United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Early 

Childhood, Elementary and Secondary 

Education, Committee on Education and 

Labor, House of Representatives

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

ACT 

Education Actions May 

Help Improve 

Implementation and 

Evaluation of Supplemental 

Educational Services 

Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

 

GAO-07-738T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 18, 2007

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 

Education Actions May Help Improve 

Implementation and Evaluation of 

Supplemental Educational Services 

Highlights of GAO-07-738T, a report to 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary and Secondary Education, 

Committee on Education and Labor, 

House of Representatives

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 lowincome students supplemental 

educational services (SES), such as 

tutoring. This testimony discusses 

early implementation of SES, 

including how (1) SES participation 

changed in recent years; (2) 

providers work with districts to

deliver services; (3) states monitor 

and evaluate SES; and (4) the U.S. 

Department of Education

(Education) monitors and supports 

SES implementation. 

This testimony is based on an

August 2006 report (GAO-06-758) 

and also provides information on

actions Education has taken that 

respond to our recommendations. 

For the report, GAO surveyed all 

states and a nationally 

representative sample of districts 

with schools required to offer SES,

visited four school districts, and 

interviewed SES providers.

SES participation increased from 12 to 19 percent between school years 

2003-2004 and 2004-2005. District actions to increase participation have 

included greater efforts to notify parents. However, timely and effective 

notification of parents remains a challenge, as does attracting providers to 

serve certain areas and students, such as rural districts and students with 

disabilities. 

To promote improved student academic achievement and service delivery,

SES providers took steps to align their curriculum with district instruction 

and communicate with teachers and parents. However, the extent of these 

efforts varied, as some providers did not have any contact with teachers in 

almost 40 percent of districts or with parents in about 30 percent of districts. 

Both providers and district officials experienced challenges related to 

contracting and coordination of service delivery. In part because SES is 

often delivered in school facilities, providers and district and school officials 

reported that greater involvement of schools can improve SES delivery. 

While states’ monitoring of district and provider efforts to implement SES 

had been limited in past years, more states reported conducting on-site 

reviews and other monitoring activities during 2005-2006. Districts also 

increased their oversight role. However, many states continue to struggle 

with how to evaluate whether SES providers are improving student 

achievement. While a few states have completed evaluations, none provides 

a conclusive assessment of SES providers’ effect on student academic

achievement.

Education conducts SES monitoring in part through policy oversight and 

compliance reviews of states and districts, and provides SES support 

through written guidance, grants, and technical assistance. Education 

monitoring found uneven implementation and compliance with SES 

provisions, and states and districts reported needing SES policy clarification 

and assistance in certain areas, such as evaluating SES. Many states also 

voiced interest in Education’s pilot programs that increase SES flexibility, 

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. 

What GAO Recommends

The GAO report recommended that 

Education clarify guidance and

provide information on promising

practices, consider expanding 

flexibility and clarifying state 

authority, and collect information 

on district SES expenditures and 

provide evaluation assistance. 

Education generally supported 

GAO’s recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-738T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby 

at (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to present information from our August 2006

report on early implementation of the supplemental educational services 

(SES) provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA).1

 While our 

September testimony before the full committee provided an overview of 

that report, 2 at your request, today I will expand on SES access and 

delivery; state and federal oversight of SES implementation and quality; 

and recent U.S. Department of Education (Education) actions to improve 

SES implementation. 

In school year 2006-2007, Title I of NCLBA—the most recent 

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—

provided $12.7 billion in federal funds to more than 50,000 public schools 

nationwide in order to improve the education of low-income students. 

When a school receiving Title I funds does not meet state performance 

goals designated under NCLBA for 2 years, the district must offer students 

the choice of transferring to another school in the district that is not in 

improvement status. When a school receiving Title I funds does not meet 

state NCLBA performance goals for 3 or more years, the district must offer 

SES to all of the low-income students enrolled in the school. SES includes 

tutoring and remediation that are provided outside of the regular school 

day by a state-approved provider, such as a for-profit company or a 

community-based organization. Districts with schools required to offer 

school choice and SES must set aside an amount equal to 20 percent of 

their Title I funds to provide choice-related transportation and SES for 

eligible students in these schools. 

