one
district, for example, some teachers and principals said that the packet
of materials the district sent home to parents was too complicated and
confusing to be helpful. As one principal explained:

> *The packet was overwhelming. Parents really didn't understand all of
> the information until teachers really made the connection. Teachers
> would call home and explain to parents that \[supplemental services\]
> would benefit them if they attended.... \[Without the phone call\]
> they just saw this big bulky packet. . . The language was really
> difficult....*

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > **One District's New Steps for Reaching Parents**                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > Step 1: Assistant superintendent sends a letter home to parents     |
| > informing them of the availability of supplemental services.        |
| >                                                                     |
| > Step 2: The district sends a brochure home to parents about         |
| > provider services along with a business reply postcard that allows  |
| > parents to check which provider they have selected. Information     |
| > about each provider includes answers to questions such as the       |
| > following: (1) What programs are available for my child? (2) When   |
| > and where will services be provided? (3) How often will services be |
| > provided? (4) What kind of experience does this provider have? and  |
| > (5) what is the demonstrated effectiveness of the provider?         |
| >                                                                     |
| > Step 3: Elementary schools send home fliers about supplemental      |
| > services along with student report cards.                           |
| >                                                                     |
| > Step 4: School newsletters will contain information about           |
| > supplemental services each time they are sent home.                 |
| >                                                                     |
| > Step 5: The district mails monthly postcards home to parents.       |
| >                                                                     |
| > Step 6: School principals discuss supplemental services on the      |
| > radio.                                                              |
| >                                                                     |
| > Step 7: School principals, Title I teachers, and counselors contact |
| > parents about supplemental services.                                |
| >                                                                     |
| > Step 8: The district's Title I parent liaison calls every parent    |
| > and informs them of the availability of supplemental services.      |
| >                                                                     |
| > Step 9: Churches in the school attendance areas are sent            |
| > information about supplemental services.                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Similarly, another district reported that while parents received ample
detailed information on supplemental services, many simply did not read
it. According to the Title I director, parents and others suggested that
in the future "\[W\]e \[should\] do sound bites, billboards, and radio
ads, something quick to get away from written things." She continued:
"We want to find out how to get good information to parents without
overwhelming them. We did not do a good job to make sure they were not
overwhelmed...."

Schools in another district complained that they did not receive enough
information from the district about providers and, as a result, they
were unable to help parents when they called the school to inquire as to
which provider would be best suited to the needs of their child. As one
principal explained:

> *The one-page description of providers wasn't sufficient---it gives
> you basic information... a one-page flier telling you the services of
> \[providers\]. They all sound the same and you don't know one from the
> next and don't know who's good and who's not.*

Districts in the study sample also cited the problem of communicating to
parents which students were eligible for services. As one district
administrator explained, it was difficult for parents to understand that
their children did not qualify for services because they did not attend
a school identified for improvement, or they were not eligible for free
or reduced-price school lunches. Other parents wondered why they
received a letter when their child was doing well in school.

**Targeting Students for Services**

***Seven of nine districts in the 2003-04 sample offered supplemental
services to all students from low-income families in schools required to
offer supplemental services.*** In the previous year, the majority of
case study districts had also considered student achievement---in
addition to whether a student was from a low-income family---when
offering services. Three of the five districts that participated in this
study in 2002-03 and 2003-04 changed their targeting procedures as a
result of low rates of participation in supplemental services in 2002-03
(see Exhibit 6). That is, several district administrators explained that
opening the services up to any student from a low-income family who
attended a school required to offer supplemental services might raise
levels of participation in supplemental services. By contrast, in
2002-03, several districts thought it was necessary to prioritize
students for services because they believed that supplemental services
would be so popular among families that districts would not be able to
serve all eligible students based solely on poverty status. In practice,
supplemental services did not prove to be as high in demand as districts
had anticipated in their first year of implementation. And district
experiences in 2003-04 suggest that targeting is again unnecessary. For
example, one district began supplemental services in 2003-04 by
prioritizing students for services based on family income and academic
need. As the supplemental services administrator explained, the district
had determined how many students it could serve based on the per-pupil
allocation (as defined by the state) divided into an amount equal to 20
percent of the district's Title I allocation:

> *\[We didn't\] know if we would be able to serve all the kids, \[so
> we\] prioritized the kids by test score in case everybody signed up.
> \[However, we\] only had 42 kids whose parents said they wanted to
> receive services.*

The district administrator went on to explain that because so few
parents enrolled their children in supplemental services when the
initial letters went out, the district eventually opted to send letters
to all low-income parents whose children were attending schools required
to offer services.

**District Relationships with Supplemental Service Providers**

District relationships with supplemental service providers varied. Among
the districts included in the study sample in 2003-04, many were
skillful in developing provider contracts and, in many cases, had put in
place procedures for improving their efficiency in writing, reviewing,
revising, and approving provider contracts.

***In 2003-04, districts in the study sample were adept at entering into
contracts with service providers.*** Many districts used boilerplate
contracts for providers that they created---and vetted---in 2002-03.
Accordingly, no confusion or consternation about creating provider
contracts was evident in 2003-04. Among the three districts in the study
sample that provided supplemental services for the first time in
2003-04, all were using contract templates or samples they had obtained
from their state education agency or from other districts. Most of the
districts used one standard contract for all providers; one district,
however, used various formats and structures for its contracts for
providers, appearing to simply amend contract templates received from
the various providers rather than working from an original contract
designed by the district.

Most district contracts with service providers, while varying in length,
contained much the same content, referenced many of the same issues, and
included specifications for each of the following:

-   Number of hours of tutoring services for each student

-   Duration and frequency of tutoring sessions (i.e., number of
    sessions per week)

-   Maximum dollar amount paid per student served

-   Type of instructional program (e.g., reading or math instruction)

-   Provision of services on-site vs. off-site

-   Administration of pre- and post-tests to students

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Student attendance reports delivered monthly to the district
    (usually as a condition for payment of provider invoices)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Student progress reports (delivered to parents and to the district
    at regular intervals, usually every four to six weeks)

-   Annual program evaluation report

-   Agreements regarding student goals and progress (required in eight
    of nine district contracts)

-   Termination of services

-   Liability insurance

-   District responsibilities (e.g., identify eligible students and
    deliver list to providers four to six weeks before the provision of
    services; provide a contact person for providers; provide and
    disseminate student contact information, grades, test score data,
    etc.)

-   Terms of payment or compensation

Finally, most district contracts were accompanied by a series of
attachments that amounted to examples of forms (e.g., student attendance
forms, student agreement forms, etc.) that providers were required to
complete periodically. One district, however, made contract approval
contingent upon providers submitting additional information, including
background check clearance forms; results of TB tests; signed building
rental lease agreements if they were using district facilities; a
business license to work in the district; transportation schedules for
students receiving tutoring services; and information on the square
footage of the instructional classrooms providers intended to use when
working off-site. Another unique aspect of this district's provider
contracts was the requirement that providers offer transportation to all
students receiving supplemental services. Moreover, transportation had
to be provided by "a licensed company approved by the district." Every
supplemental service provider ultimately contracted to use the same bus
services that the district used. While districts are allowed to impose
reasonable administrative and operational requirements through
agreements with providers that are consistent with requirements imposed
generally on the districts' contractors, a letter from the U.S.
Department of Education (Simon and Rees, Aug. 26, 2004)---issued after
the study data were collected---makes clear that districts are not
allowed to impose conditions on providers related to program design. In
addition, any such requirements should not limit educational options for
parents.

***Although most districts seemed skilled at writing provider contracts,
the time it took to finalize them in 2003-04---even when working from
well-vetted boiler-plate templates---was significant.*** One district
administrator reported that contract development continued to be a long
and difficult process. "I had to work with the providers for about two
months.... There was lots of e-mailing. We need software to track the
changes to save time. I worked on the contracts late at night...2 a.m.,
3 a.m." This Title I director also noted that she even occasionally
called upon the knowledge and expertise of her husband, an attorney, to
help her. The burden was overwhelming for her. "During the contract
period I'm sure I worked all day every day for a couple of weeks...five
hours each night for 10 nights straight." She noted that she spent more
than 50 percent of her time on supplemental services and, as a result,
she was "fatigued" and unable to take care of the "details in my regular
Title I duties." One source of the problem was that, in cases in which
the providers were subsidiaries of large corporations, the contract
negotiations involved dealing with additional people in cities far away.
These lengthy negotiations slowed the contracting process and made it
more protracted.

In two other districts, the contracting process was slowed dramatically
by the local school boards involving themselves in the provider vetting
process. In one district, for example, the providers were vetted by
three different committees of the local school board. The goal of each
committee meeting was to ensure that providers met certain district and
state regulations such as being registered with the state fire marshal
and having completed background checks for all of their employees.
Moreover, these meetings were open to the public and broadcast on public
access television. The district saw the meetings as "another
opportunity" for parents to learn about how providers could help their
children by offering tutoring services. Nevertheless, it delayed the
contract approval process---and therefore the provision of supplemental
services to students---by several months. While, as noted above,
districts may impose reasonable operational and administrative
requirements through their agreements with providers, such requirements
should not undermine the parents\' opportunity to select the most
appropriate provider for their children from among providers approved by
the state to offer services in the district or area where the child
lives.

***Most districts had begun to put in place systems for communicating
with providers.*** Among four of the five districts that participated in
the study in 2002-03 and 2003-04, there was an increase in the number of
providers offering services (see Exhibit 4). Accordingly, there was a
more pressing need among those districts to develop systems to
communicate with providers. In 2002-03, in fact, many districts worked
with no more than one provider. In 2003-04, however, districts were
approaching their supplemental services work quite differently. These
districts had learned from their experience implementing supplemental
services in the previous year that managing relationships and
communicating directly with providers was necessary to ensure that
services ran smoothly. For example, several district administrators said
they kept in regular contact with providers by telephone and e-mail and
that they kept records on provider invoices and mapped those against the
number of students served. Indeed, an indicator of districts' commitment
to improving the management of supplemental services was that at least
three of the nine districts in the study sample had found ways to fund a
supplemental services coordinator position in their district (using
funding sources other than Title I).

***In some districts, the distinction between district management of
providers' contractual agreements and monitoring provider performance (a
state responsibility), was blurred.*** For example, several districts
said they sent supplemental services coordinators into provider
facilities as well as schools to monitor tutoring sessions and to talk
to students, teachers, principals, and parents about provider services.
District administrators also reported that supplemental services
coordinators were interested in looking at whether providers were
meeting students' needs, as well as examining the logistics of the
program, such as security and safety issues. One district's supplemental
services coordinator described her position as including certain
activities relating to administrative and operational requirements,
including: assisting principals in collecting student assessment data
and tracking student progress, monitoring student attendance and
communicating with parents to ensure their children attend regularly,
and ensuring that there are clear lines of communication between schools
and providers. However, this same coordinator described her work as also
including activities that are more appropriate at the state level,
rather than district, such as monitoring all service providers to ensure
services "are of a high quality" and monitoring tutors' attendance and
work and, if necessary, contacting the provider when a problem arises.

One district administrator explained that there had been, heretofore,
little accountability for the providers and that the district had been
running supplemental services "on an assumption about humanity," which
is that providers will do what they agreed to in the contract. Two
districts said they purchased and used heavily a commercial newsletter
that covers compliance with NCLB requirements.

**Exhibit 4**

**Changes in the Number of Schools and Providers, and the Timing of
Supplemental Services in Sampled Districts**

**Between 2002-03 and 2003-04**[^8]

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **District   **Number of                 **Number of                 **Date of Parent               **Date        
  Name**       Schools                     Providers in                Notification**                 Services      
               Required to                 District**                                                 Began**       
               Offer                                                                                                
               Services**                                                                                           
  ------------ ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
               **2002-03**   **2003-04**   **2002-03**   **2003-04**   **2002-03**      **2003-04**   **2002-03**   **2003-04**

  Brooktown    3             24            13            14            September 2002   October 2003  November 2002 December 2003
  School                                                                                                            
  District                                                                                                          

  Plainfield   3             1             4             5             August 2002      May 2003      January 2003  September
  School                                                                                                            2003
  District                                                                                                          

  Sunnydale    59            42            6             10            November 2002    July 2003     January 2003  September
  School                                                                                                            2003
  District                                                                                                          

  Redding      12            10            3             6             August 2002      September     January 2003  January 2004
  School                                                                                2003                        
  District                                                                                                          

  Trainville   5             5             12            5             August 2002      September     April 2003    October 2003
  School                                                                                2003                        
  District                                                                                                          
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Although most districts in the study sample had begun requiring
agreements regarding student goals and progress---developed by the
district in consultation with parents and the selected provider for
every student receiving supplemental services---few districts were able
to enforce this requirement.*** Three of the districts even attached
templates to the contract for providers to use when writing student
agreements. Most districts, however, could not say whether these
agreements were fashioned in the manner mandated under NCLB. One
district created a system for ensuring that student agreements were
properly designed (see box, next page) for every student participating
in supplemental services. That is, once parents had chosen their
preferred provider, the district hosted an event for parents, teachers,
and providers to come together to discuss the services that students
would receive. The district administrator described the event this way:

> *\[We\] brought parents, teachers, providers together in one
> room...\[and had\] all of the principals and district folks there,
> too. \[We started by making\] introductions, \[and told parents\]
> about the law\.... Then \[the child's\] teacher and the parent sat
> with the provider and talked about each child\.... They talked about
> what the student needed the most help with.*

Similarly, another district hosted goal-setting sessions in 2003-04 that
included the provider, parent, and the Title I director. Lasting about
15-20 minutes, the sessions were conducted at whatever location the
parent chose---usually at the school. This district reported conducting
300 of these sessions in the 2003-04 school year.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Producing Supplemental Service Agreements for Students**            |
|                                                                       |
| > While sitting down with parent(s) and the teacher, the provider     |
| > gives an overview of their services and the teacher discusses the   |
| > student's progress and areas of need. In addition, the provider,    |
| > teacher, and parent fill out the Individual Supplemental Service    |
| > Agreement (ISSA), which contains: (1) goals for the student; (2)    |
| > the means by which progress will be measured; (3) a timeline of     |
| > services and progress; (4) procedures for notification of progress  |
| > to teachers and parents; (5) days, times, and types of services;    |
| > (6) attendance policies; (7) termination of services; and (8)       |
| > method of payment. In addition, the district administrator gives    |
| > every parent her business card so that if their child is having     |
| > trouble or isn't satisfied with their services, they can call her.  |
| > Once all parties agree on the terms of the agreement, it's signed   |
| > by the student, parent, teacher, and provider.                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

***The need for additional district staff to assist with supplemental
services was evidenced by the provider coordination, management problems
and misunderstandings that continued to frustrate some district
implementation efforts.*** For example, one district administrator told
the story of a provider going door-to-door in the community trying to
recruit students. When word got back to the district, the provider was
told that all recruitment efforts had to go through the district in
order to ensure that parents know all the provider options available
during the school year. In this case, the district went beyond its
authority in telling the provider that all recruitment efforts had to go
through the district. According to U.S. Department of Education
Non-Regulatory Guidance on supplemental services (Aug. 22, 2003, Item
F-10), "Providers are allowed to market their services to members of the
community or to provide general information to the public about the
availability of supplemental services. LEAs may not restrict them from
doing so."

Another district found that some students were receiving services from
two separate providers, one providing services three days a week and the
other providing services on the other two days. This example made it
clear that the district needed to closely monitor provider attendance
lists before paying for services. An administrator in another district
said she did not feel she had enough time or support to manage the
providers and the supplemental services:

> *Supplemental services is labor intensive---not hard---but intense...
> parents are always calling with questions, providers are calling with
> questions. \[I spend time\] checking to make sure whether the
> providers \[are showing up\] or not, checking with principals, and
> \[making sure\] invoices and progress reports are done correctly.*

***In 2003-04, several districts had set student attendance policies for
providers.*** Policies ranged from providers dropping students who
missed three consecutive tutoring sessions to providers dropping
students after five absences total. In one district, if a student was
absent for three consecutive weeks, the student was dropped and the
provider was not paid. However, the provider got paid the full per-pupil
allocation if a student was absent for fewer than three consecutive
weeks. Another district described a stringent attendance policy whereby
if students missed services two times they were dropped. As the district
administrator explained: "We are not paying providers for empty seats.
If a kid is dropped, \[providers\] don't get paid." Providers in another
district said that they did not like their contract because it
stipulated that they would not be reimbursed for a student unless the
student actually attended any given session, which is somewhat outside
the control of the provider.

