Background

Enactment of NCLBA strengthened accountability by requiring states and  schools to improve the academic performance of their students so that all  students are proficient in reading and math by 2014. Under NCLBA, each  state creates its own content standards, academic achievement tests, and  proficiency levels, and establishes and implements adequate yearly  progress (AYP) goals for districts and schools. Students in specified  grades are tested annually to determine whether districts and schools are  making AYP.
Title I authorizes federal funds to help elementary and secondary schools  establish and maintain programs that will improve the educational  opportunities of economically disadvantaged children. Under NCLBA,  districts are required to implement specific interventions in schools  receiving federal Title I funds when they do not meet state AYP goals (see  table 1). Students from low-income families who attend schools receiving  Title I funds that have missed AYP goals for 3 consecutive years are  eligible for SES. Because some schools receiving Title I funds had not met  state goals set under ESEA before the enactment of NCLBA, these schools  were first required to offer SES in 2002-2003, the first year of NCLBA  implementation.
Under NCLBA, SES primarily include tutoring provided outside of the  regular school day that is designed to increase the academic achievement  of economically disadvantaged students in low-performing Title I schools.  These services must consist of high-quality, research-based instruction  that aligns with state educational standards and district curriculum. SES  providers may include nonprofit entities, for-profit entities, school  districts, public schools, public charter schools, private schools, public or  private institutions of higher education, educational service agencies, and  faith-based organizations. However, a district classified as needing  improvement or in corrective action because it failed to meet state AYP  goals for several years may not be an SES provider, though its schools that  are not identified as needing improvement may provide services. In  addition, individual teachers who work in a school or district identified as  in need of improvement may be hired by any state-approved provider to  serve as a tutor in its program.
A district must set aside an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I  allocation to fund both SES and transportation for students who elect to  attend other schools under school choice. After ensuring all eligible  students have had adequate time to opt to transfer to another school or  apply for SES, the district may reallocate any unused set-aside funds to  other Title I activities. For each student receiving SES, a district must  spend an amount equal to its Title I per-pupil allocation or the actual cost  of provider services, whichever is less.
Education oversees SES implementation by monitoring states and  providing technical assistance and support. NCLBA, the Title I regulations,  and SES guidance outline the roles and responsibilities states, school  districts, service providers, and parents have in ensuring that eligible  students receive additional academic assistance through SES (see table 2).

	SES Participation Has Increased as Districts Have Taken Actions to Ease Access, but Challenges Remain

Nationally, the SES participation rate increased substantially from 12  percent of eligible students receiving SES in 2003-2004 to 19 percent in  2004-2005. In addition, the number of students receiving services almost  quadrupled between 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 from approximately 117,000  to 430,000 students nationwide, based on the best available national data  at the time of our work. This increase may be due in part to the increase  in the number of schools required to offer SES over that time period.
While approximately 1,000 of the over 14,000 districts nationwide were  required to offer SES in 2004-2005, SES recipients were concentrated in a  small group of large districts—56 percent of recipients attended school in  the 21 districts required to offer SES with more than 100,000 total enrolled  students (see fig. 1). Further, about 20 percent of the districts required to  offer SES in 2004-2005 had no students receiving services. A majority of  these districts were rural or had a total enrollment of fewer than 2,500  students.
Many students receiving SES in 2004-2005 shared certain characteristics.  For example, districts reported that most students receiving services were  among the lower-achieving students in school. Further, over half of SES  recipients were elementary school students in the majority of districts, and  about 60 percent of schools required to offer SES in 2004-2005 were  elementary schools. In some districts, the majority of SES recipients were  African-American or Hispanic. In about 40 percent of districts, over half of  SES recipients were African-American, and in about 30 percent of  districts, over half of SES recipients were Hispanic. However, districts  varied in the percentage of students with limited English proficiency  receiving services, and students with disabilities made up less than 20  percent of students receiving services in about two-thirds of districts.
In order to increase SES participation, districts have taken multiple  actions. For example, in line with the federal statutory requirement that  districts notify parents in an understandable format of the availability of  SES, over 90 percent of districts provided written information in English,  held individual meetings and/or phone conversations with parents, and  encouraged school staff to talk with parents about SES. See table 3 for a  list of district actions taken to encourage participation.
Despite these promising approaches to encourage participation, notifying  parents in a timely manner remains a challenge for some districts. An  estimated 58 percent of districts did not notify parents that their children  may be eligible to receive SES before the beginning of the 2005-2006  school year, which may be due in part to delays in states reporting which  schools were identified for improvement. Effectively notifying parents is  also a challenge for some districts. For example, officials in all four  districts we visited reported difficulties contacting parents to inform them  about SES in part because some families frequently move and do not  always update their mailing addresses with districts. In addition, some  providers we interviewed indicated that parental notification letters are  confusing and poorly written or not accompanied by additional outreach.
Another challenge to increasing SES participation is attracting more SES  providers for certain areas and groups of students. Specifically, some rural  districts surveyed indicated that no students received services last year  because of a lack of providers in the area. Ensuring there are providers to  serve students with limited English proficiency or disabilities has also  been a challenge for some districts. We estimate that there were not  enough providers to meet the needs of students with limited English  proficiency in one-third of districts and not enough providers to meet the  needs of students with disabilities in one-quarter of districts.

