![](media/image1.jpeg){width="8.577083333333333in"
height="11.020833333333334in"}

**State and Local Implementation of the\
*No Child Left Behind Act***

Volume IV---Title I School Choice and

Supplemental Educational Services: Interim Report

A report from the National Longitudinal Study of *No Child Left Behind*
(NLS-*NCLB*) and the\
Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality
Under *No Child Left Behind* (SSI-*NCLB*)

Brian Gill, RAND

Jennifer Sloan McCombs, RAND

Scott Naftel, RAND

Karen Ross, AIR

Mengli Song, AIR

Jennifer Harmon, AIR

Georges Vernez, RAND

*Series Principal Investigators*

Georges Vernez, RAND

Beatrice F. Birman, AIR

Michael S. Garet, AIR

Jennifer O'Day, AIR

*Prepared for:*

U.S. Department of Education\
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

2008

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract Number ED-00-CO-0087 with RAND and Contract Number
ED-01-CO-0026/0024 with AIR. Stephanie Stullich served as the
contracting officer's representative for the National Longitudinal Study
of *No Child Left Behind*, and Elizabeth Eisner and Collette Roney
served as contracting officer's representatives for the Study of State
Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under *No Child
Left Behind*. 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**

Bill Evers

*Assistant Secretary*

**Policy and Program Studies Service**

Alan Ginsburg

*Director*

**Program and Analytic Studies Division**

David Goodwin

*Director*

April 2008

This report is in the public domain with the exception of the cover
photo, which is © 2007 JupiterImages Corp. Authorization to reproduce it
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, *State and Local Implementation of
the* No Child Left Behind Act, *Volume IV---Title I School Choice and
Supplemental Educational Services: Interim Report*, Washington, D.C.,
2008.

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.

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 1‑877‑576‑7734.

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.edpubs.ed.gov.

This report is also available on the Department'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, or computer diskette. For more information, please
contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at 202‑260‑0852 or
202‑260-0818.

# contents {#contents .unnumbered}

[Exhibits v](#exhibits)

[Preface xi](#preface)

[Acknowledgments xiii](#acknowledgments)

[Executive Summary xv](#executive-summary)

> [Key Findings xv](#key-findings)
>
> [Evaluation Questions and Data Sources for This Report
> xvi](#evaluation-questions-and-data-sources-for-this-report)
>
> [Overview of the Parental Choice Provisions of *NCLB*
> xvi](#overview-of-the-parental-choice-provisions-of-nclb)
>
> [Eligibility, Availability and Participation
> xvii](#eligibility-availability-and-participation)
>
> [Communication With Parents xxi](#communication-with-parents)
>
> [Implementing and Monitoring Supplemental Educational Services
> xxii](#implementing-and-monitoring-supplemental-educational-services)
>
> [Conclusions xxiii](#conclusions)

[I. Introduction 1](#introduction)

> [Overview of the Parental Choice Provisions of *NCLB*
> 1](#overview-of-the-parental-choice-provisions-of-nclb-1)
>
> [Evaluation Questions and Data Sources for This Report
> 2](#evaluation-questions-and-data-sources-for-this-report-1)

[II. Eligibility, Availability and Participation
5](#eligibility-availability-and-participation-1)

> [Eligibility for Parental Choice 6](#eligibility-for-parental-choice)
>
> [Participation in Title I Choice Options
> 9](#participation-in-title-i-choice-options)
>
> [Options Offered by Districts 13](#options-offered-by-districts)
>
> [Discussion 23](#discussion)

[III. Communication With Parents 25](#communication-with-parents-1)

> [Notification of Options 26](#notification-of-options)
>
> [Methods of Communication With Parents
> 31](#methods-of-communication-with-parents)
>
> [Supplemental Service Providers' Communication With Parents
> 35](#supplemental-service-providers-communication-with-parents)
>
> [Reasons for Participation in School Choice and Supplemental
> Educational Services
> 35](#reasons-for-participation-in-school-choice-and-supplemental-educational-services)
>
> [Discussion 39](#discussion-1)

[IV. Implementing and Monitoring Supplemental Educational Services
41](#implementing-and-monitoring-supplemental-educational-services-1)

> [States' Approval of Supplemental Educational Service Providers
> 41](#states-approval-of-supplemental-educational-service-providers)
>
> [Monitoring and Evaluation of Provider Performance
> 42](#monitoring-and-evaluation-of-provider-performance)
>
> [State-Provided Technical Assistance for Supplemental Educational
> Services
> 46](#state-provided-technical-assistance-for-supplemental-educational-services)
>
> [District Contracts With Supplemental Educational Service Providers
> 46](#district-contracts-with-supplemental-educational-service-providers)
>
> [Schools' Relationship With Supplemental Educational Service Providers
> 49](#schools-relationship-with-supplemental-educational-service-providers)
>
> [Providers and Student Assessment
> 52](#providers-and-student-assessment)
>
> [Discussion 54](#discussion-2)

[Conclusions 55](#conclusions-1)

[References 57](#references)

[Appendix A Description of NLS-*NCLB* and SSI-*NCLB* Methodologies
59](#appendix-a-description-of-nls-nclb-and-ssi-nclb-methodologies)

[Appendix B Standard Error Exhibits
69](#appendix-b-standard-error-exhibits)

# Exhibits {#exhibits .unnumbered}

Executive Summary

[Exhibit S.1 Percentage of Districts and of Students in These Districts
Reporting Availability of Title I School Choice Option, by School Level,
2004--05 (Among Districts Required to Offer Choice)
xix](#__RefHeading___Toc189628314)

**II. Eligibility, Availability and Participation**

[Exhibit 1 Number and Percentage of Students Eligible for Title I School
Choice and Supplemental Educational Services and of Title I Schools with
Eligible Students, 2002--03 Through 2004--05
6](#__RefHeading___Toc189628315)

[Exhibit 2 Percentage of Title I Schools with Students Eligible for
Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, by Poverty
and Minority Status, 2004--05 7](#__RefHeading___Toc189628316)

[Exhibit 3 Percentage of Title I Schools with Students Eligible for
Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, by
Urbanicity, 2004--05 8](#__RefHeading___Toc189628317)

[Exhibit 4 Percentage of Title I Schools with Students Eligible for
Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, by School
Level, 2004--05 9](#__RefHeading___Toc189628318)

[Exhibit 5 Notification, Application, and Participation in Title I
School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, 2003--04 and
2004--05 (as Reported by Districts) 10](#__RefHeading___Toc189628319)

[Exhibit 6 Percentage of Eligible Students Participating in Title I
Supplemental Educational Services and School Choice, by Grade Level in
Nine Districts, 2004--05 11](#__RefHeading___Toc189628320)

[Exhibit 7 Percentage of Eligible Students Participating in Title I
Supplemental Educational Services and School Choice in Nine Large, Urban
Districts, by Demographic Categories, 2004--05
12](#__RefHeading___Toc189628321)

[Exhibit 8 Prior Achievement Levels (Measured in Z-Scores) of Students
Participating and Eligible for Title I Choice Options in Nine Large,
Urban Districts, 2004--05 13](#__RefHeading___Toc189628322)

[Exhibit 9 Percentage of Districts and of Students in These Districts
Reporting Availability of Title I School Choice Option, by School Level,
2004--05 (Among Districts Required to Offer Choice)
14](#__RefHeading___Toc189628323)

[Exhibit 10 Percentage of Districts Required to Offer Title I School
Choice That Offered Parents of Eligible Students Two or More Alternate
Schools, by School Level, 2004--05 15](#__RefHeading___Toc189628324)

[Exhibit 11 Average Student Achievement in Schools That Students
Participating in Title I School Choice Left and to Which They
Transferred, Relative to Average District Achievement, 2003--04 and
2004--05 16](#__RefHeading___Toc189628325)

[Exhibit 12 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers and of Participating Students, by Provider Type
18](#__RefHeading___Toc189628326)

[Exhibit 13 Percentage of Districts, by Number of Title I Supplemental
Educational Service Providers Available to Students, 2003--04
19](#__RefHeading___Toc189628327)

[Exhibit 14 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers, by Service Provided and Grades Served, 2004--05
20](#__RefHeading___Toc189628328)

[Exhibit 15 Percentage of Districts, by Number of Hours of Title I
Supplemental Educational Services Students Received per Week, 2003--04
20](#__RefHeading___Toc189628329)

[Exhibit 16 Average Duration and Frequency of Title I Supplemental
Educational Services Sessions, 2004--05
21](#__RefHeading___Toc189628330)

[Exhibit 17 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers, by Location and Grouping of Students for Delivery of
Services, 2004--05 22](#__RefHeading___Toc189628331)

**III. Communication With Parents**

[Exhibit 18 Percentage of Districts That Notified Parents of Title I
Choice and Supplemental Educational Service Options and Percentage of
Parents That Reported They Were Notified, 2004--05
26](#__RefHeading___Toc189628332)

[Exhibit 19 Percentage of Parents That Reported They Were Notified of
Their Child's Eligibility for Title I Supplemental Educational Services,
by Choice Decision, 2004--05 27](#__RefHeading___Toc189628333)

[Exhibit 20 Number of States, by Month of States' Release of School
Identification Results to Districts, 2004
28](#__RefHeading___Toc189628334)

[Exhibit 21 Timing of Parent Notification About Title I School Choice as
Reported By Districts, 2003--04 and 2004--05
29](#__RefHeading___Toc189628335)

[Exhibit 22 Percentage of Eligible Students Transferring Schools, by
When District First Notified Parents About Their Title I School Choice,
2003--04 and 2004--05 30](#__RefHeading___Toc189628336)

[Exhibit 23 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Notified of Title
I School Choice, by When First Notified and Choice Decision, 2004--05
30](#__RefHeading___Toc189628337)

[Exhibit 24 Percentage of Districts Communicating With Parents About
Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services and of
Eligible Students in These Districts, by Method of Communication,
2004--05 32](#__RefHeading___Toc189628338)

[Exhibit 25 Percentage of Teachers Communicating with Parents About
Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Type of Communication and
School Level, 2003--04 (Among Teachers in Schools with Students Eligible
for Supplemental Services) 34](#__RefHeading___Toc189628339)

[Exhibit 26 Percentage of Providers Communicating Often or Always With
the Parents of Students Participating in Title I Supplemental
Educational Services, by Topic, 2004--05
35](#__RefHeading___Toc189628340)

[Exhibit 27 Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I
School Choice, by Reason for Participating, 2004--05
36](#__RefHeading___Toc189628341)

[Exhibit 28 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating
in Title I School Choice, by Reason for Not Participating, 2004--05
37](#__RefHeading___Toc189628342)

[Exhibit 29 Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I
Supplemental Educational Services, by Reason for Participating, 2004--05
38](#__RefHeading___Toc189628343)

[Exhibit 30 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating
in Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Reason for Not
Participating, 2004--05 39](#__RefHeading___Toc189628344)

**IV. Implementing and Monitoring Supplemental Educational Services**

[Exhibit 31 Number of States Requiring a Narrative or Checklist in
Providers' Title I Supplemental Educational Service Application to Show
They Meet the *NCLB* Requirements, 2004--05
43](#__RefHeading___Toc189628345)

[Exhibit 32 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers, by State and District Monitoring Mechanisms They Experienced
at Least a Few Times During The Year, 2004--05
45](#__RefHeading___Toc189628346)

[Exhibit 33 Number of States That Provided Districts with Technical
Assistance to Implement Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by
Type of Assistance, 2004--05 46](#__RefHeading___Toc189628347)

[Exhibit 34 Percentage of Districts, by Type of Provision They Included
in Contracts With Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers,
2004--05 48](#__RefHeading___Toc189628348)

[Exhibit 35 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers, by Type of Provisions Included in Contracts with Districts,
2004--05 49](#__RefHeading___Toc189628349)

[Exhibit 36 Percentage of Principals at Schools With Students Eligible
for Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Degree of Alignment of
Services With School Academic Content Standards and Subject Area,
2003--04 50](#__RefHeading___Toc189628350)

[Exhibit 37 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers and of Teachers Reporting Communicating With Each Other, by
Type of Communication, 2004--05 51](#__RefHeading___Toc189628351)

[Exhibit 38 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers Reporting on the Progress of Individual Students, by Type of
Recipient and Frequency, 2004--05 52](#__RefHeading___Toc189628352)

[Exhibit 39 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers, by Type of Information Received on Individual Students Prior
to Providing Supplemental Services, 2004--05
53](#__RefHeading___Toc189628353)

[Exhibit 40 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers Assessing Students, by Type of Measure and Frequency, 2004--05
54](#__RefHeading___Toc189628354)

**Appendix A. Description of NLS-*NCLB* and SSI-*NCLB* Methodologies**

[Exhibit A.1 Sample Sizes and Survey Completion Rates for National
Longitudinal Study of *NCLB* Surveys, 2004--05
60](#__RefHeading___Toc189628355)

[Exhibit A.2 Characteristics of National Longitudinal Study of *NCLB*
District and School Samples Compared with the Universe of Districts and
Schools 61](#__RefHeading___Toc189628356)

[Exhibit A.3 Sample Sizes and Completion Rates for National Longitudinal
Study of *NCLB* Parent Surveys 62](#__RefHeading___Toc189628357)

**Appendix B. Standard Error Exhibits**

[Exhibit B.1 Notification, Application, and Participation in Title I
School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, 2003--04 and
2004--05 (as Reported by Districts) 69](#__RefHeading___Toc189628358)

[Exhibit B.2 Prior Year Achievement Levels (Measured in Z-Scores) of
Students Participating and Eligible for Title I Choice Options in Nine
Large, Urban Districts, 2004--05 69](#__RefHeading___Toc189628359)

[Exhibit B.3 Percentage of Districts and of Students in These Districts
Reporting Availability of Title I School Choice Option, by School Level,
2004--05 (Among Districts Required to Offer Choice)
70](#__RefHeading___Toc189628360)

[Exhibit B.4 Percentage of Districts Required to Offer Title I School
Choice That Offered Parents of Eligible Students Two or More Alternate
Schools, by School Level, 2004--05 70](#__RefHeading___Toc189628361)

[Exhibit B.5 Average Student Achievement in Schools That Students
Participating in the Title I School Choice Left and to Which They
Transferred Relative to Average District Achievement, 2003--04 and
2004--05 71](#__RefHeading___Toc189628362)

[Exhibit B.6 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers and of Participating Students, by Provider Type, 2003--04
71](#__RefHeading___Toc189628363)

[Exhibit B.7 Percentage of Districts, by Number of Title I Supplemental
Educational Service Providers Available to Students, 2003--04
72](#__RefHeading___Toc189628364)

[Exhibit B.8 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers, by Service Provided and Grades Served, 2004--05
72](#__RefHeading___Toc189628365)

[Exhibit B.9 Percentage of Districts, by Number of Hours of Supplemental
Educational Services Participating Students Received per Week, 2003--04
72](#__RefHeading___Toc189628366)

[Exhibit B.10 Average Duration and Frequency of Title I Supplemental
Educational Services Sessions, 2004--05
73](#__RefHeading___Toc189628367)

[Exhibit B.11 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Services
Providers, by Location and Grouping of Students for Delivery of
Services, 2004--05 73](#__RefHeading___Toc189628368)

[Exhibit B.12 Percentage of Parents That Reported They Were Notified of
Title I School Choice, 2004--05 74](#__RefHeading___Toc189628369)

[Exhibit B.13 Percentage of Parents That Reported They Were Notified of
Their Child's Eligibility for Title I Supplemental Educational Services,
by Choice Decision, 2004--05 74](#__RefHeading___Toc189628370)

[Exhibit B.14 Timing of Parent Notification About Title I School Choice
Option as Reported by Districts, 2003--04 and 2004--05
74](#__RefHeading___Toc189628371)

[Exhibit B.15 Percentage of Eligible Students Transferring Schools, by
When District First Notified Parents About Their Title I School Choice,
2003--04 and 2004--05 75](#__RefHeading___Toc189628372)

[Exhibit B.16 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Notified of
Title I School Choice, by When First Notified and Choice Decision,
2004--05 75](#__RefHeading___Toc189628373)

[Exhibit B.17 Percentage of Districts Communicating With Parents About
Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services and of
Eligible Students in These Districts, by Method of Communication,
2004--05 76](#__RefHeading___Toc189628374)

[Exhibit B.18 Percentage of Teachers Communicating With Parents About
Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Type of Communication and
School Level, 2003--04 (Among Teachers Who Knew Their Students Were
Eligible for Supplemental Services) 76](#__RefHeading___Toc189628375)

[Exhibit B.19 Percentage of Providers Communicating With the Parents of
Students Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by
Topic and Frequency, 2004--05 77](#__RefHeading___Toc189628376)

[Exhibit B.20 Percentage of Parents of Students Participating In Title I
School Choice, by Reason for Participating, 2004--05
77](#__RefHeading___Toc189628377)

[Exhibit B.21 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not
Participating in Title I School Choice, by Reason for Not Participating,
2004--05 78](#__RefHeading___Toc189628378)

[Exhibit B.22 Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I
Supplemental Educational Services, by Reason for Participating, 2004--05
78](#__RefHeading___Toc189628379)

[Exhibit B.23 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not
Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Reason
for Not Participating, 2004--05 79](#__RefHeading___Toc189628380)

[Exhibit B.24 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers Reporting State Monitoring of Their Services, by Monitoring
Mechanism and Frequency, 2004--05 79](#__RefHeading___Toc189628381)

[Exhibit B.25 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers Reporting District Monitoring of Their Services, by Monitoring
Mechanism and Frequency, 2004--05 80](#__RefHeading___Toc189628382)

[Exhibit B.26 Percentage of Districts, by Type of Provision Included in
Contracts With Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers,
2004--05 80](#__RefHeading___Toc189628383)

[Exhibit B.27 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers, by Type of Provision Included in Contract With Districts,
2004--05 81](#__RefHeading___Toc189628384)

[Exhibit B.28 Percentage of Principals at Schools With Students Eligible
for Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Degree of Alignment of
Services With School Academic Content Standards and Subject Area,
2003--04 81](#__RefHeading___Toc189628385)

[Exhibit B.29 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers Communicating With the Regular Classroom Teachers of Students
Receiving Their Services, by Type and Frequency of Communication,
2004--05 82](#__RefHeading___Toc189628386)

[Exhibit B.30 Percentage of Teachers Communicating With Title I
Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Type of Communication and
School Level, 2004--05 82](#__RefHeading___Toc189628387)

[Exhibit B.31 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers Reporting on the Progress of Individual Students, by Type of
Recipient and Frequency, 2004--05 83](#__RefHeading___Toc189628388)

[Exhibit B.32 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers, by Types of Information Received on Individual Students Prior
to Providing Services, 2004--05 83](#__RefHeading___Toc189628389)

[Exhibit B.33 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service
Providers Assessing Students, by Type of Measure and Frequency, 2004--05
84](#__RefHeading___Toc189628390)

# Preface {#preface .unnumbered}

This report presents findings about school choice and supplemental
educational services from two longitudinal studies, the National
Longitudinal Study of *No Child Left Behind* (NLS‑*NCLB*), and the Study
of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under *No
Child Left Behind* (SSI‑*NCLB*). The research teams for these two
studies have collaborated to provide an integrated evaluation of the
implementation of key *NCLB* provisions at the state level (SSI‑*NCLB*)
and at the district and school levels (NLS‑*NCLB*). Together the two
studies are the basis for a series of reports on the topics of
accountability, teacher quality, Title I school choice and supplemental
educational services, and targeting and resource allocation.

This is the fourth volume in this report series. The other three volumes
were:

Volume I---Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and
Student Achievement

Volume II---Teacher Quality Under *NCLB*: Interim Report

Volume III---Accountability Under *NCLB*: Interim Report

# Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}

We wish to thank the many individuals who contributed to the completion
of this report. Particularly helpful were several individuals at the
U.S. Department of Education. Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, and
Collette Roney of the Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) served
as project officers for the two studies that were the data sources for
this report. All three project officers provided invaluable substantive
guidance and support throughout these studies and the production of this
report.

We are also grateful to state officials responsible for supplemental
educational services for their kind cooperation and assistance in
participating in interviews and follow‑up communications in the 2004--05
data collections. In addition, teachers, principals, school district
staff, parents and providers of supplemental services across the country
took time out of their busy schedules to respond to the NLS‑*NCLB*
surveys. Without their efforts, this report would not have been
possible, and we deeply appreciate their assistance.

The information in this report was provided through two studies done by
independent research firms under contract to the U.S. Department of
Education:

-   The National Longitudinal Study of *No Child Left Behind*
    (NLS‑*NCLB*), led by Georges Vernez of the RAND Corporation and
    Michael Garet and Beatrice Birman of the American Institutes for
    Research (AIR), assisted by Brian Stecher (accountability team
    leader), Brian Gill (choice team leader), and Meredith Ludwig
    (teacher quality team leader). Marie Halverson of the National
    Opinion Research Center directed data collections for the
    NLS‑*NCLB*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher
    Quality Under *No Child Left Behind* (SSI‑*NCLB*), led by Jennifer
    O'Day and Kerstin Carlson Le Floch of the American Institutes for
    Research.

Other researchers who provided useful assistance for this report include
Charles Blankenship, Kristen Chapman, Jennifer Harmon, and Kerstin
Carlson LeFloch of the American Institutes for Research; and Hilary
Darilek and Ron Zimmer from RAND.

We would like to acknowledge thoughtful contributions of the members of
our Technical Working Group, including Julian Betts, David Francis,
Margaret Goertz, Brian Gong, Eric Hanushek, Richard Ingersoll, Phyllis
McClure, Paul Peterson, Christine Steele, and Phoebe Winter.

Many Department staff reviewed drafts of this report and provided useful
comments and suggestions. We would like to acknowledge the assistance of
David Goodwin, director of program and analytic studies in PPSS and
Daphne Kaplan, PPSS team leader, as well as Tom Luce, Millicent
Bentley-Memon, Kerri Briggs, Carol Cichowski, Tom Corwin, Tim D'Emilio,
Sarah Dillard, David Harmon, Stacy Kreppel, Holly Kuzmich, Milagros
Lanauze, Kathleen Leos, Jeannette Lim, Meredith Miller, Kay Rigling,
Krista Ritacco, Phil Rosenfelt, Grace Ross, Ross Santy, Martha Snyder,
and Christine Wolfe.

> While we appreciate the assistance and support of all of the above
> individuals, any errors in judgment or fact are of course the
> responsibility of the authors.

# Executive Summary {#executive-summary .unnumbered}

A key aim of the federal *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)* is to
provide new educational options to parents whose children attend Title I
schools[^1] that are identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring because the schools have not made adequate yearly progress
(AYP) toward meeting state standards for two or more years.  The first
of these options is the opportunity for parents to transfer their
children to another school in the district that has not been identified.
The second option is the opportunity for parents to enroll their
children in supplemental educational services---such as tutoring,
remediation, or other academic instruction---that are offered by a
state-approved provider and are in addition to instruction provided
during the school day. This option is available to low-income families
whose children attend a Title I school that is in Year 2 (or a later
year) of identified for improvement status.

This report presents findings on the implementation of parental choice
options from the first year of the National Longitudinal Study of *No
Child Left Behind* (NLS-*NCLB*) and the Study of State Implementation of
Accountability and Teacher Quality Under *No Child Left Behind*
(SSI-*NCLB*). The report uses data from state-level interviews, from
surveys of a nationally representative sample of district officials,
principals, and teachers, surveys of parents in eight school districts,
surveys of supplemental educational service providers in 16 districts,
and student-level demographic and achievement data in nine districts, to
examine the implementation across the country of the school choice and
supplemental educational service components of Title I through 2004--05.

## Key Findings {#key-findings .unnumbered}

-   In 2004--05, nearly 6.2 million students were eligible for Title I
    school choice and as many as 1.8 million were eligible for Title I
    supplemental educational services. The number of students
    participating in the options grew rapidly from prior years, but only
    about 1 percent of eligible students took advantage of the school
    choice option, and about 17 percent (in 2003--04) took advantage of
    supplemental services.[^2] School choice options were constrained at
    the middle and high school levels, because large numbers of school
    districts have only one middle school or high school. Eligible high
    school students also apparently had fewer Title I supplemental
    service options: In a subsample of districts, providers were less
    likely to offer services for secondary school students and
    participation rates were lower.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In a subsample of large urban districts with available data, the
    average achievement of the schools chosen by students using the
    Title I school choice option were consistently higher than the
    average achievement of the schools they came from, and their parents
    were largely satisfied with the new schools.

-   Title I supplemental service options expanded rapidly between 2003
    and 2005 with the number of approved providers tripling. The
    majority of providers were private (nonprofit and for-profit)
    organizations, and private providers served the majority of
    students. In a subsample of eight districts, most parents of
    students participating in supplemental services were satisfied with
    the services.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Low participation rates in Title I school choice and supplemental
    educational services may be related to problems communicating with
    parents. Most school districts did not notify parents of their
    school choice options before the start of the school year, and many
    eligible parents in the eight-district subsample reported that they
    had not received information about Title I school choice or
    supplemental service options.

-   As of 2004--05, most states were working to develop and implement
    standards for the monitoring and evaluation of Title I supplemental
    service providers; only a small number of states had statewide
    databases incorporating participation and achievement information
    that would permit rigorous evaluations of providers' effects.
    Meanwhile, providers' communication with school staff and
    coordination with school academic programs varied substantially.

## Evaluation Questions and Data Sources for This Report {#evaluation-questions-and-data-sources-for-this-report .unnumbered}

This report addresses three broad areas in evaluating the Title I
provisions for providing school choice and supplemental services for
students in low-performing schools:

1.  Who is eligible to participate in parental school choice and
    supplemental educational services under Title I of *NCLB*, what
    choices are made available, and who participates?

2.  How are states, districts and schools providing information to make
    parents aware of their options? What information do parents have and
    use to make decisions about their school choice and supplemental
    service options?

3.  How do states, districts, and schools support, monitor, and
    collaborate in the implementation of supplemental educational
    services under Title I?

One chapter of this report is devoted to each of these areas. Another
report[^3] addresses a fourth evaluation question:

4.  What are the effects of the Title I parental choice provisions on
    the achievement of participating students?

## Overview of the Parental Choice Provisions of *NCLB* {#overview-of-the-parental-choice-provisions-of-nclb .unnumbered}

Increased choice for parents of children in persistently low-achieving
schools is one of the key principles of *NCLB*.[^4] Title I schools that
do not meet state goals for "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) for two
consecutive years are identified for improvement. *NCLB* requires that
parents of students in Title I schools that are identified for
improvement be given the option to transfer their children to another
public school that has not been identified for improvement, with
transportation provided by the district.

Access to supplemental educational services is an additional parental
choice available under Title I of *NCLB*. Students from low-income
families in schools that have been identified for improvement are
eligible to receive supplemental services from a provider selected by
parents if the school falls short of AYP for a third time before exiting
improvement status. These services are to be free to parents and
students; must be provided outside the regular school day; and may
include tutoring, after-school services, and summer school. Supplemental
services may be provided by a variety of state-approved organizations,
including for-profit and nonprofit organizations, faith-based
organizations, school districts, and public or private schools. Each
state is responsible for developing criteria for approving providers and
for providing school districts with a list of available, approved
providers in their geographic locations, and for monitoring and
evaluating the performance of providers.

Parents are permitted to select a supplemental service provider from a
list of providers that have been approved by the state. School
districts, in consultation with parents and providers, must develop
specific educational goals for each participating student and enter into
contracts with providers to serve individual students. Title I
supplemental service providers are responsible for measuring students'
progress and reporting regularly on that progress to teachers and
parents. States are responsible for monitoring and evaluating provider
performance.

These parental choice options are closely linked to the accountability
provisions of *NCLB* that give parents information on which schools in
their communities are succeeding and which are not. Districts are
required to notify parents of eligible students of choice options in a
timely manner and to provide parents with the information needed to make
informed decisions. The choice provisions are intended to provide better
options to individual students in low-performing schools, improve
outcomes for students who transfer or receive supplemental services, and
pressure low-performing schools to improve. The law thereby aims to
improve outcomes for all students.

## Eligibility, Availability and Participation {#eligibility-availability-and-participation .unnumbered}

In 2004--05, nearly 6.2 million students were eligible for Title I
school choice and as many as 1.8 million students were eligible for
supplemental services.[^5]

In 2004--05, 18 percent of Title I schools were identified for
improvement, with the consequence that their students were eligible for
school choice. Some of these schools---8 percent of all Title I
schools---were in the second year of improvement status or beyond,
making their students also eligible for Title I supplemental services.

One-fourth (26 percent) of K--12 students in Title I schools were
eligible for Title I school choice and 8 percent were potentially
eligible to receive Title I supplemental services. The number of
students eligible for choice options grew substantially from 2002--03 to
2004--05.

High-poverty, high-minority, and urban Title I schools were more likely
to have students who were eligible for Title I school choice and
supplemental services. Thirty-seven percent of high-poverty Title I
schools (schools with 75 percent or more of students receiving free or
reduced-price lunches) had students eligible for school choice, compared
with 5 percent of low-poverty Title I schools (schools with less than 35
percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches). Similarly,
18 percent of high-poverty Title I schools had students eligible for
supplemental services, compared with 2 percent of low-poverty Title I
schools. High-minority and urban schools likewise comprised a
disproportionate share of those required to offer Title I choice and
supplemental services.

Nationally, the participation rate for Title I supplemental educational
services was substantially higher than for Title I school choice, but in
both instances, most eligible students did not participate.

In 2003--04, 233,000 students received Title I supplemental services
while 45,000 students used the Title I school choice option to transfer
to a school not identified for improvement (in 2004--05).[^6] Both of
these numbers represented substantial increases from 2002--03 when
18,000 students used Title I school choice and 42,000 used supplemental
services. School choice participants under Title I represented about 1
percent of eligible students in 2004--05, a participation rate that was
comparable to that of the previous year. Supplemental service
participants represented 17 percent of the total number of students
estimated to be eligible. In the nine-district subsample, participation
rates in Title I supplemental services were highest in elementary
grades.

In a subsample of nine large, urban districts, students who participated
in Title I supplemental educational services had lower scores than the
eligible student population had. Students who participated in Title I
school choice had scores nearly identical to those of the eligible
student population.

Overall, average prior test scores for reading and math of students
participating in supplemental services were 0.12 of a standard deviation
lower than those of the eligible population. However, there were no
statistically significant differences in prior reading and math test
scores for students participating in the school choice option relative
to the eligible population. Average test scores of students eligible for
supplemental services and school choice were similar because these
populations largely overlap.

Most districts required to offer Title I school choice reported offering
eligible students school choice options; however, districts were more
likely to provide options at the elementary level than at the middle and
high school levels.

At the elementary level, 70 percent of districts with one or more
elementary schools identified for improvement reported offering parents
in those schools the option to transfer their child to another school
(see Exhibit S.1). By contrast, approximately two-thirds of districts
with middle or high schools identified for improvement were not offering
school choice at those grade levels because all the schools at that
grade level were identified for improvement; indeed, a large proportion
of these districts operate only one middle school and one high school.
As a consequence, the school choice option was much less frequently
available in secondary grades. At the middle school level, only 20
percent of affected districts reported offering the school choice option
to parents, while the comparable figure for the high school level was 17
percent. Among districts offering school choice to eligible students, 40
percent reported that at least one student actually transferred schools
in 2004--05.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628314 .anchor}E**xhibit S.1\                |
| Percentage of Districts and of Students in These Districts Reporting\ |
| Availability of Title I School Choice Option, by School Level,        |
| 2004--05\                                                             |
| (Among Districts Required to Offer Choice)**                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image2.wmf)                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Seventy percent of districts required to offer     |
| school choice at the elementary level reported they were offering     |
| school choice at that grade level. Ninety-two percent of students in  |
| districts required to offer choice were located in these districts.   |
|                                                                       |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District Survey; SSI-*NCLB,* National AYP and     |
| Identification Database (n=124, 107, 72 districts, respectively, for  |
| elementary, middle, and high schools).                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

In nine large, urban districts, students who used the Title I school
choice option transferred to higher-performing schools.