While states set NCLBA performance goals and schools are judged on the 

performance of their students, responsibility for SES implementation is 

primarily shared by states and school districts. Specifically, states are 

responsible for reviewing provider applications to assess each provider’s 

record of effectiveness and program design and approving, monitoring, 

and evaluating providers. Districts are responsible for notifying parents of

 1

 GAO, 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.: Aug. 4, 2006). 

2

 GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Implementation

and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services, GAO-06-1121T (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 21, 2006). 

Page 1 GAO-07-738T 
their child’s eligibility for SES and contracting with the state-approved 

providers that parents select for services. 

Although some districts were first required to offer SES in school year 

2002-2003, others did not have to offer SES until 2003-2004 or after, and 

therefore, states and districts are at different stages of implementing the 

SES provisions. My testimony today will focus on early implementation of 

SES. Specifically, I will discuss (1) how the proportion of eligible students 

receiving services has changed in recent years and actions that have been

taken to increase participation; (2) how providers are working with 

districts and schools to provide services that increase student

achievement; (3) the extent to which states and districts are monitoring 

and evaluating SES; and (4) how Education monitors state SES 

implementation and assists state and district efforts. 

In summary, the SES participation rate increased from 12 to 19 percent of 

eligible students between school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. While 

districts have provided written information notifying parents of SES and 

taken other actions to encourage participation, challenges remain, such as

notifying parents in a timely and effective manner. Regarding local SES 

implementation, while providers took steps to align their curriculum with 

district instruction and communicate with teachers and parents to 

promote improved student academic achievement, both providers and 

districts experienced contracting and coordination difficulties. In part 

because SES is often delivered in school facilities, providers as well as 

district and school officials reported that involvement of school 

administrators and teachers can improve SES delivery and coordination. 

Further, while state monitoring of SES had been limited, at the time of our 

review, more states reported taking or planning to take steps to monitor 

district and provider efforts to implement SES in school year 2005-2006 

than had done so in 2004-2005. However, monitoring continues to be a 

challenge, and states also continue to struggle to develop meaningful 

evaluations of SES providers. Regarding federal oversight of SES 

implementation, although several Education offices monitor various 

aspects of SES activity across the country and provide support, states and 

districts reported needing additional assistance and flexibility with 

program implementation. 

Our August report made several recommendations to Education to help 

states and districts implement SES more effectively and use SES funding 

to provide services to the maximum number of students and to improve 

federal and state monitoring of SES. Education expressed appreciation for 

Page 2 GAO-07-738T 
the report’s recommendations and has made significant progress toward 

addressing some of them. 

Our prior report was based on a Web-based survey of SES coordinators in 

all 50 states, the District of Columbia (D.C.), and Puerto Rico, and a mail 

survey of SES coordinators in a nationally representative sample of 

districts with schools required to offer SES. Our district survey sample 

included all 21 districts required to offer SES with 100,000 or more total 

enrolled students. Seventy-seven percent of district SES coordinators, 

including all coordinators from districts with 100,000 or more enrolled 

students, and all state SES coordinators responded to the surveys. In 

addition, we conducted site visits to one school district in each of four 

states (Woodburn, Ore.; Newark, N.J.; Chicago, Ill.; and Hamilton County, 

Tenn.) during which we interviewed state, district, and school officials. We 

also conducted interviews with 22 SES providers in our site visit districts 

and others. In addition, we spoke with staff at Education involved in SES

oversight and implementation and reviewed Education’s data on SES. In 

our surveys and other data collection efforts, we asked questions about 

SES implementation during specific school years; therefore, all years cited

refer to school years. We conducted the review in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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. 

Background 

Title I3

 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 

 3

 In this testimony, we refer to Title I, Part A of ESEA as “Title I.” Other Parts of Title I 

(Parts B, C, and D) are targeted at specific populations or purposes and are commonly 

referred to by their program names, such as Even Start. 

Page 3 GAO-07-738T 
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. 

Table 1: NCLBA Interventions for Schools Not Meeting Yearly Performance Goals over Time 

Number of years school 

misses performance goals School status in the next year NCLBA interventions for Title I schools 

First year missed N/A None 

Second year missed Needs Improvement – 

First Year 

Required to offer school choice 

Third year missed Needs Improvement – 

Second Year 

Required to offer school choice and SESa

Fourth year missed Corrective ActionbAlso required to offer school choice and 

SESa

Fifth year missed Planning for RestructuringcAlso required to offer school choice and 

SESa

Sixth year missed Implementation of Restructuring Also required to offer school choice and 

SES 

Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA. 