Most districts in the study sample required providers to include monthly
attendance and progress reports for each participating student when
submitting their monthly invoices. In most cases, providers were paid
for the number of hours they tutored, although some providers were not
required to submit attendance sheets and tutoring logs; they simply
submitted an invoice to the district for services rendered.
Nevertheless, district administrators said that attendance was an
especially complicated issue to monitor. Indeed, in some districts, it
was very complicated for providers to manage attendance policies in a
way that ensured that they got paid for all of the participating
students and for all of the sessions that they offered. One district's
policy for verifying student attendance, for example, asked for
documentation to support the providers' invoices and thus wanted to see
the student sign-in sheet and have parents sign a form indicating that
their child attended tutoring on the specified days. Providers disliked
this practice because it was difficult for them to get parent
signatures---the attendance forms often didn't make it out of children's
backpacks.

***Although monitoring providers is a state responsibility, district
administrators perceived a need to collect data on provider performance
at the local level as well, both to assist the state in its monitoring
of providers and to ensure compliance with the terms of the contracts
they had negotiated with providers.*** Most districts were familiar with
the requirement that providers be removed from state lists if they fail
to contribute to increased student proficiency for two consecutive
years. Although the states generally had not formalized procedures for
evaluating provider performance, there were indications that districts
would have a role in collecting the data to be used in these
evaluations. For instance, one state's application noted that state
monitoring would occur in cooperation with districts. Several districts
wrote into provider contracts that providers must share any data they
collect from their programs with the state. In addition, at least two
districts planned to survey parents and school staff at the end of the
tutoring period to gauge their level of satisfaction with the
supplemental services provided. One of these districts, for example,
intended to use the survey results to help determine whether providers
were abiding by the stipulations of their contracts with the district.
The parent survey, for example, asked parents whether the provider had
"given you and your child regular feedback on his or her learning." The
other district planned to administer a survey to parents and schools at
the end of the 2003-04 school year to evaluate provider performance. The
surveys were going to ask respondents about provider dependability,
student engagement in provider services, and parent satisfaction with
provider services.

In 2003-04, at least one district had teachers, principals, and even
parents express concern over the impact providers would have on student
performance. As one teacher explained, "It is hard to say whether or not
30 hours of extra tutoring will really be enough to advance a population
of students that are highly mobile and ELL from not proficient to
proficient." She believed that monitoring providers should focus not on
whether students succeed or fail, but on whether services were provided.
Nevertheless, providers recognized that a provider performance measure
from the state was not long in coming and were attempting to do what
they could to prepare for it. Indeed, one provider said that he knew
that if his program were to receive an unfavorable performance report
for two consecutive years, then the program would be removed from the
list of state-approved providers. He added: "That's why we do pre- and
post-testing to show what we have been doing \[especially\] given that
we only have a conditional, one year \[contract with district\]."

**The Role of Identified Schools in Implementing Supplemental Services**

***In 2003-04, many districts in the study sample involved schools
directly in the process of enrolling students in supplemental
services.*** In every case but one, district administrators described
relying heavily on school principals, teachers, and staff to help
implement supplemental services. One district reported that the teachers
and principals in all the identified schools played a major role in
getting students to enroll in supplemental services. As the district
supplemental services coordinator explained: "The principals have done
their own advertising for the program.... They have called parents whose
kids really need help." Teachers said they were encouraged by the
principals to call the parents of students who they believed could
benefit from supplemental services. An administrator in another district
reported that teachers were instrumental in explaining the various
programs to parents and were relied upon by many:

> *The teachers were available to help explain the various choices and
> to help parents fill out the necessary forms. When parents would ask
> 'What is my child having problems with?' or 'Which \[provider\] is
> going to help my child with word problems?' the teachers were
> available to help.*

Several teachers in this district said that many parents were persuaded
to sign their child up for services simply because their child's teacher
was the one providing the services. In fact, many parents in this
district apparently selected the district as their preferred provider
simply because so many of the identified school's teachers were employed
as tutors in this program. Another teacher explained it this way: "When
teachers are tutors, the parents are just more comfortable."

In other districts, many of the principals in the identified schools
said they helped with outreach efforts by calling the parents of
students they believed could benefit from the services. In one district,
the principals explained that the district did not have enough staff to
implement supplemental services and that they tried to fill in as they
could in contacting parents. In another district, the school principal
summed up the value of having schools involved in reaching parents: "If
it weren't for teachers at that school calling parents, the numbers \[of
students participating in supplemental services\] wouldn't be so
high..."

The school staff members in yet another district described themselves as
having an informal responsibility for recruiting students for services.
That is, they received a list of priority students from the district,
and they would sometimes make calls and encourage parents to enroll. One
principal said, "What I believe happened is the teachers made mention of
\[supplemental services\] to the parents of students who they felt
really needed services." However, schools in this district said there
was no formal system in place for outlining schools' roles in
identifying and recruiting students for services. One principal
explained her school's level of involvement in supplemental services
recruitment this way:

> *When parents had questions \[about supplemental services\], they
> would call us and we would do our best to answer questions. We mostly
> referred them to the providers because they knew \[best\] what
> services they were providing. We only had limited information. One
> thing we did do was, if a provider said they could only come if at
> least 10 students signed up, as I talked to parents, I would say this
> provider will come for this many and this is how many are interested.
> So I would give these folks a call---not trying to recommend anyone
> but just trying to help reach the numbers.*

Many districts in the 2003-04 study sample also involved schools in the
recruitment process by providing them with sample letters to personalize
and send home to the families of students who were eligible to receive
supplemental services. In addition, schools in several districts held
parent meetings to discuss the availability of supplemental services and
to describe the services providers were offering. Some schools hosted
provider "fairs" to give parents an opportunity to hear from the
providers directly about the services they offered. Indeed,
administrators in at least two districts explained that it was the
schools, not the district, that were responsible for coordinating forums
in which providers could give presentations to parents on the kinds of
services they offer to students. Moreover, in one of these districts,
the parent coordinators at the identified schools called the parent of
every eligible student to inform them of their child's eligibility and
to explain supplemental services in terms that parents could understand.
Using the school-based Title I parent coordinators or district Title I
Parent Liaisons to contact parents occurred in at least two districts in
the study sample. In both these districts, rates of participation in
supplemental services were relatively high.

The practice of involving schools more centrally in the recruitment
process had some unexpected consequences. One district, for example,
wrote a grant to the state for funding to cover the cost of a
supplemental services coordinator to work directly at the school where
supplemental services were offered. As the district Title I director
explained:

> *The program was putting an extra burden on the principal and staff,
> so I wrote a state grant to get a supplemental services coordinator.
> We were really concerned about the drain of energy \[from the school
> as a result of implementing this program\]\.... The coordinator needed
> to be someone who is not a full-time teacher at the school.*

In another district, principals and teachers had a significant amount of
control over parents' selection of providers. For example, one
elementary principal described screening 20 providers and ending up with
only two who were willing to provide services at the school and who
passed muster with him---people he would trust with the students.
Another principal said the following about his role in the provider
selection process: "I pretty much chose the providers because I had the
time to call them. I knew our needs and looked at who had the experience
and infrastructure to do this." However, principals determining whether
and when providers can present their services to parents at a provider
"fair" and whether they'll make space available to providers may result
in the elimination of much of the "choice" afforded parents in their
selection of providers. As noted earlier, principal involvement should
not undermine parents' opportunities to select the most appropriate,
state-approved provider in the district or area.

***Some districts in the study sample handed over control of the student
selection process to the schools, permitting principals and teachers to
determine the eligibility of students---beyond low-income status---for
supplemental services.*** An administrator in one district explained
that it was up to the principals' discretion to recruit students. The
principals relied on teachers to determine which students needed
services the most. Teachers were encouraged by their principals to make
calls to parents of students who they thought would greatly benefit from
supplemental services. One teacher explained, "I called select students
to make sure they understood they have this opportunity." Similarly,
teachers in another district played a significant role in ensuring that
the most academically needy students were signed up by their parents to
receive supplemental services. "The list \[of providers\] went out to
everyone but if the parents did not select anyone, we contacted them if
we thought the kids needed it," explained one teacher.

In another district, teachers in identified schools explained that they
put together a list of students getting D's and F's. The parents of
those students received a letter from the principal and the grade-level
teachers saying that their child must attend tutoring. This district's
effort to target services to low-achieving students was reasonable, but
according to U.S. Department of Education Non-Regulatory Guidance on
supplemental services (Aug. 22, 2003), the option for these students to
participate should have been the parents' choice and not a requirement.
Another teacher said that although only about 12 percent of parents
attend conferences, "We make lots of phone calls and tutoring is always
brought up...." School staff in some districts said they wanted to play
a bigger role in determining the eligibility of students. As a principal
in one district explained: "We would like to have input about who are
the most at-risk and educationally disadvantaged \[students\] and make
sure that they're contacted first." Despite the desires of school staff
to identify the students whom they deem most in need of supplemental
services, the law makes clear that students can only receive
supplemental services if they are from low-income families and attend a
school that has been identified for improvement for two or more years.

***In 2003-04, districts increasingly relied upon principals and
teachers to help coordinate the implementation of supplemental
services.*** Principals in some districts noted the fact that
supplemental services often required that they get involved in the
logistics of the services, including making sure space was available for
providers and that parents turned in their permission slips for students
to receive services. A principal in one district, for example,
complained that the parents didn't understand that permission forms were
supposed to be mailed back to the district, so the school collected them
and forwarded them to the district. In another district, a principal
said she had to adjust the schedule of the administrative staff to
accommodate supplemental services and ensure that the school building
was secure. In 2002-03, the principal explained, the administrative
staff schedule was 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., while in 2003-04, the schedule was
from noon to 5 p.m. The supplemental services administrator in this
district understood why principals might be a bit frustrated with them:
"The biggest complaint from schools is the additional work hours for
principals and administrators. Their paperwork needs to be done after
school, but the burden is placed on them to oversee the after-school
component as well."

Still, some districts had schools in which teachers did not know many of
the details about what takes place during tutoring sessions or which
students participate in the various after-school programs available at
the school. Nevertheless, most agreed that the role of schools in
helping to coordinate supplemental services was critical. One provider
stressed the importance of a school embracing supplemental services:

> *The school plays a key role. If \[it doesn't\] embrace the program
> with rooms, leadership, and resources, there is no way it can be
> successful. It has to be a partnership. In the schools that have
> embraced it, attendance is high. Principals know what works best with
> their students. I wish they would share some of that information with
> us.*

***School principals were often asked by the district to monitor
provider performance even though monitoring is a state
responsibility.*** Administrators in at least three districts reported
relying on principals to monitor provider performance. One district
required that principals in the identified schools visit provider
facilities once every two weeks to monitor tutoring sessions. The
district supplied principals with an observation checklist for their
visits. The checklist included the following:

-   Total number of students served

-   Student-to-teacher ratio

-   Number of assigned staff

-   Number of classrooms

-   Equipment needs

-   Transportation schedules

-   Schedule of instructional days and times

-   Number of students bused

-   Class lists and attendance forms

-   Regular materials and supplies to support instruction

-   Supplemental materials and supplies

-   Individual learning plan for students

-   Provider assessments (pre and post-tests)

-   Schedule for regularly informing parents of student progress

-   Schedule for regularly informing teachers of student progress

-   Process for how student progress will be measured

Another district opted to rely on principals observing tutoring
sessions---on their own---and informing the district when they
identified issues or concerns. As the district administrator explained,
no one from the district office had time to drop in "to see how things
are going" with the providers.

Still, although principals were asked to monitor provider performance,
they did not often receive the feedback reports that providers were
expected to share with schools regarding student progress. As a
principal in one school noted:

There is no time for SES \[supplemental services\] providers to give me
feedback on what they are doing or on how kids are performing. It's not
intentional. I get some feedback from the in-house providers but not the
off-site ones. I get reports from in-house providers that are copied and
forwarded to classroom teachers. But I get no paperwork or any
information whatsoever from off-site providers. Curriculum-wise, I have
no idea what \[providers\] are doing.

***School staff sometimes found themselves in the somewhat awkward
position of explaining to parents the difference between supplemental
services and other after-school programs provided by the school.***
Communicating the differences between supplemental services and other
after-school programs to parents was among the more difficult tasks
facing schools in 2003-04. Many school staff said they did not
understand the differences themselves. Recognizing that there may be
problems in distinguishing among as well as coordinating with the
various after-school activities available, schools in more than one
district hired after-school program coordinators. As one principal
explained, "We have four after-school programs so we had to pay an
administrator with an administrative background to oversee all the
programs." A program coordinator at another school said she tried to
schedule all eligible students for all available slots in the
after-school programs: "We try not to make it a competition between the
programs. We made sure there was no overlap between them." In another
district, one school principal noted that parents heard about
supplemental services and think that their children can no longer
participate in other after-school programs: ***"***We're trying hard to
create a vision that kids can take advantage of all of these
\[after-school opportunities\], but it's difficult." Another principal
in this district pointed out that schools with several after-school
programs that have parent participation components may require parents
to attend numerous meetings. This principal was working to better
coordinate the after-school programs so that there was only one monthly
parent meeting.

**District Funding for the Supplemental Services**

NCLB establishes a joint funding mechanism for supplemental services and
Title I choice-related transportation of an amount equal to 20 percent
of a district's Title I,\
Part A, allocation, before any reservations. This means that the amount
of funding that a district must devote to supplemental services depends
in part on how much it spends on choice-related transportation. However,
if the cost of satisfying all requests for supplemental services exceeds
an amount equal to 5 percent of a district's Title I, Part A,
allocation, the district may not spend less than that amount on those
services. NCLB also sets the per-child cost for supplemental services as
the lesser of either the district's per-child allocation under Part A of
Title I or the actual cost of the services.

***Districts varied widely in the percent of their Title I, Part A,
allocation that they opted to set aside for supplemental services.*** As
shown in Exhibit 6, the percent of Title I (or other) funds that
districts set aside in 2003-04 for supplemental services ranged from a
minimum of 2 percent to 21 percent. According to NCLB and subsequent
guidance from the U.S. Department of Education, districts must spend an
amount equal to 5 percent of their Title I allocation (and up to 20
percent) to fund supplemental services provisions of NCLB, unless demand
for services requires less funding. In the case of two of the districts
that set aside less than 20 percent of their Title I allocations,
district administrators explained that they had set aside enough
resources to meet the needs of all the eligible students enrolled in the
identified schools. In the four other districts that set aside less than
20 percent of their Title I allocation, all four administrators
explained that they based their Title I set aside on the previous year's
demand for both choice-related transportation and supplemental services.
This approach, however, demonstrates that at least some districts were
determining funding needs based not on actual demand for choice-related
transportation and supplemental services---which the legislation says
districts must do---but on anticipated demand. This practice of setting
aside Title I resources before gauging demand is likely to bring
districts up short if the demand for services ever exceeds the amount
the districts reserved. As Exhibit 5 demonstrates, if three of the nine
districts had set aside the full 20 percent of their Title I allocation,
they would have had the capacity to serve far greater numbers of
eligible students if they did not have costs associated with
choice-related transportation.