Students using school choice moved from schools with below-average
achievement levels to schools with above-average achievement levels in
every one of the nine districts. In several of the districts, the
difference in achievement levels between chosen schools and former
schools exceeded half a standard deviation. Across the nine districts,
average achievement levels in the chosen schools exceeded average
achievement levels in the schools left behind by nearly four-tenths of a
standard deviation.

In 2004--05, most districts required to offer Title I supplemental
educational services reported offering these services to eligible
elementary and middle school students; One-third of districts did so for
eligible high school students.

Most districts with eligible high school students did not offer Title I
supplemental services in 2004--05, in part because providers were
themselves far less likely to offer services to high school students
than to elementary and middle school students (at least in a subsample
of 16 districts where providers were surveyed).

A majority of districts required to offer Title I supplemental
educational services reported that parents could choose from multiple
providers, and most had at least one student participate in 2003--04.

A majority of districts (63 percent) reported that parents could choose
from at least three Title I supplemental service providers, and 38
percent reported they could choose among five or more providers. Among
districts required to offer supplemental services, 88 percent reported
that at least one student participated in 2003--04.

From May 2003 to May 2005, the number of state-approved Title I
supplemental educational service providers in the nation tripled.

The total number of supplemental educational service providers increased
from 997 in May 2003 to 2,734 in May 2005. The largest increase occurred
among private providers. Private providers accounted for 60 percent of
all state-approved providers in May 2003 and 76 percent in May 2005.
Meanwhile, school districts and public schools declined in their
proportion of all providers, from 33 percent in May 2003 to 17 percent
in May 2005. Although districts and public schools, institutions of
higher education, and other types of non-private providers accounted for
a smaller proportion of the total number of providers in May 2005 than
they did three years earlier, all types of providers increased
substantially in number over the three years.

Private providers served 58 percent of students participating in Title I
supplemental educational services in 2003--04 and another 34 percent of
students received supplemental services from districts or public
schools.

National for-profit companies, which served 39 percent of participating
students, served the largest proportion of students served by private
providers. The remainder of students received supplemental services from
faith-based and community-based providers, from colleges and
universities, or through distance learning.

Title I supplemental educational service providers reported providing an
average of 57 hours of services per student per year.

Providers reported an average of 3.5 sessions per week and 84 minutes
per session, suggesting a weekly average dose of nearly five hours. They
also reported an average of 41 sessions provided to students annually,
suggesting an average duration of services of 12 weeks. Parents reported
a similar intensity of weekly services as that reported by providers.

Nine out of ten parents of students participating in Title I
supplemental educational services were satisfied with the services; half
of such parents were very satisfied. More than 8 out of 10 parents who
participated in Title I school choice were satisfied with that decision.

A large majority (91 percent) of responding parents of supplemental
service participants in the subsample of eight urban districts reported
satisfaction with the services; 53 percent were very satisfied. Among
parents who transferred a child to a non-identified school, half
reported that they were "very satisfied" with their decision and another
third were "satisfied."

## Communication With Parents {#communication-with-parents .unnumbered}

Most districts required to offer Title I school choice and supplemental
educational services reported notifying eligible parents of their
options; however, most eligible parents in a sample of eight urban
districts said they had not been notified---despite the fact that all
eight districts offered these choice options and produced notification
letters.

Sixty-two percent of the districts required to offer Title I school
choice and 97 percent of districts required to offer supplemental
educational services reported that they notified parents of the options
available to their children. Most of the districts that did not notify
parents of their eligibility for school choice were not offering school
choice.

In a sample of eight urban districts, however, only 27 percent of
parents of students eligible for school choice said they had been
notified of their option to move their child to another school---despite
the fact that all eight districts reported that they had offered choice
to such parents (and provided copies of the parent information letter
that they had sent out). Similarly, only 53 percent of eligible parents
said they were notified of the Title I supplemental services
option---again, despite the fact that all eight districts said they had
notified parents of their options. Only about a quarter of parents of
students in schools identified for improvement knew that the schools
were so identified.

In 2004--05, less than one-third (29 percent) of districts required to
offer school choice notified parents of eligible students before the
beginning of the school year.

About half (49 percent) of the districts required to offer Title I
school choice reported that they notified parents of the availability of
this option after the first day of school and those districts notified
parents an average of five weeks after the beginning of the school year.
One reason for the late notice to parents may be that many states did
not release school AYP lists to districts until late in the summer or
early in the fall. Seven states provided districts with preliminary
school identification results before August. Twenty-four more states
provided preliminary results in August, leaving little or no time before
the start of the school year, and 19 states and Puerto Rico provided
preliminary results later than August, often after school had already
begun.

Districts that notified parents about Title I school choice before the
first day of school had higher participation rates than districts that
notified parents on or after the first day of school.

In districts where parents were notified about the Title I school choice
before the start of the school year, 2.9 percent of eligible students
participated. In contrast, in the districts that did not notify eligible
parents until after school started, the participation rate was 0.2
percent. This result is consistent with the result of parent survey
data, which show that in a sample of eight urban districts, parents who
took advantage of the school choice option were substantially more
likely to have been informed before the start of the school year (62
percent) than were parents who kept their children in identified schools
(38 percent).

The most frequent reasons parents gave for deciding to move their child
to a school not identified for improvement were the better quality of
teaching and good discipline and safety at the new school (reported by
52 and 49 percent of parents who used the school choice option,
respectively).

**Another related reason that parents gave for using the choice option
was that their child's old school was not meeting his or her needs (47
percent).**

## Implementing and Monitoring Supplemental Educational Services {#implementing-and-monitoring-supplemental-educational-services .unnumbered}

As of early 2005, most states were working to develop and implement
systems for monitoring and evaluating Title I supplemental educational
service provider effectiveness, but very few had databases that would
permit statewide examination of the achievement results of participating
students.

States with evaluation standards planned to use a variety of measures of
effectiveness. Seventeen states said they will evaluate provider
effectiveness based on student achievement on state assessments,
although only one of these planned to use a matched control group.
Twelve states and Puerto Rico reported that they planned to allow the
use of provider-developed tests, and ten states intended to use other
measures, such as student grades, homework completion, or school- or
teacher-administered tests. Seventeen states said they planned to
measure parent or student satisfaction with the services.

Although *NCLB* does not give districts a formal role in the monitoring
and evaluation of Title I supplemental educational services, providers
reported higher frequencies of monitoring by districts than by states.

Three-quarters of providers in a subsample of 16 districts reported that
student attendance rates at supplemental services were tracked by
districts at least a few times per year, while only 35 percent reported
a similar frequency of monitoring by states. Nearly half of providers
reported that districts tracked student attendance rates for
supplemental services monthly. Observations of Title I supplemental
service sessions were the next most common method of monitoring by
districts, reported by half of providers as occurring at least a few
times per year. Ten percent of providers reported that they were not
monitored by the state in any way, although less than 1 percent reported
that they had received no monitoring from either the district or state.

Some district contracts required that a certified teacher supervise
supplemental service sessions and some imposed caps on the number of
students served by a given provider.

> **Districts reported spending an average of \$875 per participating
> pupil on Title I supplemental educational services in 2003--04.**

Total spending on Title I supplemental educational services was
estimated to be \$192 million in 2003--04.

Most providers reported that they communicated with the regular
classroom teachers of their students, but one in five never did so.

Seventy percent of Title I supplemental educational service providers
reported that they communicated with the classroom teachers of their
students at least a few times per year. However, a non-negligible
minority of providers (19 percent) reported no contact with classroom
teachers.

## Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}

Most districts reported that they offered Title I school choice and
supplemental educational services if they were required to do so, and
the number of students participating in both options (especially
supplemental services) increased substantially from the initial
implementation of *NCLB* to the most recent year with available data.
Nonetheless, only a small proportion of eligible students actually
participated in the choice options available to them. Three notable
issues may have contributed to reduce participation:

1.  **Absence of available options.** A substantial number of
    districts---usually small districts with few schools---had no
    non-identified schools to which students in identified schools could
    transfer. An absence of non-identified schools is especially common
    at the middle and high school levels. With respect to supplemental
    services, providers were far less likely to offer services to high
    school students than to younger students.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  **Timing of notification.** Less than one-third of districts
    required to offer Title I school choice notified parents of eligible
    students before the beginning of the school year.

2.  **Problems with communication.** While almost all of the districts
    offering Title I school choice and supplemental educational services
    reported that they notified parents of the options available to
    their children, many parents were not aware of their options.

For families that participated in Title I school choice, there are signs
of promise. Parents who took advantage of Title I school choice were
very satisfied with the new schools---which have substantially higher
average student achievement than did the schools departed by the
transfer students (at least in nine large, urban districts subsampled),
as intended by *NCLB*. Moreover, students using the school choice option
had lower than average levels of prior achievement.

Parents were likewise satisfied with Title I supplemental educational
services. The availability of supplemental services has grown rapidly
over the past several years contributing to the rise in participation.
Participating students---who also tend to be low-achieving and
apparently in need of the services---received an average of 57 hours of
additional instructional time. But systems for monitoring providers and
evaluating their effectiveness are only in their infancy.

In short, states, districts, and providers were working to implement
Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, but whether
they will meet the expectations envisioned in the law of providing a
range of educational options to parents of students in persistently
low-performing Title I school is not yet clear.

# Introduction

A key aim of the federal *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)* is to
provide new educational options to parents whose children attend Title I
schools[^7] that are identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring because the schools have not made adequate yearly progress
(AYP) toward meeting state standards for two or more years.  The first
of these options is the opportunity for parents to transfer their
children to another school in the district that has not been identified.
The second option is the opportunity for parents to enroll their
children in supplemental educational services---such as tutoring,
remediation, or other academic instruction---that are offered by a
state-approved provider and are in addition to instruction provided
during the school day. This option is available to low-income families
whose children attend a Title I school that is in Year 2 (or a later
year) of identified for improvement status.

This report presents findings on the implementation of the Title I
school choice and supplemental educational service options from the
National Longitudinal Study of *No Child Left Behind* (NLS-*NCLB*) and
the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality
Under *No Child Left Behind* (SSI-*NCLB*). Together, these two studies
aim to provide an integrated longitudinal evaluation of the
implementation of key *NCLB* provisions by states, districts and
schools, focusing primarily on the following four areas: accountability,
teacher quality, parental choice and supplemental educational services,
and targeting and resource allocation. Using state reports, extant data
on student and school outcomes, and interviews with state-level
administrators, the SSI-*NCLB* is analyzing implementation in each of
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in 2004--05 and
2006--07. During the same two years, the NLS-*NCLB* is tracking
implementation in a nationally representative sample of districts and
schools through surveys of district administrators, principals, and
teachers; as well as surveys of parents in eight districts, surveys of
supplemental service providers in 16 districts, and analysis of
student-level demographic and achievement data in nine districts.[^8]
Data in this report are based on the 2004--05 data collection cycle for
both studies and on a national database of the 2003--04 adequate yearly
progress (AYP) status of all schools and of schools identified for
improvement in 2004--05.

Two companion reports, also based on these studies, will address *NCLB*
implementation and progress in the areas of accountability and teacher
quality, and a fourth report will examine resource targeting and
allocation under Title I and certain other federal education programs.

## Overview of the Parental Choice Provisions of *NCLB* {#overview-of-the-parental-choice-provisions-of-nclb-1 .unnumbered}

Increased choice for parents of children from disadvantaged backgrounds
is one of the key principles of *NCLB*.[^9] Title I schools that do not
meet state goals for AYP for two consecutive years are identified as
being in need of improvement. *NCLB* requires that parents of students
in Title I schools that are identified for improvement be given the
option to transfer their children to another public school in the
district that has not been identified for improvement, with
transportation provided by the district. Priority is to be given to
low-achieving, low-income students requesting transfers, and local
education agencies must offer more than one choice to eligible students.
Students may stay in the new school until they complete that school's
highest grade, but local education agencies are not required to provide
transportation to these students once their school of origin is no
longer identified for improvement.

Access to supplemental educational services is an additional parental
choice available under Title I of *NCLB*. Students from low-income
families in schools that have been identified for improvement are
eligible to receive supplemental services from a provider selected by
parents if the school falls short of AYP for a third time before exiting
improvement status. These services are free to parents and students;
must be provided outside the regular school day; and may include
tutoring, after-school services, and summer school. Parents are
permitted to select a supplemental service provider from a list of
providers that have been approved by the state to offer services. School
districts, in consultation with parents and providers, must develop
specific educational goals for each participating student. Supplemental
service providers are responsible for measuring students' progress and
reporting regularly on that progress to teachers and parents.

Supplemental educational services may be provided by a variety of
organizations, including approved for-profit and nonprofit
organizations, school districts, faith-based organizations, and public
or private schools. Each state is responsible for developing criteria
for approving providers and for providing school districts with a list
of available approved providers in their geographic locations.

Districts with students eligible for school choice and supplemental
educational services are required to allocate at least 20 percent of
their Title I, Part A, allocations for supplemental services and for
transportation for students using school choice. Although all low-income
students who attend Title I schools that are in the second year of
improvement and beyond are eligible to receive supplemental services,
the district must give priority to the lowest-achieving eligible
students if district funds are not sufficient to provide services to all
eligible students.

These parental choice options are closely linked to the accountability
provisions of *NCLB* that give parents information on which schools in
their communities are succeeding and which are not. Indeed, districts
are also required to notify parents of eligible students of all
available choice options in a timely manner and must provide parents
with the information needed to make informed decisions. The choice
provisions are intended to provide better options to individual students
in low-performing schools, improve outcomes for students who transfer or
receive supplemental services, and pressure low-performing schools to
improve. The law thereby aims to improve outcomes for all students.

## Evaluation Questions and Data Sources for This Report {#evaluation-questions-and-data-sources-for-this-report-1 .unnumbered}

This report addresses three broad areas of inquiry about the Title I
provisions for providing school choice and supplemental services for
students in low-performing schools:

1.  Who is eligible to participate in parental school choice and
    supplemental educational services under Title I of *NCLB*, what
    choices are made available, and who participates?

2.  How are states, districts, and schools providing information to make
    parents aware of their options? What information do parents have and
    use to make decisions about their school choice and supplemental
    service options?

3.  How do states, districts, and schools support, monitor, and
    collaborate in the implementation of supplemental educational
    services under Title I?

One chapter of this report is devoted to each of these areas. Another
report[^10] addresses a fourth evaluation question:

4.  What are the effects of the Title I parental choice provisions on
    the achievement of participating students?

The SSI-*NCLB* and the NLS-*NCLB*, which provide the data to address the
above questions, are part of the congressionally mandated National
Assessment of Title I being conducted by the U.S. Department of
Education. The SSI-*NCLB* examines state implementation of *NCLB* in the
areas of accountability and teacher quality through analysis of school
performance data and state documents (including state Web sites and
consolidated applications and reports) and telephone interviews with
state officials responsible for implementation of the accountability,
teacher quality, and Title III and supplemental educational services
requirements of *NCLB*.

For this report on Title I parental choice options, the SSI-*NCLB*
survey data primarily include information about state monitoring and
evaluation of supplemental educational services. The state interviews
were conducted in fall 2004 and winter 2005; a second wave of data
collection will ensue in fall 2006. The response rate for the first wave
of state interviews was 100 percent. The SSI-*NCLB* also collected state
lists of schools identified for improvement, which were used to estimate
the number of students eligible for the school choice and supplemental
service options. The resulting National Database of School AYP and
Identification was merged with National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) data on school poverty, size, grades served, and urbanicity from
the Common Core of Data for 2002--03 in order to examine how eligibility
and participation vary by school demographic characteristics.

The NLS-*NCLB* includes nationally representative samples of districts,
principals, and teachers, as well as samples of parents and supplemental
service providers in a subsample of 8 and 16 districts, respectively.
Student-level demographic and achievement data was also collected in the
same subsample of districts used for parent surveys, plus one additional
district. The sample includes a national representation of 300 districts
within which is a sample of 1,483 schools, including a mix of
elementary, middle and high schools. The school sample includes 557
schools that were identified for improvement under *NCLB*. In each
school, six teachers were randomly selected: at the elementary school
level, one teacher in each grade; at the secondary school level, three
English teachers and three math teachers. In total, the NLS-*NCLB*
surveyed 4,772 elementary teachers, 2,081 secondary English language
arts teachers, and 1,938 secondary mathematics teachers. In addition,
1,483 principals, 300 district administrators, 1,408 special education
teachers and 950 Title I paraprofessionals (teacher aides) were
surveyed. Response rates ranged from 82 to 96 percent.

This report focuses on the Title I parental choice provisions, which
only districts with Title I schools identified for improvement are
required to offer; therefore, fewer respondents were eligible to answer
these sections. The surveys asked district administrators and principals
about Title I school choice in 2003--04 and 2004--05 and about
supplemental educational services in 2003--04.[^11] The teacher surveys
also included questions about supplemental services. For the school
choice sections, 156 district administrators and 355 principals
responded for the 2003--04 school year and 125 district administrators
and 278 principals responded for the 2004--05 school year. Respondents
to questions about supplemental services in 2003--04 comprised 102
district administrators, 220 principals, and 2,503 teachers.

For the parent survey, a stratified random sample was drawn from a
subset of eight large urban school districts with substantial numbers of
participants in the two Title I choice options.[^12] Four groups of
parents were surveyed, based on district identification of parent
eligibility and participation in school choice and supplemental
services: parents of students in schools that were not identified for
improvement under *NCLB*, parents of students in schools identified for
improvement who used supplemental services, parents of students in
schools identified for improvement who did not use supplemental
services, and parents who used the Title I school option to transfer
their child to a non-identified school. One parent per student was
surveyed. A total of 1,863 parents completed surveys for a response rate
of 61 percent.

For the supplemental service provider survey, a random sample of 150
state-approved providers were surveyed in 16 districts, including the
same eight districts used for the parent survey and eight additional
districts selected to ensure variation in geographic regions, district
size, and urbanicity. Surveys were completed by 103 providers for a
response rate of 82 percent. Eighty-five percent of these providers were
private providers, as compared with 84 percent of providers nationally.
Five percent of the responding providers were school districts, compared
with 14 percent nationally. More details are provided in Appendix A.

In addition to the survey data, the report uses administrative data and
documents gathered under the NLS-*NCLB*. Documents were collected in a
purposive sample of 25 school districts (including the districts in
which the parent and provider surveys were conducted). Samples of
documents relevant to *NCLB* were collected in each district, including
district and school improvement plans and report cards and parental
notifications about choice options, teacher qualifications, and
achievement test scores of children.

Taken together, the purpose of these two studies is to provide an
integrated longitudinal evaluation of the implementation of *NCLB* at
the state, district, and school levels, with particular focus in four
areas: (1) accountability, (2) teacher quality, (3) Title I school
choice and supplemental educational services, and (4) resource
allocation and targeting. This report focuses on the third of these
areas, while companion reports will address the others.

### Technical Note {#technical-note .unnumbered}

References in the text to differences between groups or over time that
are based on nationally representative samples highlight only those
differences that are statistically significant using the t-value and a
significance level of 0.05. The significance level, or alpha level,
reflects the probability that a difference between groups as large as
the one observed could arise simply due to sampling variation, if there
were no true difference between groups in the population. The tests were
conducted by calculating a t-value for the difference between a pair of
means and comparing that value to a published table of critical values
for t.

# Eligibility, Availability and Participation

*No Child Left Behind* aims to make additional educational options,
including the option to choose another school and the option to receive
supplemental service choices, available to the parents of students in
Title I schools identified for improvement. This chapter describes the
students eligible for these choices and the schools in which they are
enrolled; the availability of the options offered to their parents,
including the characteristics of supplemental service providers; and
rates of participation in the options.

## Eligibility for Parental Choice  {#eligibility-for-parental-choice .unnumbered}

In 2004--05, nearly 6.2 million students were eligible for Title I
school choice and as many as 1.8 million students were eligible for
supplemental educational services.

Over one-fourth (26 percent) of K--12 students in Title I schools were
eligible for Title I school choice and 8 percent were potentially
eligible to receive supplemental educational services (see Exhibit 1).

Most districts were not required to offer parental choice options in
2004--05, because most Title I schools were not identified for
improvement. In 2004--05, 18 percent of Title I schools were identified
for improvement, with the consequence that their students were eligible
for school choice. Some of these schools---8 percent of all Title I
schools---were in the second year of improvement status or beyond,
making their students also eligible for supplemental services (see
Exhibit 1).[^13]

+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| []{#__RefHead      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ing___Toc189628315 |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| .anchor}Exhibit 1\ |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Number and         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Percentage of      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Students Eligible  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| for Title I School |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Choice and         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Supplemental       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Educational        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Services and of    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Title I Schools    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| with Eligible      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Students,\         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| 2002--03 Through   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| 2004--05           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    | S     |       |       | Su    |       |       |
|                    | chool |       |       | pplem |       |       |
|                    | C     |       |       | ental |       |       |
|                    | hoice |       |       | E     |       |       |
|                    |       |       |       | ducat |       |       |
|                    |       |       |       | ional |       |       |
|                    |       |       |       | Ser   |       |       |
|                    |       |       |       | vices |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    | **    | **    | **    | **    | **    | **    |
|                    | 2002- | 2003- | 2004- | 2002- | 2003- | 2004- |
|                    | -03** | -04** | -05** | -03** | -04** | -05** |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Students         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| eligible**         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students | 1,53  | 3,94  | 6,18  | 59    | 1,    | 1,82  |
|                    | 5,000 | 6,000 | 5,000 | 2,000 | 377,0 | 8,000 |
|                    |       |       |       |       | 00^a^ | ^a^   |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percentage of      | 6%    | 16%   | 26%   | 2%    | 6%    | 8%    |
| students in Title  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| I schools          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Title I          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| schools**          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of Title I  | 6,094 | 5,944 | 8,873 | 1,300 | 3,191 | 3,851 |
| schools            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percentage of      | 12%   | 12%   | 18%   | 2%    | 6%    | 8%    |
| Title I schools    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Exhibit reads:** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| In 2002--03,       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| 1,535,000 students |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| were eligible for  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Title I school     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| choice             |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| representing       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| 6 percent of all   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| students in Title  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| I schools. In      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| 2002--03, 6,094    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| schools, 12        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| percent of all     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Title I schools,   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| had students       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| eligible for       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| school choice.     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ^a^ The number of  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| students eligible  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| for supplemental   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| services is the    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| maximum number of  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| students           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| potentially        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| eligible,          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| estimated from the |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| number of students |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| receiving free or  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| reduced-price      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| lunches in Title I |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| schools that must  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| offer supplemental |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| services.          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Sources: U.S.      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Department of      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Education (2006)   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| (for 2002--03);    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| SSI-*NCLB,*        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| National AYP and   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Identification     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Database (for      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| 2003--04 and       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| 2004--05, based on |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| data reported by   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| 50 states and the  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| District of        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Columbia for       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| 50,731 Title I     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| schools).          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

Some states and districts have expanded eligibility for parental choice
options beyond the students that *NCLB* requires they serve. Idaho and
New Mexico required non-Title I schools that have been identified for
improvement to offer school choice and Tennessee required non-Title I
schools in corrective action to offer choice. These three states also
required districts to offer supplemental services in non-Title I
identified schools. (Exhibit 1, however, includes only Title I schools.)
Among districts required to offer supplemental services in 2004--05, 35
percent reported that they also offered supplemental services to
students in schools in the first year of improvement.

The number of students eligible for Title I school choice and
supplemental services grew substantially from 2002--03 to 2004--05, as
did the number of schools and districts with such students (see
Exhibit 1).[^14] The number of students eligible for school choice grew
to over six million in 2004--05, while the number of students eligible
for supplemental services rose from nearly 600,000 to 1.8 million from
2002--03 to 2004--05. This increase in eligibility for school choice
represents a jump from 6 percent of students in Title I schools being
eligible in 2002--03 to 26 percent in 2004--05; the corresponding
increase for those eligible for supplemental services was from 2 percent
to 8 percent.

**High-poverty, high-minority, and urban Title I schools were more
likely to have students eligible for Title I school choice and
supplemental educational services.**

In 2004--05, 37 percent of high-poverty Title I schools (schools with 75
percent or more of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches) had
students eligible for school choice, compared with 5 percent of
low-poverty Title I schools (schools with less than 35 percent of
students receiving free or reduced-price lunches) (see Exhibit 2).
Similarly, 18 percent of high-poverty Title I schools had students
eligible for supplemental services, compared with 2 percent of
low-poverty Title I schools.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628316 .anchor}E**xhibit 2\                  |
| Percentage of Title I Schools with Students Eligible for Title I      |
| School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, by Poverty and   |
| Minority Status, 2004--05**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image3.wmf)                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** In 2004--05, 37 percent of high-poverty Title I    |
| schools had students eligible for school choice, compared with 5      |
| percent of low-poverty Title I schools.                               |
|                                                                       |
| Source: SSI-*NCLB,* National AYP and Identification Database (based   |
| on data reported by 50 states and the District of Columbia for 48,761 |
| Title I schools).                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Schools with high concentrations of minority students (75 percent or
more) were much more likely to have students eligible for the two Title
I choice options in 2004--05 than were schools with low concentrations
of minority students (less than 25 percent). Specifically, 38 percent of
high-minority Title I schools had students eligible for school choice
and 21 percent had students eligible for supplemental services, compared
with 5 percent and 1 percent, respectively, of low-minority schools.

Urban schools were more likely than suburban and rural schools to have
students eligible for the Title I choice options. In 2004--05, 31
percent of urban Title I schools had students eligible for school
choice, compared with 15 percent of suburban Title I schools and 9
percent of rural Title I schools (see Exhibit 3). This pattern held for
supplemental services as well.[^15]

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628317 .anchor}Exhibit 3\                    |
| Percentage of Title I Schools with Students Eligible for Title I      |
| School Choice\                                                        |
| and Supplemental Educational Services, by Urbanicity, 2004--05        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image4.wmf)                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** In 2004--05, 32 percent of urban Title I schools   |
| with students eligible for school choice, compared with 16 percent of |
| suburban and 9 percent of rural Title I schools.                      |
|                                                                       |
| Source: SSI-*NCLB,* National AYP and Identification Database (based   |
| on data reported by 50 states and the District of Columbia for 48,761 |
| Title I schools).                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Secondary students were more likely to be eligible for school choice and
supplemental services than were elementary students, because secondary
Title I schools, particularly middle schools, were more likely to be
identified for improvement. While students in 15 percent of Title I
elementary schools were eligible for school choice, students in 31
percent of Title I middle schools and 24 percent of Title I high schools
were eligible. Similarly, students in 6 percent of Title I elementary
schools were eligible for supplemental services compared with students
in 12 percent of Title I middle schools and 7 percent of Title I high
schools (see Exhibit 4).

## Participation in Title I Choice Options {#participation-in-title-i-choice-options .unnumbered}

The number of students participating in Title I school choice and
supplemental educational services increased substantially from 2002--03
to subsequent years.

Both school choice and supplemental services showed increases in the
number of students participating. Nationally, school choice
participation increased from 18,000 in 2002--03 to 38,000 in 2003--04
and 45,000 in 2004--05. Participation in supplemental educational
services grew more rapidly, from 42,000 in 2002--03 to 233,000 in
2003--04.[^16]

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628318 .anchor}Exhibit 4\                    |
| Percentage of Title I Schools with Students Eligible for Title I      |
| School Choice\                                                        |
| and Supplemental Educational Services, by School Level, 2004--05      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image5.wmf)                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** In 2004--05, 15 percent of elementary Title I      |
| schools had students eligible for school choice, compared with 31     |
| percent of Title I middle schools and 24 percent of Title I high      |
| schools.                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| Source: SSI-*NCLB,* National AYP and Identification Database (based   |
| on data reported by 50 states and the District of Columbia for 48,761 |
| Title I schools).                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Nationally, the participation rate for Title I supplemental educational
services was substantially higher than for Title I school choice, but in
both instances, most eligible students did not participate.

Students participating in Title I school choice represented about 1
percent of eligible and 1 percent of notified students, a participation
rate that was comparable to that of the previous year, while students
participating in supplemental services represented about 17 percent of
the number of students estimated to be eligible for these services
nationally in 2003--04 (see Exhibit 5).

+--------+---------+--------+----------+--------+---------+---------+
| [      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ]{#__R |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| efHead |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ing___ |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Toc189 |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 628319 |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| .an    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| chor}E |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| xhibit |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 5\     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| N      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| otific |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ation, |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Applic |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ation, |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| and    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| P      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| artici |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| pation |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| in     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Title  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| I      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| School |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Choice |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| and\   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Supple |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| mental |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Educa  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| tional |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Ser    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| vices, |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 20     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 03--04 |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| and    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 20     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 04--05 |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| (as    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Re     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ported |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| by     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Dist   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ricts) |         |        |          |        |         |         |
+--------+---------+--------+----------+--------+---------+---------+
|        | Suppl   |        | School   |        | School  |         |
|        | emental |        | Choice   |        | Choice  |         |
|        | Educ    |        |          |        |         |         |
|        | ational |        | 2003--04 |        | 2       |         |
|        | S       |        |          |        | 004--05 |         |
|        | ervices |        | (n=109)  |        |         |         |
|        |         |        |          |        | (n=121) |         |
|        | 2       |        |          |        |         |         |
|        | 003--04 |        |          |        |         |         |
|        |         |        |          |        |         |         |
|        | (n=80)  |        |          |        |         |         |
+--------+---------+--------+----------+--------+---------+---------+
|        | **Es    | **Perc | **E      | **Perc | **Es    | **Per   |
|        | timated | entage | stimated | entage | timated | centage |
|        | Number  | of     | Number   | of     | Number  | of      |
|        | of      | El     | of       | El     | of      | E       |
|        | Stu     | igible | St       | igible | Stu     | ligible |
|        | dents** | Stud   | udents** | Stud   | dents** | Stu     |
|        |         | ents** |          | ents** |         | dents** |
+--------+---------+--------+----------+--------+---------+---------+
| Eligi  | 1,      | N/A    | 3        | NA     | 6,      | NA      |
| ble^a^ | 380,000 |        | ,850,000 |        | 526,000 |         |
+--------+---------+--------+----------+--------+---------+---------+
| No     | 1,      | 124%   | 3        | 85%    | 4,      | 64%     |
| tified | 714,000 |        | ,269,000 |        | 175,000 |         |
+--------+---------+--------+----------+--------+---------+---------+
| A      | 265,000 | 19%    | 68,000   | 2%     | 82,000  | 1%      |
| pplied |         |        |          |        |         |         |
+--------+---------+--------+----------+--------+---------+---------+
| Par    | 233,000 | 17%    | 38,000   | 1%     | 45,000  | 1%      |
| ticipa |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ted^b^ |         |        |          |        |         |         |
+--------+---------+--------+----------+--------+---------+---------+
| **E    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| xhibit |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| re     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ads:** |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| In     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 200    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 3--04, |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 1,3    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 80,000 |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| st     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| udents |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| were   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| el     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| igible |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| for    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Title  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| I      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| supple |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| mental |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| educa  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| tional |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ser    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| vices. |         |        |          |        |         |         |
|        |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ^a^    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| The    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| number |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| of     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| el     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| igible |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| st     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| udents |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| in     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| this   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| e      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| xhibit |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| d      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| iffers |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| sl     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ightly |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| from   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| the    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| number |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| of     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| el     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| igible |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| st     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| udents |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| noted  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| in     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Exh    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ibit 1 |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| b      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ecause |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| they   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| are    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| based  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| on     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| dif    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ferent |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| so     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| urces. |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| E      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| xhibit |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 5      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| est    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| imates |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| of     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| el     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| igible |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| st     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| udents |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| for    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| the    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Title  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| I      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| pa     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| rental |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| choice |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| were   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| based  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| on     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| res    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ponses |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| from   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| the    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| NL     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| S-NCLB |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| sample |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| of     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| dis    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| tricts |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| w      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| hereas |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| E      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| xhibit |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 1      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| est    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| imates |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| were   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| based  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| on     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ad     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| minist |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| rative |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| re     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| cords. |         |        |          |        |         |         |
|        |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ^b^    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| The    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 2      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| 33,000 |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| st     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| udents |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| p      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| artici |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| pating |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| in     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| supple |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| mental |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| se     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| rvices |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| may    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| i      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| nclude |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| st     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| udents |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| that   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| dis    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| tricts |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| were   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| not    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| re     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| quired |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| to     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| offer  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| these  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| se     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| rvices |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| to,    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| under  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| the    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| law;   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| some   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| dis    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| tricts |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| no     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| tified |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| a      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| larger |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| pool   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| of     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| st     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| udents |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| than   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| the    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| law    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| req    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| uired. |         |        |          |        |         |         |
|        |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Note:  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| The    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| perc   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| entage |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| of     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| el     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| igible |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| st     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| udents |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| was    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| est    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| imated |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| based  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| on two |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| dif    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ferent |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| s      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ources |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| of     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| data   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ---the |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| est    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| imated |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| number |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| of     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| st     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| udents |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| not    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ified, |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| taken  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| from   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| di     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| strict |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| survey |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| resp   |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| onses, |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| and    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| actual |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| na     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| tional |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| counts |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| of     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| st     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| udents |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| el     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| igible |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| for    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| choice |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| and    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| supple |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| mental |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ser    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| vices. |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| NA     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| means  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| not    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| appli  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| cable. |         |        |          |        |         |         |
|        |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| S      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| ource: |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| NLS-*  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| NCLB,* |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Di     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| strict |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| S      |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| urvey; |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| SSI-*  |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| NCLB,* |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Na     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| tional |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| AYP    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| and    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Id     |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| entifi |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| cation |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| Dat    |         |        |          |        |         |         |
| abase. |         |        |          |        |         |         |
+--------+---------+--------+----------+--------+---------+---------+

These participation rates are similar to those estimated by the Center
on Education Policy (2006) study, which reported that about 1 percent of
eligible students were using the Title I school choice option during the
2004--05 school year and about 18 percent of eligible students were
using *NCLB*-related supplemental services during the 2004--05 school
year. The Government Accountability Office (2006) counted 245,000
students participating in supplemental educational services in 2003--04,
a result similar to the one reported here.