Note: N/A = not applicable. 

a

Students who opt to transfer to another school in the district that is not in improvement status are not 

eligible to receive SES, as they are no longer in a school required to offer these services to its

students. 

b

Corrective action is a significant intervention in a school that is designed to remedy the school’s 

persistent inability to make adequate progress toward all students becoming proficient in reading and

mathematics. 

c

Restructuring is a major reorganization of a school, involving fundamental reforms, such as 

significant changes in the school’s staffing and governance. For example, some schools may be 

converted to charter schools during restructuring. 

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 

Page 4 GAO-07-738T 
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.

4

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). 

 4

 A state or each of its districts calculates the Title I per pupil allocation by dividing the 

district’s total Title I, Part A allocation by the number of children residing within the 

district aged 5 to17 who are from families below the poverty level, as determined by the

most recent Census Bureau estimates from the Department of Commerce.

Page 5 GAO-07-738T 
Table 2: SES Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities 

Stakeholder Roles and responsibilities 

State Set criteria and standards for approving providers 

Identify, approve, and maintain public list of providers 

Ensure that the list of approved providers includes organizations that are able to serve students with disabilities 

and limited English proficiency 

Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of provider services

Monitor district SES implementation 

Develop and use policy criteria for withdrawing providers from state-approved list, including if 

• provider fails for 2 consecutive years to increase student proficiency relative to state academic content and 

achievement standards 

• provider fails to adhere to applicable health, safety, and civil rights requirements 

School district Provide an annual notice to parents, which must identify available providers; describe the enrollment process and 

timeline; describe the services, qualifications, and demonstrated effectiveness of each provider; and be easily 

understandable 

Help parents choose a provider, if requested

Protect the privacy of students eligible for and receiving services 

Calculate and establish the SES per pupil allocation if not determined by the state 

Determine which students should receive services if more students apply for SES than can be served with

available funds

Enter into contracts with providers 

Ensure eligible students with disabilities and eligible students with limited English proficiency may participate in 

SES 

At the discretion of the state, may be involved in collecting data from providers to assist state monitoring and 

evaluation activities 

Providers Provide services in accordance with district agreements 

Enable students to attain their individual achievement goals

Measure student progress and inform parents and teachers of progress made by students 

Ensure non-disclosure of student data to the public 

Provide services consistent with applicable health, safety, and civil rights laws 

Provide services that are secular, neutral, and non-ideological 

Parents Choose a provider from the state-approved list 

Are encouraged to be actively involved in their child’s SES program 

Source: GAO, per P.L.107-110, 34 C.F.R. Part 200, or the U.S. Department of Education, Supplemental Educational Services NonRegulatory Guidance, June 2005. 

Page 6 GAO-07-738T 
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.5 This increase may be due in part to the increase 

in the number of schools required to offer SES over that time period. 

SES Participation Has 

Increased as Districts 

Have Taken Actions 

to Ease Access, but 

Challenges Remain 

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. 

 5

 Certain states did not submit SES recipient information to Education through their 

NCLBA Consolidated State Performance Reports for all years. Specifically, 2002-2003 data 

from Kansas and North Dakota, 2003-2004 data from Pennsylvania, and 2004-2005 data 

from New Jersey are not included in our estimates. In addition, 2002-2003 data from New 

York only include information from New York City. Further, Education did not collect data

on the number of students eligible for SES in 2002-2003, and therefore, an estimate of the

SES participation rate is unavailable for that year. 

Page 7 GAO-07-738T 
Figure 1: School Districts Required to Offer SES in 2004-2005 

















  





 







 













 







   







 



 





 



 





 







 



 





   

    

 



 







 





   

 









 

 



 



 











      







 









 

 











 













 

 













 

 



  





 

 



     

 



















  



 







  



 



    



   

  











  













   







 















 

 



  



 





 





















  

 





 

  







 



 

 

  





 













  











 





  



  







  

 





  



 

 



 

    













 











 



 







 











   



  



 

   



   

 

 

















 



 

 



 

 

    

  



 

   













 



  













   















  









   

   







 







   















  









 



 













   

 



 















 

 

   

 













 



 



   



















  







 





 





 

 











 







  

  







 

  







 















 

  







    

  







 

     











 























    

 



  



  



  

 

 











   









 



 







 



 













    

 



   







 

   







 

 





 

         





  

 

   

 



    

  

  

     

 



 









  



 



  

 











   

     

   







 





 

























 

  

     





      

 

  

    

    









 

 



















Other districts required to offer SES

Districts required to offer SES with over 100,000 total enrolled students

Source: GAO.