**Exhibit 5**

Districts' Capacity to Serve Eligible Students in 2003-04

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th><strong>District Name</strong></th>
<th><strong>Criteria for Prioritizing Students for
Services</strong></th>
<th><strong>Maximum Possible Expenditure Per Student</strong></th>
<th><strong>Percent of Title I Funds Set Aside for Supplemental
Services</strong> <a href="#fn1" class="footnote-ref" id="fnref1"
role="doc-noteref"><sup>1</sup></a></th>
<th><strong>Number of Eligible Students</strong></th>
<th><strong>Number of Students Receiving Services</strong></th>
<th><strong>Percent of Eligible Students Served</strong></th>
<th><strong>Number of Eligible Students District Had Capacity to Serve
Based on Percentage of Title I Allocation <em>Actually</em> Set
Aside</strong></th>
<th><strong>Number of Eligible Students District Had Capacity to Serve
IF it Set Aside and Spent an Amount Equal to the Full 20% of their Title
I Allocation</strong></th>
<th><strong>Percent of Eligible Students Served Based on District
Funding Capacity (i.e., setting aside an amount equal to 20% of Title I
Allocation)</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Brooktown School District</td>
<td>Students from low-income families</td>
<td>$1,264</td>
<td>20% ($1,600,000) +$500,000 of other district funding</td>
<td>12,918</td>
<td>1,787</td>
<td>14%</td>
<td>1,661</td>
<td>1,661</td>
<td>108%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Plainfield School District</td>
<td>Students from low-income families</td>
<td>$1,197</td>
<td><p>2%</p>
<p>($418,950)</p></td>
<td>356</td>
<td>301</td>
<td>86%</td>
<td>350</td>
<td>N/A: District had capacity to serve ALL eligible students without
setting aside 20 percent</td>
<td>86%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Oakwood School District</td>
<td>Prioritized based on income and achievement <a href="#fn2"
class="footnote-ref" id="fnref2"
role="doc-noteref"><sup>2</sup></a></td>
<td>$1,963</td>
<td><p>21%</p>
<p>($2,275,178)</p></td>
<td>9,781</td>
<td>1,097</td>
<td>11%</td>
<td>1,159</td>
<td>1,103</td>
<td>99%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Sunnydale School District</td>
<td>Students from low-income families</td>
<td>$1,212</td>
<td><p>15%</p>
<p>($5,000,000)</p></td>
<td>40,000</td>
<td>3,400</td>
<td>9%</td>
<td>4,125</td>
<td>5,500</td>
<td>62%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Emory Public Schools</td>
<td>Students from low-income families</td>
<td>$1,520</td>
<td><p>10%</p>
<p>($275,528) +5% of state funding</p></td>
<td>650</td>
<td>153</td>
<td>14%</td>
<td>272</td>
<td>363</td>
<td>42%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Springvale School District</td>
<td>Students from low-income families</td>
<td>$1,449</td>
<td><p>15%</p>
<p>($3,003,077)</p></td>
<td>1,199</td>
<td>336</td>
<td>28%</td>
<td>2,073</td>
<td>N/A : District had capacity to serve ALL eligible students without
setting aside 20 percent</td>
<td>28%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Redding School District</td>
<td>Students from low-income families</td>
<td>$1,377</td>
<td><p>6%</p>
<p>($712,000)</p></td>
<td>5,264</td>
<td>382</td>
<td>7%</td>
<td>517</td>
<td>1,724</td>
<td>22%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Trainville School District</td>
<td>Prioritized based on income and achievement <a href="#fn3"
class="footnote-ref" id="fnref3"
role="doc-noteref"><sup>3</sup></a></td>
<td>$1,340</td>
<td><p>10%</p>
<p>($25,000,000)</p></td>
<td>3,659</td>
<td>472</td>
<td>13%</td>
<td>18,657</td>
<td>N/A : District had capacity to serve ALL eligible students without
setting aside 20 percent</td>
<td>13%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Longwood Public Schools</td>
<td>Students from low-income families</td>
<td>$1,352</td>
<td><p>20%</p>
<p>($60,000,000)</p></td>
<td>190,000</td>
<td>19,000</td>
<td>10%</td>
<td>44,379</td>
<td>44,379</td>
<td>43%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<aside id="footnotes" class="footnotes footnotes-end-of-document"
role="doc-endnotes">
<hr />
<ol>
<li id="fn1"><p><sup>a</sup> All the districts in the study sample
elected to set aside a percentage of their Title I allocation for
choice-related transportation and supplemental services, but districts
have the option of setting aside funds from sources other than Title
I.<a href="#fnref1" class="footnote-back"
role="doc-backlink">↩︎</a></p></li>
<li id="fn2"><p><sup>b</sup> Oakwood School District targeted services
to low-achieving students even though the district had not reached its
funding capacity to serve all students from low-income families. By
identifying only low-achieving students from low-income families for
services, the district’s count of the number of eligible students was
1,159 rather than 9,781. Of these 1,159 students, 95 percent received
supplemental services (compared with 11 percent of all low-income
students).<a href="#fnref2" class="footnote-back"
role="doc-backlink">↩︎</a></p></li>
<li id="fn3"><p><sup>c</sup> Trainville School District also targeted
services to low-achieving students even though the district had not
reached its funding capacity to serve all students from low-income
families. By identifying only low-achieving students from low-income
families for services, the district’s count of the number of eligible
students was 2,000 rather than 3,659. Of these 2,000 students, 24
percent received services (compared with 13 percent of all low-income
students).<a href="#fnref3" class="footnote-back"
role="doc-backlink">↩︎</a></p></li>
</ol>
</aside>

***The average district per-pupil expenditure for supplemental services
among the nine districts included in the study sample was \$1,408 in
2003-04 (see Exhibit 5).*** Among the five districts included in both
the year one and year two samples, the average per-pupil expenditure for
supplemental services increased from an average of \$967 per student in
2002-03 to an average of \$1,280 per student in 2003-04 (see Exhibit 6).
This represents an average increase of about \$300 per student. The
increase in the average per-pupil expenditure may be the result of
districts' better understanding---as a result of state and federal
guidance---of how the costs of supplemental services are meant to be
distributed among students. That is, in 2002-03, few districts in the
study sample had a strong grasp of their capacity to serve eligible
students based on the maximum amount they were required to spend on
supplemental services. Rather, districts in the study sample looked at
their maximum required amount for spending on supplemental services and
planned to assigned students to provider services until the funding was
expended; (none of the districts reached this limit). In 2003-04, every
district knew that it could estimate the number of students it could
serve by calculating 5-20 percent of the district's Title I allocation
and dividing this amount by the maximum required per pupil expenditure
(the latter being the district's Title I allocation divided by the
Census poverty count).

***Several sampled districts expressed concern about the administrative
costs associated with implementing supplemental services.*** District
administrators explained that there were still costs associated with the
mailings to schools and parents, as well as costs associated with
working with the providers. Although districts may use Title I
administrative funds to pay for the implementation of supplemental
services, the cost of these implementation activities is not
insignificant. In one large district, the annual cost of producing and
mailing the choice and supplemental services letters was \$250,000.
Another large district reported spending more than \$100,000 in postage
on the supplemental services and choice letters. An administrator in yet
another district noticed that the copying costs to administer
supplemental services were immense: "We are noticing that the volume of
copies needed for recording data, student work, and communication to
parents is depleting our copying capacity each month." Although
districts may use Title I administrative funds to pay for these
activities, there are also the legal costs associated with writing
provider contracts was mentioned again as a significant expense to
districts. Another district complained that the time required to
implement supplemental services takes district staff away from their
regular duties. For example, the Title I literacy coach in one district
spends half of her time on supplemental services, and this detracts from
the time she can spend in schools that need her services. As has already
been mentioned, districts continue to need additional staff to manage
implementation of the supplemental services provisions.

When asked about the administrative costs associated with supplemental
services, the Title I director in one district said the following:

> *\[Supplemental services\] is mammoth. Last year it was my baby. It is
> very, very time consuming. It encompasses a lot of time. For one
> person with other responsibilities, it is very hard to do, especially
> in large systems with this many children, providers, principals, and
> buses. There are a lot of complaints---providers complaining, schools
> complaining, parents complaining.... I assigned it to \[another staff
> member\] who says it could be a full-time job by itself. Even with her
> being responsible, still she and I have to collaborate so it takes
> time. Not a day goes by that I don't receive at least five calls
> \[about supplemental services\]. Some calls come from parents who just
> heard about \[supplemental services\] or from a principal who is upset
> with a provider or from a provider who is upset with a principal.*

**Student Participation in Supplemental Services**

***Student participation rates in supplemental services varied across
the districts included in the study sample.*** In most districts,
participation rates did not exceed the number of students the districts
could serve with the maximum amount they were required to spend on
supplemental services. In six districts, participation rates were
between 13 and 62 percent of the students the districts could serve with
the maximum required amount of funding. One of these districts went to
great lengths to recruit parents and sign students up for services and
reached a participation rate of only 28 percent. The other three
districts provided supplemental services to 86 percent or more of the
students they could provide services to with the maximum amount they
were required to spend on supplemental services and one of these three
districts went beyond its funding capacity to serve an additional 126
eligible students who requested services in 2003-04 (See Exhibit 5).

In terms of the number of students eligible to receive supplemental
services---which may exceed the number to which a district can provide
services based on the maximum required amount of funding---eight of the
nine districts in the study sample provided services to between 7
percent and 28 percent of all the eligible students. In one district, 86
percent of eligible students received services.

In six of the case study districts, more students were eligible for
supplemental services than the number the district could provide
services to with the maximum required amount of funding. The remaining
three districts could have provided supplemental services to all
eligible students with the maximum required amount of funding. However,
in only one district did participation rates among eligible students
reach the maximum the district could support using the required amount
of funding.

Among the districts with less than 50 percent participation, several
explanations were offered as to why districts' participation levels in
supplemental services were not higher. Districts reported that some
students did not participate in supplemental services because they were
achieving at proficient or advanced levels in reading and math and did
not need the service. Districts reported that some students may have
needed the services but had family responsibilities that precluded them
from staying after school. Districts also reported that students had
parents who, because of their work schedules, could not pick their
children up after school, and the regulations specifically prohibit
districts from counting the costs of transportation for supplemental
services toward the minimum amount they are required to spend on
choice-related transportation and supplemental services.[^9] Parents
offered several reasons their children were not enrolled in supplemental
services: they found other after-school options more accessible; they
thought their children had sufficient amounts of assistance from the
regular after-school program or tutoring services offered by the
classroom teacher; or they wanted their children to participate in other
recreational or church-based activities after school.[^10]

Nevertheless, the case study districts were largely embracing
supplemental services. Indeed, the superintendent in one district
expressed strong commitment to supplemental services as a way to help
low-achieving students and explained that many steps had been taken to
promote implementation in the district:

> *We took that \[supplemental services\] provision seriously. I've been
> active with my staff to get the word out. When I first checked with
> them only 11 percent of eligible students were participating---that
> was unacceptable. I convinced the staff to get the parent, student,
> and provider connected---some say I ask for the impossible.... The
> focus is not compliance. You can comply \[with NCLB\] and still have
> few participants. I want higher numbers participating. We need to do
> things differently. Regular Title I isn't working well. Here's an
> opportunity to have one-on-one or \[a staff-student ratio of
> 1-to-5\].... This is an opportunity to do something for the forgotten
> kids of \[this district\]---their parents can't provide this---we are
> improving learning for the neediest \[students\].*

Both the number and percent of eligible students served varied across
the five districts included in the study in both 2002-03 and 2003-04.
Three of these five districts included in both years of the study
changed their criteria for targeting students for supplemental services
between 2002-03 and 2003-04 (see also Exhibit 6). In addition, changes
in the number of eligible schools increased the number of eligible
students dramatically in two districts and, to a smaller extent, in a
third district. A fourth district had virtually no change in the number
of eligible students, and a fifth district experienced a substantial
decline. (Four of the nine case study districts sampled in 2003-04 did
not offer services in the 2002-03 school year.) The two districts with
the most dramatic increases in the number of eligible students also
reported large increases in the number of students served; the other
districts reported small increases or declines.

**Exhibit 6**

**Changes in Supplemental Services Eligibility, Spending, and
Participation**

**Between 2002-03 and 2003-04, by District**[^11]

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **District     **Criteria for                **Per Pupil                   **Number of                 **Number of   
  Name**         Prioritizing                  Expenditure for               Eligible                    Students      
                 Students for                  Services**                    Students**                  Receiving     
                 Services**                                                                              Services**    
  -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
                 **2002-03**    **2003-04**    **2002-03**     **2003-04**   **2002-03**   **2003-04**   **2002-03**   **2003-04**

  **Brooktown    Prioritized    Students from  \$950           \$1,264       900           12,918        138           1,787
  School         based on       low-income                                                                             
  District**     income and     families                                                                               
                 achievement                                                                                           

  **Plainfield   Prioritized    Students from  \$1,036         \$1,197       973           356           397           301
  School         based on       low-income                                                                             
  District**     income,        families                                                                               
                 grade-level,                                                                                          
                 and                                                                                                   
                 achievement                                                                                           

  **Sunnydale    Phased in      Students from  \$850-\$1,000   \$1,212       4,500-6,000   40,000        1,900         3,400
  School         based on       low-income                                                                             
  District**     school and     families                                                                               
                 student                                                                                               
                 performance                                                                                           

  **Redding      Students from  Students from  \$986           \$1,377       5,292         5,264         326           382
  School         low-income     low-income                                                                             
  District**     families       families                                                                               

  **Trainville   Prioritized    Prioritized    \$940           \$1,340       2,600         3,659         510           472
  School         based on       based on                                                                               
  District**     income and     income and                                                                             
                 achievement,   achievement,                                                                           
                 but served all but served all                                                                         
                 who requested  who requested                                                                          
                 services       services                                                                               
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

##   {#section .unnumbered}

## Supplemental Service Providers and Services

Although there were exceptions, most supplemental services offered in
the nine case study districts shared the same basic features.
Supplemental services were typically offered in schools, with tutoring
provided after school several times a week (but not every day). The
total number of contact hours varied widely, depending on provider
costs. Instruction took place in small groups that ranged in size from 3
to 15 students, and tutors were typically certified teachers, very often
recruited from the schools where the services were provided. As they did
last year, instructional strategies varied widely from provider to
provider, and communication among providers, parents, and school staff
was limited. Three of the school districts in the case study sample were
approved as supplemental service providers; their services resembled of
those offered by other providers in the case study sample.

###### Number and Types of Providers Operating in Sampled Districts

***The number of providers offering services in the case study districts
increased slightly in 2003-04, but the increases were more modest than
increases reported by some states in the sample or all states
nationwide.*** In five of the nine case study sites that were included
in the study sample in both years of data collection, the number of
providers offering services increased in four of the five districts (see
Exhibit 7).

In eight of the nine case study districts, the number of supplemental
service providers ranged from 5 to 14; on average, parents were able to
select from a total of nine providers in these districts. One very large
urban district (one of the largest in the country) had a total of 27
providers offering services.

All of the districts in the study sample had just a fraction of the
supplemental service providers approved by the state operating in their
districts (see Exhibit 7). Brooktown, located in the largest city in the
state, had the largest proportion of state-approved providers available
to parents and children in the district (14 of 31). Other case study
districts had relatively few state-approved providers available to
provide services---for example, just 5 of 27 state-approved providers in
the Plainfield School District and 6 of 164 providers in the Redding
School District. This pattern was true for mid-sized suburban districts
as well as for very large districts in urban centers. Within each of the
case study states, most approved providers worked only in selected local
areas. Alternatively, some providers could have received approval to
work statewide but were not operational in local areas immediately.

***In general, school and district staff reported that available
providers were able to accommodate the needs of students in the sampled
districts.*** School and district staff believed that providers offered
services that were likely to benefit their students, and that few
students would have had difficulty finding a provider whose services
would help them. In the sampled districts, there were fewer providers
serving high school students, and thus more limited choices for parents
and their children.

##### Exhibit 7

##### Number of Providers in Sampled Districts and States

+------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| **District Name**      | **Number of  | **Number of | **Number of   |
|                        | Providers in | Providers   | Providers in  |
|                        | the          | in the      | the State**   |
|                        | District**   | District**  |               |
|                        |              |             | **2003-04**   |
|                        | **2002-03**  | **2003-04** |               |
+========================+==============+=============+===============+
| **Brooktown School     | 13           | 14          | 31            |
| District**             |              |             |               |
+------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| **Plainfield School    | 4            | 5           | 27            |
| District**             |              |             |               |
+------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| **Redding School       | 3            | 6           | 164           |
| District**             |              |             |               |
+------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| **Sunnydale School     | 6            | 10          | 27            |
| District**             |              |             |               |
+------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| **Trainville School    | 12           | 5           | 181           |
| District**             |              |             |               |
+------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| ## Spri                | N/A          | 12          | 74            |
| ngvale School District |              |             |               |
+------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| ## O                   | N/A          | 6           | 74            |
| akwood School District |              |             |               |
+------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| **Emory Public         | N/A          | 12          | 65            |
| Schools**              |              |             |               |
+------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| **Longwood Public      | N/A          | 27          | 181           |
| Schools**              |              |             |               |
+------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+

In the three sampled districts with significant proportions of English
language learners, district and school staff reported that those
students had been able to find tutoring. At least one provider serving
English language learners reported an increased emphasis on vocabulary
and comprehension skills to address the needs of non-English speaking
students. Teachers felt that this provider's approach was helpful to
students but did not necessarily help English language learners as much
as native English speakers. A teacher explained, "I think \[the
program\] really helps native English speakers, but \[it\] is harder for
Spanish speakers, although I believe all of my kids are getting
something out of it." Spanish-speaking parents in two focus groups
conducted for the study, however, expressed satisfaction with the
services their children had received. In none of the sampled sites did
district or school staff report problems with special education
students' access to services. None of the districts included in the case
study sample this year was small, or located in a rural area where state
administrators had expressed concern about the limited supply of
providers, so this year of the study does not provide data on whether
rural students' needs were being met.