Participation rates in Title I supplemental educational services were
lower in secondary schools than in elementary schools.

Elementary principals of schools with eligible students reported
participation numbers in supplemental educational services for 2003--04
that indicated an average rate of 17 percent of eligible students.
Middle school principals, by contrast, reported participation numbers
that indicated that only 5 percent of eligible students were
participating in supplemental services. Too few high school principals
responded with knowledge of the number of their students participating
to permit an accurate estimate of the national participation rate for
high school students.[^17]

Student-level administrative data on the participation in Title I
supplemental services were provided by a subsample of nine large, urban
districts: Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Palm
Beach, Philadelphia, San Diego, and Washington, D.C. Average
participation rates in those districts were generally consistent with
the national survey results: they were consistently highest in
elementary grades ranging from 16 to 23 percent and lowest in high
school grades ranging from 2 to 4 percent (see Exhibit 6).

+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| []{#_         |               |                    |                 |
| _RefHeading__ |               |                    |                 |
| _Toc189628320 |               |                    |                 |
| .a            |               |                    |                 |
| nchor}Exhibit |               |                    |                 |
| 6\            |               |                    |                 |
| Percentage of |               |                    |                 |
| Eligible      |               |                    |                 |
| Students      |               |                    |                 |
| Participating |               |                    |                 |
| in Title I    |               |                    |                 |
| Supplemental  |               |                    |                 |
| Educational   |               |                    |                 |
| Services and  |               |                    |                 |
| School        |               |                    |                 |
| Choice, by    |               |                    |                 |
| Grade Level   |               |                    |                 |
| in Nine       |               |                    |                 |
| Districts,    |               |                    |                 |
| 2004--05      |               |                    |                 |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Grade         | Number of     | Percentage of      | Percentage of   |
|               | Districts     | Eligible Students  | Eligible        |
|               | Reporting     | Participating in   | Students        |
|               | Participation | Supplemental       | Participating   |
|               |               | Services           | in School       |
|               |               |                    | Choice          |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| K             | 2             | 1.2%               | 4.1%            |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 1             | 5             | 16.4%              | 0.9%            |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 2             | 7             | 23.8%              | 0.6%            |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 3             | 9             | 28.3%              | 1.0%            |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 4             | 9             | 27.5%              | 0.7%            |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 5             | 9             | 25.1%              | 0.6%            |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 6             | 8             | 15.6%              | 1.5%            |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 7             | 9             | 12.8%              | 0.6%            |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 8             | 9             | 12.0%              | 0.4%            |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 9             | 6             | 3.4%               | 0.4%            |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 10            | 6             | 4.0%               | 0.4%            |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 11            | 4             | 2.8%               | 0.2%            |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 12            | 3             | 2.4%               | 0.4%            |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| **Exhibit     |               |                    |                 |
| reads:** In   |               |                    |                 |
| two districts |               |                    |                 |
| for which     |               |                    |                 |
| information   |               |                    |                 |
| on            |               |                    |                 |
| kindergarten  |               |                    |                 |
| students was  |               |                    |                 |
| available,    |               |                    |                 |
| 1.2 percent   |               |                    |                 |
| of            |               |                    |                 |
| kindergarten  |               |                    |                 |
| students      |               |                    |                 |
| participated  |               |                    |                 |
| in Title I    |               |                    |                 |
| supplemental  |               |                    |                 |
| services and  |               |                    |                 |
| 4.1 percent   |               |                    |                 |
| participated  |               |                    |                 |
| in the school |               |                    |                 |
| choice        |               |                    |                 |
| option.       |               |                    |                 |
|               |               |                    |                 |
| Note: Data    |               |                    |                 |
| for one of    |               |                    |                 |
| the nine      |               |                    |                 |
| districts are |               |                    |                 |
| for 2003--04. |               |                    |                 |
|               |               |                    |                 |
| Source:       |               |                    |                 |
| Zimmer, Gill, |               |                    |                 |
| Razquin,      |               |                    |                 |
| Booker and    |               |                    |                 |
| Lockwood,     |               |                    |                 |
| 2007.         |               |                    |                 |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+

For Title I school choice, average student participation rates across
the subsample of nine urban districts were below 1 percent in each of
grades one through five and seven through twelve.[^18] The
second-highest average participation rate (1.5 percent) was in sixth
grade, perhaps because many students were moving from elementary to
middle school at that point. Similarly, ninth grade showed higher
transfer rates than the adjoining grades in four of the five districts
reporting school choice participation data for grades eight through ten.
School choice participation was not included in the data for
kindergarten, the other grade level that might be expected to show
higher-than-average participation.

Of particular interest is whether disadvantaged students and students
with low levels of prior achievement were taking advantage of the Tile I
choice options. This is an important question, given that these
disadvantaged students are the primary focus of *NCLB.*

In a subsample of nine large, urban districts, African-American students
had the highest rates of participation, compared with other racial or
ethnic groups, in Title I supplemental educational services, and an
above-average participation rate in school choice.

For supplemental educational services, eligible African-American and
Hispanic students had higher participation rates (16.9 percent and 11.6
percent, respectively) than did eligible white students (10.1 percent).
Above-average participation rates were also found for students with
disabilities (14.6 percent) and LEP students (13.1 percent) (see Exhibit
7).

+---------------------+-------------------------+----------------------+
| []{#__RefHea        |                         |                      |
| ding___Toc189628321 |                         |                      |
| .anchor}Exhibit 7\  |                         |                      |
| Percentage of       |                         |                      |
| Eligible Students   |                         |                      |
| Participating in    |                         |                      |
| Title I             |                         |                      |
| Supplemental\       |                         |                      |
| Educational         |                         |                      |
| Services and School |                         |                      |
| Choice in Nine      |                         |                      |
| Large, Urban        |                         |                      |
| Districts,\         |                         |                      |
| by Demographic      |                         |                      |
| Categories,         |                         |                      |
| 2004--05            |                         |                      |
+---------------------+-------------------------+----------------------+
| Demographic         | Supplemental            | School Choice        |
| Characteristic      | Educational Services    |                      |
+---------------------+-------------------------+----------------------+
| White               | 10.1%                   | 1.1%                 |
+---------------------+-------------------------+----------------------+
| African-American    | 16.9%                   | 0.9%                 |
+---------------------+-------------------------+----------------------+
| Hispanic            | 11.6%                   | 0.4%                 |
+---------------------+-------------------------+----------------------+
| LEP students        | 13.1%                   | 0.3%                 |
+---------------------+-------------------------+----------------------+
| Students with       | 14.6%                   | 0.4%                 |
| disabilities        |                         |                      |
+---------------------+-------------------------+----------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:**  |                         |                      |
| For the 2004--05    |                         |                      |
| school year, 10.1   |                         |                      |
| percent of eligible |                         |                      |
| white students      |                         |                      |
| participated in     |                         |                      |
| Title I             |                         |                      |
| supplemental        |                         |                      |
| educational         |                         |                      |
| services.           |                         |                      |
|                     |                         |                      |
| Note: Data for one  |                         |                      |
| district are for    |                         |                      |
| 2003--04.           |                         |                      |
|                     |                         |                      |
| Source: Zimmer,     |                         |                      |
| Gill, Razquin,      |                         |                      |
| Booker and          |                         |                      |
| Lockwood, 2007.     |                         |                      |
+---------------------+-------------------------+----------------------+

For school choice, eligible African-American students again had an
above-average participation rate (0.9 percent), but eligible Hispanic
students were less likely to participate (0.4 percent). White students
had an above-average participation rate (1.1 percent). LEP students and
students with disabilities had relatively low participation rates (0.3
percent and 0.4 percent, respectively).

The nine districts in the subsample also provided information about the
achievement levels of students in the year prior to participation in the
Title I choice options. Exhibit 8 shows average achievement results
across the nine districts for participants and all eligible students for
both school choice and supplemental educational services. For this
analysis, test results were converted to standardized z‑scores to permit
comparison and averaging across districts with different tests. A value
below zero indicates an average score below the district average while a
score above zero indicates it is above the district average.

+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| [               |            |            |            |            |
| ]{#__RefHeading |            |            |            |            |
| ___Toc189628322 |            |            |            |            |
| .anchor}Exhibit |            |            |            |            |
| 8\              |            |            |            |            |
| Prior           |            |            |            |            |
| Achievement     |            |            |            |            |
| Levels          |            |            |            |            |
| (Measured in    |            |            |            |            |
| Z-Scores) of    |            |            |            |            |
| Students        |            |            |            |            |
| Participating   |            |            |            |            |
| and\            |            |            |            |            |
| Eligible for    |            |            |            |            |
| Title I Choice  |            |            |            |            |
| Options in Nine |            |            |            |            |
| Large, Urban    |            |            |            |            |
| Districts,      |            |            |            |            |
| 2004--05        |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Demographic     | Su         |            | School     |            |
|                 | pplemental |            | Choice     |            |
| Characteristic  | E          |            |            |            |
|                 | ducational |            |            |            |
|                 | Services   |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|                 | **Par      | *          | **Par      | *          |
|                 | ticipating | *Eligible\ | ticipating | *Eligible\ |
|                 | Students** | Students** | Students** | Students** |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Prior year      | -0.35^a^   | -0.23      | -0.19      | -0.21      |
| reading         |            |            |            |            |
|                 |            |            |            |            |
| z-score         |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Prior year math | -0.31^a^   | -0.19      | -0.19      | -0.19      |
|                 |            |            |            |            |
| z-score         |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Exhibit       |            |            |            |            |
| reads:** For    |            |            |            |            |
| the 2004--05    |            |            |            |            |
| school year,    |            |            |            |            |
| students        |            |            |            |            |
| participating   |            |            |            |            |
| in Title I      |            |            |            |            |
| supplemental    |            |            |            |            |
| educational     |            |            |            |            |
| services had,   |            |            |            |            |
| on average,     |            |            |            |            |
| prior reading   |            |            |            |            |
| achievement     |            |            |            |            |
| scores of 0.35  |            |            |            |            |
| of a standard   |            |            |            |            |
| deviation below |            |            |            |            |
| the             |            |            |            |            |
| districtwide    |            |            |            |            |
| mean score,     |            |            |            |            |
| while students  |            |            |            |            |
| eligible for    |            |            |            |            |
| supplemental    |            |            |            |            |
| services had,   |            |            |            |            |
| on average,     |            |            |            |            |
| reading prior   |            |            |            |            |
| achievement     |            |            |            |            |
| scores of 0.23  |            |            |            |            |
| of a standard   |            |            |            |            |
| deviation below |            |            |            |            |
| the             |            |            |            |            |
| districtwide    |            |            |            |            |
| mean.           |            |            |            |            |
|                 |            |            |            |            |
| ^a^ Indicates   |            |            |            |            |
| that the prior  |            |            |            |            |
| test scores of  |            |            |            |            |
| participants    |            |            |            |            |
| were            |            |            |            |            |
| significantly   |            |            |            |            |
| different from  |            |            |            |            |
| prior test      |            |            |            |            |
| scores of       |            |            |            |            |
| eligible        |            |            |            |            |
| students at the |            |            |            |            |
| 5 percent       |            |            |            |            |
| level.          |            |            |            |            |
|                 |            |            |            |            |
| Notes: Data for |            |            |            |            |
| one district    |            |            |            |            |
| are for         |            |            |            |            |
| 2003--04.       |            |            |            |            |
| Values less     |            |            |            |            |
| than 0 are      |            |            |            |            |
| below the       |            |            |            |            |
| districtwide    |            |            |            |            |
| averages while  |            |            |            |            |
| values greater  |            |            |            |            |
| than 0 are      |            |            |            |            |
| above           |            |            |            |            |
| districtwide    |            |            |            |            |
| averages.       |            |            |            |            |
|                 |            |            |            |            |
| Source: Zimmer, |            |            |            |            |
| Gill, Razquin,  |            |            |            |            |
| Booker and      |            |            |            |            |
| Lockwood, 2007. |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+

In a subsample of nine large, urban districts, students who participated
in Title I supplemental educational services had lower scores than the
eligible student population had. Students who participated in Title I
school choice had scores nearly identical to those of the eligible
student population.

Overall, average prior test scores for reading and math of students
participating in supplemental services were 0.12 of a standard deviation
lower than those of the eligible population. However, there were no
statistically significant differences in prior reading and math test
scores for students participating in the school choice option relative
to the eligible population. Average test scores of students eligible for
supplemental services and school choice were similar because these
populations largely overlap.

## Options Offered by Districts  {#options-offered-by-districts .unnumbered}

### School Choice Options {#school-choice-options .unnumbered}

Most districts that were required to offer Title I school choice
reported offering school choice options to eligible students; however,
districts were more likely to provide options at the elementary level
than at the middle and high school levels.

At the elementary level, 70 percent of districts with one or more
elementary schools identified for improvement reported offering students
in those schools the option to transfer to another school (see Exhibit
9). At the middle school level, 20 percent of affected districts
reported offering the school choice option, while the comparable figure
for the high school level was 17 percent. Approximately two-thirds of
districts with middle or high schools that were identified for
improvement were not offering school choice at those grade levels
because all the schools at that grade level were identified for
improvement. Typically, districts have fewer middle and high schools
than elementary schools. Across the country, 77 percent of school
districts with high schools have only one high school, 67 percent of
districts with middle schools have only one middle school, and 53
percent of districts with elementary schools have only one elementary
school.[^19]

Among districts offering school choice to eligible students, 40 percent
reported at least one student actually transferred schools in 2004--05.

Nationwide, greater percentages of students are being offered Title I
school choice than the above numbers suggest, because large districts
are more likely to be offering choice to at least some of their
students. Among elementary students eligible for choice, 92 percent
attended school in a district that reported offering choice, while 67
and 55 percent of eligible middle and high school students attended
school in a district that reported offering choice (see Exhibit 9).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628323 .anchor}E**xhibit 9\                  |
| Percentage of Districts and of Students in These Districts Reporting\ |
| Availability of Title I School Choice Option, by School Level,        |
| 2004--05\                                                             |
| (Among Districts Required to Offer Choice)**                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image2.wmf)                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Seventy percent of districts required to offer     |
| school choice at the elementary level reported they were offering     |
| school choice at that grade level. Ninety-two percent of students in  |
| districts required to offer choice were located in these districts.   |
|                                                                       |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District Survey; SSI-*NCLB,* National AYP and     |
| Identification Database (n=124, 109, and 72 districts, respectively,  |
| for elementary, middle and high schools).                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Districts that offered Title I school choice typically offered parents
of eligible elementary students multiple alternate schools to choose
from; parents of eligible middle and high school students were typically
offered fewer options.

In 2004--05, the median number of alternate schools that districts
reported offering parents of students eligible for school choice, was
two at the elementary level and one at the middle and high school
levels. However, the range was quite wide (e.g., 0 to 39 for elementary
schools). More than three-fourths of districts required to offer choice
at the elementary level in 2004--05 offered two or more alternate
schools, but this was less common at the middle and high school levels
(30 percent and 20 percent, respectively) (see Exhibit 10).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628324 .anchor}Exhibit 10\                   |
| Percentage of Districts Required to Offer Title I School Choice That\ |
| Offered Parents of Eligible Students Two or More Alternate Schools,\  |
| by School Level, 2004--05                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image6.wmf)                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** In 2004--05, 56 percent of students attended       |
| schools in districts that offered choice at the high school level and |
| that reported they offered parents of students eligible for school    |
| choice at least two alternate schools. Twenty percent of districts    |
| that offered choice at the high school level reported that they       |
| offered parents of students eligible for school choice at least two   |
| alternate schools.                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District Survey (n=67, 106, and 108 districts,    |
| respectively, for high, middle, and elementary schools).              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The proportion of eligible students for Title I school choice who were
offered at least two options of alternate schools, was substantially
higher than the proportion of districts able to offer such options,
because eligible students are disproportionately located in large
districts. Ninety-five percent of eligible elementary students had at
least two schools from which to choose from, as did 70 percent of middle
school students and 56 percent of high school students.

Districts in the subsample of eight large, urban districts in which
parents were surveyed, reported offering parents of eligible students an
average of seven elementary schools from which to choose, while parents
in these districts reported being offered an average of four schools.
Sixty-nine percent of parents taking advantage of the Title I school
choice, reported they had been allowed to transfer their child to their
first-choice alternate school. Non-choosing parents did not report being
offered fewer choices than choosing parents.

More than 8 out of 10 parents who took advantage of the Title I school
choice option were satisfied with their decision.

Among parents who transferred their child to a non-identified school,
one-half reported that they were "very satisfied" with their decision
and another third were "satisfied."

In nine large, urban districts, students who used the Title I school
choice option transferred to higher-performing schools.

Students using school choice moved from schools with below-average
achievement levels to schools with above-average achievement levels in
every one of the nine districts (see Exhibit 11). In several of the
districts, the difference in achievement levels between chosen schools
and former schools exceeded half a standard deviation. Across the nine
districts, average achievement levels in the chosen schools exceeded
average achievement levels in the schools left behind by nearly
four-tenths of a standard deviation.

+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
| [      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ]{#__R |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| efHead |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ing___ |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Toc189 |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| 628325 |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| .an    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| chor}E |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| xhibit |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| 11\    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| A      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| verage |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| S      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| tudent |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Achie  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| vement |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| in     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| S      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| chools |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| That   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| St     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| udents |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| P      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| artici |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| pating |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| in     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Title  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| I      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| School |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Choice |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Left   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| and to |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Which  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| They   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Transf |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| erred, |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Re     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| lative |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| to     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| A      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| verage |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Di     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| strict |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Achiev |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ement, |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| 20     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| 03--04 |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| and    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| 20     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| 04--05 |      |         |           |      |         |            |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
| Di     | Rea  |         |           | Math |         |            |
| strict | ding |         |           | Z-S  |         |            |
|        | Z-S  |         |           | core |         |            |
|        | core |         |           |      |         |            |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
|        | *    | **      | **Schools | *    | **      | **Schools  |
|        | *n** | Schools | to Which  | *n** | Schools | to Which   |
|        |      | S       | Students  |      | S       | Students   |
|        |      | tudents | Tran      |      | tudents | Tra        |
|        |      | Left**  | sferred** |      | Left**  | nsferred** |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
| A      | 436  | -0.12   | 0.06      | 436  | -0.13   | 0.12       |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
| B      | 449  | -0.14   | 0.01      | 373  | -0.08   | 0.02       |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
| C      | 147  | -0.25   | 0.34      | 147  | -0.33   | 0.27       |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
| D      | 830  | -0.23   | 0.11      | 710  | -0.25   | 0.11       |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
| E      | 553  | -0.33   | 0.36      | 553  | -0.25   | 0.35       |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
| F      | 18   | -0.42   | 0.08      | 18   | -0.30   | 0.05       |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
| G      | 673  | -0.20   | 0.17      | 673  | -0.20   | 0.14       |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
| H      | 5    | -0.62   | 0.30      | 5    | -0.45   | 0.30       |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
| I      | 29   | -0.11   | 0.60      | 29   | -0.21   | 0.66       |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
| **T    | *    | **      | **0.16**  | *    | **      | **0.17**   |
| otal** | *3,1 | -0.21** |           | *2,9 | -0.20** |            |
|        | 40** |         |           | 44** |         |            |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+
| > **E  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| xhibit |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > re   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ads:** |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > In   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > Di   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| strict |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > A,   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > the  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > 436  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > st   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| udents |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| >      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
|  using |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| >      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
|  Title |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > I    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| >      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| school |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| >      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| choice |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > in   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > 20   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| 04--05 |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > left |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > s    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| chools |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > that |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > had  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > r    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| eading |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| >      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| scores |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > (200 |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| 3--04) |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > that |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > were |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > 0.12 |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > st   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| andard |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > devi |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ations |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| >      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
|  below |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > the  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| >      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| distri |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ctwide |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > a    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| verage |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > and  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > e    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ntered |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > s    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| chools |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > (200 |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| 4--05) |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > that |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > were |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > 0.06 |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > st   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| andard |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > devi |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ations |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| >      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
|  above |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| > the  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| >      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| distri |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ctwide |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| >      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| averag |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| e**.** |      |         |           |      |         |            |
|        |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Note:  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| R      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| esults |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| for    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| one    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| di     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| strict |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| are    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| for    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| 200    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| 3--04. |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| In all |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| inst   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ances, |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| the    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| a      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| verage |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| s      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| tudent |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| achie  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| vement |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| for    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| s      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| chools |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| st     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| udents |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| left   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| and    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| s      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| chools |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| to     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| which  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| st     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| udents |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| trans  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ferred |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| were   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| s      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ignifi |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| cantly |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| dif    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ferent |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| from   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| the    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| a      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| verage |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| s      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| tudent |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| achie  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| vement |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| in     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| their  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| resp   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ective |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| dist   |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ricts. |      |         |           |      |         |            |
|        |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| S      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| ource: |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Z      |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| immer, |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Gill,  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Ra     |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| zquin, |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Booker |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| and    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| Loc    |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| kwood, |      |         |           |      |         |            |
| 2007.  |      |         |           |      |         |            |
+--------+------+---------+-----------+------+---------+------------+

Nonidentified schools could see declines in their own proficiency levels
(and an increase in the probability that they will miss AYP) as a result
of receiving students who transfer under the Title I school choice
provision. On average, such schools have above-average achievement
levels (0.16 and 0.17) of a standard deviation above districtwide
averages in reading and math, as shown in Exhibit 11), but they are
accepting students with below-average achievement levels (0.19 of a
standard deviation below districtwide averages in reading and math, as
shown in Exhibit 8). Therefore, their overall proficiency rates may
decline with the acceptance of transfer students. However, few schools
are likely to be substantially affected by transfers because the number
of students actually transferring to schools is generally small.

### Supplemental Educational Service Options {#supplemental-educational-service-options .unnumbered}

In 2004--05, most districts required to offer Title I supplemental
educational services reported offering these services to eligible
elementary and middle school students; One-third of districts did so for
eligible high school students.

Ninety percent of districts with eligible elementary students and 96
percent of districts with eligible middle school students offered
supplemental services to these students in 2004--05 while one-third of
districts did so for eligible high school students. As discussed below,
one reason is that providers of supplemental services were significantly
less likely to provide services to high school students than they were
to provide services to elementary and middle school students.

From May 2003 to May 2006, the number of state-approved Title I
supplemental educational service providers in the nation more than
tripled.

The number of supplemental educational service providers increased from
997 in May 2003 to 2,734 in May 2005.[^20] The largest increase occurred
among private providers. Private providers accounted for 76 percent of
all state-approved providers in May 2005, up from 60 percent in May
2003. In 2005, these included 249 faith-based private providers (9
percent of all approved providers), an increase from 18 authorized
faith-based providers in May 2003. Meanwhile, the proportion of all
providers that were school districts or public schools decreased from 33
percent in May 2003 to 17 percent in May 2005. Although districts and
public schools, institutions of higher education, and other types of
non-private providers accounted for a smaller proportion of the total
number of providers in May 2005 than they did two years earlier, all
types of providers increased substantially in number over the three-year
period.

Private providers served 58 percent of students participating in Title I
supplemental educational services in 2003--04 while 34 percent received
supplemental services from districts or public schools.

In 2003--04, most students were served by private providers, but in
slightly lower proportions than the number of private providers would
indicate. Public schools and districts, by contrast, served more
students than their numbers would indicate. Faith-based providers were
typically small, and they served less than 1 percent of all
participating students (see Exhibit 12).

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628326  |                                   |
| .anchor}Exhibit 12\              |                                   |
| Percentage of Title I            |                                   |
| Supplemental Educational Service |                                   |
| Providers\                       |                                   |
| and of Participating Students,   |                                   |
| by Provider Type                 |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Percentage of State-Approved   | **Percentage of Student           |
| Providers,\                      | Participants,\                    |
| May 2003 to May 2005**           | 2003--04**                        |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ![](media/image7.wmf)            | ![](media/image8.wmf)             |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** In May 2003,  |                                   |
| 60 percent of state-approved     |                                   |
| providers were private           |                                   |
| providers, 33 percent were       |                                   |
| school districts and public      |                                   |
| schools, and 7 percent were      |                                   |
| other types of providers. In the |                                   |
| 2003--04 school year, 58 percent |                                   |
| of students were served by       |                                   |
| private providers, 34 percent    |                                   |
| were served by school districts  |                                   |
| and public schools, and 8        |                                   |
| percent were served by other     |                                   |
| types of providers.              |                                   |
|                                  |                                   |
| Note: Individual items may not   |                                   |
| add to 100 percent because of    |                                   |
| rounding.                        |                                   |
|                                  |                                   |
| Sources: Policy and Program      |                                   |
| Studies Services review of State |                                   |
| Educational Agency Web sites;    |                                   |
| NLS-*NCLB*, District Survey.     |                                   |
| Percentages of providers are     |                                   |
| based on data reported by 50     |                                   |
| states, the District of Columbia |                                   |
| and Puerto Rico. Percentages of  |                                   |
| participating students are based |                                   |
| on 71 districts in 2003--04.     |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

In 2003--04, approximately one-third of districts that offered
supplemented services reported that parents of eligible students had one
or two supplemental service providers from which to choose, while 26
percent of districts reported that parents could choose from between
three or four providers, and 38 percent reported that parents had five
or more providers from which to choose (Exhibit 13).

Supplemental service providers operating in a subsample of 16
geographically diverse districts in 2004--05 served varying numbers of
districts.[^21] Forty-two percent of all providers served only one
school district, while 23 percent served two to five districts, and 34
percent served more than five districts.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628327 .anchor}Exhibit 13\                   |
| Percentage of Districts, by Number of Title I Supplemental            |
| Educational Service Providers Available to Students, 2003--04         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image9.wmf)                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Thirty-seven percent of districts that offered     |
| students supplemental services in 2003--04 reported that parents had  |
| an average of one or two supplemental service providers from which to |
| choose.                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District Survey (n=75 districts).                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Most surveyed providers in the 16-district subsample concentrated their
services on students in the elementary and middle grades, and primarily
on mathematics and reading. Although more than 85 percent of providers
offered services in reading in elementary and middle grades, only about
half the providers offered services in reading to high school students
(see Exhibit 14). Similarly, 84 percent of providers offered services in
mathematics for elementary students, 81 percent for middle school
students, and 46 percent for high school students. Writing was the next
most-common subject for which services were offered, while less than one
provider in five offered services in science and social studies or
history, at any grade level.

Most service providers operating in the subsample of 16 districts
reported that they were able to meet parental demand and student needs.
Seventy-eight percent of providers reported being able to serve all
students they were asked to serve. Also, a majority of providers
reported that they provided services to special populations:
Ninety-eight percent of providers served students performing below grade
level, 89 percent served students with disabilities, and 74 percent
served students with limited English proficiency.

+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| []{#__RefHe          |               |               |               |
| ading___Toc189628328 |               |               |               |
| .anchor}Exhibit 14\  |               |               |               |
| Percentage of Title  |               |               |               |
| I Supplemental       |               |               |               |
| Educational Service  |               |               |               |
| Providers,\          |               |               |               |
| by Service Provided  |               |               |               |
| and Grades Served,   |               |               |               |
| 2004--05             |               |               |               |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Service Provided** | Served        | Served        | Served        |
|                      |               |               |               |
|                      | Grades K--5   | Grades 6--8   | Grades 9--12  |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Reading (n=98)       | 91%           | 88%           | 49%           |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Mathematics (n=98)   | 84%           | 81%           | 46%           |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Writing (n=98)       | 49%           | 46%           | 21%           |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Social studies or    | 17%           | 15%           | 11%           |
| history (n=98)       |               |               |               |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Science (n=98)       | 17%           | 14%           | 10%           |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Other (n=98)         | 4%            | 6%            | 4%            |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Offering services in | 91%           | 89%           | 51%           |
| any subject (n=101)  |               |               |               |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Exhibit reads:**   |               |               |               |
| In a sample of 16    |               |               |               |
| geographically       |               |               |               |
| diverse districts,   |               |               |               |
| 91 percent of        |               |               |               |
| providers offered    |               |               |               |
| services in reading  |               |               |               |
| for students in      |               |               |               |
| grades K--5.         |               |               |               |
|                      |               |               |               |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*,  |               |               |               |
| Supplemental Service |               |               |               |
| Provider Survey (in  |               |               |               |
| 16 districts).       |               |               |               |
+----------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

The amount of supplemental educational services that a student may
receive is not specified in the *NCLB* statute and can vary across
districts and providers. Half of districts offering supplemental
educational services reported that students received one or two hours of
supplemental educational services per week in 2003--04. About 47 percent
of districts reported that students received services for three or four
hours per week; and 2 percent reported that students received services
for five or more hours per week (see Exhibit 15).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628329 .anchor}Exhibit 15\                   |
| Percentage of Districts, by Number of Hours of Title I Supplemental   |
| Educational Services Students Received per Week, 2003--04             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image10.wmf)                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** In 2003--04, 51 percent of districts offering      |
| supplemental services reported that students received one or two      |
| hours of supplemental services per week.                              |
|                                                                       |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District Survey (n=83 districts).                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Title I supplemental educational service providers reported providing an
average of 57 hours of services per student annually.