	Providers Have Taken Steps to Deliver Quality Services, but Local Implementation Challenges Include Contracting and Coordination

To promote improved student academic achievement and service delivery,  providers took steps to gather information on district curriculum and  student needs. Specifically, providers aligned their curriculum with district  instruction primarily by hiring district teachers and communicating with  the teachers of participating students. However, when providers did not  hire district teachers, the frequency of contact between tutors and  teachers varied, and we estimate that some providers did not contact  teachers in almost 40 percent of districts in 2004-2005. Regarding  communication with parents, providers reported mailing information as  well as meeting with parents over the phone and in-person to  communicate information on student needs and progress; however, the  frequency of communication with parents also varied. Specifically, we  estimate that some providers did not contact parents in about 30 percent  of districts in 2004-2005. Despite these communication challenges, an  estimated 90 percent of districts indicated that their working relationships  with providers during 2004-2005 were good, very good, or excellent. In  addition, many of the providers we interviewed during our site visits also  reported having positive working relationships with district officials.
While providers have taken some steps to deliver quality services and  establish positive relationships with districts, both providers and districts  experienced contracting and coordination difficulties. Regarding  contracting, some of the providers we interviewed said certain districts  imposed burdensome contract requirements, limited the marketing they  could do to parents and students, or restricted the use of school facilities.  Districts also reported that contracting is a challenge. We estimate that  negotiating contracts with providers was a moderate, great, or very great  challenge in about 40 percent of districts nationwide. For example, district  officials at three of the sites we visited expressed concern about their lack  of authority to set parameters in provider contracts around costs and  program design, such as tutor-to-student ratios and total hours of  instruction. Specifically, Chicago, Ill., district officials expressed concern  about the variation among providers in the hours of instruction and cost of  services because the district does not have sufficient funds to serve all  eligible students, and officials would like to maximize the number of  students they can serve.
Coordination of service delivery has also been a challenge for providers  and districts, and sometimes these coordination difficulties have resulted  in service delays. For example, services were delayed or withdrawn in  certain schools in three of the districts we visited because not enough  students signed up to meet the providers’ enrollment targets and districts  were not aware of these targets. Coordination difficulties also occurred  during the enrollment process. Though districts are responsible for  arranging SES for eligible students, in two districts we visited, both the  district and providers sent enrollment forms to parents, which caused  confusion among parents as well as additional work for the district staff  processing the forms.
In part because SES is often delivered in school facilities, providers and  officials in the districts and schools we visited reported that involvement  of school administrators and teachers can improve SES delivery and  coordination. Although schools do not have federally defined  responsibilities for administering SES, many officials said SES  implementation is hindered when school officials are not involved. For  example, some providers we interviewed said that a lack of involvement of  school principals can make it difficult for them to coordinate with schools  to encourage student participation. In addition, Illinois and Oregon school  principals told us they found it difficult to manage afterschool activities  because they didn’t have sufficient authority to oversee SES tutors  operating in their buildings at that time. While helping to administer the  SES program adds additional administrative burden on schools, school  officials in all four of the districts we visited said they welcomed a  stronger or more clearly defined role.

	State and District SES Monitoring Is Increasing Though It Remains a Challenge, and Many States Continue to Struggle with Developing Evaluations