***Online and faith-based providers served only a handful of students in
districts sampled for the study.*** Only three of the nine districts
included in the study had any online providers offering services (see
Exhibit 8). Online providers served 28 students in one of those
districts, five students in another and none in the third.

**Exhibit 8**

**Types of Supplemental Service Providers**

**Operating in Case Study Districts, Spring 2004**

+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| *           | **N   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *District** | umber |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|             | of    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|             | Provi |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|             | ders, |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|             | by    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|             | Pro   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|             | vider |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|             | T     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|             | ype** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|             | **    | **Fai | **Onl | **S   | **    | **Oth | **TO  |
|             | Other | th-Ba | ine** | chool | Colle | er/** | TAL** |
|             | P     | sed** |       | D     | ges** |       |       |
|             | rivat |       | **(   | istri |       | *     |       |
|             | e\*** | **(   | priva | cts** |       | *Unkn |       |
|             |       | priva | te)** |       |       | own** |       |
|             |       | te)** |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Brooktown   | 13    | 1     |       |       |       |       | 14    |
| School      |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| District    |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Plainfield  | 4     |       |       | 1     |       |       | 5     |
| School      |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| District    |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Redding     | 6     |       |       |       |       |       | 6     |
| School      |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| District    |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Sunnydale   | 9     |       |       | 1     |       |       | 10    |
| School      |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| District    |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Trainville  | 5     |       |       |       |       |       | 5     |
| School      |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| District    |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Springvale  | 8     | 1     | 3     |       |       |       | 12    |
| School      |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| District    |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Oakwood     | 5     |       | 1     |       |       |       | 6     |
| School      |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| District    |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Emory       | 9     |       | 3     |       |       |       | 12    |
| Public      |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Schools     |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Longwood    | 25    | 1     |       | 1     |       |       | 27    |
| Public      |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Schools     |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Sample    | *     | **3** | **7** | **3** | **0** | **0** | *     |
| Total**     | *84** |       |       |       |       |       | *97** |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Sample    | *     | **3** | **7** | **3** | **0** | **0** | **    |
| Percent**   | *87** |       |       |       |       |       | 100** |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| *           | **1,  | **    | **    | **    | *     | *     | **1,  |
| *Nationwide | 033** | 109** | 172** | 464** | *45** | *67** | 890** |
| Total**     |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| *           | *     | **6** | **9** | *     | **2** | **4** | **    |
| *Nationwide | *55** |       |       | *25** |       |       | 100** |
| Percent**   |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

\* "Other private" providers were private providers that were not
faith-based or online.

Source: District brochures and U.S. Department of Education, Policy and
Program Studies Service. "Supplemental Service Providers on State Web
Sites," (May 3-5, 2004), unpublished database.

##### 

##### Faith-based providers were also relatively rare; these providers served 60 students total in two districts. In a third very large district, the faith-based provider served fewer than 5 percent of the total number of students receiving supplemental services. The low incidence of both online and faith-based providers in the study sample is consistent with the small numbers of online and faith-based providers operating nationwide.

***In the case study sample, school districts made up a small proportion
of all providers available to students, in contrast to the distribution
of types of providers nationwide.*** Nationwide, IEAs, school districts
and public schools make up 25 percent of all supplemental service
providers (see Exhibit 2). Three of the nine case study
districts---Plainfield, Sunnydale, and Longwood---had been approved by
their states to offer supplemental services to students. These three
school districts represented just 3 percent of the providers offering
services in the nine sites. Other case study districts reported that
they had decided not to apply to become supplemental service providers
because they anticipated that they would be identified for improvement
under NCLB in one or two years, and at that point would become
ineligible to provide supplemental services. District administrators saw
little point in gearing up to offer services, only to have to stop
providing them later on.

***However, school districts enrolled the lion's share of students in
two of the three districts where they were offering services.*** The
district-sponsored tutoring programs in Plainfield and Longwood enrolled
49 and 76 percent of all the students participating in supplemental
services, respectively (see Exhibit A-1 in the appendix for enrollments
of all providers in all districts). District administrators in these
districts explained that because these programs employed district and
school staff that parents already knew and trusted, they had been quite
successful in recruiting students. However, it is also possible that
these districts recruited for their own program more aggressively, or
created barriers to participation for the other providers. In the third
district, Sunnydale, 10 providers each enrolled relatively large numbers
of students (between 51 and 922), with the district's program enrolling
just 5 percent of the total (155 students). Sunnydale assigned each
provider operating in the district, including the district-sponsored
program, space in just one school. Parents typically chose to send their
children to the provider operating in their child's school, although
they had the option to send their child to other providers in other
schools as well. As a result, in part, of the district's policy for
assigning space in schools, there were five providers in the district
with enrollments higher than the district's own program.

Organizing and Delivering Services

***Providers interviewed for the case studies required a minimum number
of students to enroll at each site in order to make a program viable,
although this minimum varied widely across providers. In most districts,
providers did not offer services if demand was too low.*** As was the
case in 2002-03, providers explained that they required a minimum number
of students to enroll at each program site in order to cover their
costs. For some providers the minimum number was 10 students per site;
for others, the minimum was as high as 80. Competition for students
could be intense in some schools. In one district, providers raffled off
video game players and other prizes to students who signed up for their
services.

In almost every one of the nine districts, at least one provider
withdrew from a school or closed operations because the number of
students interested in services was too low. In these cases, the
district asked parents to select another provider. In a few cases,
providers announced that they would no longer offer services in all the
subjects originally promised. One principal explained that when a
provider withdraws, it can have a negative effect on recruitment and
attendance for other programs:

> *Kids were really interested, but \[the provider\] didn't have their
> numbers. We lost a bunch of kids that might have signed up for a
> better program. When they didn't come in, that shocked a bunch of
> kids.*

***Providers in the nine case study districts found it challenging in
2003-04 to hire and retain the appropriate number of qualified tutors to
meet fluctuating demand.*** One provider in the study sample was serving
60 fewer students than had requested services because the company did
not have enough teachers on hand to serve those students. Another
provider was forced to let staff go when he experienced a steep drop in
the number of students enrolled for supplemental services (from 100 in
2002-03 to 12 in 2003-04) as a result of actions taken by the district.
(The district had closed a school where students were eligible for
supplemental services the year before. Once enrolled in other
non-identified schools, these students were no longer eligible for
tutoring.) Yet another provider had suspended tutoring at one school in
the study because the site coordinator and several staff members quit
and students were no longer coming to tutoring.

***A large majority of providers sampled for the study offered their
services at the school sites.*** In theory, providers serve students
either off-site or at schools required to offer services in the
district. Of the 24 providers included in the study sample, 18 provided
tutoring in schools; four provided services off-site in their own
facilities, at churches, or in a Boys & Girls Club site; and two ran
home-based programs (see Exhibit A-2 in the appendix). Within districts,
some providers offered services at several different school sites. Other
districts had assigned one provider to each school required to offer
services.

Just under half of the supplemental service providers included in the
study sample provided students with transportation to and from tutoring,
or transportation home from school sites (see Exhibit A-2 in the
appendix). One district in the study sample decided to offer
transportation to and from tutoring to all students in March 2003 in an
effort to boost student enrollment in supplemental services. In two
districts, all providers offered transportation as part of their
services. In two other districts, parents could choose between providers
who offered transportation and providers who did not. In these two
districts, transportation did not seem to be a strong incentive for
enrollment: providers in the study sample who offered transportation
tended to have lower enrollments than providers who did not.

***Across the providers interviewed for the case studies, the total
number of hours each student spent in tutoring over the course of a
school year varied greatly from provider to provider, depending
primarily on provider costs.*** Supplemental services were typically
offered after school for one to two hours a day, two to three times a
week. Providers in the study sample offered tutoring anywhere from one
to four days a week, with most offering services on two or three days
each week. Nearly all tutoring sessions lasted an hour and none extended
beyond two hours in one day.

Although the frequency of services was relatively constant across
providers, the total number of contact hours varied as a function of
provider costs (see Table A-2 in the appendix). Districts paid providers
a maximum amount equal to their per-pupil Title I allocation. Because
the amount paid by districts to providers is limited in this way,
low-cost providers were able to offer many more contact hours than
high-cost providers in the same district. For example, in one large
urban district, a provider whose per-pupil costs were \$14 per hour
offered a total of 100 hours of tutoring for each student. Another
provider in that same district whose per-pupil costs were \$50 per hour
offered a total of only 28 hours of tutoring per student. Across the 24
providers interviewed for the case studies, total contact hours per
student ranged from a low of 18 to a high of 120. The average number of
contact hours was 60, although the number varied so widely across
providers that few could be considered "average." At the rate of two to
six hours a week, students tended to "cycle out" of supplemental
services after 10-20 weeks. For example, if a student received one hour
of tutoring three days a week (a total of three hours per week), he or
she would accumulate 60 contact hours after 20 weeks. A student who
received two hours of tutoring two days a week (four hours per week)
would reach 60 contact hours after 15 weeks. Once providers had billed
the maximum amount allowed per student, services ended.

Provider costs and the total number of contact hours varied for a number
of reasons, some within the control of providers, some not. Staff costs
varied, depending on student-to-tutor ratios, tutor qualifications
(e.g., whether tutors were certified teachers or not), and local salary
scales. Some districts allowed providers to use school buildings free of
change, and others charged rent at various rates. Providers offering
services off-site also paid rent at various rates. Providers who offered
transportation home from tutoring incurred additional costs. District
policies for reimbursing providers based on student attendance also
affected the income generated by each "slot" for supplemental services,
and thus the number of hours of tutoring that could be provided to each
student.

In the case study sites, students often received supplemental services
for one marking period or one semester, but typically they did not stay
enrolled beyond that. As a result, providers who began services early
served two cohorts of students in one academic year.

***A few providers had more unusual service arrangements, or offered
their services in tandem with other after-school programming.*** In one
large urban district where kindergarten is only offered for a half-day,
a community-based provider was running a complementary afternoon
kindergarten program for 15 students at one school with funding from
supplemental services. The supplemental services allocation for these 15
students covered the salary of the tutor who ran the afternoon
kindergarten class for the entire school year. (The tutor was paid
outside the district's salary scale, and overhead at this
community-based organization was low.)

Some providers organized their programs so that they could be attended
in combination with other activities. One faith-based provider offered
after-school programming from 3-7 p.m. Tutoring supported by
supplemental services took place for one to two hours. In the time
remaining, students could participate in character education, leadership
development and drug prevention programs, music education, recreation,
service learning, and field trips. Another provider offered tutoring
services in tandem with several GEAR UP sites in one district. Children
attending these programs enjoyed snack and free time immediately after
school, received tutoring from supplemental service providers for an
hour, and spent another hour on GEAR UP activities, all at the same
site. Still another provider partnered with the local YWCA to offer
recreational activities along with tutoring. Finally, a faith-based
provider offered a half-hour non-denominational religious talk after
tutoring for students whose parents had agreed to allow them to
participate (no Title I or other federal funds were used to support this
activity, however).

***In 2003-04, tutoring was most often provided to students in small
groups, and tutor-to-student ratios ranged from 1:3 to 1:15.***
One-on-one tutoring was rare among the providers included in this study.
More than half the providers tutored children in small groups of 5 to 10
(see Table A-2). In a few cases, tutor-student ratios were as high as
1:15, and in others, two adults worked with groups as large as 24. In
these cases, according to teachers interviewed for the study, class
sizes in tutoring programs supported by supplemental services approached
or exceeded class sizes during the regular school day. With groups this
large, teachers used both whole-group instruction and individual
seatwork to keep students engaged for the entire tutoring session.

**Student Attendance**

***In 2003-04, student attendance continued to be a challenge,
especially among middle and high school students.*** Supplemental
services providers were responsible for tracking attendance and had
negotiated different agreements with districts about how and whether
they would be paid for no-shows. For example, some districts paid
providers per session, and only paid for the days that students actually
attended the program. Other districts paid providers per slot, and
considered that slot filled as long as students attended at least one of
every three days. Because providers tracked attendance in different ways
across the nine case study sites (according to the terms of their
agreements with districts), it was difficult to collect comparable
information about attendance rates across sites.

Providers in several districts reported that as programs became
established, attendance was higher and more predictable in 2003-04.
However, most respondents observed that lack of attendance was still a
problem. In one large urban district, one of the largest providers
estimated that attendance on any given day ranged from 60 to 95 percent
of students officially enrolled in services. In several middle schools
visited for the study, teachers and principals reported that half or
less of the students signed up for services attended on any given day.
Both school staff and providers reported that many students who signed
up for services never attended.

Teachers reported that attendance at after-school tutoring was a problem
even among students who had attended school during the day. They
observed that student attendance was often better when services were
provided in the school building. One teacher explained that the few
minutes at the end of the school day could be crucial:

> *It's a problem if supplemental services are not school-based, because
> there is lots in the neighborhood to deflect kids' attention. But when
> it takes place here and the bell rings at the end of the regular day,
> kids know where to go. If tutoring is outside the building, even if
> they provide transportation, if the bus isn't **right there** at the
> right minute, the kids are gone.*

***Several supplemental service providers offered incentives for
students to attend regularly, and others were considering the use of
incentives.*** For example, one middle school program offered students
who completed 80 hours of tutoring a \$75 retail gift card. Another
provider awarded students tokens for daily attendance that they could
then spend at the school store.

**Provider Curricula and Instructional Approaches**

***The content and structure of tutoring services varied across
providers within the same district, and across districts.*** According
to the U.S. Department of Education's non-regulatory guidance,
supplemental services must consist of academic assistance such as
"tutoring, remediation and other educational interventions, provided
that such approaches are consistent with the content and instruction
used by the local education agency and are aligned with the state's
academic content standards" (ED, Aug. 22, 2003, p. 1).

The content and structure of tutoring services varied widely, depending
on the provider and in some cases, on the individual tutor. Most
providers in the study sample offered services that focused on reading
instruction; however, the instructional approach in reading ranged from
detailed diagnosis and scripted lessons to more general help with
homework. Providers represented a range of philosophies and approaches
to the teaching of reading and math. Many students took diagnostic
assessments developed by the provider or built from state assessment
items. The results of those assessments then dictated the instructional
objectives to be covered in tutoring. Whole-group reading instruction
could include guided reading of authentic literature, group discussions,
and extension activities to help students develop oral fluency, build
vocabulary, and improve comprehension. Other providers focused on
developing phonics and decoding skills. Some providers offered
self-paced worksheet programs designed to strengthen mastery of basic
skills. Other providers did not use a prescribed curriculum, choosing
instead to work with students on class work or home work, organizational
strategies, taking notes in class, critical thinking skills, and test
preparation.

The following descriptions illustrate the range of approaches adopted by
supplemental service providers in the case study sample. The providers
highlighted below were chosen to represent the widest possible range of
approaches. Descriptions were excerpted from provider brochures.

-   **A national chain** focuses on time and accuracy in mathematics
    instruction. Students take a placement test to determine a baseline
    level and build skills from there. The instructional approach aims
    to build confidence, establish a daily study routine, strengthen
    mastery of basic skills, and develop students' ability to
    concentrate. To accomplish this, students complete worksheets to
    "learn by doing." Students see an example illustrating a concept.
    This is followed by a simple exercise closely modeled on the example
    so that students quickly gain confidence as they work with the new
    concept. Students work at their own pace, and if they make too many
    errors or take too long to complete a worksheet, they must repeat it
    until they have mastered the concepts.