Parents and supplemental educational service providers surveyed in a
subsample of 16 districts reported a somewhat higher intensity of
supplemental services than the districts reported nationally. Providers
reported an average of 3.5 sessions per week and 84 minutes per session,
suggesting a weekly average dose of nearly five hours (see Exhibit 16).
They also reported an average of 41 sessions provided to students
annually, suggesting an average duration of services of 12 weeks.
Parents reported a similar intensity of weekly services as that reported
by providers.[^22] Providers reported an average rate of absenteeism of
about 20 percent.

+----------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| []{#_                      |            |             |              |
| _RefHeading___Toc189628330 |            |             |              |
| .anchor}Exhibit 16\        |            |             |              |
| Average Duration and       |            |             |              |
| Frequency of Title I       |            |             |              |
| Supplemental Educational   |            |             |              |
| Services Sessions,         |            |             |              |
| 2004--05                   |            |             |              |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| **Duration or Frequency**  | Average    | Shortest    | Longest      |
|                            | Duration   | Duration\   | Duration\    |
|                            | or         | or          | or Frequency |
|                            | Frequency  | Frequency   |              |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| Number of minutes (n=95)   | 84         | 30          | 200          |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| Number of sessions per     | 3          | 1           | 25           |
| week (n=98)                |            |             |              |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| Number of sessions per     | 41         | 9           | 130          |
| year (n=93)                |            |             |              |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** In a    |            |             |              |
| subsample of 16 districts, |            |             |              |
| supplemental educational   |            |             |              |
| service providers reported |            |             |              |
| that their average         |            |             |              |
| supplemental service       |            |             |              |
| session lasted 84 minutes. |            |             |              |
|                            |            |             |              |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*,        |            |             |              |
| Supplemental Service       |            |             |              |
| Provider Survey (in 16     |            |             |              |
| districts).                |            |             |              |
+----------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+

A 2005 U.S. Department of Education report involving case studies of
supplemental service providers found a range of 18--120 hours per
student, with an average of 60 hours (U.S. Department of Education,
2005a). Another analysis of a separate survey of providers across the
country found that about 50 percent of providers offer between 31--60
hours of instruction per student (AIR and EIA, 2005).

Providers in the 16-district subsample reported that student attendance
rates for supplemental services averaged 78 percent in 2004--05, ranging
from a low of 10 percent reported by one provider, to a high of 100
percent reported by another. The average student-to-tutor ratio was 5 to
1, ranging from one-to-one to 20-to-1.

Most Title I supplemental educational service providers reported serving
students at their own schools and often provided these services
one-on-one.

According to supplemental service provider reports, 61 percent provided
services at the schools of students served either often or always, while
services were less likely to be given at public buildings or the local
offices of the provider (see Exhibit 17). A recent report of a national
survey of supplemental service providers likewise found that the school
was the most common site for services, followed by community-based sites
and students' homes (AIR and EIA, 2005).

Twenty-nine percent of providers reported that they always provided
services one-on-one, and another 23 percent reported doing so often.
More than one-half provided services in small groups either often or
always, and one-third reported always or often providing services in
large groups (see Exhibit 17).

+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628331    |       |        |       |       |
| .anchor}Exhibit 17\                |       |        |       |       |
| Percentage of Title I Supplemental |       |        |       |       |
| Educational Service Providers, by  |       |        |       |       |
| Location and Grouping of Students  |       |        |       |       |
| for Delivery of Services, 2004--05 |       |        |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Location and Student Grouping      | Never | *      | **Of  | **Alw |
|                                    |       | *Somet | ten** | ays** |
|                                    |       | imes** |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| **Location where supplemental      |       |        |       |       |
| services are provided** (n=92)     |       |        |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > At the schools of served         | 33%   | 6%     | 14%   | 47%   |
| > students                         |       |        |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > At other schools or              | 79%   | 16%    | 3%    | 2%    |
| > administrative buildings in the  |       |        |       |       |
| > district                         |       |        |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > At a public building, i.e., a    | 59%   | 22%    | 8%    | 11%   |
| > library or community center      |       |        |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > At the local office of the       | 69%   | 5%     | 4%    | 22%   |
| > provider                         |       |        |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > On the internet                  | 85%   | 3%     | 3%    | 8%    |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| **Student grouping for delivery of |       |        |       |       |
| supplemental services** (n=97)     |       |        |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > In large groups                  | 39%   | 27%    | 21%   | 13%   |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > In small groups                  | 26%   | 19%    | 38%   | 17%   |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > One-on-one                       | 18%   | 30%    | 23%   | 29%   |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| **Exhibit reads:** In a subsample  |       |        |       |       |
| of 16 districts, 33 percent of     |       |        |       |       |
| supplemental service providers     |       |        |       |       |
| reported that they never provided  |       |        |       |       |
| services at the schools of the     |       |        |       |       |
| students they served.              |       |        |       |       |
|                                    |       |        |       |       |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental   |       |        |       |       |
| Service Provider Survey (in 16     |       |        |       |       |
| districts).                        |       |        |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+

Nine out of ten parents of students participating in Title I
supplemental educational services were satisfied with the services; half
of such parents were very satisfied.

The overwhelming majority (91 percent) of responding parents of students
participating in supplemental services reported satisfaction with the
services provided; 53 percent were very satisfied. These levels of
satisfaction are consistent with the reports of parents enrolled in
other varieties of (non-*NCLB*-related) supplemental services.[^23]

## Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}

The number of students eligible for Title I school choice quadrupled
between 2002--03 and 2004--05, while the number of students eligible for
supplemental educational services tripled. As eligibility for Title I
school choice and supplemental services increased, most districts
required to offer the options reported that they were in fact doing so.
In the case of school choice, however, the availability of options
varied substantially by grade level, with two-thirds of districts
required to offer choice actually doing so at the elementary level
versus less than one-fifth of districts at the middle and high school
levels. At the middle and high school levels, choice was most often
constrained by a lack of non-identified schools within the district; in
many cases, the school identified for improvement was the only school in
the district serving those grade levels.

Although the supply of providers nationally has grown rapidly---to about
2,800 by spring 2005---many providers did not offer services for high
school students. This is surely an important reason that fewer than half
of districts with eligible high school students offered supplemental
services at the high school level in 2004--05, while nearly all
districts with eligible students reported offering supplemental services
in the elementary and middle grades.

Although the number of students participating in school choice and
supplemental educational services has grown, participation rates have
remained low, at 1 percent of eligible students for school choice (in
2004--05) and at 17 percent for supplemental services (in 2003--04).
Nonetheless, both options were succeeding in enrolling the low-achieving
students who are the intended beneficiaries. Also, parents of
participating students (in a subsample of eight urban districts) were
quite satisfied with both supplemental services and school choice.

Reports from supplemental service providers in 16 districts suggest that
services averaged about 57 hours per pupil over the course of the school
year. An absenteeism rate of around 20 percent (also reported by
providers), suggests that the average "dose" of supplemental services
received by students would be somewhat less than 57 hours.

# Communication With Parents

When students are eligible for school choice or supplemental educational
services under *NCLB*, the statute gives school districts the
responsibility of notifying parents of their children's eligibility, and
of providing them with information about the schools and supplemental
service providers available to them. In addition to the written
notification required, school districts may use a variety of additional
methods to communicate with parents, including relying to some extent on
principals and teachers at individual school sites. For school choice,
notification is expected to occur before the beginning of the school
year. For supplemental services, communication is expected to include a
negotiated agreement among parent, provider, and school district about
the goals for the individual child.

## Notification of Options {#notification-of-options .unnumbered}

**Most districts required to offer Title I school choice and
supplemental educational services reported notifying eligible parents of
their options; however, most eligible parents in a sample of eight urban
districts said they had not been notified---despite the fact that all
eight districts offered these choice options and produced notification
letters.**

**Sixty-two percent of the districts required to offer Title I school
choice and 97 percent of districts required to offer supplemental
educational services reported that they notified parents of the options
available to their children. Most of the districts that did not notify
parents of their eligibility for school choice were not offering school
choice.**

In a subsample of eight urban districts, however, only 27 percent of
parents of students who were eligible for school choice said they had
been notified of the option to transfer their child to another school,
while 66 percent said they had not been notified and 7 percent said they
were not sure---despite the fact that all eight districts reported that
they had offered choice options to such parents (and provided copies of
the parent information letters that they had sent out) (see Exhibit 18).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628332 .anchor}Exhibit 18\                   |
| Percentage of Districts That Notified Parents of Title I Choice and\  |
| Supplemental Educational Service Options and Percentage of Parents\   |
| That Reported They Were Notified, 2004--05                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image11.wmf)                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** In a sample of eight urban districts, all of the   |
| districts reported notifying parents of eligible students of their    |
| Title I school choice and supplemental educational services options,  |
| but only 53 percent of these parents said they were notified about    |
| the supplemental services option and only 27 percent of these parents |
| said they were notified about the school choice option.               |
|                                                                       |
| Sources: NLS-*NCLB*, District and Parent Surveys (n=8 districts, 779  |
| parents for supplemental services, and 932 parents for school         |
| choice).                                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Similarly, all eight urban districts reported that they notified parents
of the supplemental educational service options available to their
children.[^24] But as for school choice, many parents in those districts
reported they were not given the chance to receive supplemental
services. About half of the parents (53 percent) of students eligible
for supplemental services reported that they had been notified of their
child's eligibility, while 40 percent said they had not been told and 7
percent were not sure (see Exhibit 19). Parents of eligible students who
used supplemental services were more likely to report having been
notified (two‑thirds) than those who did not (one-half). It is unclear
why 25 percent of the parents of students who were using supplemental
services according to district records reported that they had not been
notified of their eligibility. These parents may be confused about what
supplemental services are.

+------------+-------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| [          |                         |              |               |
| ]{#__RefHe |                         |              |               |
| ading___To |                         |              |               |
| c189628333 |                         |              |               |
| .anch      |                         |              |               |
| or}Exhibit |                         |              |               |
| 19\        |                         |              |               |
| Percentage |                         |              |               |
| of Parents |                         |              |               |
| That       |                         |              |               |
| Reported   |                         |              |               |
| They Were  |                         |              |               |
| Notified   |                         |              |               |
| of Their   |                         |              |               |
| Child's    |                         |              |               |
| El         |                         |              |               |
| igibility\ |                         |              |               |
| for Title  |                         |              |               |
| I          |                         |              |               |
| Su         |                         |              |               |
| pplemental |                         |              |               |
| E          |                         |              |               |
| ducational |                         |              |               |
| Services,  |                         |              |               |
| by Choice  |                         |              |               |
| Decision,  |                         |              |               |
| 2004--05   |                         |              |               |
+------------+-------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| Parents    | Percentage of Parents   | **Percentage | Percentage of |
| Were       | of Eligible Students    | of Parents   | Parents of    |
| Notified   | (Including              | of           | Non-          |
|            | Participating and       | P            | Participating |
|            | Non-Participating       | articipating | Students      |
|            | Students)\              | Students**   |               |
|            | (n=779)                 |              | (n=286)       |
|            |                         | (n=493)      |               |
+------------+-------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| Yes        | 53%                     | 66%          | 51%           |
+------------+-------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| No         | 40%                     | 25%          | 42%           |
+------------+-------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| Not sure   | 7%                      | 9%           | 7%            |
+------------+-------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Exhibit  |                         |              |               |
| reads:**   |                         |              |               |
| In a       |                         |              |               |
| sample of  |                         |              |               |
| eight      |                         |              |               |
| urban      |                         |              |               |
| districts, |                         |              |               |
| 53 percent |                         |              |               |
| of all     |                         |              |               |
| parents of |                         |              |               |
| students   |                         |              |               |
| eligible   |                         |              |               |
| for        |                         |              |               |
| su         |                         |              |               |
| pplemental |                         |              |               |
| services   |                         |              |               |
| reported   |                         |              |               |
| that they  |                         |              |               |
| were told  |                         |              |               |
| that their |                         |              |               |
| child was  |                         |              |               |
| eligible   |                         |              |               |
| to receive |                         |              |               |
| these      |                         |              |               |
| services.  |                         |              |               |
|            |                         |              |               |
| Source:    |                         |              |               |
| N          |                         |              |               |
| LS-*NCLB*, |                         |              |               |
| Parent     |                         |              |               |
| Survey (in |                         |              |               |
| eight      |                         |              |               |
| d          |                         |              |               |
| istricts). |                         |              |               |
+------------+-------------------------+--------------+---------------+

> **In a sample of eight urban districts, only about a quarter of
> parents of students in schools identified for improvement knew that
> the schools were so identified.**

Meanwhile, substantial numbers of parents were unsure of whether their
child's school was identified for improvement under *NCLB*. Half of
parents who took advantage of the school choice option knew that their
child's previous school had been identified, but less than 25 percent of
parents who kept their children in identified schools were aware of
their children's school status. Moreover, among parents of students in
schools identified for improvement---all of whose children should have
been eligible for Title I school choice---only 40 percent were aware of
the Title I school choice provision of *NCLB*.

### Timing of Parental Notification for School Choice {#timing-of-parental-notification-for-school-choice .unnumbered}

Many states released school identification status data too late to
permit districts to notify parents before the start of the 2004--05
school year. In order for districts to notify parents of eligible
students about Title I parental choice options, the districts must first
receive information from their states about schools' identification
status. Only seven states provided districts with preliminary school
identification results before August 2004 (see Exhibit 20). Twenty-four
more states provided preliminary results in August, leaving little or no
time before the start of the school year, and 19 states and Puerto Rico
provided preliminary results later than August, often after school had
already begun. Final results came even later.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628334 .anchor}Exhibit 20\                   |
| Number of States, by Month of States' Release of\                     |
| School Identification Results to Districts, 2004                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Two states released final 2004 school              |
| identification results to districts in July or earlier, and seven     |
| states released preliminary results during that timeframe.            |
|                                                                       |
| ^a^ Includes Puerto Rico.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| Source: SSI-*NCLB*, Accountability Interviews and State Education     |
| Agency Web sites (n=50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of       |
| Columbia).                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

In 2004--05, less than one-third of districts required to offer Title I
school choice notified parents of eligible students before the beginning
of the school year.

Because of the delay in states' reports of school identification to
districts, they, in turn, were often unable to notify parents of their
options in a timely manner. About half of the districts required to
offer choice reported that they notified eligible parents of the
availability of this option after the first day of school, and those
districts notified parents an average of five weeks after the beginning
of the school year. The timing of parental notification did not
substantially improve between 2003--04 and 2004--05 (see Exhibit 21).
The Government Accountability Office (2006) similarly found that in
2005--06, 58 percent of districts did not notify parents of their
supplemental services option prior to the start of the school year.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628335 .anchor}Exhibit 21\                  |
| Timing of Parent Notification About Title I School Choice\           |
| as Reported By Districts, 2003--04 and 2004--05                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** In 2003--04, 23 percent of districts required to  |
| offer Title I school choice notified eligible parents before the     |
| first day of school.                                                 |
|                                                                      |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District Survey (n=104 districts in 2003--04 and |
| 181 districts in 2004--05).                                          |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The timing of the release of state data was correlated with the timing
of districts' parental notifications about Title I school choice. In the
34 states that notified districts about the identification status of
schools before Labor Day (which is around the start of the school year
in many states and districts), 58 percent of the districts notified
eligible parents about Title I school choice before the first day of
school. In contrast, in Puerto Rico and the 20 states that released
school identification data after Labor Day, 20 percent of the districts
notified eligible parents about Title I school choice before the first
day of school. (Those districts presumably used information from the
prior year to identify schools that would be identified for improvement
regardless of their current achievement results.)

Districts that notified parents about the Title I school choice before
the first day of school had higher participation rates than districts
that notified parents on or after the first day of school.

In districts where parents were notified about Title I school choice
before the start of the school year, 3.2 percent of eligible students
participated in 2003--04 and 2.9 percent participated in 2004--05 (see
Exhibit 22). In contrast, in the districts that did not notify eligible
parents until after school started, the participation rates were only
0.4 in 2003--04 and 0.2 percent in 2004--05.

+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628336    |                |                |
| .anchor}Exhibit 22\                |                |                |
| Percentage of Eligible Students    |                |                |
| Transferring Schools, by When      |                |                |
| District First\                    |                |                |
| Notified Parents About Their Title |                |                |
| I School Choice, 2003--04 and      |                |                |
| 2004--05                           |                |                |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Parent Notified**                | **Percentage   | **Percentage   |
|                                    | of Students    | of Students    |
|                                    | Transferring   | Transferring   |
|                                    | Schools in     | Schools in     |
|                                    | 2003--04**     | 2004--05**     |
|                                    |                |                |
|                                    | (n=118)        | (n=159)        |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| *Before* the first day of the      | 3.2%           | 2.9%           |
| 2004--05 school year               |                |                |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| *On or about* the first day of the | 1.6%           | 1.8%           |
| 2004--05 school year               |                |                |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| *After* the first day of the       | 0.4%           | 0.2%           |
| 2004--05 school year               |                |                |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| Total                              | 1.0%           | 0.9%           |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** In 2003--04, in |                |                |
| districts that reported notifying  |                |                |
| parents of Title I school choice   |                |                |
| before the first day of the school |                |                |
| year, 3.2 percent of students      |                |                |
| eligible for Title I school choice |                |                |
| actually transferred schools.      |                |                |
|                                    |                |                |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District       |                |                |
| Survey.                            |                |                |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+

This finding is consistent with the parent reports in a subsample of
eight large, urban districts. Sixty‑two percent of parents who took
advantage of the Title I school choice option reported having been
informed before the start of the school year, compared to 38 percent of
parents who kept their children in identified schools (see Exhibit 23).

+--------------------------+-------------------+-----------+----------+
| []{#__R                  |                   |           |          |
| efHeading___Toc189628337 |                   |           |          |
| .anchor}Exhibit 23\      |                   |           |          |
| Percentage of Parents of |                   |           |          |
| Eligible Students        |                   |           |          |
| Notified of Title I      |                   |           |          |
| School Choice,\          |                   |           |          |
| by When First Notified   |                   |           |          |
| and Choice Decision,     |                   |           |          |
| 2004--05                 |                   |           |          |
+--------------------------+-------------------+-----------+----------+
| **Parent Notified**      | **Percentage of   | P         | Pe       |
|                          | Parents of        | ercentage | rcentage |
|                          | Eligible Students | of        | of       |
|                          | (Including Both   | Parents   | Parents  |
|                          | Participating and | of        | of       |
|                          | Non-Participating | Non-Part  | Parti    |
|                          | Students )**\     | icipating | cipating |
|                          | (n=612)           | Students  | Students |
|                          |                   |           |          |
|                          |                   | (n=231)   | (n=381)  |
+--------------------------+-------------------+-----------+----------+
| *Before* the first day   | 53%               | 38%       | 62%      |
| of the 2004--05 school   |                   |           |          |
| year                     |                   |           |          |
+--------------------------+-------------------+-----------+----------+
| *On or about* the first  | 7%                | 11%       | 4%       |
| day of the 2004--05      |                   |           |          |
| school year              |                   |           |          |
+--------------------------+-------------------+-----------+----------+
| *After* the first day of | 16%               | 28%       | 9%       |
| the 2004--05 school year |                   |           |          |
+--------------------------+-------------------+-----------+----------+
| Not sure                 | 24%               | 22%       | 25%      |
+--------------------------+-------------------+-----------+----------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Among |                   |           |          |
| parents of all eligible  |                   |           |          |
| students in identified   |                   |           |          |
| schools, 39 percent said |                   |           |          |
| they were notified of    |                   |           |          |
| their school choice      |                   |           |          |
| options before the start |                   |           |          |
| of the school year.      |                   |           |          |
|                          |                   |           |          |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*,      |                   |           |          |
| Parent Survey (in eight  |                   |           |          |
| districts).              |                   |           |          |
+--------------------------+-------------------+-----------+----------+

## Methods of Communication With Parents {#methods-of-communication-with-parents .unnumbered}

According to the U.S. Department of Education's non-regulatory guidance
on the Title I school choice option, school districts must "provide an
explanation of the choice option to all parents of students enrolled in
Title I schools that have been identified for school improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring" and "must be in a comprehensive,
easy-to-understand format." At a minimum, the notification must (1)
inform parents of their child's eligibility to attend another school
because the current school is identified for improvement; (2) name the
specific public schools available for choice; and (3) include
information on student achievement in the schools available for choice.

Similarly, school districts must "provide notice to the parents of each
eligible student regarding the availability of supplemental educational
services." At a minimum, the notice must (1) identify each approved
provider; (2) describe each provider's services, qualifications, and
effectiveness; (3) describe the process by which parents may select and
enroll with a provider; and (4) be easily available and understandable,
in languages other than English if necessary and practicable.

Districts used various methods to notify parents regarding Title I
school choice and supplemental services; written communication was the
most frequently used means of notification. More than 90 percent of
districts used written communication in English to notify parents of
their children's eligibility for supplemental services and more than
two-thirds of districts did so for school choice (see Exhibit 24).
(Ninety-seven percent of the districts that did not use written
communication to notify parents of school-choice or supplemental service
options did not use any method to notify parents.) Approximately half of
districts also reported providing written materials in languages other
than English (47 percent for school choice and 53 percent for
supplemental services). They frequently also used individual meetings
with interested parents and placed notices in district or school
newsletters. Districts were less likely to hold enrollment fairs or open
houses, place notices in public newspapers or make public service
announcements.

A letter from the district was the most common method of notification
mentioned by 70 percent of parents who were notified of their child's
school choice and 80 percent of parents who were notified of the
supplemental service options.

Although some district notification letters were clear and direct,
others were confusing, misleading, or biased in favor of
district-provided services. Most did not provide all of the information
required by the U.S. Department of Education.

Notification letters were collected in a geographically diverse
subsample of 25 school districts. Among 21 letters used to notify
parents of school choice options, all informed parents of their child's
eligibility for school choice, but only ten identified each public
school available for selection, and only five included information on
academic achievement in the schools available for choice. More than half
of the letters did not offer any advice to parents for how to choose a
school that is best for their child. The majority of the school-choice
letters did include information about transportation to alternate
schools and some included details on charter and online school
alternatives.

Of a sample of 20 letters collected notifying parents of supplemental
services, only half identified each approved provider, four described
the services and qualifications of providers, and 13 described
procedures for selection and enrollment. Few letters were "easily
understandable." As measured by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level
Indicator, the average parent notification letter regarding supplemental
services was written above the 11^th^-grade level. In contrast, a sample
letter provided by the U.S. Department of Education with the June 13,
2005 guidance, was written at the 8^th^-grade level. Only seven letters
defined supplemental services as "free tutoring," a wording that makes
letters more easily understood by parents.

+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628338 |       |        |       |        |
| .anchor}Exhibit 24\             |       |        |       |        |
| Percentage of Districts         |       |        |       |        |
| Communicating With Parents      |       |        |       |        |
| About Title I School Choice\    |       |        |       |        |
| and Supplemental Educational    |       |        |       |        |
| Services and of Eligible        |       |        |       |        |
| Students in\                    |       |        |       |        |
| These Districts, by Method of   |       |        |       |        |
| Communication, 2004--05         |       |        |       |        |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
| **Method of Communication**     | **S   |        | **Su  |        |
|                                 | chool |        | pplem |        |
|                                 | Ch    |        | ental |        |
|                                 | oice\ |        | Serv  |        |
|                                 | **(n  |        | ices\ |        |
|                                 | =156  |        | **(n  |        |
|                                 | distr |        | =109  |        |
|                                 | icts) |        | distr |        |
|                                 |       |        | icts) |        |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
|                                 | **    | **Perc | **    | **Perc |
|                                 | Perce | entage | Perce | entage |
|                                 | ntage | of     | ntage | of     |
|                                 | of    | El     | of    | El     |
|                                 | D     | igible | D     | igible |
|                                 | istri | Stud   | istri | Stud   |
|                                 | cts** | ents** | cts** | ents** |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
| > Written notification in       | 68%   | 88%    | 94%   | 94%    |
| > English                       |       |        |       |        |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
| > Written notification in       | 47%   | 64%    | 53%   | 72%    |
| > language(s) other than        |       |        |       |        |
| > English                       |       |        |       |        |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
| > Individual meetings with      | 52%   | 68%    | 78%   | 79%    |
| > interested parents            |       |        |       |        |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
| > Notices in district or school | 40%   | 59%    | 64%   | 72%    |
| > newsletters                   |       |        |       |        |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
| > Notices in public newspapers  | 26%   | 45%    | 23%   | 48%    |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
| > Enrollment fairs or open      | 19%   | 42%    | 51%   | 71%    |
| > houses to provide             |       |        |       |        |
| >                               |       |        |       |        |
| > information about alternate   |       |        |       |        |
| > schools and providers         |       |        |       |        |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
| > Public service announcements  | 10%   | 32%    | 19%   | 41%    |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
| > Worked with a local community | 10%   | 20%    | 16%   | 40%    |
| > partner                       |       |        |       |        |
| >                               |       |        |       |        |
| > (e.g., Parent Information &   |       |        |       |        |
| > Resource Center)              |       |        |       |        |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
| > Other                         | 12%   | 22%    | 26%   | 30%    |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Sixty-eight  |       |        |       |        |
| percent of districts that were  |       |        |       |        |
| required to offer Title I       |       |        |       |        |
| school choice reported          |       |        |       |        |
| notifying parents about their   |       |        |       |        |
| choice options through written  |       |        |       |        |
| materials; 88 percent of        |       |        |       |        |
| students in districts required  |       |        |       |        |
| to offer school choice were     |       |        |       |        |
| located in these districts.     |       |        |       |        |
|                                 |       |        |       |        |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District    |       |        |       |        |
| Survey.                         |       |        |       |        |
+---------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+

While nearly all letters included information about where and when
services would be provided, most did not include any supporting
information, such as contact information for providers, whether
providers could serve students with disabilities or LEP, nor suggestions
for selecting a provider.

One example of a clear and direct parental notification letter on
supplemental services from a school district began, "Your child may be
eligible to participate in a free tutorial program designed to improve
his/her achievement in math and/or reading." By defining supplemental
services as a "free tutorial program" upfront, the message in this
district's letter is easy to understand and likely to appeal to parents.

In contrast, the letter from another district lacked similar clarity.
The letter did not define supplemental services as free tutoring and
began with a lengthy explanation of the legislation:

> Your child's school is in need of improvement, even though the school
> may have made Adequate Yearly Progress this past year, and as a result
> your child may be eligible to participate in Supplemental Education
> Services (supplemental services) for the current school year. (In
> order to exit School Improvement Status, a school needs to make
> Adequate Yearly Progress for two consecutive years.) Supplemental
> services programs provide your child additional instruction in math,
> reading, and language arts. Supplemental services programs are
> authorized under the federal *No Child Left Behind* Act to provide
> additional educational choice to parents and pupils. We give this
> annual notice of availability of Supplemental Education Services in
> compliance with Section 1116(e) of the *No Child Left Behind* Act.

In meetings with parents, the Public Education Network (2004) found that
parents reported that much of the information they received about their
schools' performance and their options under *NCLB* often arrived in a
letter that is "written in jargon," arrived late without enough time to
reply, and lacked clear enough detail on which parents could take
action.

Another aspect of the parental notification letters that demonstrates
substantial differences is the way in which available options were
described to parents. The parental notification letter on supplemental
services from one school, for example, put a highly favorable spin on
the supplemental services program offered by their district. The
paragraph began, "I'm also delighted to inform you that again this fall,
the school district will implement *an exciting and educationally
innovative after-school program with funding provided by "No Child Left
Behind*," (emphasis in the original letter) and continues with a
positive description of the program. It is not until the end of the
paragraph that the letter reveals that parents have other options:
"Please note that you may also choose to have your child attend a
similar type of supplemental program at another school or site in \[the
school district\], but transportation to and from the site you select
will not be provided and will be your responsibility to provide." The
letter provides no further description of any of these programs.

The discouragement of choice options other than supplemental services
offered at the child's own school is also evident in the following
letter's discussion about the school choice options:

> Also, although the students in the elementary grades at \[this
> school\] have made tremendous strides toward meeting the high
> standards the state has set in language arts literacy and mathematics,
> you still have the option of school choice. Please note, however, all
> of \[the district's\] elementary schools are very crowded and
> available space is severely limited. Any requests that are received
> for these limited openings will be ranked according to the seriousness
> of each applicant\'s academic problems, as well as his/her financial
> status as determined by the family\'s application for
> free/reduced-price school meals. In addition, if a parent or guardian
> requests school choice, he or she may not also place his/her child in
> the district\'s after-school program. If you are interested in school
> choice, please call to make an appointment to speak with me.

In contrast to this very negative language, the letter used by another
school district to inform parents of school choice was more neutral,
beginning:

> Your child's school has been identified as being in School Improvement
> Status for the 2003--04 school year under the *No Child Left Behind*
> Act of 2001 ("*NCLB*"). As a parent, you have the option under *NCLB*
> to apply to transfer your child from his or her current School
> Improvement school to another District school or a charter school that
> has not been identified as in need of improvement.

The letter continues to present clearly, in a series of bullets, the
steps that parents need to take if they decide to take the transfer
option. Furthermore, attached to the letter is a detailed description of
each of the schools available to receive transferring students.

Although notification to parents of students eligible for supplemental
services is a district responsibility, schools and teachers sometimes
also communicated with parents about their choices. A recent report on
supplemental services found that parents "paid careful attention to
teacher and principal recommendations in deciding to sign their child up
for services and in choosing a provider" (U.S. Department of Education,
2005a, p. 55).

About 40 percent of teachers in schools in which students were eligible
for Title I supplemental educational services reported talking with
parents about such services.

Elementary school teachers were more likely than teachers in middle and
high schools to talk to parents about supplemental services (53 percent
of teachers in elementary schools with eligible students, compared with
38 percent of middle school teachers and 12 percent of high school
teachers).

The most common topic of such communication was encouraging parents to
apply, which was reported by 27 percent of teachers (in schools with
eligible students), including 39 percent of elementary teachers, 27
percent of middle school teachers, and 6 percent of high school teachers
(see Exhibit 25). Fifteen percent of teachers also provided advice to
parents on selecting supplemental service providers. Just over one-tenth
of teachers reported that parents contacted them regarding supplemental
service options.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628339 .anchor}Exhibit 25\                   |
| Percentage of Teachers Communicating with Parents About Title I       |
| Supplemental Educational Services, by Type of Communication and       |
| School Level, 2003--04\                                               |
| (Among Teachers in Schools with Students Eligible for Supplemental    |
| Services)                                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Among all teachers in schools with students        |
| eligible for supplemental services in 2003--04, 11 percent reported   |
| that parents had contacted them about supplemental services.          |
|                                                                       |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Teacher Survey (n=376, 255 and 746 teachers,      |
| respectively, for high, middle and elementary schools).               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

## Supplemental Service Providers' Communication With Parents {#supplemental-service-providers-communication-with-parents .unnumbered}

Seventy-seven percent of supplemental service providers in the subsample
of 16 districts reported that they communicated with the parents of
participating students at least a few times monthly. Meanwhile, 71
percent of the parents of supplemental service participating students in
eight urban districts reported that they (or another adult in the
household) discussed their child's learning needs with the provider
(although parents were not asked about the frequency of contact with
providers).