While monitoring of SES had been limited, more states reported taking  steps to monitor both district and provider efforts to implement SES in  2005-2006. For example, more states conducted or planned to conduct on- site reviews of districts and providers in 2005-2006 than had done so in  2004-2005. In addition to state efforts to monitor providers, districts have  also taken a direct oversight role, and their monitoring activities similarly  increased during this time. For example, while we estimate that less than  half of districts collected information from parents, school staff, on-site  reviews, and students to monitor providers in 2004-2005, 70 percent or  more were collecting or planning to collect information from these  sources in 2005-2006.
States and districts both collected information on several aspects of SES  programs, such as elements related to service delivery and use of funds, to  monitor providers (see table 4). For example, 94 percent of states  monitored or planned to monitor parent or student satisfaction with  providers, and 93 percent of districts monitored or planned to monitor  billing and payment for services and student attendance records. District  assistance with monitoring is likely welcomed by states, as over two-thirds  of states reported that on-site monitoring of providers has been a  challenge. During our site visits, officials explained that both state and  district capacity to implement SES is limited, because there is typically  one staff person at each level coordinating all aspects of SES  implementation, and sometimes that person may also oversee  implementation of additional federal education programs.
Although states are beginning to increase monitoring of SES  implementation, many continue to struggle with developing evaluations to  determine whether SES providers are improving student achievement.  Specifically, over three-fourths of states reported that determining  sufficient academic progress of students, having the time and knowledge  to analyze SES data, and developing data systems to track SES  information have been challenges to evaluating SES providers. Although  states are required to withdraw approval from providers that fail to  increase student academic achievement for 2 years, at the time of our  survey in early 2006, only New Mexico and Tennessee had drafted or  completed evaluation reports assessing how all SES providers serving  students in their states impacted student academic achievement.  However, because of the limitations of these two evaluations, neither  provided a conclusive assessment of SES providers’ effect on student  academic achievement.
Likely because of states’ struggle to complete SES evaluations, states did  not report that they had withdrawn approval from providers because their  programs were determined to be ineffective at increasing student  academic achievement. Rather, although over 40 percent of states  reported that they had withdrawn approval from some providers, they  most frequently reported withdrawing provider approval because the  provider was a school or district that had entered needs improvement  status, the provider asked to be removed from the state-approved provider  list, or because of provider financial impropriety.

	Several Education Offices Oversee SES Implementation, but States and Districts Reported Needing Additional Assistance and Flexibility

Several offices within Education monitor various aspects of SES activity  across the country and provide support, but states and districts reported  needing additional assistance and flexibility with SES implementation.  Education conducts SES monitoring in part through reviews of policy  issues brought to the department’s attention and structured compliance  reviews of states and districts, and provides SES support through  guidance, grants, research, and technical assistance. The Office of  Innovation and Improvement (OII) and the Office of Elementary and  Secondary Education (OESE) are primarily responsible for monitoring and  supporting SES implementation, while the Office of Inspector General  (OIG), Policy Program and Studies Service, and Faith-Based and  Community Initiatives also contribute to these efforts (see fig. 2).
Specifically, OII leads SES policy development and provides strategic  direction, and its staff also primarily monitor SES policy issues through  “desk monitoring,” which involves review of SES-related research and  media reports. In addition to these activities, OII also conducts more  intensive monitoring of specific SES implementation challenges when  states, districts, and providers bring them to Education’s attention.  Regarding other support for SES implementation, OII has provided SES  implementation assistance in part through presentations at conferences  and grants to external organizations. For example, OII funded the  Supplemental Educational Services Quality Center (SESQC), which  provided technical assistance to states and districts until its grant period  ended in December 2005. OII is also responsible for coordinating the  publication of the non-regulatory SES guidance. Since 2002, OII has  coordinated four versions of this guidance, each updated to address  ongoing challenges with SES implementation.
OESE, which oversees and supports NCLBA implementation, is involved  in monitoring SES implementation through its overall monitoring of state  compliance with Title I and NCLBA. To monitor Title I, OESE staff visit  state departments of education and selected districts within each state to  interview officials and review relevant documents. Following these visits,  OESE issues reports to each state outlining any instances of Title I  noncompliance, including those related to SES, and actions needed to  comply with regulations. OESE also monitors SES through its oversight of  the collection of state NCLBA data, including data on SES, in the annual  Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). To support SES  implementation, OESE funded the Comprehensive Centers Program  through grants that established technical assistance centers across the  country to help low-performing schools and districts close achievement  gaps and meet the goals of NCLBA. Of these, the Center on Innovation and  Improvement provides support to states and districts on SES and other  Education programs.
Through its SES monitoring efforts, Education has found that  implementation of the SES provisions has been uneven throughout the  country. Consequently, in May 2006, the department issued a policy letter  announcing plans to take significant enforcement actions, such as  withholding federal funds, placing conditions on Title I grants, or entering  into compliance agreements with states. Related to this, an Education  official reported that the department placed conditions on California’s  Title I grant because of compliance issues with SES and school choice  implementation. In addition, to gather more information that will allow the  department to take future enforcement actions, the department revised its  Title I monitoring protocols and added additional monitoring related to  SES and school choice. Beginning in the spring of 2007, the department is  conducting additional Title I monitoring visits to states and districts  targeted at assessing SES and school choice implementation efforts. Seven  states were selected for the targeted monitoring based on Education’s  previous monitoring findings and high percentages of schools in need of  improvement. In addition to the seven selected states, beginning this year,  all states that Education visits as part of its regular Title I monitoring cycle  will receive additional SES- and school choice-specific monitoring.  Specifically, the department plans to visit additional districts in each state  and interview SES providers to obtain greater detail on SES and school  choice implementation.
While Education’s policy letter and monitoring actions reflect the  department’s concern that SES implementation has been uneven  throughout the country, many states and districts reported needing clearer  guidance or additional assistance with certain SES provisions to improve  implementation. Specifically, 85 percent of states and an estimated 70  percent of districts needed additional assistance with methods for  evaluating SES, and over 60 percent of both groups also needed assistance  with developing data systems. Many districts also needed more  information on provider quality and effectiveness. Although OESE and  OIG monitoring results have also continually indicated that states and  districts struggle with SES evaluation, at the time of our report, Education  had not yet provided comprehensive assistance in this area, and during  our site visits, officials mentioned that they have been relying on other  states, organizations, or individuals for evaluation assistance.
In addition, several states commented through our survey that they also  needed additional guidance on managing costs and fees, implementing  SES in rural areas, and handling provider complaints. During three of our  site visits, officials also expressed some concern about the lack of clarity  in the SES guidance with regard to student eligibility requirements and  how to craft a parental SES notification letter that is both complete and  easy for parents to understand. Specifically, though Education’s  monitoring reports have found many states and districts to be non- compliant with the federal requirement that district SES parental  notification letters include several specific elements, Education’s SES  guidance provides a sample that does not clearly specify all of the key  elements required by SES law and regulations. Furthermore, a few state  and district officials commented that, when followed, the SES regulations  yield a letter that is unreasonably long and complex.
Many states and districts expressed interest in the flexibility offered  through two pilot programs that Education implemented during 2005-2006.  The department designed these pilots to increase the number of eligible  students receiving SES and to generate additional information about the  effect of SES on student academic achievement. For example, several  state and district SES coordinators expressed interest in Education’s pilot  program that allowed two districts in needs improvement status to act as  SES providers. As a condition of the pilot, these districts agreed to expand  student access to SES and collect achievement data to determine SES  program effectiveness. The other SES pilot allowed four districts in  Virginia to offer SES instead of school choice in schools that have missed  state performance goals for 2 years and are in their first year of needs  improvement. During our site visits and through our surveys, many states  and districts expressed interest in adjusting the order of the SES and  school choice interventions (see table 5). In line with interest in increased  flexibility with the order of these interventions, Education announced in  May 2006 that it was expanding this pilot for 2006-2007.

	Prior Recommendations

Our August report recommended that Education clarify guidance and  provide additional assistance to states and districts to help them comply  with the federal requirements for parental notification letters and ensure  that letters are easy for parents to understand, collect and disseminate  information on promising practices used by districts to attract providers  for certain areas and groups, and collaborate with school officials to  coordinate local SES implementation. In addition, we recommended that  Education consider expanding its current SES pilot program allowing  selected districts in need of improvement to serve as providers and clarify  state authority to set parameters around service design and costs. Finally,  we also recommended that Education require states to collect and submit  information on the amount spent by districts to provide SES and the  percentage of districts’ Title I funds that this amount represents and  provide states with technical assistance and additional guidance on how to  evaluate the effect of SES on student academic achievement.
In written comments on the report, Education expressed appreciation for  our recommendations, and the department has since made significant  progress toward addressing some of them. Specifically, Education has  taken a variety of steps that address our recommendations focused on  increased dissemination of promising practices related to parental  notification, attracting providers for certain areas and student groups, and  improved local coordination. For example, between November 2006 and  March 2007, Education staff conducted an outreach tour focused on  school choice and SES during which they met with state and district  officials, providers, and parents in 14 large school districts around the  country. Education staff met with these groups in each district, and  participants discussed issues including parental outreach, parental  notification, serving special student populations, and local coordination.  The department plans to disseminate information collected through the  outreach tour by publishing a handbook that shares strategies on  informing parents and implementing SES and school choice. In addition,  officials indicated that they plan to convene a national meeting during the  summer of 2007 to share the handbook with state and district SES and  school choice coordinators and discuss effective implementation. In  addition to the tour, Education directed the Center on Innovation and  Improvement to focus on providing assistance related to parental outreach  during school year 2006-2007. Consequently, in the fall of 2006, the center  began providing examples of related materials, such as documents that  states and districts have used to notify parents of services, through its Web  site. The center also plans to provide assistance and guidance on parental  outreach to four states that requested assistance starting before the end of  the current school year and continuing into school year 2007-2008.
Education has also taken some actions that address our recommendations  targeted at improving state and district use of SES funding to provide  services to the maximum number of students. Specifically, the department  extended and expanded its pilot program to allow four districts in need of  improvement to serve as SES providers for the 2006-2007 school year. As  we noted in our report, allowing districts to act as providers may ease  student access to SES for rural districts that do not have providers located  nearby and allow more students to participate in SES because district  costs to provide services are sometimes lower than other providers' costs.  While we suggested in our other recommendation that Education could  clarify how states can set parameters around provider program design and  costs by providing written guidance on these issues, according to  department officials, Education has instead addressed state questions on  these issues on a case-by-case basis.
Concerning our recommendations to improve federal and state monitoring  of SES, Education officials reported that beginning with the 2006-2007  school year all states are required to submit information to the department  on the amount of funds spent by districts to provide SES. The department  has also taken action to provide states with technical assistance and  guidance on how to evaluate the effect of SES on student academic  achievement. Specifically, Education directed the Center on Innovation  and Improvement to focus on SES evaluation assistance during school  year 2006-2007. To that end, the center issued an updated version of the  guidebook on SES evaluation in November 2006, and it plans to provide  technical assistance before the end of the current school year to sixteen  states that requested such assistance.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may  have.

	GAO Contacts

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at  (202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony  include Bryon Gordon, Rachel Frisk, and David Perkins.

Related GAO Products

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Assistance Could Help States Better  Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency. GAO-07- 646T. Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2007.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve  Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services.  GAO-06-1121T. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Local  Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational  Services. GAO-06-758. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States  Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency.  GAO-06-815. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic  Growth That Education’s Initiatives May Help Address. GAO-06-661.  Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated  in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved.  GAO-05-618. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005  No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional  Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School  Choice Provision. GAO-05-7. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education’s Process  for Tracking States’ Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734.  Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on  Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909.  Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2004.
Disadvantaged Students: Fiscal Oversight of Title I Could Be Improved.  GAO-03-377. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2003.
Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit Though Funding Per Poor Child  Differs. GAO-02-242. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2002.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires districts with schools that receive Title I funds and that have not met state performance goals for 3 consecutive years to offer low-income students supplemental educational services (SES), such as tutoring. This testimony discusses early implementation of SES, including how (1) SES participation changed in recent years; (2) providers work with districts to deliver services; (3) states monitor and evaluate SES; and (4) the U.S. Department of Education (Education) monitors and supports SES implementation. This testimony is based on an August 2006 report (GAO-06-758) and also provides information on actions Education has taken that respond to our recommendations. For the report, GAO surveyed all states and a nationally representative sample of districts with schools required to offer SES, visited four school districts, and interviewed SES providers.

What GAO Found

SES participation increased from 12 to 19 percent between school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. District actions to increase participation have included greater efforts to notify parents. However, timely and effective notification of parents remains a challenge, as does attracting providers to serve certain areas and students, such as rural districts and students with disabilities. To promote improved student academic achievement and service delivery, SES providers took steps to align their curriculum with district instruction and communicate with teachers and parents. However, the extent of these efforts varied, as some providers did not have any contact with teachers in almost 40 percent of districts or with parents in about 30 percent of districts. Both providers and district officials experienced challenges related to contracting and coordination of service delivery. In part because SES is often delivered in school facilities, providers and district and school officials reported that greater involvement of schools can improve SES delivery. While states' monitoring of district and provider efforts to implement SES had been limited in past years, more states reported conducting on-site reviews and other monitoring activities during 2005-2006. Districts also increased their oversight role. However, many states continue to struggle with how to evaluate whether SES providers are improving student achievement. While a few states have completed evaluations, none provides a conclusive assessment of SES providers' effect on student academic achievement. Education conducts SES monitoring in part through policy oversight and compliance reviews of states and districts, and provides SES support through written guidance, grants, and technical assistance. Education monitoring found uneven implementation and compliance with SES provisions, and states and districts reported needing SES policy clarification and assistance in certain areas, such as evaluating SES. Many states also voiced interest in Education's pilot programs that increase SES flexibility, including the recently expanded pilot allowing certain districts identified as in need of improvement to act as providers. Since GAO's report was published, Education has taken several actions to help improve SES implementation and monitoring, such as disseminating promising practices and guidance, and meeting with states, districts, and providers.