-   **An in-home tutoring service** offers K-12 tutoring in almost all
    subject areas, although reading and math predominate with a focus on
    critical thinking skills. The provider does not use a prescribed
    curriculum; tutors work with students on the district curriculum and
    on their class work or homework. Because testing makes many students
    anxious, the provider also offers a test preparation program to
    provide students with practice on multiple-choice and reading
    comprehension questions. Tutors are trained to work with students to
    develop their skills in writing, reading comprehension, information
    retention, and note-taking. In addition, tutors are trained to help
    students learn about the various types of tests they may encounter,
    as well as how to use reference materials, the library, or the
    Internet to obtain information. Tutors also learned to use
    Scholastic texts to teach students critical thinking skills, which
    is a district priority.

-   **A large multistate provider** offers reading and math instruction
    to students in grades K-8. Instructors organize classrooms by grade
    level. Reading instruction includes a sequence of teacher readings
    of award-winning literature, group discussions, and creative
    extension activities to help students develop oral fluency, build
    vocabulary, develop comprehension, and maintain confidence. Students
    study math through sports, music, history, and personal experiences
    and hands-on activities to develop number sense, estimation
    techniques, and spatial sense. In addition, students learn how to
    collect and organize data and problem solve. A typical tutoring
    session might begin with what the provider refers to as "focus
    skills." Students tackle a practice test question modeled after a
    statewide test question. The instructor then identifies the correct
    answer and explains why this is the correct answer. Following "focus
    skills," students spend one hour on reading and language arts or
    mathematics. The last 30 minutes of each tutoring session consists
    of individualized instruction that focuses on each student's
    strengths and weaknesses, as defined by their pre-test assessment.

-   **A small local provider offers** students in grades K-8 one-on-one
    tutoring after school. Instruction focuses on reading, phonemic
    awareness, reading comprehension, written and oral expression, and
    spelling or mathematics. Although participants are not necessarily
    dyslexic, the provider uses strategies designed for dyslexic
    students. Licensed instructors receive training in a research-based,
    clinically proven approach called Orton-Gillingham. Staff design
    sessions to match the individual student's academic needs and
    learning style.

***The extent to which providers aligned their curriculum with state
standards was unclear.*** According to the law, provider services must
be aligned with state academic content standards. The providers
interviewed for the case studies maintained that their curriculum was
aligned with state standards; for their part, districts assumed that the
state's approval process ensured that tutoring services would be aligned
with state standards. When asked what types of evidence providers had to
demonstrate this alignment, some providers were unable to describe any.
Others reported that they had conducted alignment studies and had
purchased instructional materials to ensure that all state standards
were covered. Other providers explained that they used state assessment
results, or a diagnostic test based on the state assessment, to develop
tutoring plans for individual students.

Providers in at least three of the case study sites were using
diagnostic assessments based on the state tests to determine the content
of tutoring. In one district, for example, a state assessment score
report and a district progress report was placed in each child's file as
a source of tracking objectives for tutoring sessions. As one tutor
explained, "The \[district\] report is the basis of instruction."
(Providers in at least one other district complained that they could not
get access to state assessment scores for their students.) Another
provider used computer software with a built-in assessment to prescribe
tutoring for individual students and to track progress. The provider
explained, "If they don't score an 80 \[on the diagnostic assessment\],
they can't move on to the next lesson." Tutors reviewed the skills
students had missed and re-tested to see if the score has improved.

This focus on preparation for the state assessment is one way to draw
clear links between tutoring services and regular classroom instruction.
In one district, for example, a provider used state assessment program
practice booklets in math and reading as instructional materials during
tutoring. One middle school teacher who works as a tutor for this
provider saw a clear connection between supplemental services and her
own classroom teaching:

> *I am able to tie what the students are doing in tutoring right back
> into what I am doing in the classroom. For example, the key words we
> use in the \[tutoring\] book line up with the words we use in the
> classroom. The \[tutoring\] book covers the same type of instruction
> \[as I use in my class\]. It will help my students with the \[state
> assessment\], especially my students that have test anxiety. They can
> say to themselves, 'There is no reason to be nervous, I have done this
> already.'*

When asked about the alignment of provider curricula with state or
district standards, district administrators reported that they deferred
to the state's assessment of provider qualifications related to this
issue. That is, district administrators assumed that states assessed the
alignment of provider curricula with state standards as part of their
provider selection criteria.

***With some exceptions, providers typically did not attempt to
coordinate their instructional approaches with those being promoted by
the districts where they were offering services.*** In one district, one
provider had worked with district staff to build components of the
district's new literacy program into its tutoring services. This kind of
collaboration between districts and providers was rare, however.
District administrators in most of the sites we visited reported that
providers did not explicitly align their services with district
instructional approaches and improvement efforts. As one district
administrator explained, "They are doing the best they can to align to
state standards, but that is as far as most of the providers go." For
their part, district administrators had done little to assist providers
to coordinate their services. In general, teachers and principals
reported that they knew little about what tutors were doing after
school, and that they had had little opportunity to coordinate
instruction.

In one district, the superintendent argued that supplemental service
providers offered a valuable service by providing students with a
different approach to instruction: "We're obviously not getting the job
done in the schools. We should be doing everything we can to make sure
students have a chance to get something different in tutoring." In
several other districts, teachers and providers agreed that explicit
coordination is less important than whether tutoring provides students
with the requisite skills to help them succeed during the regular school
day. In one district, school staff explained that although there was no
direct connection between what students do in their regular curriculum
and tutoring services, the services support much of the work students do
at school. Teachers also agreed that the phonics work students were
doing with one provider overlapped with what they were doing in their
classroom. One teacher said, "There is definitely a link, and it
provides struggling readers a chance to catch up." A principal in
another district explained:

> *What I see providers doing and what I know is going on in classrooms
> is not a match. I do think it helps fill in some of the foundational
> gaps---yes, it does do that. I'm not sure it's keeping abreast of
> where they're trying to go. Maybe it has value in terms of shoring up
> the foundation---maybe it will help students move forward more
> rapidly.*

One provider took issue with the notion that supplemental services
needed either to be fully aligned with district curriculum or to
replicate what was happening in classrooms:

> *The district gives us standards and it's an unfair expectation that
> that in 30 to 50 hours \[we will\] teach the kids so that they \[meet
> these standards.\] That's not our job. Our job is to fill the gaps and
> find the weak areas and hone in on those skills. We work \[with the
> kids\] so that the kids can work harder during the school day. We're
> not a magic fix but just one piece of the puzzle.*

In at least two case study sites, the district's approach to teaching
reading differed from the approach used by providers in significant
ways. One district, for example, was using the Open Court reading
series, and school staff reported that providers' approach to literacy
instruction did not mesh well with the Open Court approach. An assistant
principal in this district reported:

\[The providers'\] thing is literacy and our teachers aren't too happy
about that because we have Open Court and the district works hard to be
sure we are implementing Open Court correctly and it doesn't match our
\[curriculum\].

In the other district, providers' focus on phonics and decoding skills
contrasted with the districts' emphasis on guided reading as the
centerpiece of its new literacy program.

Teachers in several other districts noted that some providers' reliance
on worksheets and traditional drills in both reading and mathematics
bore little resemblance to their own beliefs and teaching practices. For
example, one teacher commented:

> *We are moving toward being cutting edge instructionally\.... These
> teachers would teach algebra and trig using manipulatives because they
> know that is how kids learn best, especially these kids. The teachers
> are just appalled by \[the provider\]\.... If worksheets were the way
> to go, then these kids would have been scholars by now*.

###### Provider Staff

***The majority of providers interviewed for this study hire only
certified teachers to staff their programs, typically from the districts
where the provider was offering services.*** Fifteen of the 24 providers
included in the study reported that a teaching certificate was a
requirement for employment. A handful of providers had far less
stringent staff requirements. For example, one provider had hired
college students who were finishing teacher certification programs.

***About half of the providers interviewed for this study sought to hire
tutors and site coordinators directly from the staffs of the schools
where they provided services.*** Many providers went out of their way to
recruit these teachers as tutors. Providers, teachers, and parents
pointed out that teachers can be on-site immediately after the school
day ends (rather than traveling across town to a tutoring job); they
know the students and their parents; and they can strengthen the links
between supplemental services and the teaching that takes place during
the regular school day. Others had more mixed feelings, arguing, in the
words of one provider, that the use of teachers from the same school was
a "double-edged sword":

> *They know the ins and outs of the school. But I don't think the
> children receive a fair shake because teachers can't separate their
> biases and attitudes from the school day. One school used new, outside
> teachers, and we have seen a tremendous difference.*

***Training and supervision of tutors in 2003-04 was not intensive.***
Most of the providers interviewed reported that tutors received between
4 and 20 hours of training at the beginning of the school year, prior to
any students enrolling in the service. Tutors typically did not receive
follow-up support during the school year. Many tutors interviewed for
the study reported that some tutors skipped the initial tutor training.
One problem was that most tutoring jobs were part-time, amounting to
just a few hours a week. For that level of commitment, some tutors were
not willing to invest large numbers of unpaid (or even paid) hours in
training.

Two well-established, national providers reported that they check on
tutors regularly and conduct formal evaluations of their performance.
Other providers had no formal systems for supervising tutors.

**Communicating with Parents and Teachers on Student Progress**

***Many teachers in the case study sites reported that they did not know
which of their students were receiving supplemental services or from
whom.*** Providers negotiated agreements to serve students with
districts, but district administrators did not always pass on
information about which students were receiving services to schools. As
a result, many teachers only knew if their students were in tutoring if
those students received services in the school building. In addition,
few of the teachers interviewed for this study knew much, if anything,
about what their students were doing in after-school tutoring. Teachers
saw this lack of communication as a missed opportunity. They expressed
the desire to collaborate with tutors on addressing the needs of
particular students; some teachers also pointed out that they could help
to make sure that students attended after-school tutoring sessions.

***Provider communication with parents and teachers was sporadic or
informal and was seldom very effective.*** The supplemental service
providers in the study sample said that they sent regular progress
reports on students to districts as required under the terms of their
contracts, but most of the teachers and parents interviewed for this
study reported that they had not received any information about
students' progress. None of the teachers interviewed for this study
reported getting formal student progress reports from providers. In
cases where school staff also worked as tutors for supplemental service
providers, they kept classroom teachers informed through informal
conversations.

A handful of providers had more formal mechanisms for communicating with
regular classroom teachers. For example, one provider sent a three-page
checklist to each child's classroom teacher, asking the teacher to
identify students' strengths and weaknesses. In one school, supplemental
service providers attended school faculty meetings. Some of the teachers
and principals interviewed for the study said that they would have
appreciated more feedback from providers. One principal commented:

> *I have not gotten feedback from anyone; I thought I would get a
> report.... I would like to see what the baseline is---where did the
> kids start out based on their criteria for where students should be at
> any given point.... I'll ask the tutor how those kids are doing....
> but I would like it a bit more formal.*

Some providers in the study sample reported that they sent information
on student progress home to parents monthly or every six weeks. Few of
the parents interviewed for this study, however, recalled receiving
these reports. Instead, they relied on their face-to-face contact with
teachers at the school to stay abreast of their children's progress in
tutoring. Other providers reported that they preferred to communicate
informally with parents.

**Parents' Role in Supplemental Services**

Most parents of children receiving supplemental services were pleased
that this resource was available to their children and expected that the
additional help and personal attention promised by tutors would benefit
their children. Of the parents interviewed who had not signed their
children up for services, most had not done so because they did not know
about the option. Parents relied heavily on their children's teachers
and other school staff to choose among providers. Parents' assessments
of the effectiveness of services were mixed.

###### 

###### Context for Choosing Supplemental Services

Parents weighed their options regarding supplemental services in the
context of their judgments about their children's educational needs and
the option to transfer their child to another school under Title I.

***Most of the parents interviewed for the case studies expressed
confidence in their children's schools and teachers, despite schools'
continued Title I school improvement status.*** Parents expressed
satisfaction with schools and teachers that they felt were caring and
responsive to their children's needs. Parents praised their children's
teachers for the extra support and attention they said that they
provided to their children (for example, after-school tutoring), for
calling frequently to discuss their children's progress in school, and
for demonstrating care and concern. They also valued schools whose
office staff were calm, respectful, and welcoming to parents. Two
comments reflected the sentiments of parents across nearly all of the
schools visited for this study:

> *This is the best school my child has even been in. The staff
> supervise the kids. If I have a complaint, the teachers are right on
> it. Both of my children are doing well here.*
>
> *Every teacher he's had has been awesome. They've always been there to
> help, we've always been involved. All he has to do \[now\] is get his
> education. The teachers are always there to get questions answered.
> They are always there to help.*

In the small number of cases where parents were not happy with their
child's school, this sense of responsiveness and connection was missing.

Where parents were aware of the Title I school improvement status in
their children's school, they explained that this designation had little
impact on their assessment of the school. One group of parents pointed
out that school scores had been improving every year (just not enough to
make AYP). Another parent explained that she had little interest in
reviewing the school's report card:

> *My thing is, \[the staff who put together report cards\] have more
> than one student to deal with. I just go by my one. As long as he's
> getting what he needs, I don't care what whoever says about my
> school.*

***Most parents were aware of the public school choice options available
to them under Title I of NCLB, but few parents had seriously considered
transferring their child to another school.*** With prompting, most
parents interviewed for this study remembered a letter sent to them at
home at the beginning of the school year, informing them of the
opportunity to transfer their child to another school in the district.
Some parents did not know about their choice options, and parents in one
district thought that they would have had to drive their children to
school if they transferred.

When asked about moving, however, most parents expressed allegiance to
their current school and explained that they would not want their
children to transfer. Some parents wanted their children to attend
school nearby and in the community, and saw little benefit in sending
their children to another school farther away. Other parents were
reluctant to send their children to a school staffed by teachers they
didn't know. As one parent explained, "I like the teachers here. They
communicate with me, they wave. My kids are shy, they would shut down in
a new environment." Still others decided to stay in their current school
and try supplemental services. One parent explained:

> *I started calling because I knew they were supposed to offer transfer
> options when a school didn't make AYP. I couldn't get any answers from
> the superintendent. It took days for the district to call back. . . .
> However, with the new program, I thought I may as well give the new
> program a try.*

Several parents reported that they had investigated alternative schools
and had decided against them because they were too far away, in run-down
or poorly equipped buildings, or because they had a bad reputation among
parents.

**Parents' Criteria for Selecting Providers**

***In 2003-04, many parents reported that they had received enough
information to choose good providers for their children; nearly as many,
however, reported that they knew little or were confused about the
services available to them.*** By carefully studying the provider
brochures sent out by districts, some parents were well-informed about
the services offered by various providers. For these parents, choosing a
provider was fairly straightforward. As one parent described it:

> *The packet came home at the beginning of the year, and we had to
> choose two of them. I read over the package and picked a program. It
> had all the subjects he was having trouble in. It seemed to be a great
> program, and I wanted to try it out.*

Other parents reported that they had attended open houses where
providers had made presentations, or that they had spoken with providers
at their child's school. In several schools, providers had become a
regular and visible presence, attending back-to-school nights, PTA
meetings, and other school events, making presentations in classrooms,
and talking with parents. These face-to-face contacts were crucial
sources of information for some parents.

In at least four districts, however, many parents were confused about
the services available to them. Some parents interviewed had no memory
of receiving the district's letter and provider brochures, even when
they lived in districts that had sent out multiple mailings. Some
parents were not clear about the range of choices available; they did
not realize that they could have selected a provider other than the one
operating at the school, or they assumed that the two or three providers
most visible in the school were the only choices available. As one
parent commented, "You didn't know that there were 16 providers.... I
assumed that \[the largest provider at the school\] was the only
provider." Other parents didn't know how to proceed when the provider
they wanted for their child ended up not offering services, or there was
no transportation available. Finally, some parents were surprised to
discover that supplemental services were only available to students from
low-income families. Because some districts had sent letters to all
parents in schools required to offer services and advertised in the
local media, parents expected that supplemental services would be
available to every child who wanted them.

Some English language learners' parents did not fully understand how to
select supplemental services for their children. In one large district
with a majority of Latino parents, parents relied almost exclusively on
word-of-mouth and advice from teachers and other parents in making
decisions concerning the education of their children. While the Title I
site coordinator had interviewed and spoken with parents about
supplemental services, none of the teachers had.