Providers reported that they communicated with parents about a variety
of topics. Student attendance and student progress related to
supplemental service activities were the most frequently discussed
topics. They were discussed often or always by 84 percent and 82 percent
of providers, respectively (see Exhibit 26).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628340 .anchor}Exhibit 26\                   |
| Percentage of Providers Communicating Often or Always With the        |
| Parents of Students Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational |
| Services, by Topic, 2004--05                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Eighty-four percent of supplemental service        |
| providers in 16 districts reported discussing student attendance at   |
| supplemental services centers with the parents of students they       |
| served often or always.                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental Service Provider Survey (n=84 to 97  |
| providers in 16 districts).                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

## Reasons for Participation in School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services {#reasons-for-participation-in-school-choice-and-supplemental-educational-services .unnumbered}

The most frequent reasons parents gave for deciding to move their child
to a school not identified for improvement were the better quality of
teaching and good discipline and safety at the new school.

Among parents with students participating in the Title I school choice
in the eight urban districts subsample, the most frequent reasons for
doing so were "the quality of teaching is better at the new school"
(mentioned by 52 percent of choosing parents); and "the new school has
good discipline, safety, and order" (49 percent). A third related reason
was that the previous school was not meeting their child's needs (47
percent) (see Exhibit 27).

+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628341              |                       |
| .anchor}Exhibit 27\                          |                       |
| Percentage of Parents of Students            |                       |
| Participating in\                            |                       |
| Title I School Choice, by Reason for         |                       |
| Participating, 2004--05                      |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Reason**                                   | **Percentage of       |
|                                              | Parents of Students   |
|                                              | Participating in      |
|                                              | School Choice**       |
|                                              |                       |
|                                              | (n=356)               |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| The quality of teaching at the new school is | 52%                   |
| better                                       |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There is good discipline, safety, and order  | 49%                   |
| at the new school                            |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child's old school was not meeting        | 47%                   |
| his/her needs                                |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child got transportation to the new       | 35%                   |
| school                                       |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| The new school is located in a place that is | 34%                   |
| easy to get to                               |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There are different academic programs at the | 29%                   |
| new school                                   |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child wanted to change schools            | 25%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There are activities after school and sports | 20%                   |
| teams at the new school                      |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There is free tutoring or other extra help   | 19%                   |
| with schoolwork at the new school            |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child had been getting bad grades         | 17%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There are services for children with         | 11%                   |
| disabilities at the new school               |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child's old teacher thought he/she should | 10%                   |
| move                                         |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There are services at the school for         | 5%                    |
| children whose first language is not English |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Among parents choosing to |                       |
| move their child to a school not identified  |                       |
| for improvement, 52 percent reported that    |                       |
| one reason for their decision was that the   |                       |
| quality of teaching at their child's new     |                       |
| school was better.                           |                       |
|                                              |                       |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Parent Survey (in eight  |                       |
| districts).                                  |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+

Among parents of eligible students for Title I school choice who chose
to keep their child in their current school, the reason mentioned most
often (by three-fourths of parents) was that their child's school was
conveniently located. The next-most-frequent reason, mentioned by half
of parents, was that their child wanted to stay in the current school
(see Exhibit 28). The decision not to use the choice option did not
necessarily indicate satisfaction with the child's current school; less
than half of parents (47 percent) said that a reason for remaining in
the current school was that they were satisfied with the quality of
teaching at the school. Some parents gave reasons suggesting that they
might have moved their children under different circumstances:
Twenty-three percent said they did not have enough information about the
schools they could choose from, 18 percent said the district did not
offer transportation to alternate schools, and 17 percent said they were
not given enough time to make a decision.[^25]

+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628342        |                             |
| .anchor}Exhibit 28\                    |                             |
| Percentage of Parents of Eligible      |                             |
| Students Not Participating in\         |                             |
| Title I School Choice, by Reason for   |                             |
| Not Participating, 2004--05            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Reason**                             | **Percentage of Parents of  |
|                                        | Eligible Students Not       |
|                                        | Participating in School     |
|                                        | Choice**                    |
|                                        |                             |
|                                        | (n=217)                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| My child's school is located in a      | 75%                         |
| place that is easy to get to.          |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| My child wanted to stay.               | 50%                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| I was satisfied with the quality of    | 47%                         |
| teaching at my child's school.         |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| My child was getting good grades at    | 47%                         |
| the current school.                    |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| I didn't want to disrupt my child.     | 42%                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| There is good discipline, safety, and  | 34%                         |
| order at my child's school.            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| There are activities after school and  | 27%                         |
| sports teams at my child's school.     |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| There is free tutoring or other extra  | 26%                         |
| help with schoolwork at my child's     |                             |
| school.                                |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| I didn't have enough information about | 23%                         |
| the schools from which I could choose. |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| There are different academic programs  | 22%                         |
| at my child's school.                  |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| There are services at my child's       | 20%                         |
| school for children with disabilities. |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| The district did not have              | 18%                         |
| transportation to any of the new       |                             |
| schools from which I could choose.     |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| I was not given enough time to make    | 17%                         |
| the decision to move my child to       |                             |
| another school.                        |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| There are services at my child's       | 9%                          |
| school for children whose first        |                             |
| language is not English.               |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Among parents of    |                             |
| students in schools identified for     |                             |
| improvement, 75 percent chose to keep  |                             |
| their child in their current school    |                             |
| because the school is located in a     |                             |
| place that is easy to get to.          |                             |
|                                        |                             |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Parent Survey (in  |                             |
| eight districts).                      |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+

Parents who enrolled their children in Title I supplemental educational
services most often reported that they did so because tutoring was
offered in a subject in which their child needed extra help, because
tutoring was free, or because the child's teacher thought the child
should get this extra help (see Exhibit 29).

+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628343              |                       |
| .anchor}Exhibit 29\                          |                       |
| Percentage of Parents of Students            |                       |
| Participating in Title I\                    |                       |
| Supplemental Educational Services, by Reason |                       |
| for Participating, 2004--05                  |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Reason**                                   | Percentage of Parents |
|                                              | of Students           |
|                                              | Participating in      |
|                                              | Supplemental Services |
|                                              |                       |
|                                              | (n=260)               |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There is tutoring in the subject area(s) in  | 60%                   |
| which my child needs extra help.             |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Tutoring is free.                            | 58%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child's teacher thought he/she should get | 52%                   |
| this extra help.                             |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Tutoring is given at a place that is easy to | 47%                   |
| get to.                                      |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child wanted to get this extra help.      | 43%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child had been getting bad grades.        | 37%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child got a low score on a yearly         | 33%                   |
| achievement test.                            |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child's school is not meeting his/her     | 18%                   |
| needs.                                       |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| I needed after-school care.                  | 12%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There is tutoring for children with          | 11%                   |
| disabilities.                                |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There is tutoring for children whose first   | 6%                    |
| language is not English.                     |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Sixty percent of parents  |                       |
| of students using supplemental services      |                       |
| reported that one of the reasons they        |                       |
| decided to have their child use these        |                       |
| services was that tutoring was available in  |                       |
| the subject area(s) in which their child     |                       |
| needed help.                                 |                       |
|                                              |                       |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Parent Survey (in eight  |                       |
| districts).                                  |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+

Among parents who had declined the offer of supplemental educational
services for their child, the most common reason stated (by nearly half
of responding parents in the eight-district subsample) was that tutoring
was given "at times that are not good for my family" (see Exhibit 30).
Twenty-eight percent of parents reported that they did not use
supplemental services because their child did not need help. Other
reasons were cited by 12 percent of parents or less.

+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628344           |                          |
| .anchor}Exhibit 30\                       |                          |
| Percentage of Parents of Eligible         |                          |
| Students Not Participating in\            |                          |
| Title I Supplemental Educational          |                          |
| Services, by Reason for Not               |                          |
| Participating, 2004--05                   |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Reason**                                | **Percentage of Parents  |
|                                           | of Eligible Students Not |
|                                           | Participating in         |
|                                           | Supplemental Services**  |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | (n=52)                   |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Tutoring is given at times that are not   | 46%                      |
| good for my family.                       |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| My child doesn't need help.               | 28%                      |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Tutoring is given at a place that is not  | 12%                      |
| easy to get to.                           |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| My child did not want to get this extra   | 12%                      |
| help.                                     |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| There is no tutoring at my child's grade  | 5%                       |
| level.                                    |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| There is no tutoring in the subject areas | 5%                       |
| in which my child needs extra help.       |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Tutoring does not meet the needs of       | 5%                       |
| children with disabilities.               |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Tutoring does not meet the needs of       | \<1%                     |
| children whose first language is not      |                          |
| English.                                  |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Among parents of       |                          |
| eligible students deciding not to have    |                          |
| their child use supplemental services, 46 |                          |
| percent reported that they did not use    |                          |
| them because tutoring was given at times  |                          |
| that were not good for their family.      |                          |
|                                           |                          |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Parent Survey (in     |                          |
| eight districts).                         |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+

## Discussion {#discussion-1 .unnumbered}

A majority of states did not notify districts about the identification
status of their schools before the beginning of the 2004--05 school
year. As a result, just one-quarter of districts were able to notify
parents of their eligibility for school choice prior to the beginning of
the school year, surely contributing to the low participation rate for
school choice reported in the previous chapter. Parents who were
notified of their eligibility for school choice prior to the beginning
of the school year were more likely to have transferred their child to a
non-identified school than parents who were notified later.

Nearly all districts reported that they eventually notified parents of
their eligibility for choice or supplemental services. Nevertheless, in
the eight large, urban districts where parents were surveyed---all of
which reported that they had notified parents of their eligibility for
school choice and provided copies of the notification letters that they
sent out---only 27 percent of parents of students eligible for Title I
school choice and 53 percent of parents of students eligible for Title I
supplemental educational services said they had been notified about
these options. Similarly, only one-fourth of parents of students in
identified schools were aware that the schools were on the list of
schools identified for improvement, bringing into question the
effectiveness of the notification strategies used by districts.

Written notifications were the most common method that districts used to
inform parents about their Title I school choice, but in a sample of 21
notification letters, most letters did not contain all the information
required by *NCLB* and lacked information needed to make an informed
decision. Moreover, notification letters were often unclear or
misleading.

Parents surveyed in eight urban districts indicated that the main reason
for participating in either the Title I school choice or supplemental
service option was to better meet the educational needs of their child.
Among parents who transferred their child to a new school, 52 percent
thought the quality of teaching at the new school was better and 47
percent said the previous school was not meeting their child's needs.
Similarly, among parents who chose to participate in Title I
supplemental services, 60 percent said it was because their child needed
extra help. In contrast, among parents who chose not to participate,
parents more commonly reported reasons of convenience rather than
satisfaction with their child's current school or academic performance.

# Implementing and Monitoring Supplemental Educational Services

*No Child Left Behind* gives states and districts different
responsibilities in implementing the supplemental educational services
provisions of the law. It mandates that states must develop, apply, and
publicly report objective criteria for approving supplemental service
providers. Once providers are operating, states are expected to monitor
them and evaluate their performance. States are also expected to provide
technical assistance to districts. Districts, meanwhile, are responsible
for contracting with the providers for services and paying for services.
In addition, individual schools may work with providers in various ways,
from providing space to communicating with providers about students'
academic needs, objectives, and progress.

## States' Approval of Supplemental Educational Service Providers {#states-approval-of-supplemental-educational-service-providers .unnumbered}

*NCLB* requires that states must ensure that each approved supplemental
educational service provider

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

-   uses instructional strategies that are high quality, based on
    research, and designed to increase student academic achievement;

-   provides services that are consistent with the instructional program
    of the local education agency and with state academic content and
    achievement standards;

-   is financially sound;

-   provides supplemental educational services consistent with
    applicable federal, state, and local health, safety, and civil
    rights laws;

-   provides instruction and content that are secular, neutral, and
    non-ideological; and

-   provides services in addition to instruction provided during the
    regular school day.

State applications for Title I supplemental educational service
providers focused most closely on the first four of the above criteria,
with the majority of states requiring potential providers to include a
narrative description of how the criteria would be met (see Exhibit 31).
States were less demanding of providers with respect to the requirement
to *provide* *services consistent with applicable federal, state, and
local health, safety, and civil rights laws* and the requirement to
*provide instruction and content provided are secular, neutral, and
non-ideological*, with most states requiring a signed checklist but not
a narrative of how the criteria would be met. The requirement to
*provide services in addition to instruction provided during the school
day* received the least attention in states' provider application forms.

*NCLB* requires that states withdraw from the approved list any provider
that fails to contribute to increased student proficiency relative to
state academic content and achievement standards for two consecutive
years. States are also expected to remove providers that fail to provide
supplemental services consistent with applicable health, safety, and
civil rights requirements at any time.

As of 2004--05, only about 1 percent of approved providers (29 providers
in 16 states) had their state approvals withdrawn.

States that removed providers from the approved list did so for a
variety of reasons: the providers had failed to deliver services,
engaged in illegal or unethical activities, lacked capacity to provide
services, went bankrupt, or were unresponsive to the state. In addition,
a few district providers became ineligible to offer services when the
districts became identified for improvement. Only eight states had
official standards in place for withdrawing service providers from
state-approved lists.[^26]

## Monitoring and Evaluation of Provider Performance {#monitoring-and-evaluation-of-provider-performance .unnumbered}

As of early 2005, most states were working to develop and implement
systems for monitoring and evaluating Title I supplemental educational
service provider effectiveness, but very few had databases that would
permit statewide examination of the achievement results of participating
students.

States reported that they were working to develop and implement systems
for monitoring the performance of Title I supplemental service
providers, but as of early 2005, 15 states had not yet established any
monitoring processes and 21 states had not finalized their monitoring
processes. Even among the 16 states that had documented monitoring
standards, officials often reported that they were still fine-tuning the
way in which they monitored providers. As a typical state official
explained, "We're just getting into \[developing monitoring standards\]
because this will be our first year for numbers of schools to be
required to offer supplemental services . . . so this is our first year
to really get into the process." Rural states with small numbers of
students participating in Title I supplemental services were
particularly likely to be just beginning to establish monitoring
processes.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628345 .anchor}Exhibit 31\                   |
| Number of States Requiring a Narrative or Checklist in Providers'     |
| Title I Supplemental Educational Service Application to Show They     |
| Meet the *NCLB* Requirements, 2004--05                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image12.wmf)                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Exhibit reads:** Among the 46 states for which data were          |
| > available on their use of NCLB criteria for approving supplemental  |
| > service providers, all require providers to include in their        |
| > application a narrative describing how they meet the requirement to |
| > have a demonstrated record of effectiveness.                        |
| >                                                                     |
| > ^a^ Includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.              |
| >                                                                     |
| > ^b^ Includes the District of Columbia.                              |
| >                                                                     |
| > Notes: Six states (Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,  |
| > and Wyoming) did not provide copies of their application forms for  |
| > this analysis.                                                      |
| >                                                                     |
| > Source: SSI-*NCLB*, State Application Forms (n=44 states, the       |
| > District of Columbia and Puerto Rico).                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The most common approaches that states have implemented to monitor
providers included surveying the districts about provider effectiveness
(25 states) and using providers' reports on student progress
(18 states). The Government Accountability Office (2006) reached a
similar conclusion. Fewer states reported conducting on-site monitoring
(14 states) or having districts report student-level data to the state
(nine states).

As of early 2005, three states (Louisiana, Maryland, and New Jersey) had
databases containing student achievement and participation information
that would permit rigorous evaluations of achievement effects of
providers on a statewide basis. Four more states (Colorado, Florida,
Oklahoma, and Tennessee) had plans to create such databases.

Nearly all state respondents were developing strategies to manage
monitoring tasks, but staff capacity was a constraint. Said one, "the
reality of life is the feds don't pay us enough to have monitors for all
the providers." State officials with responsibility for supplemental
educational services often have multiple roles: In one state, the key
staff member for supplemental services was primarily the "HIV/Sexuality
specialist." About 10 states had opted to hire outside consultants or
experts to develop and implement a monitoring process. In a few cases,
however, this was a limited role; as one state explained, "We've got a
graduate student who's doing some calling around to states to find out
what they're doing to see if there are some good models out there that
we could follow." A similar number of states sought assistance from
districts to gather data to inform the monitoring process. Few states
indicated that they intended to hire new staff for the supplemental
educational service role, but one noted, "We are in the process of
hiring a new full-time person who can \[focus\] more closely on the
monitoring."[^27]

As of early 2005, half of the states had established some standards for
evaluating provider effectiveness, although none had finalized its
evaluation standards.

The 25 states with standards for evaluating provider effectiveness in
place by early 2005 planned to use a variety of measures. Seventeen
states said they will evaluate provider effectiveness based on student
achievement on state assessments though, as noted above, only seven
states have plans for statewide databases integrating participation and
achievement data. Thirteen states reported that they planned to allow
the use of provider-developed tests, and 10 states planned to use other
measures, such as student grades, homework completion, or school- or
teacher-administered tests. Seventeen states said they planned to
measure parent or student satisfaction with the services. The Government
Accountability Office (2006) likewise found that very few states had
developed rigorous evaluation methods.

According to supplemental service providers in 16 geographically diverse
districts, the most frequent forms of state monitoring of their services
were reviews of student attendance, meetings with provider organizations
to discuss implementation and exchange feedback, and observation of
supplemental service sessions (see Exhibit 32). Tracking the academic
success of participating students occurred less frequently, although
more than 60 percent of providers reported that states monitored state
achievement test results of participating students once per year, and
nearly half of providers reported that states monitored some other form
of academic success of participating students.

Although *NCLB* does not give districts a formal role in the monitoring
and evaluation of Title I supplemental educational services, providers
reported higher frequencies of monitoring by districts than by states.

For example, three-quarters of providers reported that districts tracked
student attendance rates, at least a few times per year, compared with
35 percent of states reporting a similar frequency of monitoring (see
Exhibit 32). Similarly, nearly two-thirds of providers reported that
districts met with them at least a few times per year to discuss
implementation, while 42 percent reported that states did so. Districts
observed supplemental service sessions likewise more often than did
states, with more than twice as many providers reporting district
monitoring (51 percent) than state monitoring (22 percent).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628346 .anchor}Exhibit 32\                   |
| Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers,\    |
| by State and District Monitoring Mechanisms They Experienced\         |
| at Least a Few Times During The Year, 2004--05                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Seventy-five percent of providers reported that    |
| districts reviewed reports of student attendance rates at least a few |
| times per year, whereas 35 percent of providers reported that states  |
| did so.                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental Service Provider Survey (n=89 to 95  |
| providers in 16 districts).                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

A minority (10 percent) of providers reported that they were not
monitored by the state in any way, and less than 1 percent reported that
they had received no monitoring from either the district or state.

Although districts are often in a better position to monitor providers
than are states, one-third of those required to offer supplemental
services were themselves approved providers, in direct competition with
private providers. This may create a conflict of interest. A district
that would prefer to have students enroll in its own services may be
tempted to use the monitoring function to create undue burdens for the
private providers it is competing against. The NLS surveys provide no
direct evidence that this is occurring, but the U.S. Department of
Education's regulatory guidance recognizes it as a potential problem,
and encourages state education agencies not to rely too extensively on
local districts for monitoring, especially when the district is acting
as a competing provider.[^28]

## State-Provided Technical Assistance for Supplemental Educational Services {#state-provided-technical-assistance-for-supplemental-educational-services .unnumbered}

The majority of states (40 and the District of Columbia) provided
districts with general information about the Title I supplemental
service provisions of *NCLB* in 2004--05. Nineteen states assisted
districts with the notification and communication with parents, and 13
states assisted districts with developing contracts with providers (see
Exhibit 33).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628347 .anchor}Exhibit 33\                   |
| Number of States That Provided Districts with Technical Assistance    |
| to\                                                                   |
| Implement Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Type of       |
| Assistance, 2004--05                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image13.wmf)                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Forty-one states provided districts with general   |
| information about supplemental service legislation in 2004--05.       |
|                                                                       |
| Source: SSI-*NCLB*, Supplemental Services Interviews.                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

States most commonly targeted this technical assistance to Title I
administrators in districts with schools identified for improvement (33
states and the District of Columbia). Some states also provided
assistance directly to schools (12 states), supplemental service
providers (10), and, less commonly, to district superintendents (five)
or parents (four).

## District Contracts With Supplemental Educational Service Providers {#district-contracts-with-supplemental-educational-service-providers .unnumbered}

Among the statutory requirements for school districts is the obligation
to establish contracts with providers. *NCLB* identifies seven specific
elements of these formal agreements:

1.  specific achievement goals for the student, which must be developed
    in consultation with the student's parents \[Section
    1116(e)(3)(A)\];

2.  a description of how the student's progress will be measured and how
    the student's parents and teachers will be regularly informed of
    that progress \[Section 1116(e)(3)(A) and (B)\];

3.  a timetable for improving the student's achievement \[Section
    1116(e)(3)(A);

4.  a provision for termination of the agreement if the provider fails
    to meet student progress goals and timetables \[Section
    1116(e)(3)(C)\];

5.  provisions governing payment for the services, which may include
    provisions addressing missed sessions \[Section 1116(e)(3)(D)\];

6.  a provision prohibiting the provider from disclosing to the public
    the identity of any student eligible for or receiving supplemental
    educational services without the written permission of the student's
    parents \[Section 1116(e)(3)(E)\]; and

7.  an assurance that supplemental educational services will be provided
    consistent with applicable health, safety, and civil rights laws
    \[Section 1116(e)(5(C)\].

According to districts, other provisions beyond those explicitly
required by the law are often included in their contract with providers.
Four-fifths of districts required providers to submit regular reports to
parents and teachers. Half of districts reported that they offered
providers the use of district facilities for free, while one-fourth said
they offered district facilities for a fee. One-fourth of districts
required all providers to use the same standardized form for reporting
on student learning goals and progress toward those goals. Over
one-third of districts reported that their provider contracts required
services to be supervised by certified teachers. One-tenth of districts
reported that they imposed caps on the number of students a provider
could serve (see Exhibit 34).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628348 .anchor}Exhibit 34\                   |
| Percentage of Districts, by Type of Provision They Included in        |
| Contracts With\                                                       |
| Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 2004--05          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image14.wmf)                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Among districts that had contracts with            |
| supplemental service providers in 2004--05, 81 percent included in    |
| those contracts a requirement that providers send progress reports to |
| parents and teachers on a regular basis.                              |
|                                                                       |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District Survey (n=94 districts).                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

In a subsample of 16 districts, most supplemental service providers
described contractual provisions that were consistent with those
described by the districts (see Exhibit 35). However, they were more
likely than districts to report they could use district facilities for a
fee instead of free of charge. They were also more likely than districts
to report having a cap on the number of students they could serve.

> **Districts reported spending an average of \$875 per participating
> pupil on Title I supplemental educational services in 2003--04, about
> 30 percent less than the maximum (\$1,225) per-child amount they
> reported allocating for such services.**

Half of the districts reported spending between \$385 and \$1,234 per
student for supplemental services in 2003--04.[^29] The average maximum
amount that districts reported allocating per pupil for *NCLB*
supplemental services increased by 17 percent from 2003--04 (\$1,225) to
2004--05 (\$1,434). Total spending on Title I supplemental educational
services was estimated to be \$192 million in 2003--04.

According to 86 providers of all types in the 16-district subsample, the
average rate charged to districts for services was \$38 per student per
hour.

+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628349 .anchor}Exhibit    |                 |
| 35\                                                |                 |
| Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational     |                 |
| Service Providers,\                                |                 |
| by Type of Provisions Included in Contracts with   |                 |
| Districts, 2004--05                                |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| **Provision Included in Contract**                 | **Percentage of |
|                                                    | Providers**     |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Provision that your organization will receive      | 95%             |
| payment based on the number of sessions of         |                 |
| tutoring that students attend (n=92)               |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Requirement that your organization send progress   | 94%             |
| reports to parents and/or teachers on a regular    |                 |
| basis (n=91)                                       |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Agreement that your organization can use district  | 16%             |
| facilities free of charge (n=92)                   |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Agreement that your organization can use district  | 42%             |
| facilities for a fee (n=91)                        |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Requirement that services provided to students be  | 48%             |
| supervised or attended by certified teacher (n=91) |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Cap on the number of students your organization    | 39%             |
| can serve (n=90)                                   |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Forty percent of supplemental   |                 |
| service providers in a subsample of 16 districts   |                 |
| reported that their contracts included an          |                 |
| agreement that they could use district facilities  |                 |
| for a fee.                                         |                 |
|                                                    |                 |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental Service Provider  |                 |
| Survey (in 16 districts).                          |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+

## Schools' Relationship With Supplemental Educational Service Providers {#schools-relationship-with-supplemental-educational-service-providers .unnumbered}

### Principal and Teacher Knowledge of Supplemental Services {#principal-and-teacher-knowledge-of-supplemental-services .unnumbered}

The *No Child Left Behind Act* says little about the roles of principals
and teachers with respect to Title I supplemental educational services,
but there are a variety of ways they may become engaged with service
providers. However, principals were only occasionally informed about the
content of supplemental services provided to their students.

Over 40 percent of principals of schools with students eligible for
Title I supplemental educational services did not know how well these
services were aligned with school academic content standards.

Less than one-third of the principals reported that the services
provided to their students were well aligned with school academic
content standards in mathematics and reading (see Exhibit 36).[^30]

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628350 .anchor}Exhibit 36\                   |
| Percentage of Principals at Schools With Students Eligible for\       |
| Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Degree of Alignment of  |
| Services\                                                             |
| With School Academic Content Standards and Subject Area, 2003--04     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** In 2003--04, 32 percent of the principals at       |
| schools with students eligible for supplemental services said the     |
| services were well aligned with school academic content standards in  |
| reading.                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Principal Survey (n=206 and 204 principals,       |
| respectively, for reading and mathematics).                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

A similar lack of knowledge about supplemental services offered to
students at their schools was evident among teachers. In schools with
students eligible for Title I supplemental services, 30 percent of
teachers did not know whether students in their schools were actually
being offered supplemental services. Secondary teachers were more likely
than elementary teachers to say they did not know whether their district
students were receiving these services (55 percent in high schools and
28 percent in middle schools, compared with 23 percent in elementary
schools). This absence of teachers' knowledge about availability of
supplemental services may be partly due to the fact that many districts
started supplemental services late in the school year---in some
instances perhaps after the administration of the NLS-*NCLB* surveys.

Among teachers who were aware that students in their schools were
participating in supplemental services, the majority (96 percent) knew
whether their own students were participating, and as discussed earlier,
many of these teachers communicated with parents about their
supplemental services options (see Chapter III).

### Provider Communication with Principals and Teachers {#provider-communication-with-principals-and-teachers .unnumbered}

Most providers reported that they communicated with the regular
classroom teachers of their students, but one in five never did so.

In a sample of 16 districts, 70 percent of Title I supplemental
educational service providers reported that their staff communicated
with the classroom teachers of their students at least a few times per
year. However, nearly one-fifth (19 percent) reported no contact with
classroom teachers. The Government Accountability Office (2006) likewise
reported that many providers were not connected with teachers, finding
that some providers had no contact with teachers in 40 percent of
districts.

Providers reported that the most common topics of their communication
with teachers included student academic progress (related to
supplemental service goals or to regular classroom instruction),
coordination of curriculum and instruction, and student attendance at
sessions. Student achievement on state assessments was less frequently
discussed (see Exhibit 37).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628351 .anchor}Exhibit 37\                   |
| Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers and  |
| of Teachers Reporting Communicating With Each Other, by Type of       |
| Communication, 2004--05                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Fifty-eight percent of teachers reported that they |
| communicated with the supplemental service providers serving their    |
| students regarding student progress related to regular classroom      |
| instruction, while 59 percent of providers (in a sample of 16         |
| districts) reported that they often or always communicated with       |
| teachers regarding student progress related to regular classroom      |
| instruction.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Note: Teacher survey responses are from a nationally representative   |
| sample, while providers were surveyed only in a subsample of 16       |
| districts.                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Sources: NLS-*NCLB*, Teacher Survey and Supplemental Service Provider |
| Survey (n=67 to 75 providers in 16 districts and 524 teachers).       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Among teachers who knew their own students were receiving supplemental
services, over half in elementary and middle schools and nearly half in
high schools said they had communicated with supplemental service
providers on student progress related to regular instruction. Regardless
of grade level, about half of these teachers communicated with providers
about their students' progress, students' attendance, and coordination
of curriculum and instruction (see Exhibit 37). About one-third of these
teachers reported discussing student achievement on state tests with
providers of supplemental services.

Providers in the 16-district subsample reported higher rates of
communication with teachers than did teachers in the national sample, as
suggested by Exhibit 37. But the percentages of providers reporting
communicating with teachers "often" or "always" on particular topics
were quite consistent with the percentages of teachers (in the national
sample) who reported contact with providers on the same issues.

Providers in the 16-district subsample indicated that they had regular
contact about the progress of individual students with parents,
principals, and district officials as well as teachers. Providers
reported on student progress most frequently to parents (see Exhibit
38). One-fifth of providers said that they reported to parents following
each session of supplemental services, while another 31 percent said
that they gave reports to parents a few times monthly. Providers also
reported back to principals and district officials with some regularity:
About half of providers indicated that they reported to principals and
to district officials at least a few times per semester or per year.
Providers reported to the state less frequently: Half reported once
annually and one-third never reported to the state about the progress of
individual students.

+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
| []{#__R      |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| efHeading___ |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Toc189628352 |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| .an          |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| chor}Exhibit |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| 38\          |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Percentage   |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| of Title I   |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Supplemental |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Educational  |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Service      |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Providers    |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Reporting on |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| the Progress |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| of           |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Individual   |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Students, by |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Type of      |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Recipient    |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| and          |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Frequency,   |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| 2004--05     |        |        |        |        |        |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
| *            | Fre    |        |        |        |        |       |
| *Recipient** | quency |        |        |        |        |       |
|              | of     |        |        |        |        |       |
|              | Rep    |        |        |        |        |       |
|              | orting |        |        |        |        |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
|              | After  | Few    | Few    | Few    | Once   | Never |
|              | Every  | Times  | Times  | Times  | Per    |       |
|              | S      | Per    | Per    | Per    | Year   |       |
|              | ession | Month  | Se     | Year   |        |       |
|              |        |        | mester |        |        |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
| Parents      | 20%    | 32%    | 30%    | 16%    | 1%     | 1%    |
| (n=99)       |        |        |        |        |        |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
| Principals   | 4%     | 12%    | 33%    | 20%    | 8%     | 22%   |
| (n=97)       |        |        |        |        |        |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
| District     | 3%     | 10%    | 37%    | 25%    | 19%    | 7%    |
| officials    |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| (n=96)       |        |        |        |        |        |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
| The state    | 3%     | 1%     | 7%     | 7%     | 48%    | 34%   |
| (n=92)       |        |        |        |        |        |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
| **Exhibit    |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| reads:**     |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Twenty       |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| percent of   |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| supplemental |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| service      |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| providers    |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| reported     |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| that they    |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| reported to  |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| parents of   |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| students     |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| they served  |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| after every  |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| session.     |        |        |        |        |        |       |
|              |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| **Note:**    |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Totals may   |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| not sum to   |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| 100 percent  |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| due to       |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| rounding.    |        |        |        |        |        |       |
|              |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Source:      |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| NLS-*NCLB*,  |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Supplemental |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Service      |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Provider     |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| Survey (in   |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| 16           |        |        |        |        |        |       |
| districts).  |        |        |        |        |        |       |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+

## Providers and Student Assessment  {#providers-and-student-assessment .unnumbered}

Providers often received little or no information on the students they
served prior to beginning services. Slightly more than half of providers
reported receiving any one of various kinds of information about their
students' academic performance prior to the initiation of services (see
Exhibit 39). Student scores on state assessment tests were received by
41 percent of providers, while individualized education programs (IEPs)
and report card grades were given to about one-fourth of providers.
Nearly half of providers reported that they received none of the various
types of information about their students prior to the start of
services.