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.6

 In some districts, the majority of SES recipients were 

 6

 Many of the district estimates included in this paragraph have a margin of error that

exceeds plus or minus 8 percentage points. See table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 for 

more information. 

Page 8 GAO-07-738T 
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. 

Table 3: District Actions Taken to Encourage SES Participation (2005-2006) 

Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year 

Estimated percentage

of districts

Provided written information in English to parents 99

Held individual meetings and/or phone conversations with interested parents 95

Encouraged principals, teachers, or other school staff to talk with parents 93

Offered supplemental services in locations that are easily accessible to students after school 

(e.g., on or near the school campus) 

90

Offered SES at a variety of times (e.g., after school, weekends, summer break) 79

Lengthened the period of time parents have to submit applications for SES 79

Held events where parents of eligible students can learn about providers 78

Provided written information in language(s) other than English about SES to parents 72

Made public announcements (e.g., television, billboards, newspaper ads, school newsletters) 67

Worked with a local community partner to raise awareness of SES (e.g., Parent Information 

Resource Center) 

39

Provided or arranged for transportation of students receiving SES to off-site providers 33

Source: GAO analysis of district survey results. 

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 

Page 9 GAO-07-738T 
schools were identified for improvement.7

 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.8

 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. 

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 

Providers Have Taken 

Steps to Deliver 

Quality Services, but 

Local Implementation 

Challenges Include 

Contracting and 

Coordination 

 7

 GAO previously reported that some states have difficulty notifying schools of their status 

in meeting proficiency goals in a timely fashion in part because of the time involved in 

identifying and correcting errors in student assessment data. See GAO, No Child Left 

Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education’s Process for Tracking States’

Implementation of Key Provisions, GAO-04-734 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004).

8

 GAO previously reported that geographic isolation created difficulties for rural districts in 

implementing SES. Specifically, rural district officials stated that traveling long distances to 

meet providers was not a viable option and use of online providers was challenging in some

small rural districts where it was difficult to establish and maintain Internet service. See 

GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on Effective 

Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts, GAO-04-909 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 

2004). 

Page 10 GAO-07-738T 
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.9

 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

 9

 In addition to our analysis, the Center on Education Policy case studies also found that in 

some cases, approved providers that initially expressed interest in serving a certain district 

later decided not to provide services because too few students enrolled. See the Center on

Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom, Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind 

Act (Washington, D.C.: March 2006). 

Page 11 GAO-07-738T 
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. 

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 onsite 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. 

State and District SES 

Monitoring Is 

Increasing Though It 

Remains a Challenge, 

and Many States 

Continue to Struggle 

with Developing 

Evaluations 

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 

Page 12 GAO-07-738T 
implementation, and sometimes that person may also oversee 

implementation of additional federal education programs. 

Table 4: Percentage of States and Districts That Reviewed Specified Program Elements to Monitor Providers in 2005-2006 

Percentage of states Estimated percentage of districts 

Program element Monitored

Planned to

monitor

Monitored

or planned

to monitor Monitored

Planned to

monitor

Monitored

or planned

to monitor

Parent/student satisfaction with a provider 27 67 94 34 57 91

Provider communication with teachers and 

parents 37 56 92 46 43 89

Extent to which a provider’s program, as 

enacted, reflects its program design, as outlined 

in its application to the state 19 73 92 30 41 70

Evidence of meeting academic achievement 

goals as stated on student learning plan 23 65 88 28 60 88

Evidence of improved student achievement 

based on any statewide assessment 15 71 87 26 65 91

Alignment of provider curriculum with 

district/school curriculum or instruction 25 62 87 35 39 74

Student attendance records 27 56 83 67 25 93

Evidence of improved student achievement 

based on provider assessments 27 56 83 39 52 91

Protection of student privacy 33 50 83 55 28 82

Adherence to applicable health, safety, and civil 

rights laws 29 48 77 48 26 74

Provider financial stability (e.g., audits, financial 

statements) 31 42 73 N/A N/A N/A

Evidence of improved student achievement 

based on grades, promotion, and/or graduation 12 58 69 23 57 80

Billing and payment for services N/A N/A N/A 72 21 93

Source: GAO.