***Parents paid careful attention to teacher and principal
recommendations in deciding to sign their child up for services and in
choosing a provider; teachers employed by supplemental service providers
played a key role in recruiting parents at their schools.*** In at least
two districts, schools where teachers and the principal were actively
involved in recruiting parents to sign up for services had much higher
participation rates than schools where teachers and the principal were
less active. In many schools, teachers who also worked for supplemental
service providers were a key point of contact for supplemental services
in those schools. Many parents reported that they had signed their
children up for a particular provider because a teacher who worked for
that provider had encouraged them to do so. For these parents, a major
draw was the fact that a teacher they knew and trusted was involved
providing services. One parent explained her reasoning as follows:

> *There were two or three different \[programs to choose from\], and
> this one seems like the better one. Ms. Smith \[a teacher who is also
> site coordinator for one supplemental services provider\] was one
> reason. \[My son\] has had her off and on since sixth grade. I could
> talk to her, ask questions. I liked the idea of her being there, as
> opposed to someone else.*

In other schools the principal or the Title I parent coordinator acted
as a gatekeeper, directing parents to one or two providers based on
their knowledge of the providers and of student needs. As one parent
explained: "\[My son\] has speech problems... \[the principal\] told me
where to put him.... I told her that was fine."

***In addition to teacher recommendations, the parents interviewed for
the case studies considered location, hours of operation, and
availability of transportation in selecting providers.*** Parents tended
to consider those providers offering services in their child's school
first; among the parents interviewed, almost none sent their children
off-site when given the choice to have their children attend tutoring at
the school. In at least one district, providers moved on-site because
they believed this would make their program more attractive to parents.
In a couple of districts, providers that offer services in students'
homes were also an attractive option for some parents. Parents reported
that the availability of transportation to and from the school was
critical in selecting a provider. Still other parents selected providers
that would keep their children until 6 p.m., when they could pick them
up after leaving work.

***Parents looked for providers who would keep their children
productively engaged after school, give them individualized attention,
and help them with their homework.*** In explaining why they had signed
their children up for services, parents said that they sought to keep
their children occupied and safe in the afternoon. These parents
explained that any "extra learning" would benefit their children.
Finally, parents explained that they hoped tutoring would give their
children the structure and extra attention lacking during the regular
school day and at home. Parents' comments on these themes included:

> *Tutoring is good for any kid because they get more attention. \[My
> daughter\] says teachers don't have time for her.... She needs extra
> help.*
>
> *Teachers are doing a yeoman's job, but this generation of kids is
> hard to work with. There's a lack of discipline, a lack of love, a
> lack of attention. Kids want that attention. They are not getting
> education from their parents, or getting someone to listen to them,
> getting attention. We need to encourage parents to put their children
> in the \[supplemental services\] program.*
>
> *They discipline the kids. Little boys need that extra discipline.
> They make him sit down, before he gets involved with other things....
> They make him do homework, they stay on top of kids to get homework
> done. They know what we have to deal with.*

Parents across districts also explained that the help children received
with their homework in after-school tutoring was an important feature of
these services. In one district, several of the providers added some
time for homework help to their daily routine in response to parent
demand. In another district, parents complained that some providers
focused only on helping students develop their academic skills, while
others also helped students with their homework.

Some parents selected providers based on the number of hours of service
they offered, the subjects they taught, and student-to-tutor ratios.
These parents typically had studied the brochure and provider
information mailed out by districts. Among the parents interviewed they
tended to be the exception, however.

***Parents who elected not to enroll their children in supplemental
services did so for many reasons.*** In many cases, parents found other
after-school options more accessible, more convenient, or more
appropriate for their child. Many parents thought that their children
were already getting enough extra help from the regular after-school
program or informal tutoring offered by classroom teachers. Several
parents had considered supplemental services but opted for other
programs instead. For example, one parent chose the after-school math
program at her daughter's school because it was already underway and
would last longer than supplemental services. Other parents opted for
their children to participate in sports, other recreational activities,
or church-based activities after school. Finally, one parent doubted
that supplemental service providers would address her son's special
needs:

> *My son is special education, other kids \[from the school\] are in
> the magnet program. How can they teach him the same as the magnet
> kids? It wouldn't make a difference, he would just start getting
> frustrated.... Another reason I didn't get back into it, they didn't
> say anything about his needs, they just said it was an after-school
> program.*

Several parents expressed concern about having their children stay in
the school building after hours or travel home late in the afternoon;
due to issues of safety, these parents had elected not to sign their
children up for services.

In still other cases, parents simply did not know enough about
supplemental services to enroll their child. These parents remembered
receiving a letter and a brochure but were unsure how to sign their
children up. A parent coordinator at one school, who had been calling
parents and urging them to sign up their children if they qualified for
supplemental services, reported that parents were confused by the
application and said that they didn't know enough about the providers to
choose among them. Other district and school staff noted that parents
facing a choice among many providers, like most consumers, were
sometimes overwhelmed by too many options.

Finally, some parents wanted to enroll their children in supplemental
services but had been told that their children were not eligible, either
because they were not eligible for free or reduced-price lunches or
because their children were too high-achieving (although all children
eligible for free or reduced-price lunches should have been offered
services).[^12] A group of parents whose children were not receiving
supplemental services at one high school complained about the lack of
support structures in place in the school for students who weren't
performing poorly but who still needed some extra assistance.

***For most parents, supplemental services were just one option among
many possible, and equally attractive, after-school activities.*** As
they had in 2002-03, the five districts included in the study sample in
both years of data collection continued to offer other local, state, and
federally funded after-school programs that operated in tandem with
supplemental services. In 2003, the study reported that many parents saw
no difference between supplemental services and other after-school
programs offered by their child's school. But in 2003-04, most parents
knew the names of the most active supplemental service providers and
most understood that their services were distinct from other
after-school programs operating at the school. In two districts, parents
could describe the differences between supplemental services and other
programs (e.g., differences in goals, daily routines, activities).

However, parents interviewed for this study still tended to regard
supplemental services as one possible option among many. Some parents
reported that they had signed their children up for supplemental
services as well as for other after-school and extracurricular programs.
Parents spoke highly of arrangements where students could receive
tutoring through supplemental services and participate in more
recreational after-school activities on the same day. For example, one
parent explained that her son each day had an hour of tutoring with a
supplemental services provider followed by an hour of track practice.
Other parents had children attending both GEAR UP and tutoring from
supplemental service providers on the same day. Still other parents were
eager to have their children participate in all kinds of programs. The
following comment was typical:

> *I have two kids in seventh and eighth grade. They are getting
> after-school services, but I don't remember what. I think I'm signed
> up for three or four things, I don't know. I think Tools of
> Empowerment is one of them.*

***In several districts, parents reported that they did not receive
their first choice of provider.*** In two districts, parents reported
that their children had been assigned to providers that they had not
requested. The reasons why children were switched were not clear to
parents. One parent explained:

> *I signed up for \[one provider\]. I never heard back from \[that
> provider\]. The choice was made for me; \[another provider\] was
> selected. It didn't matter to me. . . . I just wanted the tutoring.*

Administrators in these two districts explained that providers either
didn't show up to provide the services or did not have a high enough
demand to justify offering the services. In two other districts,
providers closed down or withdrew from a school, and parents were asked
by the district to select other providers.

**Parent Satisfaction with Provider Services**

Parents whose children had been receiving services for some time had
somewhat mixed reactions. Some were satisfied with the services and
credited them for improvements in their children's performance; others
reported that the services had provided little benefit.

***The parents interviewed reported that they had received little
information from providers about their children's activities or progress
in supplemental services.*** With few exceptions, the parents
interviewed reported that they had received no written reports and no
other information back from providers about work completed during
tutoring sessions or student progress. Several parents reported that
they relied on their child's teachers to keep them informed. Others said
they had no idea what their child was doing after school.

***Nevertheless, many of the parents interviewed reported that they were
satisfied with the services their children had received and believed
that after-school tutoring had helped their children.*** Across
districts, parents provided numerous examples of the ways that their
children had benefited from supplemental services. Some parents noted
that their children's grades had improved. Others pointed to improved
math or reading skills. Still other parents credited tutors with
improving their children's attitudes toward school. Typical comments
included the following, from five satisfied parents in five different
interviews:

> *My son came to this school at the end of last year and he was behind.
> His teacher always tells me what he needs help with. So going to
> tutoring helped him. He doesn't count with his fingers anymore. He
> slows down and pays attention more. I can tell when I see his work.*
>
> *In math he's made great progress now that he's coming home and doing
> homework. He's doing much better and is eager to do math worksheets.*
>
> *Before, when he started he didn't know how to read. Right now he is
> reading better. Even in the one month. Between this and working with
> him at home he is improving.*
>
> *I don't always have time for attention about homework. He gets his
> homework done, it tires him out. I don't have to worry about a lot of
> different things. He's keeping his grades up, it helps him open up
> more.*
>
> *I don't have to drag my kids to school anymore.*

Several high school parents in one district appreciated the fact that
their children had earned high school credit for participation that
would allow their children to graduate on time.

***Other parents reported that they observed little benefit from the
services.*** Some parents reported that they were disappointed with the
services and saw no improvement in their children's reading and math
skills. Others questioned whether a few extra hours of tutoring each
week could really be expected to make a difference for their children. A
few parents objected to the instructional approach of the providers they
had selected. Comments from these parents included:

> *Two hours per week is not enough for these kids. They need more
> attention. \[It\] is too soon to make a decision \[about whether the
> program\] is good or if I like it or don't like it for our kids.*
>
> *I don't see any improvement---she still counts on her fingers in the
> fifth grade.... Her reading is still not what it should be. . . .
> There's no way she could read a Harry Potter book.*
>
> *To me, it's like he's working on his own when he's there. He goes in
> and does his worksheet and times himself. Then they want me to check
> his work---but sometimes I don't have time to do all that and fill out
> the form. Why do I have to go over his work and record his
> grades---what are they being paid for?*
>
> *I thought kids would get help in tutoring with homework. But they are
> doing something completely different and have to come home and then do
> homework.*

***As in 2002-03, parents in some districts complained about the length
of time between making a selection and receiving services.*** In the
2002-03 study sample, some parents reported that the amount of time that
elapsed between the services being offered to them and services being
provided was too long. A year later, a number of parents interviewed in
the study sample had the same complaint. In several districts, parents
returned their initial interest form in September or early October, but
services for children did not start until November or December. Several
parents complained about the time lag, noting that it was easy to lose
track of what providers they had signed up for and when they were
supposed to be meeting. In one district, services did not start until
March.[^13]^0^ By contrast, parents in another district were pleased
that services were up and running so much earlier in 2003-04. One parent
noted with satisfaction, "As soon as we got the form \[from the provider
we selected\], we sent it back and the tutoring started right away."

**Conclusions**

After nearly two full years, there were signs that the case study
states, districts, schools, and providers had overcome some of the
initial trials associated with getting a new set of services up and
running. There was ample evidence that the states, districts, and
providers had learned from their experience: some of the challenges
faced with respect to identifying providers, identifying eligible
students, and notifying parents were not as serious for districts
included in the study sample in 2003-04, compared with the set of
districts in the sample in 2002-03. Nevertheless, challenges remained.
The following highlights the progress states, districts, schools, and
providers made in implementing supplemental services in 2003-04 as well
as some of the challenges they confronted.

**Implementation Progress**

By 2003-04, the states in the case study sample had established routines
for reviewing applications and had succeeded in getting lists of
providers out to districts sooner in the school year. With each round of
applications, new entities expressed interest in becoming providers, and
the list of choices continued to expand, both statewide and within
districts. States continued to work on developing systems for monitoring
provider performance, although efforts were still limited.

District responsibilities for implementing the supplemental services
provisions of NCLB continued to challenge district administrators in the
case study sites, but many had developed systems and methods for
streamlining operations and procedures so as to simplify their work and
to provide supplemental services to families sooner. Among the more
significant developments for these districts was the deliberate and
ordered inclusion of schools in the work of implementing, coordinating,
and monitoring supplemental services.

Sampled providers learned that there were significant advantages to
offering supplemental services in schools, and to using, where possible,
teachers from the same school building as tutors. Providers in some
districts were beginning to make connections with parents and earn the
recognition and respect of local communities. Better-established
providers were beginning to explore strategies for improving attendance
rates.

Supplemental services provided in the nine case study sites suggest a
basic format that applied in most cases, although there were exceptions.
Tutors generally worked with students in small groups. Providers offered
tutoring immediately after school, two to three times a week, for
sessions lasting one to two hours. The total number of hours each
student received ranged widely, from a low of 18 to a high of 120.
However, most students tended to "cycle out" of supplemental services
after 10-20 weeks.

In 2003-04, many of the parents interviewed for the study reported that
they had received helpful information about the services available to
them, especially from teachers and face-to-face contacts with providers.
Many of the parents interviewed reported that they were pleased with the
services their children had received, and believed that their children
had benefited from the tutoring provided.

**Implementation Challenges**

Despite incremental progress, significant challenges remain to the
successful implementation of the supplemental services provisions of
NCLB in the case study sites. As states, districts, schools, and
providers move forward, the following issues remain, and suggest areas
in which support and guidance are needed:

-   **Increasing participation rates:** Some districts had undertaken
    extensive and imaginative efforts to enroll students in supplemental
    services, with only moderate increases in participation rates to
    show for it. Districts likely will need to step up their outreach
    efforts as well as develop more effective ways to communicate with
    parents about services if they are to reach higher participation
    rates. Outreach should become easier for districts as providers
    become established in the communities they are trying to serve and
    as they develop a positive reputation with parents. Allowing
    providers to use school facilities appears to help to boost
    participation, as many parents prefer their children to attend
    tutoring at their schools.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Evaluating provider performance:** Monitoring and evaluation of
    providers continued to be a challenge. State administrators wondered
    what criteria they should use to evaluate provider performance, and
    were searching for some useful benchmarks for assessing provider
    quality and impact. Both states and districts reported that they
    would appreciate guidance or examples of key indicators of quality.

-   **Improving communication with parents:** Districts had clearly
    improved the quality of their communications with parents in
    2003-04, with letters home that were much more family-friendly, as
    well as the quantity and variety of their efforts to communicate
    with parents. Even so, many parents in focus group interviews had
    only a vague idea about what might be available to them.
    Communicating effectively with parents is an art, and districts need
    to continue to refine their outreach efforts. This is an area where
    districts pay close attention to ideas and examples from other
    districts and where identification and circulation of good models
    could be beneficial.

    -   **Managing administrative costs:** Most district administrators
        continued to express concern about the costs of implementing
        supplemental services. Significant costs were associated with
        the mailings to schools and parents, working with the providers,
        and writing provider contracts.

    -   **Payment to providers when student attendance is uneven:**
        Attendance in after-school programs is always uneven. Both
        districts and providers struggled with determining who should
        bear the risk when students do not attend tutoring regularly.
        Both districts and providers noted the need for district payment
        policies that ensure providers are paid fairly and predictably,
        while at the same time ensuring that providers are not paid for
        students who do not receive tutoring. Districts in the case
        study sample had developed a variety of policies for dealing
        with attendance in payment to providers; this is an area where
        they could benefit from some guidance from the states and the
        U.S. Department of Education.

Appendix

Exhibit A-1

Characteristics of All District Supplemental Service Providers, 2003-04

+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| # Type      | # C      | # Num    | # N  | **Tutoring  | **Service |
| of Provider | ost of S | ber of C | umbe | Format      | Capacity  |
|             | ervices  | ontact H | r of | (small      | (How many |
|             | per Cont | ours Per |  Stu | group,      | students  |
|             | act Hour |  Student | dent | indi        | can       |
|             |          |          | s Se | vidualized, | provider  |
|             |          |          | rved | etc.)**     | serve?)** |
+=============+==========+==========+======+=============+===========+
| **District: |          |          |      |             |           |
| Brooktown   |          |          |      |             |           |
| School      |          |          |      |             |           |
| District**  |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$22     | 43-45    | 14   | Small group | 17        |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (national)  |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$32     | 30       | 1    | Ind         | 1         |
| private     |          |          |      | ividualized |           |
| (national)  |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$12     | 100      | 295  | Small group | 289       |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (national)  |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$20     | 30-40    | 14   | Small group | 18        |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (national)  |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$30     | 34       | 841  | Small group | 1,016     |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (national)  |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$40     | 24-25    | 85   | Ind         | 101       |
| private     |          |          |      | ividualized |           |
| (           |          |          |      |             |           |
| multistate) |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$15     | 48-60    | 3    | Small group | 10        |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (local)     |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$40     | 25       | 21   | Small group | 21        |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (local)     |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \        | 24-60    | 28   | Ind         | 32        |
| private     | $250/mo. |          |      | ividualized |           |
| (local)     |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$11     | 57       | 123  | Small group | 140       |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (local)     |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$ 5     | 150      | 9    | Small group | 16        |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (local)     |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$22     | 45       | 30   | Small group | 30        |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (           |          |          |      |             |           |
| foundation) |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| School      | \$15     | 32 or 64 | 290  | Small group | 398       |
| district    |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Faith-based | \$26     | 18       | 23   | Ind         | 28        |
|             |          |          |      | ividualized |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| **District: |          |          |      |             |           |
| Plainfield  |          |          |      |             |           |
| School      |          |          |      |             |           |
| District**  |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$31     | 38.6     | 41   | Small group | 300       |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (national)  |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$20     | 59       | 12   | Small group | 100       |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (           |          |          |      |             |           |
| multistate) |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$ 5     | 256      | 26   | Small group | 100       |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (local)     |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$10     | 120      | 26   | Small group | 100       |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (local)     |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| School      | \$ 7     | 162      | 100  | Small group | n/a       |
| district    |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| **District: |          |          |      |             |           |
| Oakwood     |          |          |      |             |           |
| School      |          |          |      |             |           |
| District**  |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$20     | 96       | 5    | Online,     | 2,000     |
| private     |          |          |      | Web-based   |           |
| (national)  |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$35     | 56       | 386  | Indi        | Limitless |
| private     |          |          |      | vidualized; |           |
| (national)  |          |          |      | small group |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$25     | 80       | 250  | Large group | Limitless |
| private     |          | (        |      |             |           |
| (           |          | recently |      |             |           |
| multistate) |          | added 40 |      |             |           |
|             |          | hours of |      |             |           |
|             |          | inst     |      |             |           |
|             |          | ruction) |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$27     | 72       | 20   | All         | 500       |
| private     |          |          |      |             |           |
| (local)     |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$16     | 120      | 285  | Ind         | Limitless |
| private     |          |          |      | ividualized |           |
| (local)     |          |          |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$ 9     | 204      | 53   | Indi        | ¼ of      |
| private     |          |          |      | vidualized; | eligible  |
| (local)     |          |          |      | small group | students  |
+-------------+----------+----------+------+-------------+-----------+

+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| **District: |          |           |      |             |           |
| Sunnydale   |          |           |      |             |           |
| School      |          |           |      |             |           |
| District**  |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$15     | 68        | >    | > Small     | 500       |
| private     |          |           |  291 | > group     |           |
| (national)  |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$35     | 30        | > 91 | > Small     | 200+      |
| private     |          |           |      | > group     |           |
| (national)  |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$30     | 40        | >    | > Small     | 300       |
| private     |          |           |  110 | > group     |           |
| (national)  |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$30     | 40        | >    | > Small     | 1,026     |
| private     |          |           |  922 | > group     |           |
| (national)  |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$31     | 39        | > 51 | > Small     | 103       |
| private     |          |           |      | > group     |           |
| (local)     |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$18     | 66        | >    | > Small     | > 500     |
| private     |          |           |  479 | > group     |           |
| (local)     |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$20     | 60        | > 79 | > Small     | > 80      |
| private     |          |           |      | > group     |           |
| (local)     |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$40     | 30        | >    | > Small     | > 220     |
| private     |          |           |  186 | > group     |           |
| (local)     |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| School      | \$12     | 86        | >    | > Small     | > 415     |
| district    |          |           |  155 | > group     |           |
| (local)     |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$17     | 70        | >    | > Small     | > 600     |
| private     |          |           |  436 | > group     |           |
| (local)     |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| **District: |          |           |      |             |           |
| Springvale  |          |           |      |             |           |
| School      |          |           |      |             |           |
| District**  |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$35     | 30        | 0    |             | 150       |
| private     |          |           |      |             |           |
| (national)  |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$14     | 100       | 149  | Large group | 145       |
| private     |          |           |      |             |           |
| (           |          |           |      |             |           |
| multistate) |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$14     | 100       | 149  | Large group | 145       |
| private     |          |           |      |             |           |
| (           |          |           |      |             |           |
| multistate) |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$41     | 40        | 124  | Small group | 400       |
| private     |          |           |      |             |           |
| (multisite  |          |           |      |             |           |
| within      |          |           |      |             |           |
| state)      |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$15     | 88        | 0    | Online      | 150       |
| private     |          |           |      |             |           |
| (multisite  |          |           |      |             |           |
| within      |          |           |      |             |           |
| state)      |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$48     | 30        | 5    | Ind         | 50        |
| private     |          |           |      | ividualized |           |
| (local)     |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$50     | 28        | 0    | Virtual     | 75        |
| private     |          |           |      | tutoring    |           |
| (local)     |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$20     | 70        | 0    | Online      | 150       |
| private     |          |           |      |             |           |
| (local)     |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$40     | 35        | 0    |             | 150       |
| private     |          |           |      |             |           |
| (local)     |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$11     | 557       | 0    | K           | 50        |
| private     |          |           |      | indergarten |           |
| (local)     |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$28     | 38        | 20   | Small group | 75        |
| private     |          |           |      |             |           |
| (local)     |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Other       | \$33     | 42        | 0    |             | 150       |
| private     |          |           |      |             |           |
| (local)     |          |           |      |             |           |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+
| Faith-based | \$50     | 28        | 37   | Small group | 250       |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------+-------------+-----------+

  -------------- ---------------------- ----------- ------- -------------------------- ------------
  **District:                                                                          
  Emory Public                                                                         
  Schools**                                                                            

  Other private  \$35                   30 hours    60      Small group                Unknown
  (national)                                                                           

  Other private  Charge \$1,520/                    0       Small group                Unknown
  (national)     student/year                                                          

  Other private  \$1,520/student/year   36          18      Individualized             Unknown
  (national)                                                instruction, max 3:1       

  Other private  \$10-\$13 per session, Up to 69    6       Individualized             Unknown
  (national)     \$20-\$25 per week     hours                                          

  Other private  \$50                   30 hours    11      Online                     Unknown
  (multisite                                                                           
  within state)                                                                        

  Other private  1 to 1 (\$40/hr.) 4 to Average of  25      Individualized /small      Unknown
  (multistate)   1 (\$25/hr.)           30-35 hours         group                      

  Other private  \$20                   Up to 76    0       Online                     Unknown
  (multistate)                          hours                                          

  Other private  \$25                   53 hours    8       Small group                Unknown
  (local)                                                                              

  Other private  \$30                   Up to 51    0       Primarily                  Unknown
  (local)                               hours               individualized---maximum   
                                                            of 3 for group activities  

  Other private  \$22                   Up to 65    17      Online                     Unknown
  (local)                               hours                                          

  Other private  \$60                   Up to 25    1       Individualized             Unknown
  (local)                               hours                                          

  Other private  \$14                   Up to 109   7       Individualized, workshops  Unknown
  (local)                               hours               and small groups of 3:1    

  **District:                                                                          
  Redding School                                                                       
  District**                                                                           

  Other private  \$48                   25          155     Individualized             300+
  (national)                                                                           

  Other private  \$57                   24-34       45      Small group                250
  (multisite                                                                           
  within state)                                                                        

  Other private  \$40                   34          66      Small group and            Unknown
  (local)                                                   independent work           

  Other private  \$34                   40          70      Small group                Unknown
  (local)                                                                              

  Other private  \$47                   28          74      Individualized             Unknown
  (local)                                                                              

  **District:                                                                          
  Trainville                                                                           
  School                                                                               
  District**                                                                           

  Other private  \$44                   30          210     Small group                Unknown
  (national)                                                                           

  Other private  \$44                   30          55      Small group                100
  (national)                                                                           

  Other private  \$44                   30          80      Small group                Up to 1000
  (multisite                                                                           
  within state)                                                                        

  Other private  \$12                   115         150     Small group and            150
  (local)                                                   individualized             

  Other private  \$44                   30          80      Small group                1,000
  (local)                                                                              
  -------------- ---------------------- ----------- ------- -------------------------- ------------

  -------------- ----------- ----------- ------- ---------------- ------------
  **District:                                                     
  Longwood                                                        
  Public                                                          
  Schools**                                                       

  Other private  \$40        30          104     Individualized   100
  (national)                                     tutoring         

  Other private  \$40        30          1,300   Small group and  Unlimited
  (local)                                        individualized   
                                                 tutoring         

  Other private  \$40        30          528     Individualized   1,500
  (local)                                        tutoring         

  School         \$40        30          9,000   Small group      Unlimited
  district                                                        

  Faith-based    \$40        30          900     Small group and  3,000
                                                 individualized   
                                                 tutoring         
  -------------- ----------- ----------- ------- ---------------- ------------

> Exhibit A-2

Characteristics of Sampled Supplemental Service Providers, 2003-04

+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| # P     | **Lo | # Tr | #   | #   | ** | * | *    | **Staffing** |
| rovider | cati | ansp |  To | Fre | Tu | * | *Con |              |
|         | on** | orta | tal | que | to | S | tent |              |
|         |      | tion |  Nu | ncy | ri | t | and  |              |
|         |      |      | mbe |  of | ng | u | Gr   |              |
|         |      |      | r o |  Se | Fo | d | ades |              |
|         |      |      | f C | rvi | rm | e | Serv |              |
|         |      |      | ont | ces | at | n | ed** |              |
|         |      |      | act |     | ** | t |      |              |
|         |      |      |  Ho |     |    | : |      |              |
|         |      |      | urs |     |    | * |      |              |
|         |      |      |  Pe |     |    | * |      |              |
|         |      |      | r S |     |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      | tud |     |    | * |      |              |
|         |      |      | ent |     |    | * |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | T |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | u |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | t |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | o |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | r |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | R |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | a |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | t |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | i |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | o |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | * |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | * |      |              |
+=========+======+======+=====+=====+====+===+======+==============+
| **Di    |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| strict: |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Br      |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| ooktown |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| School  |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Dis     |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| trict** |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | No   | 32  | 1   | S  | 1 | M    | State        |
| rovider | iple |      | or  | h   | ma | 2 | ath, | certified    |
| A       | sch  |      | 64  | our | ll | : | rea  | teachers     |
| (school | ools |      |     | 30  | g  | 1 | ding | only,        |
| di      |      |      |     | mi  | ro |   |      | recruited    |
| strict) |      |      |     | nut | up |   |      | from         |
|         |      |      |     | es; |    |   |      | no           |
|         |      |      |     | 2   |    |   |      | n-identified |
|         |      |      |     | ti  |    |   |      | schools      |
|         |      |      |     | mes |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | a   |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | w   |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | No   | 34  | 1   | S  | 6 | Rea  | State        |
| rovider | iple |      |     | ho  | ma | : | ding | certified    |
| B       | sch  |      |     | ur; | ll | 1 |      | teachers     |
| (na     | ools |      |     | 2   | g  |   |      | only,        |
| tional) |      |      |     | ti  | ro |   |      | recruited    |
|         |      |      |     | mes | up |   |      | from schools |
|         |      |      |     | per |    |   |      | where        |
|         |      |      |     | w   |    |   |      | providers    |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   |      | operate      |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Off- | Yes  | 18  | 1   | In | 1 | Home | No           |
| rovider | site |      |     | ho  | di | : | work | requirements |
| C       |      |      |     | ur; | vi | 1 | help |              |
| (faith  |      |      |     | 1   | du |   |      |              |
| -based) |      |      |     | t   | al |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | ime |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | per |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | w   |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| **Di    |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| strict: |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Pla     |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| infield |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| School  |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Dis     |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| trict** |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | One  | No   | 3   | 1   | S  | U | M    | Certified    |
| rovider | sc   |      | 8.6 | ho  | ma | p | ath, | teachers     |
| A       | hool |      |     | ur; | ll | t | K-4  | from other   |
| (na     |      |      |     | 2   | g  | o |      | schools in   |
| tional) |      |      |     | ti  | ro | 1 |      | the district |
|         |      |      |     | mes | up | 0 |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | per |    | : |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | w   |    | 1 |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | In   | No   | 59  |     | S  | 4 | Gu   | Certified    |
| rovider | home |      |     |     | ma | : | ided | teachers     |
| B       | or   |      |     |     | ll | 1 | read | from other   |
| (multi  | loca |      |     |     | g  |   | ing, | schools in   |
| -state) | tion |      |     |     | ro |   | K-5  | the district |
|         | in   |      |     |     | up |   |      |              |
|         | c    |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
|         | ommu |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
|         | nity |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
|         | (    |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
|         | e.g. |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
|         | libr |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
|         | ary) |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | One  | No   | 162 | 1.5 | S  | 5 | Gu   |              |
| rovider | sc   |      |     | hou | ma | - | ided |              |
| C       | hool |      |     | rs; | ll | 1 | read |              |
| (school |      |      |     | 3   | g  | 0 | ing, |              |
| di      |      |      |     | ti  | ro | : | K-4  |              |
| strict) |      |      |     | mes | up | 1 |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | per |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | w   |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| **Di    |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| strict: |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Oakwood |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| School  |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Dis     |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| trict** |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | Yes  | 120 | 2   | L  | 1 | Test | State        |
| rovider | iple |      |     | hou | ar | 5 | prep | certified    |
| A       | sch  |      |     | rs; | ge | : | arat | teachers     |
| (na     | ools |      |     | 4   | g  | 1 | ion, | only         |
| tional) |      |      |     | ti  | ro |   | read |              |
|         |      |      |     | mes | up |   | ing/ |              |
|         |      |      |     | per |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | w   |    |   | lang |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   | uage |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | a    |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | rts, |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | home |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | work |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | h    |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | elp; |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | K-8  |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Off- | Yes  | 120 | 2   | In | 3 | Math | State        |
| rovider | site |      |     | hou | di | : | emat | certified    |
| B       |      |      |     | rs; | vi | 1 | ics, | teachers     |
| (local) |      |      |     | 3   | du |   | read | only         |
|         |      |      |     | ti  | al |   | ing; |              |
|         |      |      |     | mes | t  |   | gr   |              |
|         |      |      |     | per | ut |   | ades |              |
|         |      |      |     | w   | or |   | K-12 |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek | in |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | g, |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | co |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | mp |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | ut |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | er |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | so |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | ft |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | wa |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | re |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Off- | Yes  | 56  | 1-2 | In | 8 | Math | State        |
| rovider | site |      |     | hou | di | : | emat | certified    |
| C       |      |      |     | rs; | vi | 1 | ics, | teachers     |
| (na     |      |      |     | 4   | du |   | read | only,        |
| tional) |      |      |     | ti  | al |   | ing, | recruited    |
|         |      |      |     | mes | t  |   | recr | from the     |
|         |      |      |     | per | ut |   | eati | school where |
|         |      |      |     | w   | or |   | onal | the provider |
|         |      |      |     | eek | in |   | act  | operates     |
|         |      |      |     |     | g, |   | ivit |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | s  |   | ies; |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | ma |   | gr   |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | ll |   | ades |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | g  |   | K-12 |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | ro |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | up |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| **Di    |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| strict: |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Su      |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| nnydale |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| School  |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Dis     |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| trict** |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | One  | No   | 66  | >   | >  | > | >    | > Certified  |
| rovider | sch  |      |     | 1.5 |  S |   | Read | > teachers   |
| A       | ool, |      |     | >   | ma | 1 | ing, | > from the   |
| (local) | ser  |      |     | hou | ll | 0 | >    | > school     |
|         | ving |      |     | rs; | >  | : | math | > where      |
|         | stud |      |     | > 2 |  g | 1 | > in | > provider   |
|         | ents |      |     | >   | ro |   | > gr | > operates   |
|         | from |      |     |  ti | up |   | ades |              |
|         | o    |      |     | mes |    |   | >    |              |
|         | ther |      |     | >   |    |   | 1-12 |              |
|         | sch  |      |     | per |    |   |      |              |
|         | ools |      |     | > w |    |   |      |              |
|         | as   |      |     | eek |    |   |      |              |
|         | well |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | One  | No   | 68  | > 2 | >  | > | >    | > Certified  |
| rovider | sch  |      |     | >   |  S |   | Read | > teachers   |
| B       | ool, |      |     | hou | ma | 1 | ing, | > from the   |
| (na     | ser  |      |     | rs; | ll | 5 | >    | > school     |
| tional) | ving |      |     | > 3 | >  | : | math | > where      |
|         | stud |      |     | >   |  g | 1 | > in | > provider   |
|         | ents |      |     |  ti | ro |   | > gr | > operates   |
|         | from |      |     | mes | up |   | ades |              |
|         | o    |      |     | >   |    |   | >    |              |
|         | ther |      |     | per |    |   |  2-6 |              |
|         | sch  |      |     | > w |    |   |      |              |
|         | ools |      |     | eek |    |   |      |              |
|         | as   |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
|         | well |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | One  | No   | 86  | >   | >  | > | >    | > Certified  |
| rovider | sch  |      |     | 1.5 |  S |   | Read | > teachers   |
| C       | ool, |      |     | >   | ma | 6 | ing, | > from the   |
| (local) | ser  |      |     | hou | ll | : | >    | > school     |
|         | ving |      |     | rs; | >  | 1 | math | > where      |
|         | stud |      |     | > 2 |  g |   | > in | > provider   |
|         | ents |      |     | >   | ro |   | > gr | > operates   |
|         | from |      |     |  ti | up |   | ades |              |
|         | o    |      |     | mes |    |   | >    |              |
|         | ther |      |     | >   |    |   |  1-6 |              |
|         | sch  |      |     | per |    |   |      |              |
|         | ools |      |     | > w |    |   |      |              |
|         | as   |      |     | eek |    |   |      |              |
|         | well |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| **Di    |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| strict: |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Spr     |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| ingvale |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| School  |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Dis     |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| trict** |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Off- | Yes  | 28  | 1-2 | S  | 1 | Engl | Current or   |
| rovider | site |      |     | hou | ma | 0 | ish, | former       |
| A       |      |      |     | rs; | ll | : | read | teachers     |
| (local) |      |      |     | 4   | g  | 2 | ing, | from the     |
|         |      |      |     | ti  | ro |   | m    | school       |
|         |      |      |     | mes | up |   | ath, | system       |
|         |      |      |     | per |    |   | K-8  |              |
|         |      |      |     | w   |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | Yes  | 100 | 1   | L  | 1 | Rea  | State        |
| rovider | iple |      |     | h   | ar | 5 | ding | certified    |
| B       | sch  |      |     | our | ge | : | and  | teachers     |
| (na     | ools |      |     | 45  | g  | 1 | m    | only,        |
| tional) |      |      |     | mi  | ro |   | ath, | recruited    |
|         |      |      |     | nut | up |   | K-8  | from the     |
|         |      |      |     | es; |    |   |      | schools      |
|         |      |      |     | 4   |    |   |      | where the    |
|         |      |      |     | ti  |    |   |      | provider     |
|         |      |      |     | mes |    |   |      | operates     |
|         |      |      |     | per |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | w   |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | No   | 40  | 1   | S  | 8 | Read | Typically    |
| rovider | iple |      |     | h   | ma | - | ing, | certified    |
| C       | sch  |      |     | our | ll | 1 | writ | teachers,    |
| (mu     | ools |      |     | 30  | g  | 0 | ing, | recruited    |
| ltisite |      |      |     | mi  | ro | : | m    | from the     |
| within  |      |      |     | nut | up | 1 | ath, | schools      |
| state)  |      |      |     | es; |    |   | s    | where the    |
|         |      |      |     | 3   |    |   | tudy | provider     |
|         |      |      |     | ti  |    |   | ski  | operates     |
|         |      |      |     | mes |    |   | lls\ |              |
|         |      |      |     | per |    |   | K-8  |              |
|         |      |      |     | w   |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| **Di    |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| strict: |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Emory   |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Public  |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Sc      |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| hools** |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | In-  | Yes, | Var | 1-3 | In | 4 | Home | Certified    |
| rovider | home | b    | ies | ho  | di | : | work | teachers     |
| A       | or   | egin | per | urs | vi | 1 | h    | only         |
| (multi  | c    | ning | st  | per | du |   | elp, |              |
| -state) | ommu | 3/04 | ude | w   | al |   | m    |              |
|         | nity |      | nt; | eek | /s |   | ath, |              |
|         | loca |      | up  |     | ma |   | read |              |
|         | tion |      | to  |     | ll |   | ing- |              |
|         | (e   |      | 59  |     | g  |   | --in |              |
|         | .g., |      | hou |     | ro |   | divi |              |
|         | libr |      | rs, |     | up |   | dual |              |
|         | ary) |      | on  |     |    |   | ized |              |
|         |      |      | av  |     |    |   | b    |              |
|         |      |      | era |     |    |   | ased |              |
|         |      |      | ge, |     |    |   | on   |              |
|         |      |      | 30  |     |    |   | s    |              |
|         |      |      | -35 |     |    |   | tude |              |
|         |      |      | ho  |     |    |   | nt's |              |
|         |      |      | urs |     |    |   | ne   |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | eds, |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | gr   |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | ades |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | 1-8  |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | Yes, | 30  | 2   | S  | 4 | Rea  | College      |
| rovider | iple | b    | ho  | hou | ma | : | ding | graduates    |
| B       | sch  | egin | urs | rs; | ll | 1 | and  |              |
| (na     | ools | ning |     | 1   | gr |   | M    |              |
| tional) |      | 3/04 |     | t   | ou |   | ath, |              |
|         |      |      |     | ime | ps |   | gr   |              |
|         |      |      |     | per |    |   | ades |              |
|         |      |      |     | w   |    |   | 1-8  |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Off- | Yes, | Up  | ½   | I  | T | Math | Middle/high  |
| rovider | site | b    | to  | ho  | nd | u | and  | schools      |
| C       |      | egin |     | ur; | ep | t | rea  | students and |
| (na     |      | ning | 69  | 2   | en | o | ding | college      |
| tional) |      | 3/04 | ho  | ti  | de | r | co   | graduates;   |
|         |      |      | urs | mes | nt | s | mpre | certified    |
|         |      |      |     | per | wo | a | hens | Kumon        |
|         |      |      |     | w   | rk | v | ion, | instructors  |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    | a | gr   |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | i | ades |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | l | 1-8  |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | a |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | b |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | l |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | e |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | i |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | f |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | s |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | t |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | u |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | d |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | e |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | n |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | t |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | s |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | n |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | e |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | e |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | d |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | a |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | s |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | s |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | i |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | s |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | t |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | a |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | n |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | c |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | e |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| **Di    |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| strict: |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Tra     |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| inville |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| School  |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Dis     |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| trict** |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | No   | 30  | 1.5 | S  | 6 | Math | Certified    |
| rovider | iple |      |     | hou | ma | : | for  | teachers     |
| A       | sch  |      |     | rs; | ll | 1 | gr   | only         |
| (na     | ools |      |     | 2   | g  | ( | ades |              |
| tional) |      |      |     | ti  | ro | b | 1-6  |              |
|         |      |      |     | mes | up | u |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | a   |    | t |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | w   |    | t |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    | w |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | i |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | c |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | e |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | t |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | h |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | a |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | t |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | i |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | n |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | o |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | n |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | e |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | s |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | c |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | h |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | o |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | o |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | l |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    | ) |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mi   | No   | 30  | 1.5 | S  | 1 | Math | Certified    |
| rovider | ddle |      |     | ho  | ma | 0 | and  | teacher and  |
| B       | sc   |      |     | urs | ll | : | lang | college      |
| (na     | hool |      |     | t   | g  | 1 | uage | grads.       |
| tional) |      |      |     | wic | ro |   | arts |              |
|         |      |      |     | e/w | up |   | for  |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   | g    |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | rade |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | 6-12 |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | El   | No   | 115 | 3   | S  | 1 | Read | All but one  |
| rovider | emen |      |     | ho  | ma | 0 | ing, | with BA      |
| C       | tary |      |     | urs | ll | : | m    | degree and   |
| (local) |      |      |     | a   | g  | 1 | ath, | finishing up |
|         | sc   |      |     | w   | ro |   | and  | c            |
|         | hool |      |     | eek | up |   | home | redentialing |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | work | program      |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | help |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | for  |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | gr   |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | ades |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | 1-6  |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| **Di    |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| strict: |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| L       |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| ongwood |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Public  |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Sc      |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| hools** |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | No   | A   | 3 ½ | S  | 5 | Read | Certified    |
| rovider | iple |      | ppr | hou | ma | : | ing, | teachers     |
| A       | sch  |      | ox. | rs; | ll | 1 | ESL, | only,        |
| (school | ools |      |     | 1   | g  |   |      | recruited    |
| di      |      |      | 32  | Sa  | ro |   | Math | from         |
| strict) |      |      | ho  | tur | up |   | for  | no           |
|         |      |      | urs | day |    |   | gr   | n-identified |
|         |      |      |     | a   |    |   | ades | schools      |
|         |      |      |     | w   |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   | 1-12 |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | No   | A   | 2   | In | 1 | Math | Certified    |
| rovider | iple |      | ppr | ho  | di | : | and  | teacher or   |
| B       | sch  |      | ox. | urs | vi | 1 | l    | teachers in  |
| (na     | ools |      |     | per | du |   | ang. | training     |
| tional) |      |      | 30  |     | al |   |      |              |
|         |      |      | ho  | w   |    |   | Arts |              |
|         |      |      | urs | eek |    |   | for  |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | gr   |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | ades |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | 1-12 |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | No   | 30  | 2   | In | 1 | Math | Certified    |
| rovider | iple |      | ho  | ho  | di | : | and  | teachers or  |
| C       | sch  |      | urs | urs | vi | 1 | l    | p            |
| (faith  | ools |      |     | per | du |   | ang. | rofessionals |
| -based) |      |      |     | w   | al |   | Arts | with degrees |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   | for  |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | gr   |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | ades |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | K-12 |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | No   | 28  | 4   | In | 1 | Math | College      |
| rovider | iple |      | ho  | ho  | di | : | and  | graduates    |
| D       | sch  |      | urs | urs | vi | 1 | l    | and          |
| (na     | ools |      |     | per | du | t | ang. | certified    |
| tional) |      |      |     | w   | al | o | Arts | teachers     |
|         |      |      |     | eek | or | 4 | for  |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | s  | : | gr   |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | ma | 1 | ades |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | ll |   | K-12 |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | g  |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | ro |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | up |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | No   | 40  | 3-4 | O  | 1 | Math | Certified    |
| rovider | iple |      | ho  | h   | ne | : | and  | teachers or  |
| E       | sch  |      | urs | our | on | 1 | l    | college      |
| (local) | ools |      |     | per | o  |   | ang. | graduates    |
|         |      |      |     | w   | ne |   | Arts |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   | for  |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | gr   |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | ades |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | K-12 |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| **Di    |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| strict: |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Redding |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| School  |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| Dis     |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
| trict** |      |      |     |     |    |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | Yes, | 34  | 2   | S  | 5 | Math | Certified    |
| rovider | iple | to   | one | hou | ma | : | and  | teachers,    |
| A       | sch  | home | h   | rs; | ll | 1 | l    | grad         |
| (local) | ools |      | our | 2   | g  |   | ang. | student,     |
|         |      |      | se  | ti  | ro |   | Arts | counselors,  |
|         |      |      | ssi | mes | up |   | for  | retired      |
|         |      |      | ons | a   | a  |   | gr   | teachers     |
|         |      |      |     | w   | nd |   | ades |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek | i  |   | K-8  |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | nd |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | ep |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | en |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | de |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | nt |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | wo |   |      |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | rk |   |      |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | Yes, | Ab  | 2   | Tu | 5 | Math | Retirees,    |
| rovider | iple | to   | out | hou | to | : | and  | graduate     |
| B       | sch  | home | 40  | rs; | ri | 1 | l    |              |
| (local) | ools |      |     | 2   | ng |   | ang. | students,    |
|         |      |      |     | ti  | in |   | Art  | certified    |
|         |      |      |     | mes | gr |   | s    | teachers,    |
|         |      |      |     | a   | ou |   | kill | and parents  |
|         |      |      |     | w   | ps |   | and  |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek | of |   | home |              |
|         |      |      |     |     | 5  |   | work |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | help |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | for  |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | K-8  |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+
| P       | Mult | Yes, | 28  | 2   | In | 5 | Math | Certified    |
| rovider | iple | to   |     | hou | di | : | and  | teachers w/  |
| D       | sch  | home |     | rs; | vi | 1 | l    | background   |
| (local) | ools |      |     | 2   | du |   | ang. | checks       |
|         |      |      |     | ti  | al |   | Art  |              |
|         |      |      |     | mes |    |   | s    |              |
|         |      |      |     | a   |    |   | kill |              |
|         |      |      |     | w   |    |   | and  |              |
|         |      |      |     | eek |    |   | s    |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | tudy |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | sk   |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | ills |              |
|         |      |      |     |     |    |   | K-8  |              |
+---------+------+------+-----+-----+----+---+------+--------------+

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="8.542361111111111in" height="11.0875in"}

[^1]: ^1^ U.S. Department of Education. Policy and Program Studies
    Service. *Early Implementation of Supplemental Educational Services
    Under the* No Child Left Behind Act: *Year One Report*, by Leslie
    Anderson and Lisa Weiner. Author. Washington, D.C., 2004.

[^2]: ^2^ This report contains both stronger and weaker examples of
    implementation of the supplemental services provisions of NCLB. The
    examples used here should not necessarily be considered accurate
    interpretations or representations of the implementation of
    supplemental services. Rather, these are examples of ways in which
    some states and districts responded to the supplemental services
    requirements of the law.

[^3]: ^3^ This report contains both stronger and weaker examples of
    implementation of the supplemental services provisions of NCLB. The
    examples used here should not necessarily be considered accurate
    interpretations or representations of the implementation of
    supplemental services. Rather, these are examples of ways in which
    some states and districts have responded to the supplemental
    services requirements of the law.

[^4]: ^4^ U.S. Department of Education. Policy and Program Studies
    Service. *Early Implementation of Supplemental Educational Services
    Under the* No Child Left Behind Act: *Year One Report*, by Leslie
    Anderson and Lisa Weiner. Author. Washington, D.C., 2004.

[^5]: ^5^ To protect their confidentiality, pseudonyms have been used
    for all the states, districts, schools, and most of the service
    providers that participated in this study.

[^6]: ^6^ Districts collected basic information about provider services
    because very little, if any, of this information was provided to the
    districts by the state.

[^7]: ^a^ Large Central City: Central city of a Metropolitan Statistical
    Area (MSA) with a population greater than or equal to 250,000.
    Mid-size Central City: Central City of an MSA with a population less
    than 250,000. Urban Fringe of Large City: Place within an MSA of a
    Large Central City and defined as urban by the Census Bureau (Common
    Core of Data, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
    Department of Education).

[^8]: ^a^ Three of the nine case study districts were providing
    supplemental services for the first time in 2003-04. Accordingly,
    these districts are not represented in this table because there were
    no comparative data available for the 2002-03 school year. A fourth
    district offered only summer services in 2002-03.

[^9]: ^7^ However, districts may, if they choose, provide transportation
    for supplemental services and not count it against the 20 percent
    requirement.

[^10]: ^8^ For a more complete description of parents' reasons for not
    enrolling their children in supplemental services, see the parent
    section of this report.

[^11]: ^a^ Three of the nine case study districts were providing
    supplemental services for the first time in 2003-04. Accordingly,
    these districts are not represented in this table because there were
    no comparative data available for the 2002-03 school year. A fourth
    district offered only summer services in 2002-03.

[^12]: ^9^ U.S. Department of Education Non-Regulatory Guidance on
    supplemental services (Aug. 22, 2003, Item F-1).

[^13]: ^10^ This district was offering services for the first time in
    2003-04. The state did not finalize the list of schools where
    students would be eligible for supplemental services until
    September. The district did not complete negotiations on provider
    contracts until late January, and providers needed approximately six
    weeks to enroll students and organize services.