+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628353         |                            |
| .anchor}Exhibit 39\                     |                            |
| Percentage of Title I Supplemental      |                            |
| Educational Service Providers,\         |                            |
| by Type of Information Received on      |                            |
| Individual Students\                    |                            |
| Prior to Providing Supplemental         |                            |
| Services, 2004--05                      |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Type of Information Received on         | Percentage of Providers    |
| Students                                | Receiving Information      |
|                                         | Prior to Providing         |
|                                         | Services                   |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Scores on state assessment tests (n=95) | 41%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Scores on other standardized tests      | 36%                        |
| (n=94)                                  |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Report card grades (n=94)               | 26%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Examples of student work (n=94)         | 18%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| IEPs for students we are serving (n=93) | 27%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Received at least one type of           | 54%                        |
| information (n=95)                      |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Exhibit reads:** Forty percent of     |                            |
| supplemental service providers reported |                            |
| that they received student scores on    |                            |
| state assessment tests prior to         |                            |
| providing supplemental services.        |                            |
|                                         |                            |
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental        |                            |
| Service Provider Survey (in 16          |                            |
| districts).                             |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+

Although most providers did not receive many types of information about
students' academic backgrounds, 9 out of 10 providers surveyed reported
formally assessing students prior to providing supplemental services.
Providers reported using a variety of instruments to assess the progress
of students they were serving (see Exhibit 40). Most commonly, providers
used assignments completed by students during sessions: Over half did so
after every session. Forty percent of providers also used assignments
completed outside of sessions at least a few times per month, although
half of providers never assessed students in this manner. Meanwhile,
over 40 percent of providers used tests developed by their organization
at least a few times per month. Smaller numbers of providers used
district-based assessments, state practice tests, or student portfolios.

+------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+------+-----+
| []{#__RefHeadin  |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| g___Toc189628354 |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| .anchor}Exhibit  |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| 40\              |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Percentage of    |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Title I          |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Supplemental     |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Educational      |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Service          |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Providers        |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Assessing        |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Students,\       |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| by Type of       |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Measure and      |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Frequency,       |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| 2004--05         |        |        |         |        |      |     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+------+-----+
| **Measure**      | Fre    |        |         |        |      |     |
|                  | quency |        |         |        |      |     |
|                  | of     |        |         |        |      |     |
|                  | Asse   |        |         |        |      |     |
|                  | ssment |        |         |        |      |     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+------+-----+
|                  | After  | Few    | Few     | Few    | Once | Ne  |
|                  | Every  | Times  | Times   | Times  | Per  | ver |
|                  | S      | Per    | Per     | Per    | Year |     |
|                  | ession | Month  | S       | Year   |      |     |
|                  |        |        | emester |        |      |     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+------+-----+
| Tests developed  | 13%    | 30%    | 20%     | 23%    | 1%   | 13% |
| by your          |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| organization     |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| (n=79)           |        |        |         |        |      |     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+------+-----+
| Tests aligned    | 5%     | 29%    | 17%     | 20%    | 4%   | 25% |
| with regular     |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| classroom        |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| instruction      |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| (n=84)           |        |        |         |        |      |     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+------+-----+
| Di               | 4%     | 13%    | 11%     | 16%    | 2%   | 55% |
| strict-developed |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| assessments or   |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| benchmark tests  |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| (n=84)           |        |        |         |        |      |     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+------+-----+
| Practice tests   | 6%     | 19%    | 11%     | 10%    | 2%   | 52% |
| for state        |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| assessments      |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| (n=86)           |        |        |         |        |      |     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+------+-----+
| Assignments      | 55%    | 23%    | 4%      | 9%     | 0%   | 9%  |
| completed by     |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| students during  |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| sessions with    |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| your             |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| organization     |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| (n=86)           |        |        |         |        |      |     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+------+-----+
| Assignments      | 25%    | 16%    | 2%      | 8%     | 2%   | 47% |
| completed by     |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| students outside |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| of sessions with |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| your             |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| organization     |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| (n=83)           |        |        |         |        |      |     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+------+-----+
| Student          | 19%    | 11%    | 11%     | 6%     | 3%   | 50% |
| portfolios       |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| (n=84)           |        |        |         |        |      |     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+------+-----+
| **Exhibit        |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| reads:**         |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Fourteen percent |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| of supplemental  |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| service          |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| providers        |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| reported using   |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| tests developed  |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| by their own     |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| organization to  |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| assess students  |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| after every      |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| session.         |        |        |         |        |      |     |
|                  |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Source:          |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| NLS-*NCLB*,      |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Supplemental     |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Service Provider |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| Survey (in 16    |        |        |         |        |      |     |
| districts).      |        |        |         |        |      |     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+------+-----+

## Discussion {#discussion-2 .unnumbered}

As of 2004--05, virtually all states had established approval criteria
for supplemental service providers, but they were much slower in setting
up monitoring processes and standards for evaluating provider
effectiveness. Very few states had any systematic way to assess the
effects of supplemental services on student achievement. Local school
districts were to some extent stepping into the breach: Providers
reported more frequent monitoring by districts than by states, despite
the fact that *NCLB* does not give districts a formal role in the
monitoring and evaluation of supplemental services, and despite the fact
that one-third of districts were themselves approved providers, creating
a potential conflict of interest.

*NCLB* expects parents, providers, and school districts to reach an
agreement on the learning goals for each child, and district contracts
with providers often require them to communicate regularly with
classroom teachers. In practice, the evidence suggests uneven levels of
provider communication with school staff and inconsistent integration of
supplemental services with school academic programs. Over 40 percent of
the principals of schools with students eligible to participate in
supplemental services did not know how well services offered to their
students were aligned with their school academic content standards in
2004--05. Less than one-third of the principals reported that the
services provided to their students were well aligned with school
academic content standards in mathematics or reading. Most providers
reported that they communicated with the regular classroom teachers of
their students, but one in five never did so.

# Conclusions {#conclusions-1 .unnumbered}

In 2004--05, about 6.2 million students were eligible for Title I school
choice and as many as 1.8 million students were eligible for Title I
supplemental educational services. Although the number of students
participating in school choice and supplemental services grew
substantially from previous years, most eligible students did not
participate. One percent of eligible students participated in school
choice and 17 percent of eligible students received supplemental
educational services, according to the most recent nationally
representative data available. Three notable issues may have affected
participation:

1.  **Absence of available options.** About one-third of
    districts---usually small districts with few schools---had no
    non-identified schools to which students in identified schools could
    transfer. All of their schools at the relevant grade levels were
    identified for improvement (which is not unusual in small districts
    that have only a few schools.) An absence of non-identified schools
    is especially common at the middle and high school levels. With
    respect to supplemental services, providers were far less likely to
    offer services to high school students than to elementary and middle
    school students, despite the fact that, across the country, these
    students were more likely to be eligible for services than were
    elementary students.

2.  **Timing of notification.** Many districts did not receive
    information on the improvement status of their schools from their
    states until late summer or early fall, reducing their ability to
    inform parents about Title I school choice before the start of the
    school year. Less than one-third of districts required to offer
    school choice notified parents of eligible students before the
    beginning of the school year. Districts that notified parents prior
    to the beginning of the school year had higher participation rates
    than did those that notified parents after school had started.

3.  **Problems with communication.** While almost all of the districts
    offering Title I school choice and supplemental educational services
    reported that they notified parents of the options available to
    their children, many parents were not aware of their options. For
    example, in the eight urban districts subsampled for additional
    study, three-quarters of parents of elementary students who were
    eligible for school choice indicated they had not been notified of
    the option to move their child to another school---despite the fact
    that all eight districts provided copies of parent information
    letters that they reported were sent to eligible parents. Many (but
    fewer) parents likewise reported they were not notified about the
    availability of supplemental educational services.

For families that participated in Title I choice options, there are
signs of promise. Parents who took advantage of Title I school choice
were very satisfied with the new schools---which had substantially
higher levels of average student achievement than did the schools
departed by the transfer students (at least in nine large, urban
districts that were subsampled), as intended by *NCLB*. Moreover,
students using the school choice option had lower-than-average levels of
prior achievement.

Parent, provider, and district reports suggest that many students who
participated in Title I supplemental educational services received a
substantial amount of additional instructional time. Providers reported
serving students an average of 57 hours per year. Given the low levels
of prior achievement of supplemental educational service participants,
that additional time was appropriately directed to students who needed
it. Parents reported high levels of satisfaction with supplemental
services as well.

The availability and use of Title I supplemental educational services
has grown rapidly over the past several years, but systems for
monitoring providers and evaluating their effectiveness are only in
their infancy. Most states did not yet have clear standards or methods
for evaluating providers, and provider reports suggest that districts
were often taking on evaluation roles, despite the fact that the law
designates this responsibility to states. Moreover, although *NCLB*
requires that providers, districts, and parents work together to
identify academic goals for each student, communication channels among
these three partners appeared to be uneven. Although most providers
reported some communication with schools and parents, one-fifth of
providers acknowledged that they never communicated with classroom
teachers about student progress.

In short, states, districts, and providers were working to implement
Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, but whether
they will meet the expectations envisioned in the law of providing a
range of educational options to parents of students in persistently
low-performing Title I schools is not yet clear.

# References {#references .unnumbered}

American Institutes for Research (AIR) and Education Industry
Association (EIA). (2005). *The Promise and Challenge of Supplemental
Educational Services: The Providers' Perspective*, Washington, D.C.:
AIR.

Center on Education Policy. (2006). *From the Capital to the Classroom:
Year 4 of the* No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, D.C. Available on
CEP Web site: www.cep-dc.org/nclb/Year4/CEP-NCLB-Report-4.pdf (accessed
Sept. 8, 2006).

Government Accountability Office. (2006). *Education Actions Needed to
Improve Local Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental
Services*. GAO-06-758. Washington, D.C.

Howell, W. (2004). "Worcester: Thunderous Clouds, No Rain," in Frederick
M. Hess and Chester E. Finn, eds., *Leaving No Child Behind?: Options
for Kids in Failing Schools*, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.
239--263.

*The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001*, Public Law 107-110, 107^th^
Congress, 2^nd^ Session, Jan. 8, 2002.

Public Education Network. (2004). *Open to the Public: Speaking Out on*
No Child Left Behind*. Summary of Nine Hearings*. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Education. ( 2004). "Overview: Four Pillars of
*NCLB*." Available on Department of Education Web site:
www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html (accessed Aug. 24, 2006).

U.S. Department of Education. (2005a). *Case Studies of Supplemental
Services Under the* No Child Left Behind Act: *Findings from 2003--04*,
Washington, D.C. Available on Department of Education Web site:
www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/supplementalyear2/final-year2.pdf
(accessed Aug. 25, 2006).

U.S. Department of Education. (2005b). *Supplemental Educational
Services: Non-Regulatory Guidance*, Washington, D.C. Available on
Department of Education Web site:
www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsucsguid.doc (accessed Aug. 25, 2006).

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). *Title I Accountability and School
Improvement from 2001 to 2004*, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.

Zimmer, R., B. Gill, P. Razquin, K. Booker, and J.R. Lockwood. (2007).
*State and Local Implementation of the* No Child Left Behind Act*,
Volume I*---*Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services,
and Student Achievement.* Available on Department of Education Web site:
www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/implementation/achievementanalysis.pdf
(accessed Jan. 30, 2008).

# Appendix A Description of NLS-*NCLB* and SSI-*NCLB* Methodologies  {#appendix-a-description-of-nls-nclb-and-ssi-nclb-methodologies .unnumbered}

The purpose of the NLS-*NCLB* and SSI-*NCLB* is to provide an integrated
longitudinal evaluation of the implementation of *No Child Left Behind*
by states, districts and schools, focusing primarily on *NCLB*
provisions in the following four areas: accountability, teacher quality,
parental choice and supplemental educational services, and targeting and
resource allocation.

Data collection for NLS-*NCLB* and SSI-*NCLB* was coordinated to ensure
coverage of the same set of questions as well as questions pertinent to
each state, district and school levels. Taken together, the linked
dataset on state policies, district policies, school strategies, teacher
qualifications, parental choice activities, provision of supplemental
services, resource allocation, and student achievement that were
developed provide a unique resource for understanding the implementation
of the key provisions of *No Child Left Behind*, including in Title I
and non-Title I schools.

### Sample and Response Rates {#sample-and-response-rates .unnumbered}

The nationally representative sample selected for NLS-*NCLB* includes
300 districts. The sampling frame included all districts with at least
one public and regular school in the 2001 National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) school database. The sample
was selected using a probability proportional to size (PPS) scheme in
which the measure of size was district enrollment; 36 very large
districts were selected with certainty. In order to ensure sufficient
sample sizes of schools identified for improvement under Title I, the
study over-sampled high-poverty districts, defined as those in the
highest poverty quartile. District poverty quartiles were based on
Census Bureau estimates of the number of school-age children and poor
children living in each district (2002 Small-Area Income and Poverty
Estimates). The poverty quartiles were created by ranking all districts
by the percentage of poor school-age children and then dividing these
districts into quartiles that each contains 25 percent of the school-age
children.

The school sample included 1,483 schools randomly sampled from strata
within sampled districts. Title I schools, high-poverty schools, and
elementary schools with Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) programs were
over-sampled. Title I status and the percentage of students eligible for
free or reduced-price lunches in schools were taken from the Common Core
of Data maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics. The
eligibility threshold for the subsidized lunch program is lower than the
official poverty definition. Elementary CSR schools were identified
through the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory database on CSR
schools. he sample of schools was designed so that on average two
non-CSR schools, one CSR, one middle school, and one high school were
selected from each district.

The teacher sample included approximately seven teachers per school (six
classroom teachers and one special education teacher). School staff
rosters were collected and divided into teacher strata by grade level
taught; a stratum of Title I paraprofessionals was also created. After
school rosters were stratified, independent random sampling took place
within each stratum. At the elementary level, one teacher was selected
per grade. At the secondary level, about three math teachers and three
English teachers were selected per school. One Title I paraprofessional
was selected from each Title I school. The resulting sample included a
total of 8,791 classroom teachers (including 4,772 elementary teachers,
2,081 secondary English teachers, and 1,938 secondary mathematics
teachers), 1,408 special education teachers, and 950 paraprofessionals.

Of the 300 districts in the sample, all but three agreed to participate
in the study. These three districts were replaced, 289 responded by
returning completed surveys yielding a response rate of 96 percent. Of
the 1,483 schools in the sample, 36 refused to participate and were
replaced. The response rate for principal surveys in sampled schools was
89 percent. Among teachers, response rates were highest for elementary
teachers at 86 percent, while English and mathematics teachers responded
at a rate of 82 percent.

  --------------------------------- -------------- ------------ --------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628355                               
  .anchor}Exhibit A.1\                                          
  Sample Sizes and Survey                                       
  Completion Rates for\                                         
  National Longitudinal Study of                                
  *NCLB* Surveys, 2004--05                                      

                                    Sample Size    Completed    Completion
                                                   Surveys      Rate

  Districts                         300            289          96%

  Schools                           1,483          1,315        89%

  Elementary teachers               4,772          4,089        86%

  English teachers                  2,081          1,707        82%

  Mathematics teachers              1,938          1,598        82%

  Special education teachers        1,408          1,191        85%

  Paraprofessionals                 950            828          87%
  --------------------------------- -------------- ------------ --------------

The following table presents characteristics of the district and school
samples compared with the universe of districts and schools based on CCD
data. As intended, the sample contains higher proportions of
high-poverty districts and schools compared with the universe.

  --------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------- ------------ ---------- ------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628356                                                                     
  .anchor}Exhibit A.2\                                                                                
  Characteristics of National                                                                         
  Longitudinal Study of *NCLB*                                                                        
  District and\                                                                                       
  School Samples Compared with the                                                                    
  Universe of Districts and Schools                                                                   

                                                                    Sample                 Universe   

                                                                    Number    Percentage   Number     Percentage

  Districts, by poverty quartile                                    300                    14,972     
  (census poverty)                                                                                    

                                    Highest poverty quartile        163       54%          3,743      25%

                                    Second highest poverty quartile 41        14%          3,743      25%

                                    Second lowest poverty quartile  50        17%          3,743      25%

                                    Lowest poverty quartile         46        15%          3,743      25%

  Schools, by poverty level                                         1,502                  83,298     

                                    75--100% eligible for free or   596       40%          11,282     13%
                                    reduced-price lunches                                             

                                    50--74% eligible for free or    363       24%          15,461     19%
                                    reduced-price lunches                                             

                                    35--49% eligible for free or    106       7%           12,844     15%
                                    reduced-price lunches                                             

                                    \<35% eligible for free or      291       19%          33,884     41%
                                    reduced-price lunches                                             

                                    Missing                         146       10%          9,827      12%

  Schools, by Title I status                                        1,502                  83,298     

                                    Title I                         1,163     77%          46,048     55%

                                    Non--Title I                    259       17%          31,312     38%

                                    Missing                         80        5%           5,938      7%

  Schools, by grade level                                           1,502                  83,298     

                                    Elementary                      906       60%          50,597     61%

                                    Middle                          298       20%          15,700     19%

                                    High                            298       20%          17,001     20%

  Source: Sample and universe based                                                                   
  on 2001--2002 CCD.                                                                                  
  --------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------- ------------ ---------- ------------

In addition, a subsample of nine large, urban districts was selected for
additional data collection focused on student-level demographic and
achievement data as well as a survey of parents. The nine districts were
selected based on availability of the necessary longitudinal individual
student achievement data as well as sufficient numbers of students
participating in the Title I school choice and supplemental services
options to enable sampling of 100 parents in each district who had
children participating in the Title I school choice option and an
additional 100 parents with children receiving Title I supplemental
services. As a result, these districts are all large urban districts and
do not reflect the diversity of Title I districts.

A stratified simple random sample of about 400 parents was selected in
each of eight districts (one district did not provide the data needed to
select a parent sample). In each district, four sampling strata were
created for use in sampling parents. The four strata included parents of
children who transferred under *NCLB*, received supplemental services,
were eligible to transfer or receive supplemental services but chose not
to participate, and children who were in schools not identified for
improvement.

Sample sizes of 100 were randomly selected with equal probabilities from
each of the four strata within each district. Districts generally fell
short of the 100 sample size within the transfers stratum, and thus the
total sample size in some districts was under 400. One district did not
distinguish transfers under *NCLB* from other transfers in their
district and thus had a sample equally distributed within strata 2, 3,
and 4 (i.e., with 133 parents in each of the three strata). A total of
3,094 parents were sampled and 1,866 completed surveys for a response
rate of 61 percent. Response rates for each of the strata varied from 55
percent to 67 percent. Response rates in six of the eight districts were
above 60 percent, while one district had a response rate of 52 percent
and one district (which refused to permit telephone follow-ups) had a
response rate of 36 percent.

  ------------------------------------- ---------- ----------- ------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628357                              
  .anchor}Exhibit A.3\                                         
  Sample Sizes and Completion Rates\                           
  for National Longitudinal Study of                           
  *NCLB* Parent Surveys                                        

                                        Sample     Completed   Completion
                                        Size       Surveys     Rate

  Parents of children who transferred   602        403         67%
  under *NCLB*                                                 

  Parents of children who received      839        493         58%
  supplemental services                                        

  Parents of children who were eligible 798        439         55%
  to transfer or receive supplemental                          
  services but chose not to participate                        

  Parents of children who were in       855        531         63%
  schools not identified for                                   
  improvement                                                  

  All parents                           3,094      1,866       61%
  ------------------------------------- ---------- ----------- ------------

Supplemental educational service providers were surveyed in these eight
districts as well as an additional eight districts where supplemental
services were being offered. The additional eight districts were
randomly selected from high-poverty districts distributed across regions
and across mid-sized cities and suburban and rural areas. Ten
supplemental service providers were randomly chosen in each of the
16 districts, except in districts with fewer than ten providers, where
all providers were surveyed. In five districts, the district itself was
providing supplemental services and in those cases the district was
surveyed in addition to the ten other providers. A total of 125
providers were surveyed (out of a universe of 226 providers operating in
the 16 districts) and 103 completed surveys for a response rate of 82
percent.

In the above 16 districts, plus 9 additional districts, again randomly
selected from the study sample of districts, various documents were
collected, including district improvement plans, district report cards,
parental choice notification letters, and school improvement plans for
selected schools. All of these districts cooperated with the document
collection activities.

Across all survey items, nonresponse was generally low. That is,
respondents tended to answer all questions in the surveys. Survey items
with item nonresponse rates greater than 10 percent are generally not
included in the report. When items with high nonresponse are reported,
the nonresponse rate is reported and discussed in the text. No
item-level imputations for missing data were made for this report.

The interview sample for the SSI-*NCLB* was straightforward, including
all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The
response rate for all four types of interviews (accountability, teacher
quality, supplemental educational services, and Title III) was 100
percent. However, responses for some specific variables were
occasionally less than 100 percent, if respondents did not respond to
the interview question, or if data were absent from state documentation.

### Data Collection {#data-collection .unnumbered}

NLS-*NCLB* data used in this report were gathered using instruments that
included mail surveys of district federal program coordinators, school
principals, classroom teachers, Title I paraprofessionals, parents, and
supplemental educational services providers. In some instances parents
were surveyed by telephone. Survey administration began in October 2004
and was completed in March 2005, except for the parent and supplemental
service provider surveys that began in early 2005 and extended into
October 2005. A second complete wave of data collection will be
conducted in the 2006--07 school year. Topics covered in the survey
questionnaires included accountability systems, AYP and school and
district identification for improvement, technical assistance,
improvement strategies, use of assessment results, Title I school choice
and supplemental educational services, teacher quality, and professional
development.

In addition, NLS-*NCLB* gathered pertinent documents, including district
and school improvement plans and school report cards, and parental
notifications about choice options, teacher qualifications, and
achievement test scores of children.

The SSI-*NCLB* relied on interviews with state education officials and
extant data. Interviews were conducted between September 2004 and
February 2005 with state officials who had primary responsibility for
accountability, teacher quality, supplemental educational services, and
Title III implementation. A second wave of interviews will be conducted
in the 2006--07 school year. The interview protocols addressed topics
including assessments, AYP definitions, state support for schools
identified for improvement, sanctions for schools in corrective action
and restructuring, state data systems, state definitions of highly
qualified teachers, professional development, technical assistance for
teacher quality, monitoring supplemental educational service providers,
and state approaches to the implementation of *NCLB* provisions related
to English language proficiency. Each interview included a short section
of survey questions to which state officials responded in writing (these
were referred to as "Introductory Materials") and a document request, if
necessary.

States are required to submit much documentation to the U.S. Department
of Education, and the SSI‑*NCLB* collected documents such as the
Consolidated State Applications under *NCLB* (primarily the state
accountability workbooks) as well as the annual Consolidated State
Performance Reports (CSPRs). In addition, state education agency Web
sites were an important source of data on topics including high
objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE) policies,
assessment systems, and technical assistance.

A national database of the 2003--04 AYP status of all schools and of
schools identified for improvement in 2004--05 was created from data on
state education agency Web sites and the CSPRs. In some cases, state
education officials provided the necessary data files, requested during
the interview process. The resulting database contains 88,160 schools
(including both Title I and non-Title I schools) in 50 states and the
District of Columbia. It does not include 2,529 schools for which states
reported AYP as "not determined," and about 4,000 schools that were not
included in state-provided data files or Web sites.

### Sample Weights for NLS-*NCLB* Survey Data {#sample-weights-for-nls-nclb-survey-data .unnumbered}

Survey data were weighted to adjust for differences between the
composition of the sample and the composition of the population of
interest. These differences arose partly by design---for example,
differential sampling rates for high- and low-poverty districts.
However, differences between the composition of the sample and that of
the population also arose because of differences in cooperation rates.
Not every district, school, or teacher agreed to participate in the
survey, and members of some groups cooperated at higher rates than
members of other groups. Differences between the composition of the
sample and that of the universe may also arise because of various forms
of under-coverage. Weights were used to compensate for all of these
differences between samples and populations.

Two sets of weights were created for districts and schools: A‑weights
and B‑weights. The A‑weights were used to compute enrollment weighted
estimates (i.e., the percentage of students enrolled in districts or
schools that have specific features); and the B‑weights were used to
compute estimates of the percentage of districts or schools. The
calculation methods for the sets of weights for districts, schools, and
teachers are described below.

### District Weights {#district-weights .unnumbered}

1\. Base weights were computed as the reciprocal of the inclusion
probability, corresponding to the original sample of 300. The frame
included all districts with at least one public and regular school in
the 2001 NCES CCD school database. The sample was selected using a PPS
scheme, where the measure of size was district enrollment; however, 36
very large districts were selected with certainty.

2\. After substitution for three non-cooperating districts, revised base
weights corresponding to the expanded sample of 303 districts were
computed.

3\. Non-cooperation-adjusted weights were computed. Because there were
only three non-cooperating districts, response rates approached 100
percent. The non-cooperating cells were defined by crossing district
certainty status (certainty, non-certainty) by region (NE, MW, S, W) and
poverty status (high, low). As all certainty districts responded, no
nonresponse adjustment was made to them.

4\. A second adjustment was made for nonresponse, accounting for 11
cooperating districts that did not complete and return the district
questionnaire. Similar to the non‑cooperation adjustment in Step 3,
response rates approached 100 percent. The non‑responding cells were
defined by crossing district certainty status (certainty, non‑certainty)
by region (NE, MW, S, W) and poverty status (high, low). As all
certainty districts responded, no nonresponse adjustment was made to
them.

5\. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to four district outlier
weights.

6\. The weights were raked to district totals on three dimensions:
district size (four categories), region by poverty strata (eight
categories), and Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three categories). With
a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after six
iterations. It should be noted that raking of district weights was
applied only to the non‑certainty districts. The certainty districts
maintained their original final weights as described above.

7\. Three districts had a raked weight under 1.00. The raked weight was
reset to 1.00 for these three districts to produce the final raked
B-weights for districts.

8\. The final raked weights were then multiplied by district enrollment.

9\. Finally, those weights were raked to enrollment totals on three
dimensions: district size (four categories), region by poverty strata
(eight categories), and Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three
categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was
satisfied after eight iterations. These raked weights are the final
raked district A-weights.

### School Weights {#school-weights .unnumbered}

1\. School weights began with the Step 3 district weights.

2\. The conditional school base weight was computed as the reciprocal of
the school inclusion probability after allowing for replacement schools,
mergers, splits, and any other status changes.

3\. School base weights were computed by multiplying the district
weights (Step 1) by the Step 2 school conditional weights.

4\. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to four outliers.

5\. The conditional school base weight was computed as the reciprocal of
the school inclusion probability after allowing for replacement schools,
mergers, splits, and any other status changes.

6\. The school base weight was computed by multiplying the Step 4 school
weights by the Step 5 school conditional weights.

7\. Schools that were closed were given a weight of zero.

8\. A nonresponse adjustment was made to the weights for the remaining
(open) schools, accounting for non-cooperating schools.

9\. Using the non-cooperating-adjusted school weight from Step 8, a
second nonresponse adjustment was made for open schools, accounting for
168 missing principal questionnaires.

10\. A Winsorization adjustment was made for seven extreme school
weights. The result is called the preliminary B-weights.

11\. These weights were raked to school totals on four dimensions:
school size (four categories), region by poverty strata (eight
categories), Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three categories), and
school type (four categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001,
convergence was satisfied after seven iterations. The result is called
the preliminary raked B-weight.

12\. Within the smallest school size category (less than 400 students
enrolled), two cases had weights Winsorized. The result is called
outlier adjusted raked B-weight.

13\. Finally, 10 schools had a raked weight under 1.00. They were reset
to 1.00, while the rest of the school sample maintained its weights from
Step 11. The result is the final raked school B‑weights.

14\. These raked B-weights were multiplied by school enrollment
(obtained from the school-level CCD file).

15\. A Winsorization adjustment was made for seven extreme weights. The
result is called the preliminary A-weights.

16\. Finally, these weights were raked to school enrollment on four
dimensions: school size (four categories), region by poverty strata
(eight categories), Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three categories),
and school type (four categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001,
convergence was satisfied after eight iterations. The resulting weights
are the final raked school A-weights.

### Teacher Weights {#teacher-weights .unnumbered}

1\. Teacher weights began with Step 8 school weights.

2\. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to seven extreme school
weights within size categories.

3\. Those weights were then raked to school totals on four dimensions:
school size (four categories), region by poverty strata (eight
categories), Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three categories), and
school type (four categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001,
convergence was satisfied after six iterations.

4\. Within the smallest school size category (less than 400 students
enrolled), two cases had weights Winsorized.

5\. Finally, 15 schools had a raked weight under 1.00. These weights
were reset to 1.00, while the rest of the school sample maintained the
weight from Step 4.

6\. The conditional teacher base weight was computed as the reciprocal
of the teacher probability of selection.

7\. The teacher base weight was calculated by multiplying the Step 5
weight by the Step 6 conditional weight.

8\. Teachers determined to be ineligible or out of scope (assuming no
permanent replacement teacher was available) were given a weight of
zero.

9\. A nonresponse adjustment was made for teachers who refused to
complete the questionnaire and a proportion of the teachers with unknown
eligibility. Nonresponse adjustment cells were defined by crossing
region by poverty stratum (eight categories) by teacher stratum (14
categories), with the collapsing of a few small cells (those with fewer
than 30 cases). Collapsing of small cells involved cells for sixth-grade
classroom teachers, seventh and eighth grade mathematics teachers, and
seventh and eighth grade ELA teachers.

10\. The nonresponse adjusted weights were then outlier adjusted.
Outliers were defined to be any weights that were at or above the 99.5
percentile within nonresponse adjustment cell. Fifty-one outliers were
flagged and Winsorized.

### Standard Errors {#standard-errors .unnumbered}

Calculation of standard errors adjusted for the complex sampling design
using SAS statistical software that makes use of the Taylor expansion
method for calculating standard errors.

The standard errors provide an indicator of the reliability of each
estimate. For example, if all possible samples of the same size were
surveyed under identical conditions, an interval calculated by adding
and subtracting 1.96 times the standard error from a particular estimate
would include the population value in approximately 95 percent of the
samples.

### Statistical Tests and Modeling {#statistical-tests-and-modeling .unnumbered}

### National Longitudinal Study of *NCLB* Survey Data {#national-longitudinal-study-of-nclb-survey-data .unnumbered}

Analyses of survey data presented in this report are mostly descriptive
and involve comparisons of means or ratios between groups or over time.
Survey-based comparisons discussed in the text of the report have been
tested for statistical significance. Tests of significance for these
analyses were conducted using the *t* statistic and a significance level
of 0.05. The significance level, or alpha level, reflects the
probability that a difference between groups as large as the one
observed could arise simply due to sampling variation, if there were no
true difference between groups in the population. The tests were
conducted by calculating a ![](media/image15.wmf) value for the
difference between a pair of means and comparing that value to a
published table of critical values for ![](media/image15.wmf). The
following formula can be used to compute the ![](media/image15.wmf)
statistic for the difference between estimates for subgroups:

![](media/image16.wmf)

Where ![](media/image17.wmf) and ![](media/image18.wmf) are the
estimated means or ratios being compared and ![](media/image19.wmf) and
![](media/image20.wmf) are their corresponding standard errors.

### Multivariate Analysis {#multivariate-analysis .unnumbered}

A multivariate logistic model was used to measure the net effect of
different variables on an outcome, such as designation of a school as
being in need of improvement, that is, the effect of a particular factor
on that outcome, while controlling for the effects of other variables.
Empirically, the outcome is summarized by a dichotomous dependent
variable.

The logistic regression model is an appropriate choice for the
functional form, because it restricts the value of the predicted
probability to between 0 and 1. The model relates the occurrence of an
event for the ![](media/image21.wmf)th case, ![](media/image22.wmf), to
a vector of characteristics for that case, ![](media/image23.wmf).

![](media/image24.wmf)

where

![](media/image25.wmf)= probability of occurrence of an outcome for case
![](media/image21.wmf),

![](media/image26.wmf)= values of the explanatory variable
![](media/image27.wmf) for case ![](media/image21.wmf),

![](media/image28.wmf)= estimated coefficients for the
![](media/image29.wmf), and

![](media/image30.wmf)= estimated constant term.

# Appendix B Standard Error Exhibits {#appendix-b-standard-error-exhibits .unnumbered}

+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| []{#__R  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| efHeadin |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| g___Toc1 |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| 89628358 |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| .anchor  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| }Exhibit |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| B.1\     |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Notif    |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| ication, |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Appl     |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| ication, |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| and      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Parti    |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| cipation |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| in Title |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| I School |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Choice   |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| and      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Supp     |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| lemental |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Edu      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| cational |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| S        |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| ervices, |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| 2003--04 |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| and      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| 2004--05 |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| (as      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Reported |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| by       |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Di       |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| stricts) |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|          | Suppl   |         | Title I |         | Title I |         |
|          | emental |         | School  |         | School  |         |
|          | Educ    |         | Choice  |         | Choice  |         |
|          | ational |         |         |         |         |         |
|          | S       |         | 2       |         | 2       |         |
|          | ervices |         | 003--04 |         | 004--05 |         |
|          |         |         |         |         |         |         |
|          | 2       |         | (n=109) |         | (n=121) |         |
|          | 003--04 |         |         |         |         |         |
|          |         |         |         |         |         |         |
|          | (n=80)  |         |         |         |         |         |
+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|          | **Es    | **Per   | **Es    | **Per   | **Es    | **Per   |
|          | timated | centage | timated | centage | timated | centage |
|          | N       | of      | N       | of      | N       | of      |
|          | umber** | E       | umber** | E       | umber** | E       |
|          |         | ligible |         | ligible |         | ligible |
|          |         | Stu     |         | Stu     |         | Stu     |
|          |         | dents** |         | dents** |         | dents** |
+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Eligible | 1,      | N/A     | 3,      | N/A     | 6,      | N/A     |
|          | 380,000 |         | 850,000 |         | 526,000 |         |
|          |         |         |         |         |         |         |
|          | (1      |         | (2      |         | (3      |         |
|          | 01,885) |         | 69,713) |         | 73,560) |         |
+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Notified | 1,      | 124.3%  | 3,      | 84.9%   | 4,      | 64.0%   |
|          | 714,000 |         | 269,000 |         | 175,000 |         |
|          |         |         |         |         |         |         |
|          | (       |         | (2      |         | (3      |         |
|          | 89,237) |         | 74,279) |         | 03,227) |         |
+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Applied  | 265,000 | 19.2%   | 68,000  | 1.8%    | 82,000  | 1.3%    |
|          |         |         | (6,624) |         |         |         |
|          | (       |         |         |         | (       |         |
|          | 15,650) |         |         |         | 12,936) |         |
+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Part     | 233,000 | 16.9%   | 38,000  | 1.0%    | 45,000  | 0.7%    |
| icipated |         |         | (6,248) |         |         |         |
|          | (       |         |         |         | (8,870) |         |
|          | 15,515) |         |         |         |         |         |
+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Source:  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| NLS      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| -*NCLB*, |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| District |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Survey;  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| SSI      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| -*NCLB,* |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| National |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| AYP and  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Identi   |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| fication |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| D        |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| atabase. |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

+------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+-----------+
| [          |               |           |               |           |
| ]{#__RefHe |               |           |               |           |
| ading___To |               |           |               |           |
| c189628359 |               |           |               |           |
| .anch      |               |           |               |           |
| or}Exhibit |               |           |               |           |
| B.2\       |               |           |               |           |
| Prior Year |               |           |               |           |
| A          |               |           |               |           |
| chievement |               |           |               |           |
| Levels     |               |           |               |           |
| (Measured  |               |           |               |           |
| in         |               |           |               |           |
| Z-Scores)  |               |           |               |           |
| of         |               |           |               |           |
| Students   |               |           |               |           |
| Par        |               |           |               |           |
| ticipating |               |           |               |           |
| and        |               |           |               |           |
| Eligible   |               |           |               |           |
| for Title  |               |           |               |           |
| I Choice   |               |           |               |           |
| Options in |               |           |               |           |
| Nine       |               |           |               |           |
| Large,     |               |           |               |           |
| Urban      |               |           |               |           |
| Districts, |               |           |               |           |
| 2004--05   |               |           |               |           |
+------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+-----------+
|            | Supplemental  |           | School Choice |           |
|            | Educational   |           |               |           |
|            | Services      |           |               |           |
+------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+-----------+
|            | **            | *         | **            | *         |
|            | Participating | *Eligible | Participating | *Eligible |
|            | Students**    | S         | Students**    | S         |
|            |               | tudents** |               | tudents** |
+------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+-----------+
| Prior year | --0.35^a^     | --0.23^b^ | --0.19\       | --0.21^b^ |
| reading    |               |           | (0.02)        |           |
| score      | (0.004)       | (0.001)   |               | (0.001)   |
+------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+-----------+
| Prior year | --0.31^a^     | --0.19^b^ | --0.19\       | --0.19^b^ |
| math score |               |           | (0.02)        |           |
|            | (0.004)       | (0.001)   |               | (0.001)   |
+------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+-----------+
| **Exhibit  |               |           |               |           |
| reads:**   |               |           |               |           |
| Among      |               |           |               |           |
| Title I    |               |           |               |           |
| school     |               |           |               |           |
| choice     |               |           |               |           |
| par        |               |           |               |           |
| ticipating |               |           |               |           |
| students   |               |           |               |           |
| in nine    |               |           |               |           |
| urban      |               |           |               |           |
| districts, |               |           |               |           |
| average    |               |           |               |           |
| st         |               |           |               |           |
| andardized |               |           |               |           |
| reading    |               |           |               |           |
| scores     |               |           |               |           |
| were below |               |           |               |           |
| the        |               |           |               |           |
| district   |               |           |               |           |
| average by |               |           |               |           |
| 0.19 of a  |               |           |               |           |
| standard   |               |           |               |           |
| deviation. |               |           |               |           |
|            |               |           |               |           |
| ^a^        |               |           |               |           |
| Indicates  |               |           |               |           |
| a          |               |           |               |           |
| s          |               |           |               |           |
| ignificant |               |           |               |           |
| difference |               |           |               |           |
| between    |               |           |               |           |
| par        |               |           |               |           |
| ticipating |               |           |               |           |
| students   |               |           |               |           |
| and        |               |           |               |           |
| nonpar     |               |           |               |           |
| ticipating |               |           |               |           |
| students   |               |           |               |           |
| at the 5   |               |           |               |           |
| percent    |               |           |               |           |
| level.     |               |           |               |           |
|            |               |           |               |           |
| ^b^        |               |           |               |           |
| Indicates  |               |           |               |           |
| a          |               |           |               |           |
| s          |               |           |               |           |
| ignificant |               |           |               |           |
| difference |               |           |               |           |
| between    |               |           |               |           |
| eligible   |               |           |               |           |
| and        |               |           |               |           |
| ineligible |               |           |               |           |
| students   |               |           |               |           |
| at the 5   |               |           |               |           |
| percent    |               |           |               |           |
| level.     |               |           |               |           |
|            |               |           |               |           |
| Notes:     |               |           |               |           |
| Scores are |               |           |               |           |
| expressed  |               |           |               |           |
| as         |               |           |               |           |
| z-scores.  |               |           |               |           |
| Figures    |               |           |               |           |
| are based  |               |           |               |           |
| on         |               |           |               |           |
| 2004--05   |               |           |               |           |
| data in    |               |           |               |           |
| eight      |               |           |               |           |
| districts  |               |           |               |           |
| and on     |               |           |               |           |
| 2003--04   |               |           |               |           |
| data for   |               |           |               |           |
| the ninth  |               |           |               |           |
| district.  |               |           |               |           |
|            |               |           |               |           |
| Source:    |               |           |               |           |
| Zimmer,    |               |           |               |           |
| Gill,      |               |           |               |           |
| Razquin,   |               |           |               |           |
| Booker and |               |           |               |           |
| Lockwood,  |               |           |               |           |
| 2007.      |               |           |               |           |
+------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+-----------+

+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| []{#__RefHeadi    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ng___Toc189628360 |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| .anchor}E**xhibit |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| B.3\              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Percentage of     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Districts and of  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Students in These |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Districts         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Reporting\        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Availability of   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Title I School    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Choice Option, by |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| School Level,     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| 2004--05\         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| (Among Districts  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Required to Offer |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Choice)**         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                   | Eleme |       | M     |       | High  |       |
|                   | ntary |       | iddle |       | Sc    |       |
|                   | Sc    |       | Sc    |       | hools |       |
|                   | hools |       | hools |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                   | **    | **    | **    | **    | **    | **    |
|                   | Perce | Perce | Perce | Perce | Perce | Perce |
|                   | ntage | ntage | ntage | ntage | ntage | ntage |
|                   | of    | of    | of    | of    | of    | of    |
|                   | D     | Stude | D     | Stude | D     | Stude |
|                   | istri | nts** | istri | nts** | istri | nts** |
|                   | cts** |       | cts** |       | cts** |       |
|                   |       |       | (n    |       | (     |       |
|                   | (n    |       | =112) |       | n=73) |       |
|                   | =129) |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| District offers   | 70.1  | 92.1  | 19.8  | 67.3  | 16.8  | 54.7  |
| Title I school    | (     | (1.9) | (5.1) | (4.7) | (5.7) | (5.5) |
| choice at this    | 12.4) |       |       |       |       |       |
| grade level       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Title I school    | 26.3  | 3.4   | 66.4  | 16.5  | 69.9  | 16.5  |
| choice not        | (     | (1.3) | (8.4) | (3.3) | (8.8) | (2.6) |
| available because | 12.4) |       |       |       |       |       |
| all schools at    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| this grade level  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| are identified    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| for improvement   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| District is not   | 3.6   | 4.5   | 13.7  | 16.3  | 13.3  | 28.8  |
| offering Title I  | (1.9) | (1.5) | (5.1) | (4.7) | (6.8) | (4.9) |
| school choice for |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| other reasons     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Source:           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| NLS-*NCLB*,       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| District Survey;  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| SSI-*NCLB*        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| National Database |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| of School AYP and |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Identification.   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

  --------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628361                             
  .anchor}Exhibit B.4\                                        
  Percentage of Districts Required                            
  to Offer Title I School Choice                              
  That Offered Parents\                                       
  of Eligible Students Two or More                            
  Alternate Schools, by School                                
  Level, 2004--05                                             

                                    Elementary   Middle\      High\
                                    Schools      Schools      Schools

  Districts offering two ore more   77.9 (8.9)   30.2 (7.8)   19.8 (8.4)
  alternate schools                                           

  Students in districts offering    95.3 (1.5)   69.9 (5.3)   55.7 (6.4)
  two ore more alternate schools                              

  Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District                                
  Survey.                                                     
  --------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------

+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
| []{#      |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| __RefHead |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| ing___Toc |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| 189628362 |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| .ancho    |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| r}Exhibit |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| B.5\      |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Average   |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Student   |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Ac        |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| hievement |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| in        |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Schools   |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| That      |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Students  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Part      |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| icipating |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| in the\   |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Title I   |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| School    |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Choice    |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Left and  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| to Which  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| They      |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Tr        |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| ansferred |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Relative  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| to\       |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Average   |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| District  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Ach       |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| ievement, |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| 2003--04  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| and       |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| 2004--05  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
| **D       | *  |         |            | ** |          |            |
| istrict** | *R |         |            | Ma |          |            |
|           | ea |         |            | th |          |            |
|           | di |         |            | Z  |          |            |
|           | ng |         |            | -S |          |            |
|           | Z  |         |            | co |          |            |
|           | -S |         |            | re |          |            |
|           | co |         |            | ** |          |            |
|           | re |         |            |    |          |            |
|           | ** |         |            |    |          |            |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
|           | *  | **      | **Schools  | *  | *        | **Schools  |
|           | *n | Schools | to Which   | *n | *Schools | to Which   |
|           | ** | S       | Students   | ** | Students | Students   |
|           |    | tudents | Tra        |    | Left**   | Tra        |
|           |    | Left**  | nsferred** |    |          | nsferred** |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
| A         | 4  | -0.12   | 0.06       | 4  | -0.13    | 0.12       |
|           | 36 | (0      | (0.01)^a^  | 36 | (        | (0.01)^a^  |
|           |    | .02)^a^ |            |    | 0.02)^a^ |            |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
| B         | 4  | -0.14   | 0.01       | 3  | -0.08    | 0.02       |
|           | 49 | (0      | (0.02)^a^  | 73 | (        | (0.02)^a^  |
|           |    | .02)^a^ |            |    | 0.02)^a^ |            |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
| C         | 1  | -0.25   | 0.34       | 1  | -0.33    | 0.27       |
|           | 47 | (0      | (0.03)^a^  | 47 | (        | (0.03)^a^  |
|           |    | .02)^a^ |            |    | 0.02)^a^ |            |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
| D         | 8  | -0.23   | 0.11       | 7  | -0.25    | 0.11       |
|           | 30 | (0      | (0.02)^a^  | 10 | (        | (0.02)^a^  |
|           |    | .01)^a^ |            |    | 0.01)^a^ |            |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
| E         | 5  | -0.33   | 0.36       | 5  | -0.25    | 0.35       |
|           | 53 | (0      | (0.01)^a^  | 53 | (        | (0.01)^a^  |
|           |    | .01)^a^ |            |    | 0.01)^a^ |            |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
| F         | 18 | -0.42   | 0.08       | 18 | -0.30    | 0.05       |
|           |    | (0      | (0.11)^a^  |    | (        | (0.10)^a^  |
|           |    | .04)^a^ |            |    | 0.06)^a^ |            |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
| G         | 6  | -0.20   | 0.17       | 6  | -0.20    | 0.14       |
|           | 73 | (0      | (0.01)^a^  | 73 | (        | (0.01)^a^  |
|           |    | .01)^a^ |            |    | 0.01)^a^ |            |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
| H         | 5  | -0.62   | 0.30       | 5  | -0.45    | 0.30       |
|           |    | (0      | (0.28)^a^  |    | (        | (0.28)^a^  |
|           |    | .09)^a^ |            |    | 0.10)^a^ |            |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
| I         | 28 | -0.10   | 0.57       | 28 | -0.21    | 0.64       |
|           |    | (0      | (0.08)^a^  |    | (        | (0.09)^a^  |
|           |    | .07)^a^ |            |    | 0.07)^a^ |            |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
| **All**   | *  | **-0.21 | **0.16     | *  | **-0.20  | **0.17     |
|           | *3 | (0.0    | (          | *2 | (0.      | (          |
|           | ,1 | 1)^a^** | 0.01)^a^** | ,9 | 01)^a^** | 0.01)^a^** |
|           | 40 |         |            | 44 |          |            |
|           | ** |         |            | ** |          |            |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+
| >         |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| **Exhibit |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| >         |    |         |            |    |          |            |
|  reads:** |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > In      |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| >         |    |         |            |    |          |            |
|  District |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > A, the  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > 436     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| >         |    |         |            |    |          |            |
|  students |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > using   |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > Title I |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > school  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > choice  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > in      |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| >         |    |         |            |    |          |            |
|  2004--05 |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > left    |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > schools |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > that    |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > had     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > reading |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > scores  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > (       |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| 2003--04) |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > that    |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > were    |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > 0.12    |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| >         |    |         |            |    |          |            |
|  standard |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > d       |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| eviations |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > below   |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > the     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > dis     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| trictwide |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > average |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > and     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > entered |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > schools |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > (       |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| 2004--05) |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > that    |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > were    |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > .06     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > sta     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| ndardized |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > d       |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| eviations |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > above   |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > the     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > dis     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| trictwide |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > ave     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| rage**.** |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| >         |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > ^a^     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| >         |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Indicates |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > that    |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > the     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > results |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > for     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > exiting |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > and     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| >         |    |         |            |    |          |            |
|  entering |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > schools |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > are     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > stat    |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| istically |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > distin  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| guishable |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > at the  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > 5       |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > percent |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > level.  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| >         |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > Notes:  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > Results |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > for     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| >         |    |         |            |    |          |            |
|  District |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > D are   |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| > for     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| >         |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| 2003--04. |    |         |            |    |          |            |
|           |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Source:   |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Zimmer,   |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Gill,     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Razquin,  |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Booker    |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| and       |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| Lockwood, |    |         |            |    |          |            |
| 2007.     |    |         |            |    |          |            |
+-----------+----+---------+------------+----+----------+------------+

  ------------------------------------ ---------------- -----------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628363                       
  .anchor}Exhibit B.6\                                  
  Percentage of Title I Supplemental                    
  Educational Service Providers and                     
  of\                                                   
  Participating Students, by Provider                   
  Type, 2003--04                                        

  Provider Type                        Percentage of    Percentage of
                                       Approved         Participating
                                       Providers        Students

  All private providers                58.7 (9.2)       58.1 (5.4)

  Faith-based providers                0.5 (0.2)        1.1 (0.1)

  Districts and public schools         32.5(10.3)       33.8 (4.3)

  Colleges and universities            8.3 (6.11)       7.0 (5.3)

  Sources: NLS-*NCLB*, District Survey                  
  (n=71 districts).                                     
  ------------------------------------ ---------------- -----------------

+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628364             |                        |
| .anchor}Exhibit B.7\                        |                        |
| Percentage of Districts, by Number of Title |                        |
| I Supplemental Educational\                 |                        |
| Service Providers Available to Students,    |                        |
| 2003--04                                    |                        |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Number of Providers**                     | Percentage of          |
|                                             | Districts              |
|                                             |                        |
|                                             | (n=75)                 |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| One or two providers                        | 37.0 (12.1)            |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| Three or four providers                     | 25.7 (14.0)            |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| Five or more providers                      | 38.4 (9.6)             |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District Survey.        |                        |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+

  --------------------------------- ------------- ------------- -----------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628365                               
  .anchor}Exhibit B.8\                                          
  Percentage of Title I                                         
  Supplemental Educational Service                              
  Providers,\                                                   
  by Service Provided and Grades                                
  Served, 2004--05                                              

  **Service Provided**              Grades K--5   Grades 6--8   Grades
                                                                9--12

  Reading (n=98)                    89.8 (2.7)    86.3 (4.3)    49.3 (6.0)

  Mathematics (n=98)                81.5 (3.9)    77.9 (5.0)    44.8 (5.9)

  Writing (n=98)                    48.1 (6.1)    46.1 (6.1)    21.9 (4.5)

  Social studies or history (n=98)  16.0 (6.1)    14.6 (6.1)    10.5 (3.1)

  Science (n=98)                    16.6 (6.1)    13.8 (6.1)    9.7 (3.1)

  Other (n=98)                      3.9 (1.7)     5.9 (2.1)     3.7 (1.7)

  Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental                              
  Service Provider Survey (in 16                                
  districts).                                                   
  --------------------------------- ------------- ------------- -----------

+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628366              |                       |
| .anchor}Exhibit B.9\                         |                       |
| Percentage of Districts, by Number of Hours  |                       |
| of Supplemental Educational Services         |                       |
| Participating Students Received per Week,    |                       |
| 2003--04                                     |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Number of Hours**                          | Percentage of         |
|                                              | Districts             |
|                                              |                       |
|                                              | (n=83)                |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| One or two hours                             | 50.9 (11.2)           |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Three hours                                  | 35.4 (11.3)           |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Four hours                                   | 12.0 (4.3)            |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Five hours or more                           | 1.7 (.9)              |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District Survey.         |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+

+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| > []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628367     |                              |
| > .anchor}Exhibit B.10\               |                              |
| > Average Duration and Frequency of   |                              |
| > Title I Supplemental Educational    |                              |
| > Services Sessions, 2004--05         |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| **Duration or Frequency**             | **Average Duration or        |
|                                       | Frequency**                  |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Average number of minutes (n=95)      | 83.8 (3.4)                   |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Average sessions per week (n=98)      | 3.5 (0.5)                    |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Average sessions per year (n=93)      | 41.2 (3.2)                   |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental      |                              |
| Service Provider Survey (in 16        |                              |
| districts).                           |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+

+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628368    |       |        |       |       |
| .anchor}Exhibit B.11\              |       |        |       |       |
| Percentage of Title I Supplemental |       |        |       |       |
| Educational Services Providers,    |       |        |       |       |
| by\                                |       |        |       |       |
| Location and Grouping of Students  |       |        |       |       |
| for Delivery of Services, 2004--05 |       |        |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Location and Student Grouping      | **Ne  | *      | **Of  | **Alw |
|                                    | ver** | *Somet | ten** | ays** |
|                                    |       | imes** |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| **Location where supplemental      |       |        |       |       |
| services are provided** (n=92)     |       |        |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > At the schools of served         | 32.5  | 6.1    | 14.1  | 47.2  |
| > students                         | (5.7) | (2.4)  | (3.6) | (6.2) |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > At other schools or              | 78.7  | 15.8   | 3.4   | 2.2   |
| > administrative buildings in the  | (6.3) | (6.3)  | (2.0) | (1.3) |
| > district                         |       |        |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > At a public building, i.e., a    | 59.4  | 21.7   | 8.2   | 10.6  |
| > library or community center      | (6.5) | (6.4)  | (3.0) | (4.3) |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > At the local office of the       | 69.2  | 4.9    | 3.6   | 22.3  |
| > provider                         | (5.3) | (2.1)  | (1.7) | (4.7) |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > On the internet                  | 85.4  | 3.3    | 2.8   | 8.5   |
|                                    | (4.1) | (2.0)  | (2.0) | (3.2) |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| **Student grouping for delivery of |       |        |       |       |
| supplemental services** (n=97)     |       |        |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > In large groups                  | 39.2  | 26.6   | 21.0  | 13.3  |
|                                    | (6.4) | (5.5)  | (4.4) | (3.6) |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > In small groups                  | 25.8  | 18.8   | 37.9  | 17.5  |
|                                    | (6.4) | (4.2)  | (5.9) | (3.9) |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| > One-on-one                       | 17.9  | 30.3   | 22.7  | 29.1  |
|                                    | (4.1) | (5.1)  | (5.1) | (6.4) |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental   |       |        |       |       |
| Service Provider Survey (in 16     |       |        |       |       |
| districts).                        |       |        |       |       |
+------------------------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- -----------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628369                          
  .anchor}Exhibit B.12\                                    
  Percentage of Parents That                               
  Reported They Were Notified of                           
  Title I School Choice,\                                  
  2004--05                                                 

                                    **Parents of Students  **Parents of Students
                                    Eligible for School    Eligible for
                                    Choice\                Supplemental Services\
                                    **(n=932)              **(n=779)

  Yes                               26.8 (2.7)             52.8 (3.8)

  No                                66.5 (2.9)             40.2 (3.80)

  Not sure                          7.2 (1.5)              7.0 (1.9)

  Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Parent Survey                        
  (in eight districts).                                    
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- -----------------------

+-------+----------------------+------------------+------------------+
| [     |                      |                  |                  |
| ]{#__ |                      |                  |                  |
| RefHe |                      |                  |                  |
| ading |                      |                  |                  |
| ___To |                      |                  |                  |
| c1896 |                      |                  |                  |
| 28370 |                      |                  |                  |
| .anch |                      |                  |                  |
| or}Ex |                      |                  |                  |
| hibit |                      |                  |                  |
| B.13\ |                      |                  |                  |
| Perce |                      |                  |                  |
| ntage |                      |                  |                  |
| of    |                      |                  |                  |
| Pa    |                      |                  |                  |
| rents |                      |                  |                  |
| That  |                      |                  |                  |
| Rep   |                      |                  |                  |
| orted |                      |                  |                  |
| They  |                      |                  |                  |
| Were  |                      |                  |                  |
| Not   |                      |                  |                  |
| ified |                      |                  |                  |
| of    |                      |                  |                  |
| Their |                      |                  |                  |
| Ch    |                      |                  |                  |
| ild's |                      |                  |                  |
| E     |                      |                  |                  |
| ligib |                      |                  |                  |
| ility |                      |                  |                  |
| for   |                      |                  |                  |
| Title |                      |                  |                  |
| I     |                      |                  |                  |
| Su    |                      |                  |                  |
| pplem |                      |                  |                  |
| ental |                      |                  |                  |
| E     |                      |                  |                  |
| ducat |                      |                  |                  |
| ional |                      |                  |                  |
| Serv  |                      |                  |                  |
| ices, |                      |                  |                  |
| by    |                      |                  |                  |
| C     |                      |                  |                  |
| hoice |                      |                  |                  |
| Deci  |                      |                  |                  |
| sion, |                      |                  |                  |
| 200   |                      |                  |                  |
| 4--05 |                      |                  |                  |
+-------+----------------------+------------------+------------------+
|       | Percentage of        | Percentage of    | Percentage of    |
|       | Parents of Eligible  | Parents of       | Parents of       |
|       | Students (Including  | Eligible         | Participating    |
|       | Participating and    | N                | Students\        |
|       | Non-Participating    | on-Participating | (n=493)          |
|       | Students)\           | Students         |                  |
|       | (n=779)              |                  |                  |
|       |                      | (n=286)          |                  |
+-------+----------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Yes   | 52.9 (3.8)           | 50.7 (4.4)       | 66.1 (2.5)       |
+-------+----------------------+------------------+------------------+
| No    | 40.2 (3.8)           | 42.5 (4.4)       | 25.3 (2.3)       |
+-------+----------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Not   | 7.0 (1.9)            | 6.8 (2.1)        | 8.6 (1.4)        |
| sure  |                      |                  |                  |
+-------+----------------------+------------------+------------------+
| So    |                      |                  |                  |
| urce: |                      |                  |                  |
| N     |                      |                  |                  |
| LS-*N |                      |                  |                  |
| CLB*, |                      |                  |                  |
| P     |                      |                  |                  |
| arent |                      |                  |                  |
| S     |                      |                  |                  |
| urvey |                      |                  |                  |
| (in   |                      |                  |                  |
| eight |                      |                  |                  |
| d     |                      |                  |                  |
| istri |                      |                  |                  |
| cts). |                      |                  |                  |
+-------+----------------------+------------------+------------------+

+-------------------------------------------+-----------+--------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628371           |           |              |
| .anchor}Exhibit B.14\                     |           |              |
| Timing of Parent Notification About Title |           |              |
| I School Choice Option as\                |           |              |
| Reported by Districts, 2003--04 and       |           |              |
| 2004--05                                  |           |              |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------+--------------+
| **Parent Notified**                       | 2003--04  | 2004--05     |
|                                           |           |              |
|                                           | (n=104)   | (n=131)      |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------+--------------+
| *Before* the first day of school          | 23.1      | 29.5 (8.9)   |
|                                           | (9.9)     |              |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------+--------------+
| *On or about* the first day of school     | 38.7      | 21.2 (14.8)  |
|                                           | (19.4)    |              |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------+--------------+
| *After* the first day of school           | 38.2      | 49.4 (12.1)  |
|                                           | (12.4)    |              |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------+--------------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District Survey.      |           |              |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------+--------------+

+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628372     |               |               |
| .anchor}Exhibit B.15\               |               |               |
| Percentage of Eligible Students     |               |               |
| Transferring Schools, by When       |               |               |
| District First Notified Parents     |               |               |
| About Their Title I School Choice,  |               |               |
| 2003--04 and 2004--05               |               |               |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Parent Notified**                 | **Percentage  | **Percentage  |
|                                     | of Students   | of Students   |
|                                     | Transferring  | Transferring  |
|                                     | Schools in    | Schools in    |
|                                     | 2003--04**    | 2004--05**    |
|                                     |               |               |
|                                     | (n=118)       | (n=159)       |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| *Before* the first day of the       | 3.2 (.008)    | 2.9 (.004)    |
| 2004--05 school year                |               |               |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| *On or about* the first day of the  | 1.6 (.0002)   | 1.8 (.009)    |
| 2004--05 school year                |               |               |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| *After* the first day of the        | 0.4 (.002)    | 0.2 (.0002)   |
| 2004--05 school year                |               |               |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Total                               | 1.0 (0.003)   | 0.9 (0.003)   |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District        |               |               |
| Survey.                             |               |               |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+

+---------------------------------+-----------+------------+----------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628373 |           |            |          |
| .anchor}Exhibit B.16\           |           |            |          |
| Percentage of Parents of        |           |            |          |
| Eligible Students Notified of   |           |            |          |
| Title I School Choice, by When  |           |            |          |
| First Notified and Choice       |           |            |          |
| Decision, 2004--05              |           |            |          |
+---------------------------------+-----------+------------+----------+
| **Parent Notified**             | P         | Percentage | Pe       |
|                                 | ercentage | of Parents | rcentage |
|                                 | of        | of         | of       |
|                                 | Parents   | Eligible   | Parents  |
|                                 | of        | Non-Par    | of       |
|                                 | Eligible  | ticipating | Parti    |
|                                 | Students  | Students   | cipating |
|                                 |           |            | Students |
|                                 | (n=612)   | (n=231)    |          |
|                                 |           |            | (n=381)  |
+---------------------------------+-----------+------------+----------+
| *Before* the first day of the   | 53.3      | 38.6 (6.0) | 61.7     |
| 2004--05 school year            | (4.2)     |            | (3.1)    |
+---------------------------------+-----------+------------+----------+
| *On or about* the first day of  | 6.6 (2.2) | 11.4 (3.9) | 3.9      |
| the 2004--05 school year        |           |            | (1.2)    |
+---------------------------------+-----------+------------+----------+
| *After* the first day of the    | 16.2      | 28.2 (5.4) | 9.0      |
| 2004--05 school year            | (3.2)     |            | (1.8)    |
+---------------------------------+-----------+------------+----------+
| Not sure                        | 23.9      | 22.2 (4.7) | 25.4     |
|                                 | (3.5)     |            | (2.8)    |
+---------------------------------+-----------+------------+----------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Parent      |           |            |          |
| Survey (in eight districts).    |           |            |          |
+---------------------------------+-----------+------------+----------+

+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628374 |        |        |       |        |
| .anchor}Exhibit B.17\           |        |        |       |        |
| Percentage of Districts         |        |        |       |        |
| Communicating With Parents      |        |        |       |        |
| About Title I School Choice and |        |        |       |        |
| Supplemental Educational        |        |        |       |        |
| Services and of Eligible        |        |        |       |        |
| Students in These Districts,\   |        |        |       |        |
| by Method of Communication,     |        |        |       |        |
| 2004--05                        |        |        |       |        |
+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| **Method of Communication**     | School |        | Su    |        |
|                                 | Choice |        | pplem |        |
|                                 |        |        | ental |        |
|                                 | (n     |        | Ser   |        |
|                                 | =156 ) |        | vices |        |
|                                 |        |        |       |        |
|                                 |        |        | (n    |        |
|                                 |        |        | =109) |        |
+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
|                                 | **P    | **P    | **Pe  | **P    |
|                                 | ercent | ercent | rcent | ercent |
|                                 | of     | of     | of    | of     |
|                                 | Distr  | Stud   | D     | Stud   |
|                                 | icts** | ents** | istri | ents** |
|                                 |        |        | cts** |        |
+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| Written notification in English | 67.9   | 87.9   | 94.0  | 94.2   |
|                                 | (9.9)  | (      | (\    | (      |
|                                 |        | \<1.0) | <3.1) | \<0.9) |
+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| Written notification in         | 47.0   | 63.9   | 52.9  | 71.6   |
| language(s) other than English  | (9.6)  | (1.7)  | (     | (1.9)  |
|                                 |        |        | 10.0) |        |
+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| Enrollment fairs or open houses | 19.2   | 41.7   | 51.4  | 70.8   |
| to provide information about    | (5.2)  | (1.9)  | (     | (1.8)  |
| alternate schools and providers |        |        | 10.3) |        |
+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| Individual meetings with        | 51.7   | 67.8   | 78.3  | 78.7   |
| interested parents              | (9.2)  | (1.6)  | (6.9) | (1.7)  |
+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| Notices in district or school   | 39.7   | 58.7   | 64.2  | 71.7   |
| newsletters                     | (8.6)  | (1.7)  | (8.5) | (1.8)  |
+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| Public service announcements    | 10.0   | 31.7   | 19.1  | 40.6   |
|                                 | (      | (1.8)  | (5.8) | (2.4)  |
|                                 | \<3.3) |        |       |        |
+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| Worked with a local community   | 10.1   | 20.1   | 16.2  | 40.4   |
| partner (e.g., Parent           | (      | (1.6)  | (6.8) | (2.5)  |
| Information & Resource Center)  | \<4.0) |        |       |        |
+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| Notices in public newspapers    | 26.0   | 45.0   | 23.4  | 48.2   |
|                                 | (7.4)  | (1.9)  | (8.0) | (2.4)  |
+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| Other                           | 11.8   | 22.0   | 26.0  | 30.5   |
|                                 | (      | (1.7)  | (7.8) | (2.1)  |
|                                 | \<4.1) |        |       |        |
+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District    |        |        |       |        |
| Survey.                         |        |        |       |        |
+---------------------------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+

+-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+----------+
| []{#                        |        |         |        |          |
| __RefHeading___Toc189628375 |        |         |        |          |
| .anchor}Exhibit B.18\       |        |         |        |          |
| Percentage of Teachers      |        |         |        |          |
| Communicating With Parents  |        |         |        |          |
| About Title I Supplemental  |        |         |        |          |
| Educational Services, by    |        |         |        |          |
| Type of Communication and   |        |         |        |          |
| School Level, 2003--04\     |        |         |        |          |
| (Among Teachers Who Knew    |        |         |        |          |
| Their Students Were         |        |         |        |          |
| Eligible for Supplemental   |        |         |        |          |
| Services)                   |        |         |        |          |
+-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+----------+
| **Type of Communication**   | All\   | Ele     | Middle | High\    |
|                             | Grades | mentary | School | School   |
|                             |        | School  |        |          |
|                             | (n=    |         | (      | (n=376)  |
|                             | 1,377) | (n=746) | n=255) |          |
+-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+----------+
| I encouraged parents to     | 58.9   | 66.7    | 52.4   | 29.6     |
| apply                       | (3.3)  | (4.0)   | (4.7)  | (8.6)    |
+-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+----------+
| I advised parents on        | 31.7   | 38.8    | 21.9   | 13.8     |
| providers                   | (3.4)  | (4.6)   | (4.4)  | (4.9)    |
+-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+----------+
| Parents contacted me        | 24.4   | 29.5    | 14.0   | 20.0     |
|                             | (3.2)  | (4.3)   | (3.0)  | (13.1)   |
+-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+----------+
| Other                       | 17.4   | 17.0    | 18.0   | 18.5     |
|                             | (1.9)  | (2.5)   | (3.1)  | (6.2)    |
+-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+----------+
| I have not communicated     | 19.0   | 12.7    | 26.7   | 36.5     |
| with parents                | (2.4)  | (2.1)   | (4.2)  | (12.8)   |
+-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+----------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Teacher |        |         |        |          |
| Survey (in eight            |        |         |        |          |
| districts).                 |        |         |        |          |
+-----------------------------+--------+---------+--------+----------+

  --------------------------------- ----------- --------------- ----------- ------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628376                                           
  .anchor}Exhibit B.19\                                                     
  Percentage of Providers                                                   
  Communicating With the Parents of                                         
  Students Participating in Title I                                         
  Supplemental Educational                                                  
  Services, by Topic and Frequency,                                         
  2004--05                                                                  

  **Topic**                         **Never**   **Sometimes**   **Often**   **Always**

  Student attendance at             0.9 (0.9)   15.3 (4.9)      36.5 (5.4)  47.1 (5.7)
  supplemental service centers                                              
  (n=95)                                                                    

  Student progress related to       8.2 (2.8)   20.7 (5.2)      37.8 (5.4)  33.2 (5.2)
  regular classroom instruction                                             
  (n=96)                                                                    

  Student progress related to       0.9 (0.9)   17.3 (5.1)      33.6 (5.1)  48.2 (5.6)
  supplemental service activities                                           
  and/or goals (n=97)                                                       

  Student achievement on state      17.5 (4.2)  53.0 (6.1)      16.2 (4.5)  13.3 (3.9)
  achievement tests\                                                        
  (n=84)                                                                    

  Student behavior and / or         0.9 (0.9)   22.2 (5.3)      34.8 (5.3)  42.1 (5.6)
  motivation during sessions (n=94)                                         

  Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental                                          
  Service Provider Survey (in 16                                            
  districts).                                                               
  --------------------------------- ----------- --------------- ----------- ------------

+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628377 .anchor}Exhibit |                    |
| B.20\                                           |                    |
| Percentage of Parents of Students Participating |                    |
| In Title I School Choice,\                      |                    |
| by Reason for Participating, 2004--05           |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| **Reason**                                      | **Percentage of    |
|                                                 | Parents of         |
|                                                 | Students           |
|                                                 | Participating in   |
|                                                 | School Choice**    |
|                                                 |                    |
|                                                 | (n=356)            |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| The quality of teaching at the new school was   | 52.2 (3.2)         |
| better                                          |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| There is good discipline, safety, and order at  | 49.4 (3.2)         |
| the new school                                  |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| My child's old school was not meeting his/her   | 47.1 (3.2)         |
| needs                                           |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| My child got transportation to the new school   | 34.8 (2.8)         |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| The new school is located in a place that is    | 33.7 (3.2)         |
| easy to get to                                  |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| There are different academic programs at the    | 28.6 (2.8)         |
| new school                                      |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| My child wanted to change schools               | 25.3 (2.7)         |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| There are activities after school and sports    | 19.8 (2.4)         |
| teams at the new school                         |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| There is free tutoring or other extra help with | 18.9 (2.4)         |
| schoolwork at the new school                    |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| My child had been getting bad grades            | 17.1 (2.1)         |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| There are services for children with            | 11.0 (1.9)         |
| disabilities at the new school                  |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| My child's old teacher thought he/she should    | 9.6 (1.4)          |
| move                                            |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| There are services at the school for children   | 4.8 (1.3)          |
| whose first language is not English             |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Parent Survey (in eight     |                    |
| districts).                                     |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628378 .anchor}Exhibit     |                |
| B.21\                                               |                |
| Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not      |                |
| Participating in\                                   |                |
| Title I School Choice, by Reason for Not            |                |
| Participating, 2004--05                             |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| **Reason**                                          | **Percentage   |
|                                                     | of Parents of  |
|                                                     | Eligible       |
|                                                     | Students Not   |
|                                                     | Participating  |
|                                                     | in School      |
|                                                     | Choice**       |
|                                                     |                |
|                                                     | (n=217)        |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| My child's school is located in a place that is     | 75.2 (5.4)     |
| easy to get to                                      |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| My child wanted to stay                             | 49.6 (6.2)     |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| I was satisfied with the quality of teaching at my  | 46.7 (6.2)     |
| child's school                                      |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| My child was getting good grades at the current     | 47.4 (6.2)     |
| school                                              |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| I didn't want to disrupt my child                   | 42.1 (6.2)     |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| There is good discipline, safety, and order at my   | 33.9 (6.0)     |
| child's school                                      |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| There are activities after school and sports teams  | 27.4 (5.5)     |
| at my child's school                                |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| There is free tutoring or other extra help with     | 26.5 (5.3)     |
| schoolwork at my child's school                     |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| I didn't have enough information about the schools  | 22.9 (5.0)     |
| I could choose from                                 |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| There are different academic programs at my child's | 21.6 (5.3)     |
| school                                              |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| There are services at my child's school for         | 19.7 (4.9)     |
| children with disabilities                          |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| The district did not have transportation to any of  | 18.4 (5.0)     |
| the new schools I could choose from                 |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| I was not given enough time to make the decision to | 17.2 (5.2)     |
| move my child to another school                     |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| There are services at my child's school for         | 9.2 (3.3)      |
| children whose first language is not English        |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Parent Survey (in eight         |                |
| districts).                                         |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+

+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628379              |                       |
| .anchor}Exhibit B.22\                        |                       |
| Percentage of Parents of Students            |                       |
| Participating in Title I Supplemental        |                       |
| Educational Services, by Reason for          |                       |
| Participating, 2004--05                      |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Reason**                                   | Percentage of Parents |
|                                              | of Students           |
|                                              | Participating in      |
|                                              | Supplemental Services |
|                                              |                       |
|                                              | (n=260)               |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There is tutoring in the subject area(s) in  | 60.3 (3.5)            |
| which my child needs extra help              |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Tutoring is free                             | 57.9 (3.5)            |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child's teacher thought he/she should get | 51.7 (3.6)            |
| this extra help                              |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Tutoring is given at a place that is easy to | 47.0 (3.6)            |
| get to                                       |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child wanted to get this extra help       | 43.1 (3.5)            |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child had been getting bad grades         | 26.9 (3.2)            |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child got a low score on a yearly         | 33.2 (3.4)            |
| achievement test                             |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child's school is not meeting his/her     | 18.3 (2.8)            |
| needs                                        |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| I needed after-school care                   | 11.6 (2.4)            |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There is tutoring for children with          | 10.9 (2.3)            |
| disabilities                                 |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There is tutoring for children whose first   | 6.3 (1.8)             |
| language is not English                      |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Parent Survey (in eight  |                       |
| districts).                                  |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+

+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628380              |                       |
| .anchor}Exhibit B.23\                        |                       |
| Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students   |                       |
| Not Participating in Title I Supplemental    |                       |
| Educational Services, by Reason for Not      |                       |
| Participating, 2004--05                      |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Reason**                                   | **Parents of Eligible |
|                                              | Students Not          |
|                                              | Participating in      |
|                                              | Supplemental          |
|                                              | Services**            |
|                                              |                       |
|                                              | (n=52)                |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Tutoring is given at times that are not good | 46.5 (10.2)           |
| for my family                                |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child doesn't need help                   | 27.6 (7.2)            |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Tutoring is given at a place that is not     | 12.1 (7.2)            |
| easy to get to                               |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| My child did not want to get this extra help | 11.8 (7.0)            |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There is no tutoring at my child's grade     | 5.2 (3.3)             |
| level                                        |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| There is no tutoring in the subject areas    | 4.8 (2.9)             |
| where my child needs extra help              |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Tutoring does not meet the needs of children | 5.3 (4.5)             |
| with disabilities                            |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Tutoring does not meet the needs of children | \<1 (.)               |
| whose first language is not English          |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Parent Survey (in eight  |                       |
| districts).                                  |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+

  --------------------------------- --------- --------- -------- ------- -------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628381                                        
  .anchor}Exhibit B.24\                                                  
  Percentage of Title I                                                  
  Supplemental Educational Service                                       
  Providers Reporting State                                              
  Monitoring of Their Services, by                                       
  Monitoring Mechanism and                                               
  Frequency, 2004--05                                                    

  **State Monitoring Mechanism**    Monthly   A Few     Once Per Every   Never
                                              Times Per Year     Two     
                                              Year               Years   

  Reviewed reports of student       19.1      16.2      35.1     0       29.5
  attendance rates at supplemental  (6.7)     (4.0)     (5.9)            (5.2)
  service sessions\                                                      
  (n=93)                                                                 

  Observed supplemental service     11.1      10.6      20.1     0.6     57.5
  sessions\                         (6.5)     (3.3)     (4.3)    (0.6)   (6.6)
  (n=95)                                                                 

  Met with provider organizations   1.4 (1.0) 41.8      28.9     0.6     27.4
  to discuss implementation (n=96)            (6.6)     (5.1)    (0.6)   (5.1)

  Tracked the state achievement     1.5 (7.1) 8.1 (2.9) 60.4     2.7     27.4
  test scores of participating                          (6.0)    (1.6)   (5.2)
  students (n=89)                                                        

  Tracked the academic success of   1.5 (1.0) 9.0 (3.1) 47.9     4.4     37.6
  participating students in terms                       (6.6)    (2.3)   (5.9)
  of grades, promotion, and/or                                           
  graduation (n=90)                                                      

  Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental                                       
  Service Provider Survey (in 16                                         
  districts).                                                            
  --------------------------------- --------- --------- -------- ------- -------

  --------------------------------- --------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628382                                        
  .anchor}Exhibit B.25\                                                  
  Percentage of Title I                                                  
  Supplemental Educational Service                                       
  Providers Reporting District                                           
  Monitoring of Their Services, by                                       
  Monitoring Mechanism and                                               
  Frequency, 2004--05                                                    

  **District Monitoring Mechanism** Monthly   A Few    Once Per Every    Never
                                              Times    Year     Two      
                                              Per Year          Years    

  Reviewed reports of student       48.3      27.1     18.0     0.0 (0)  6.6
  attendance rates at supplemental  (6.3)     (5.1)    (4.9)             (2.4)
  service sessions\                                                      
  (n=96)                                                                 

  Observed supplemental service     22.8      27.7     14.1     0.0 (0)  35.3
  sessions\                         (6.6)     (5.5)    (3.4)             (5.7)
  (n=95)                                                                 

  Conducted meetings with provider  6.7 (2.7) 57.0     26.3     0.0 (0)  10.0
  organizations to discuss                    (6.0)    (5.9)             (3.4)
  implementation\                                                        
  (n=94)                                                                 

  Tracked the academic success of   8.6 (3.2) 25.6     41.5     1.8      22.6
  participating students in terms             (6.9)    (6.4)    (1.8)    (4.9)
  of grades, promotion, or                                               
  graduation (n=87)                                                      

  Tracked the state achievement     4.2 (2.3) 22.0     58.8     0.0 (0)  15.0
  test scores of participating                (6.9)    (6.8)             (3.9)
  students (n=87)                                                        

  Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental                                       
  Service Provider Survey (in 16                                         
  districts).                                                            
  --------------------------------- --------- -------- -------- -------- --------

+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628383 .anchor}Exhibit     |                |
| B.26\                                               |                |
| Percentage of Districts, by Type of Provision       |                |
| Included in Contracts With\                         |                |
| Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, |                |
| 2004--05                                            |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| **Provision Included in Contract**                  | Percentage of  |
|                                                     | Districts      |
|                                                     |                |
|                                                     | (n=94)         |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Providers send progress reports to parents and      | 81.1 (7.1)     |
| teachers on a regular basis                         |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Providers receive payment based on the number of    | 75.3 (9.1)     |
| sessions students received                          |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Providers can use district facilities free of       | 49.8 (10.1)    |
| charge                                              |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Providers can use district facilities for a fee     | 25.4 (7.7)     |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Services provided be supervised by a certified      | 37.8 (9.2)     |
| teacher                                             |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| All providers use the same standardized reporting   | 25.3 (7.3)     |
| form to establish student learning goals and        |                |
| evaluate progress                                   |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Cap on number of students a provider can serve      | 11.4 (4.6)     |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, District Survey.                |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+

  --------------------------------------------------- -------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628384 .anchor}Exhibit     
  B.27\                                               
  Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational      
  Service Providers,\                                 
  by Type of Provision Included in Contract With      
  Districts, 2004--05                                 

  **Provision Included in Contract**                  **Percentage of
                                                      Providers**

  Agreement that your organization can use district   41.7 (6.0)
  facilities for a fee (n=91)                         

  Requirement that your organization send progress    93.8 (2.6)
  reports to parents and/or teachers on a regular     
  basis (n=91)                                        

  Requirement that services provided to students be   47.9 (6.5)
  supervised or attended by certified teacher (n=91)  

  Agreement that your organization can use district   16.4 (4.0)
  facilities free-of-charge (n=91)                    

  Cap on the number of students your organization can 38.9 (6.0)
  serve (n=90)                                        

  Provision that your organization will receive       94.5 (2.4)
  payment based on the number of sessions of tutoring 
  that students attend (n=92)                         

  Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental Service Provider   
  Survey (in 16 districts).                           
  --------------------------------------------------- -------------------

+-------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| []                            |                   |                 |
| {#__RefHeading___Toc189628385 |                   |                 |
| .anchor}Exhibit B.28\         |                   |                 |
| Percentage of Principals at   |                   |                 |
| Schools With Students         |                   |                 |
| Eligible for Title I          |                   |                 |
| Supplemental Educational      |                   |                 |
| Services, by Degree of        |                   |                 |
| Alignment of Services With    |                   |                 |
| School Academic Content       |                   |                 |
| Standards and Subject Area,   |                   |                 |
| 2003--04                      |                   |                 |
+-------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| **Aligned With Content        | Reading           | Mathematics     |
| Standards**                   |                   |                 |
|                               | (n=206)           | (n=204)         |
+-------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Not at all aligned            | 5.0 (1.1)         | 4.9 (1.0)       |
+-------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Partially aligned             | 22.1 (5.0)        | 24.7 (5.4)      |
+-------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Well aligned                  | 32.3 (4.6)        | 26.3 (3.6)      |
+-------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Don't know                    | 40.5 (6.5)        | 43.1 (6.5)      |
+-------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Principal |                   |                 |
| Survey.                       |                   |                 |
+-------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+

  --------------------------------- --------- ----------- --------- ---------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628386                                   
  .anchor}Exhibit B.29\                                             
  Percentage of Title I                                             
  Supplemental Educational Service                                  
  Providers Communicating With the                                  
  Regular Classroom Teachers of                                     
  Students Receiving Their                                          
  Services,\                                                        
  by Type and Frequency of                                          
  Communication, 2004--05                                           

  **Type of Communication**         Never     Sometimes   Often     Always

  Student attendance at             8.5 (3.3) 45.9 (7.7)  31.7      13.9
  supplemental service centers                            (6.2)     (4.1)
  (n=75)                                                            

  Student progress related to       2.2 (1.6) 39.3 (8.1)  38.1      21.4
  regular classroom instruction                           (6.6)     (5.3)
  (n=75)                                                            

  Student progress related to       2.2 (1.6) 40.4 (7.9)  31.7      25.7
  supplemental service activities                         (6.1)     (5.7)
  and/or goals (n=76)                                               

  Student achievement on state      17.1      55.9 (7.4)  18.9      8.1 (3.7)
  assessments (n=67)                (4.5)                 (4.9)     

  Coordination of curriculum and/or 5.7 (2.7) 45.6 (7.7)  30.4      18.3
  instruction (n=72)                                      (6.1)     (4.8)

  Student behavior and / or         4.4 (2.4) 39.7 (8.9)  40.0      15.9
  motivation during sessions (n=73)                       (6.8)     (4.7)

  Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental                                  
  Service Provider Survey (in 16                                    
  districts).                                                       
  --------------------------------- --------- ----------- --------- ---------

  --------------------------------- ---------- ------------ --------- ----------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628387                                     
  .anchor}Exhibit B.30\                                               
  Percentage of Teachers                                              
  Communicating With Title I                                          
  Supplemental Educational Service                                    
  Providers, by Type of                                               
  Communication and School Level,                                     
  2004--05                                                            

  **Type of Communication**         All Grades Elementary   Middle    High
                                               School       School    School

  Student progress related to       58.0 (4.1) 59.8 (5.0)   57.4      46.2
  regular instruction                                       (6.2)     (19.6)

  Student progress related to       49.8 (4.2) 50.8 (5.2)   48.8      44.5
  supplemental services activities                          (6.1)     (19.6)
  and/or goals                                                        

  Student attendance at             47.3 (4.1) 49.4 (5.2)   50.4      22.7
  supplemental service sessions                             (6.1)     (10.4)

  Coordination of curriculum and/or 47.6 (4.2) 47.9 (5.1)   48.2      44.0
  instruction                                               (6.1)     (19.6)

  Student achievement on state      31.7 (3.5) 30.7 (4.3)   40.1      17.1 (8.2)
  assessments                                               (5.8)     

  Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Teacher                                         
  Survey (n=524 teachers).                                            
  --------------------------------- ---------- ------------ --------- ----------

  --------------------------------- --------- -------- ---------- -------- --------- --------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628388                                                    
  .anchor}Exhibit B.31\                                                              
  Percentage of Title I                                                              
  Supplemental Educational Service                                                   
  Providers Reporting on the                                                         
  Progress of Individual Students,                                                   
  by Type of Recipient and                                                           
  Frequency, 2004--05                                                                

                                    After     A Few    A Few      A Few    Once Per  Never
                                    Every     Times    Times Per  Times    Year      
                                    Session   Per      Semester   Per Year           
                                              Month                                  

  Parents (n=99)                    20.4      32.3     30.1 (5.0) 15.6     0.8 (0.8) 0.8
                                    (6.4)     (5.6)               (4.0)              (0.8)

  Principals (n=97)                 4.2 (2.2) 12.3     33.4 (6.5) 20.1     7.6 (2.8) 21.9
                                              (3.8)               (4.3)              (5.1)

  District officials (n=96)         2.5 (1.8) 9.9      37.0 (6.5) 24.6     19.1      6.9
                                              (4.3)               (4.8)    (4.1)     (2.7)

  The state (n=92)                  2.6 (1.9) 1.2      6.6 (2.0)  7.2      48.1      34.3
                                              (1.2)               (2.8)    (6.5)     (6.0)

  Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental                                                   
  Service Provider Survey (in 16                                                     
  districts).                                                                        
  --------------------------------- --------- -------- ---------- -------- --------- --------

  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628389               
  .anchor}Exhibit B.32\                         
  Percentage of Title I Supplemental            
  Educational Service Providers, by Types of    
  Information Received on Individual Students   
  Prior to Providing Services, 2004--05         

  Type of Information Received on Students      Percentage of Providers
                                                Receiving Information
                                                Prior to Providing
                                                Services

  Scores on state assessment tests (n=95)       40.6 (5.9)

  Scores on other standardized tests (n=94)     36.1 (5.7)

  Report card grades (n=94)                     26.5 (5.1)

  Examples of student work (n=94)               18.2 (4.1)

  Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for  27.0 (5.1)
  students we are serving (n=93)                

  Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental Service      
  Provider Survey (in 16 districts).            
  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------

  --------------------------------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- -------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc189628390                                                      
  .anchor}Exhibit B.33\                                                                
  Percentage of Title I                                                                
  Supplemental Educational Service                                                     
  Providers Assessing Students,\                                                       
  by Type of Measure and Frequency,                                                    
  2004--05                                                                             

  **Measure**                       After     A Few     A Few      A Few     Once Per  Never
                                    Every     Times Per Times Per  Times Per Year      
                                    Session   Month     Semester   Year                

  Tests developed by your           13.2      29.7      20.3 (4.9) 22.8      1.3 (1.3) 12.7
  organization (n=79)               (4.0)     (7.8)                (5.1)               (3.7)

  Tests aligned with regular        4.7 (2.5) 29.2      16.9 (4.7) 20.3      4.1 (2.2) 24.3
  classroom instruction\                      (7.6)                (4.7)               (5.1)
  (n=84)                                                                               

  District-developed assessments or 3.6 (2.2) 13.2      10.7 (4.8) 15.5      2.4 (1.8) 54.6
  benchmark tests (n=84)                      (7.1)                (4.2)               (7.0)

  Practice tests for state          5.7 (     19.1      11.1 (3.4) 10.4      1.9 (1.9) 51.8
  assessments (n=86)                2.7)      (7.6)                (3.5)               (6.8)

  Assignments completed by students 54.6      22.7      4.3 (1.8)  9.3 (3.2) 0.0 (0)   9.2
  during sessions with your         (6.6)     (5.7)                                    (3.3)
  organization\                                                                        
  (n=86)                                                                               

  Assignments completed by students 25.0      16.1      2.4 (2.0)  7.5 (2.6) 1.3 (1.5) 47.4
  outside of sessions with your     (7.2)     (5.4)                                    (6.7)
  organization (n=83)                                                                  

  Student portfolios (n=84)         18.9      11.2      11.1 (5.3) 5.8 (2.5) 3.4 (2.4) 49.5
                                    (4.5)     (3.8)                                    (6.1)

  Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Supplemental                                                     
  Service Provider Survey (in 16                                                       
  districts).                                                                          
  --------------------------------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- -------

![](media/image31.png){width="8.503472222222221in" height="11.0in"}

[^1]: Title I schools are schools that operate programs funded under
    Title I of the *Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
    (ESEA)*, the largest federal program supporting elementary and
    secondary education. Title I, Part A, includes the two parental
    choice options that are the subject of this paper. The *No Child
    Left Behind Act of 2001* is the most recent reauthorization of
    *ESEA.*

[^2]: Supplemental service participation rates could not be determined
    for 2004--05 because surveys were administered in the middle of the
    school year and not all supplemental service enrollments for the
    year had yet taken place. The Consolidated State Performance Reports
    for 2004--05 indicated that 19 percent of students participated in
    supplemental services in that year (50 states and the District of
    Columbia).

[^3]: Zimmer, Gill, Razquin, Booker and Lockwood, 2007.

[^4]: *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001*, Sec. 1116, para. (1)(E) and
    (5)(A).

[^5]: The 1.8 million students eligible for Title I supplemental
    services represent a maximum number of students potentially
    eligible, estimated from the number of students receiving free or
    reduced-price lunches in Title I schools that must offer
    supplemental services. If resources were insufficient to serve all
    such students, then districts were permitted to offer services only
    to low-achieving students among the population.

[^6]: The 233,000 students using Title I supplemental services may
    include an unknown number of students not eligible for such services
    under the law because some districts notified a larger pool of
    students than the law required. Supplemental service participation
    rates could not be determined for 2004--05 because surveys were
    administered in the middle of the school year; not all supplemental
    service enrollments for the year had yet taken place. Data from the
    Consolidated State Performance Reports for 2004--05 indicate that
    446,000 eligible students participated in Title I supplemental
    services that year (based on 50 states, the District of Columbia,
    and Puerto Rico).

[^7]: Title I schools are schools that operate programs funded under
    Title I of the *Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
    (ESEA)*, the largest federal program supporting elementary and
    secondary education. Title I, Part A, includes the two parental
    choice options that are the subject of this paper. The *No Child
    Left Behind Act of 2001* is the most recent reauthorization of
    *ESEA.*

[^8]: The parent survey was intended to be conducted in the same nine
    districts as the student-level achievement analysis, but one of the
    districts did not provide the data needed to draw a sample of
    parents so the parent survey was conducted in eight of the nine
    districts.

[^9]: *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001*, Sec. 1116, para. (1)(E) and
    (5)(A).

[^10]: See Zimmer, Gill, Razquin, Booker and Lockwood, 2007.

[^11]: This report does not address supplemental services provided in
    2004--05, because in many districts, services may only have started
    when the NLS-*NCLB* district survey was in the field in the winter
    of 2004--05.

[^12]: One of the districts did not provide the data needed to draw a
    sample of parents, so that the parent data is based on eight
    districts.

[^13]: These findings are in line with the most recent report issued by
    the Center on Education Policy (CEP) (2006), which found that in
    2005--06, 12 percent of districts were required to offer
    supplemental services.

[^14]: The U.S. Department of Education's 2006 report on the
    implementation of Title I (TASSIE), suggests that the seemingly
    inconsistent doubling of the number of students eligible for school
    choice from 2002--03 to 2003--04 while the number of schools with
    such students declined may be because *NCLB* led to the
    identification of an increasing proportion of large schools.

[^15]: The CEP (2006) report likewise found that urban districts were
    most likely to be required to offer supplemental services, with
    rural districts least likely to be in the same situation.

[^16]: Participation in supplemental services could not be determined
    for 2004--05 because surveys were administered in the middle of the
    school year and not all supplemental service enrollments for the
    year had yet taken place. Data from the Consolidated State
    Performance Reports for 2004--05 indicate that 446,000 eligible
    students participated in Title I supplemental services that year
    (based on 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).

[^17]: Forty percent of high school principals in schools with eligible
    students indicated that they did not know how many of their students
    were participating, and a substantial additional proportion did not
    answer the question.

[^18]: See Zimmer, Gill, Razquin, Booker and Lockwood, 2007.

[^19]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, *Common Core of Data, 2002--03*. Special tabulation done
    for NLS-*NCLB*.

[^20]: Policy and Program Studies Service review of State Education
    Agency Web sites (2005).

[^21]: Providers were surveyed in eight large, urban districts where
    parents were also surveyed and achievement data were collected, and
    in eight other rural, suburban, and mid-sized urban districts
    representing a range of geographic regions. Sampling of providers is
    described in more detail in Appendix A.

[^22]: Parents reported that children received an average of six hours
    of services per week and six months per year, but their reports do
    not distinguish *NCLB*-related supplemental educational services
    from similar services that may be offered at other points in the
    year.

[^23]: Source: NLS-*NCLB*, Parent Survey. The comparison is based on
    survey results from parents whose children were receiving
    supplemental services but were not listed by districts as
    participating in *NCLB*-related services.

[^24]: Districts were asked whether they had notified parents in writing
    either this year or last year because, in some districts,
    supplemental services for the current year may not have been fully
    underway at the time of the survey. It is therefore possible that
    some districts may have been responding regarding the previous year.
    Nevertheless, most parent surveys were completed several months
    after the administration of the district surveys, late in the school
    year, by which time most required notifications should have been
    sent.

[^25]: *The No Child Left Behind Act* specifies that if a school does
    not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two consecutive years,
    the LEA must provide all students enrolled in the school with the
    option to transfer to another public school served by the LEA that
    is not identified for improvement no later than the first day of the
    school year following its identification.

[^26]: Source: SSI-*NCLB* Interviews. Data were available from 49
    states.

[^27]: Other research has indicated that states are finding their
    responsibility for monitoring and evaluating providers to be a
    challenge. The Center on Education Policy (2006) found that 40
    states said that it is a moderate or serious challenge to determine
    whether providers' instructional strategies are effective in raising
    student achievement.

[^28]: The U.S. Department of Education's guidance on the role of local
    districts reads as follows: "An SEA might request assistance from
    its LEAs \[local education agencies\] in gathering information to
    help the SEA monitor the quality and effectiveness of the services
    offered by providers. However, an SEA is ultimately responsible for
    monitoring providers and should request assistance from its LEAs
    only in collecting data from providers, not in evaluating the
    effectiveness of providers. Additionally, if some LEAs in a State
    are approved providers, an SEA should recognize that an LEA's status
    as a provider may create a conflict of interest in providing
    information to the SEA on the quality of competing providers'
    services. In such situations, the SEA should consider not involving
    such LEAs in the monitoring process at all" (U.S. Department of
    Education, 2005b).

[^29]: Source: NLS-*NCLB* District Survey. Based on \$38 per student per
    hour, the estimated average amount spent by providers in the
    16-district subsample was \$1,732 per student, twice the national
    average reported by districts. The difference between the two
    estimates may be because the 16-district subsample is dominated by
    large urban districts where providers may be charging relatively
    more.

[^30]: Although schools do not generally have their own unique academic
    content standards, the survey question asked about the school's
    standards to avoid potential confusion between state standards and
    district standards. The phrasing was intended to allow principals to
    report on the content standards in use in their schools, regardless
    of the source of those standards.