Note: The percentage of states that did not review or plan to review these program elements to 

monitor providers in 2005-2006 and the percentage of states that did not answer these survey

questions are not shown in this table. In addition, we did not ask states if they monitored billing and 

payment for services, and we did not ask districts if they monitored provider financial stability.

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 

Page 13 GAO-07-738T 
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. 10

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.11 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 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 

Several Education 

Offices Oversee SES 

Implementation, but 

States and Districts 

Reported Needing 

Additional Assistance 

and Flexibility 

 10 At the time of our survey, several additional states, including Louisiana and Pennsylvania,

were in the process of drafting an SES evaluation report that would assess the impact of 

SES providers serving students in their states, but the reports were not yet available to the

public. 

11 Only one state reported withdrawing approval from one of its providers because that 

provider’s program was generally ineffective. However, this provider’s program was found

to be ineffective because the provider did not deliver services to all of the students it 

enrolled. This state also indicated that it had not yet completed an evaluation of SES’s 

effect on student academic achievement. 

Page 14 GAO-07-738T 
(OIG), Policy Program and Studies Service, and Faith-Based and 

Community Initiatives also contribute to these efforts (see fig. 2). 

Figure 2: U.S. Department of Education Offices Monitoring and Supporting SES 

Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) 

Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy 

Development 

Policy and Program 

Studies Service

Faith-Based and 

Community Initiatives

Office of the Secretary 

Office of the Deputy Secretary 

Office of Innovation and 

Improvement (OII) 

Office of Elementary 

and Secondary 

Education (OESE) 

Monitoring

 Performed six state SES

 audits during 2003-2004 

 and 2004-2005 

 Performed audits of SES

 implementation and 

 providers in five CA 

 districts during 2005 

Support

 Issued several reports focused

 on Title I, including SES (e.g.

 National Assessment of Title I:

 Interim Report)

 Produced a nine-district case

 study report, Early 

 Implementation of SES under

 the NCLBA, with a follow-up

 report for 2003-2004

Support 

 Clarifies SES policy and 

 provides technical assistance, 

 in part through presentations

 Coordinates the publication of 

 non-regulatory SES guidance 

 Issued grant for SES

 technical assistance 

 provided by SESQC 

 Issued grants to increase 

 minority participation in SES

 Issued grants to increase 

 SES access in rural areas

Support 

 Provides technical 

 assistance to faith- and 

 community-based 

 organizations interested in 

 becoming SES providers

Support

 Clarifies SES policy and 

 provides technical assistance, 

 in part through presentations

 Issued grant to fund

 Comprehensive Center on

 Innovation and

 Improvement that provides

 technical assistance for 

 Education programs, including 

 SES

Monitoring

 Performs “desk monitoring” 

 of SES information 

 Performs ad-hoc monitoring 

 of SES issues as they arise 

Monitoring

 Performs on-site visits to 

 states and districts as part 

 of Title I monitoring 

 Oversees collection and 

 analysis of Consolidated 

 State Performance Reports, 

 including SES data

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: This figure reflects the coordination of Education’s offices rather than the statutory reporting 

relationships. 

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 

Page 15 GAO-07-738T 
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, 

Page 16 GAO-07-738T 
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 noncompliant with the federal requirement that district SES parental 

notification letters include several specific elements,12 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. 

 12 OIG found all six of the states it visited during its audits of state SES implementation to

be deficient with respect to parent notifications. In addition, in our analysis of the 40 OESE

Title I state monitoring reports publicly issued as of June 2006, we found that OESE cited 9 

of the states it had visited for SES noncompliance with respect to district parent 

notifications. 

Page 17 GAO-07-738T 
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. 

Table 5: State and District Opinion on the Ordering of School Choice and SES 

In percent 

Order of school choice and SES States District

SES should precede school choice 48 62

Both school choice and SES should be offered at the same time 27 15

School choice should precede SES 15 23

Source: GAO.

Note: 10 percent of states did not respond or were not sure. In addition, district percentages are 

estimates. 

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 

Prior 

Recommendations 

Page 18 GAO-07-738T 
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 

Page 19 GAO-07-738T 
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. 

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. 

GAO Contacts 

Page 20 GAO-07-738T 
Page 21 GAO-07-738T 

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. 

(130611) 
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. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER