I n

n o v a t i o

n

s

i n

E d u c a t i

o

n

C R E A T I N G S T R O N G

Supplemental Educational

Services Programs

u . s . d e pa r t m e n t o f e d u c at i o n

o f f i c e o f i n n o vat i o n a n d i m p r o v e m e n t

SM

I n

n o v a t i o

n

s

i n

E d u c a t i

o

n

u . s . d e pa r t m e n t o f e d u c at i o n

o f f i c e o f i n n o vat i o n a n d i m p r o v e m e n t

C R E A T I N G S T R O N G

Supplemental Educational

Services Programs

SM
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-01-CO-0012, Task Order D010, with 

WestEd. Sharon Horn served as the contracting officer’s representative. 

U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of Innovation and Improvement

Nina S. Rees

Deputy Under Secretary

Michael J. Petrilli

Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Innovation and Improvement

Thomas M. Corwin

Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Planning

May 2004

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint 

this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs, Washington, D.C., 2004.

To order copies of this report,

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;

or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov;

or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, 

call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-877-576-7734;

or order online at: http://www.edpubs.org/. 

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/choice.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more 

information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.
iii

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Foreword v

Introduction 1

Embrace the Spirit of SES 9

 Build Relationships with Providers 15

Reach Out to Inform Parents 23

 Set Clear Goals and Track Progress 31

Considerations for States 41

Acknowledgments 43

Appendix A: District Profiles 45

Forsyth County Schools, Georgia (47)

 Los Angeles Unified School District, California (49)

 Rochester City School District, New York (51)

San Diego City Schools, California (53)

Toledo Public Schools, Ohio (55)

 Appendix B: Research Methodology 57

Appendix C: Resources 59

Notes 61

Contents
iv

L I S T O F F I G U R E S

Figure 1. NCLB School Improvement Timeline 3

Figure 2. State and District Roles 4

Figure 3. Demographics of Five Profiled School Districts 5

 Figure 4. Key Actions to Implement Supplemental Educational Services 7

Figure 5. SES Start-Up Steps 11 

 Figure 6. Agenda from Los Angeles Meeting with Service Providers 17

 Figure 7. Resources to Help Community Organizations Become SES Providers 20

Figure 8. San Diego Enrollment Form 24

Figure 9. Questions for Providers 25

Figure 10. Los Angeles Flyer 27

Figure 11. Toledo School Site Instructions 28

 Figure 12. Los Angeles Unified School District Student Learning Plan (Sample) 33

Figure 13. Forsyth Teacher-Tutor Data Collection Sheet 35

Figure 14. Forsyth Biweekly SES Progress Report 37

Figure 15. Rochester Parent Survey 38

Figure 16. Study Scope and Guiding Questions 58
v

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Foreword 

I am pleased to introduce the second publication in the Innovations in Education series: Creating Strong 

Supplemental Educational Services Programs. This series, to be released over the next six months, identifies concrete, real-world examples of innovations flourishing throughout this great land, in six important 

areas: public school choice, supplemental educational services, charter schools, magnet schools, alternative teacher certification, and school leadership. 

Although the term “supplemental educational services” is enjoying newfound prominence, its meaning 

is as old as education itself: tutoring. This important provision of the No Child Left Behind Act provides 

eligible low-income parents with the same opportunities more affluent parents have long enjoyed: the 

chance to engage a highly skilled tutor, or access other forms of academic enrichment, to help their child 

catch up if they have fallen behind. For school districts, this extra help for their neediest students can be 

an important complement to ongoing school improvement efforts.

But as we have learned in the first two years of this historic law, successfully setting up a supplemental 

educational services program takes a lot of work and foresight. States play a key role by approving and 

monitoring the “providers”—including nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups, for-profit companies, 

collaboratives of teachers, and school districts—that may deliver the tutoring. Parental choice is central—the statute purposely sets up a marketplace so that parents can find a provider that works best for 

their child’s needs. And in between parents and providers is the school district, ideally serving as a fair 

broker, contracting with and paying providers, informing parents, and making sure the system is working 

smoothly. Of course, doing all of that is easier said than done.

This report was developed to give district leaders some guidance as they implement supplemental services. 

In doing so, it draws on examples from five diverse districts across the country whose implementation 

experiences yield some common themes and lessons that might be helpful to others working on supplemental services. For instance, successful districts embraced the spirit of supplemental services by setting 

a positive tone about the importance of these provisions, planning for their implementation, and staffing 

the program adequately. They built strong relationships with providers, helped them access school facilities, and created a fair contracting system. They used multiple methods to inform parents of their options 

and helped them make the best choice for their children. And they established clear student learning goals 

and ensured that providers were supplying frequent progress reports to parents and teachers.

Certainly, none of these districts is doing everything perfectly. This reform is still only a few years old; 

implementation will improve as time goes on. My hope is that this booklet can help to accelerate the 

learning curve as districts across the nation learn from these “early adapters.”
vi

As with public school choice, one message of this publication is that “it can be done.” With effective district leadership and a consistent focus on what this is all about—ensuring that none of our children is left 

behind—I am confident that these supplemental services programs will be a great success.

Rod Paige, U.S. Secretary of Education

May 2004
1

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

When Deborah George’s eight-year-old daughter 

Melissa* entered fourth grade, she was still struggling with reading. She had just started a new 

school and felt anxious when she had to read aloud 

in front of her classmates. “I hate reading,” she told 

her mother.

Deborah tried to help her daughter at home, but it 

was a challenge. When she was able to convince 

Melissa to read aloud, Deborah discovered that she 

was guessing at words rather than sounding them 

out and was not understanding very much of what 

she was reading. Her poor reading skills were causing Melissa to fall behind in other subjects as well.

Frustrated in her own efforts and anxious to find help 

for Melissa, Deborah asked her daughter’s teacher 

to recommend a private tutor. But she quickly found 

out that the cost of individual tutoring was well beyond her financial means.

A short time later, Deborah received what she calls 

“a remarkable letter” from the Toledo Public Schools 

telling her that Melissa was eligible to receive free 

tutoring. The letter explained that this opportunity 

was a result of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 

It also said she could choose any service provider 

she wanted from a list that had been approved by 

the Ohio Department of Education. Included with 

the letter was a brochure identifying the providers 

and giving contact information for each one in case 

parents wanted more information. Deborah notified 

Introduction

* For privacy purposes, the names in this otherwise real story have 

been changed.

the district of her choice and soon thereafter Melissa began spending an hour and a half twice a week 

with the tutor her mother had chosen.

Six weeks into the tutoring, Deborah enthusiastically described Melissa’s progress: “She says she loves 

to read now, and she even raises her hand to read 

aloud in class. She’s made so much progress in such 

a short time that it’s just amazing. Her teacher noticed her improvement almost immediately. I made 

a great choice with this tutor: He assessed Melissa’s 

skills and zeroed in on just what she needs, and he 

gives her practice to do at home. For the first time, 

she loves doing homework. The most amazing thing 

is that she has asked us for books for Christmas because she loves to read.”

Melissa continued to make progress in reading, and, 

as a result, her grades in other subjects steadily 

improved. She passed the fourth grade reading proficiency test on her first try. 

Melissa beams confidence and self-esteem when 

she describes her progress. Asked how the tutoring 

has helped, she thinks for a minute and then says, 

“Well, before I couldn’t read. Now I can. I think anyone who has a reading problem should get a tutor 

like Mr. Miller.”
2

Supplemental Educational Services: 

Giving Parents More Options, Giving 

Students Extra Help

When it comes to picking up on warning signs that their 

child is having difficulty in school, parents are pretty intuitive, and they want to act. But how? The common sense 

notion that some children need more instructional time 

than others to master the curriculum is supported by research and theory. If all students are to achieve to gradelevel standards, every student must receive the specific 

support that he or she needs as a learner, including extra 

time with individual attention and precisely focused instruction. Studies show that students who continue to 

struggle in school without intervention compound their 

learning losses into a larger deficit that is difficult to 

remediate. In contrast, carefully tailored learning interventions can yield quite remarkable and swift progress in 

overcoming learning obstacles, as evidenced in Melissa’s 

experience working with a reading tutor.

Parents who can afford it have commonly obtained this 

type of intervention for their child by paying for private 

tutoring or after-school skill-building courses. Lowincome parents want the same extra support for their 

children, but haven’t had that option. Now, thanks to No 

Child Left Behind (NCLB), their options are expanding. 

NCLB’s Supplemental Educational Services (SES) provision 

gives parents of eligible children the opportunity and the 

funding to choose a private tutor or other academic support provider to help their child succeed in school. 

This focus on parental choice places significant emphasis on parents’ knowledge and understanding of 

their child’s education needs. It also demonstrates 

a confidence in parents’ ability to choose the most 

appropriate academic intervention for their child from 

among marketplace competitors. An important tenet 

of the law is that low-income parents should have the 

same range of options available to parents who can afford to scan the marketplace and select an academic 

intervention service that meets their child’s needs. Under NCLB’s SES provision, a key responsibility for states 

and districts alike is to present eligible parents with as 

many diverse provider options as possible. The services 

offered across the country include one-on-one tutoring, small-group prescriptive skill-building, individualized gap assessment and remediation, small-group drill 

and practice, computer-based assessment and skillbuilding, interactive e-tutoring on the internet, and 

internet-based skill-building with direct feedback.1

 The 

settings in which children participate in SES activities 

include their own schools or another nearby district 

school, community centers, faith-based centers, libraries, service providers’ centers, computer centers, and 

their own homes. When parents are given a wide variety of provider options, service providers must compete 

for their business. This competitive market encourages 

continuous improvement of program quality and services to students and their families.

The District’s Role in SES

States and school districts both play integral roles in 

designing the scaffolding to support parental choice, 

but it falls primarily to the local district to bring SES to 

life for its families. To aid in that effort, this guide shares 

the early implementation experiences of five districts 

across the country. Varying in size and setting, each has 

struggled with the same issue: how to ensure that parents of eligible students can realize the full potential 

of the choice granted to them by this historic legislation. The districts are not presented as exemplars. Similarly, district artifacts included in the guide (e.g., an SES 
3

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

promotional flyer) are not presented as ideal models but 

rather as examples. Nor are their implementation strategies proposed as perfect practice. But for the last two 

years these local educational agencies have been busy 

figuring out what works for them, what works better, 

and what doesn’t work at all. From their experiences, 

some common themes emerge and some lessons that 

might be helpful to others heading down this road—first 

among them that SES provides an opportunity to bring 

more partners to support the work of schools and teachers to improve achievement of their lowest-performing 

students. Their stories are presented in that light.

Getting clear on the SES requirements and, even more, 

on what districts need to do to implement those requirements is the first challenge. States are responsible 

for soliciting, screening, and approving providers and 

for maintaining an updated list based on providers’ 

performance record. Parents get to decide which provider to use, and they receive regular reports from the 

provider about their child’s progress. Independent contractors provide the services (as can the district itself if 

it has been approved by the state as a provider). In the 

middle is the district, whose task is to create the conditions and manage the logistics that make it possible 

for parents to exercise their right to choose a service 

provider for their children. 

Among their “first steps,” districts need to establish 

contracting relationships with service providers and develop a notification and application process for parents 

of eligible students. Once new structures and processes 

are initiated, attention can turn to “going deeper,” 

including orchestrating a communications plan that 

engages more parents, expanding community-based 

networks to keep parents informed about their options,

and building on SES approaches to extend academic 

intervention opportunities broadly throughout the 

district. In all SES efforts, districts should stay focused 

on the goal of ensuring that parents have easy access 

to as broad a choice of providers as possible in order to 

find the appropriate support for their child. 

Some basics: As shown in figure 1, a school that does not 

make AYP for two years running is labeled “in need of 

improvement,” a designation that requires its district to 

offer public school choice to students in that school the 

next year.2

 (If districts are unable to offer choice, they are 

encouraged to offer SES to eligible students instead that 

first year.3

) If the school misses its AYP for a third year, the 

NCLB’s supplemental educational services provision kicks 

in. If the school continues to miss AYP, moving into corrective action and, then, restructuring, the district must 

continue offering choice and SES to eligible students. 

SES-eligible students are low-income students in those 

schools; if there are insufficient funds to serve all eligible students, priority goes to the lowest-achieving 

students. Districts with schools in need of improvement 

FIGURE 1. NCLB School 

Improvement Timeline

School 

Year 1

Does not make AYP

School 

Year 2

Does not make AYP 

School 

Year 3

1st year of school 

improvement

ü Technical assistance

ü Public school choice

School 

Year 4

2nd year of school 

improvement

ü Technical assistance

ü Public school choice

ü Supplemental 

educational services
4

FIGURE 2. State and District Roles

State District

Define adequate yearly progress (AYP) and identify which 

schools are “in need of improvement” because they have not 

made AYP.

Determine which students at an improvement school are 

eligible for services. 

Develop a method that uses “fair and equitable criteria” to 

identify the school’s lowest-achieving students (if parental 

demand for SES exceeds available funding, these students 

must be given priority).

Publicize the SES-provider application process. 

Approve providers, and regularly update the list of approved 

providers, using an objective application process that 

screens for:

ü demonstrated record of effectiveness in improving 

academic achievement,

ü instructional strategies based on research, and

ü services consistent with the instructional program 

of the district and with state content and achievement 

standards, that are financially sound, and that meet health, 

safety and civil rights laws.

Give districts a list of available approved providers in their 

general geographic locations.

Notify parents of all eligible students about the availability 

of services, at least annually. Ensure that parents have 

comprehensive, easy-to-understand information about:

• the services, qualifications, and evidence of effectiveness 

for each provider,

• the procedures and timelines that parents must follow in 

selecting a provider to service their child, and

• the possibility that, if demand for SES exceeds available 

district funding, priority will be given to the lowestperforming, low-income students, as identified by 

the district.

If requested, help parents choose a provider.

If requests exceed available funding, apply the criteria to 

identify those who will receive services.

Enter into a contract with any approved provider selected by 

parents of eligible students for whom funding is available.

Develop and implement standards and techniques for 

monitoring the quality, performance, and effectiveness of the 

services offered. Report publicly.

Provide the information the state education agency (SEA) 

needs to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the 

services offered by providers.

Remove from the list any provider that fails for two 

consecutive years to contribute to increased student 

proficiency relative to state academic content and 

achievement standards.
5

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

are required to spend an amount equal to 20 percent of 

their Title I, Part A allocation on a combination of supplemental educational services and any transportation 

required for choice under NCLB, with a minimum of 

5 percent dedicated to SES. Districts do not have to 

provide transportation for SES. None of the 20 percent 

can be spent on administrative costs, which must be 

covered in some other fashion. A district must provide, 

for each child’s services, an amount equivalent to the 

district’s Title I, Part A per-child allocation (the amount 

of Title I, Part A funds the district receives, divided by 

the number of poor and other children counted under 

the federal census Title I formula), unless the actual 

cost of services is lower. District Title I per-child allocations vary greatly across the country, but generally

range from $750 to $1900.4

 For more information on 

state and district SES roles, see figure 2. For additional 

guidance, see the Office of Innovation and Improvement Web site: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/

oii/about/choice.html.

Case Study Sites and Methodology

The five districts profiled in this guide are Forsyth 

County, Ga.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Rochester, N.Y.; San Diego, Calif.; and Toledo, Ohio. Basic statistics about these 

districts appear in figure 3. For a narrative summary of 

each district’s context and programs, see appendix A.

These five districts were selected from a larger set of 

possible sites as part of the benchmarking methodology 

FIGURE 3. Demographics of Five Profiled School Districts*

Los Angeles,

Calif.

Rochester,

N.Y.

Forsyth,

Ga.

San Diego,

Calif.

Toledo,

Ohio

School Year 2003–04 2003–04 2003–04 2003–04 2002–03

K–12 Enrollment 746,020 36,500 22,048 138,613 35,600

Enrollment Trends Stable Decreasing Increasing Decreasing Decreasing

Number of Schools 713 57 23 185 62

Population Type Urban Urban Suburban/Rural Urban Urban

Free and Reduced 

Price Lunch Program**

75.4% 78% 12% 56.4% 54%

English Language 

Learners/Limited 

English Proficient**

42.9% 8% 5% 29.4% 0.6%

Special Needs*** 10.7% 15% 12% 10.9% 15.9%

*

Sources: District Web sites for Los Angeles, Rochester, Forsyth, and San Diego. Ohio Department of Education Web site for Toledo (2003–04 figures available August 2004).

**Data in Rochester, Forsyth, San Diego, and Toledo are from 2002–2003; current data are not yet available.

***Special needs data in Forsyth, San Diego, and Toledo are from 2002–2003; current data are not yet available.
6

that underlies this study. Thirty-six districts were identified as potential sites for one of two reasons: they 

were SES-eligible districts in states that had actively 

addressed SES and had many approved providers, or 

they were suggested as districts that had actively addressed SES in the view of state department staff, SES 

providers, or members of the advisory group. Existing 

public data and targeted interviews provided preliminary information about these districts that was used to 

“screen” sites and identify those that appeared to have 

practices in place in several key operational areas. For 

example, they had clearly articulated strategic plans 

for administering SES, outreach and communications 

strategies for both parents and providers, and explicit 

contracting and recordkeeping procedures.

This exploratory, descriptive approach is adapted from 

the four-phase benchmarking process used by the 

American Productivity and Quality Center (see appendix B for further details). In benchmarking, organizations analyze their own operations and look to promising practice partners for ideas of specific practices that 

might help them improve. For this study, an advisory 

group of researchers, providers, and practitioners with 

experience in supplemental educational services helped 

guide the focus. Their input, together with an examination of research literature and an analysis of NCLB 

requirements, led to the study scope (see appendix B). 

Descriptions of the districts’ practices were collected 

through two-day site visits that included interviews 

with providers, principals, and parents, as well as district staff. The districts arranged these interviews and 

also provided copies of artifacts, such as sample letters, 

brochures, contracts, lesson plan forms, and so forth. 

For each district, the study team then summarized 

in an individual case report the practices and lessons 

learned; a cross-site analysis organized the findings 

by topic and revealed common patterns. This guide is 

adapted from the full research report and also incorporates advice from the U.S. Department of Education’s 

Office of Innovation and Improvement, which, jointly 

with the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, oversees implementation of the NCLB supplemental educational services provision. Results from specific 

district practices, district rationales for what they did, 

patterns across districts, and common sense, along with 

the initial framework, led to the themes and suggested 

actions in this guide. 

This descriptive research process suggests promising 

practices—ways to do things that others have found 

helpful or lessons they have learned about what not 

to do—and practical “how-to” guidance. This is not 

the kind of experimental research that can yield valid 

causal claims about what works. Readers should judge 

for themselves the merits of these practices, based on 

their understanding of why they should work, how 

they fit the local context, and what happens when they 

actually try them. Also, readers should understand that 

these descriptions are not intended to add any requirements beyond what is already in the NCLB statute and 

regulations.

Organization of the Guide

This guide shares practical ideas from districts around 

the country that have been learning as they go in the 

early implementation of SES. It is organized around 

four action areas and specific key actions in each—

some that are first step, some that are going deeper 

(see figure 4).
7

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

FIGURE 4. Key Actions to Implement Supplemental Educational Services

 Action First Steps Going Deeper

Embrace the Spirit 

of SES

• Set a positive tone.

• Staff SES strategically within the 

organizational structure.

• Put a plan in place.

• Review results and improve process.

• Identify barriers to parent 

participation.

• Establish new roles and structures.

• Make SES a complementary part of 

ongoing extended learning programs.

• Strengthen parent advisory groups 

and partnerships.

Build Relationships 

with Providers

• Find out about providers who will 

serve your district.

• Work out provider access to facilities.

• Use a contract that sets clear 

expectations.

• Increase communication and 

coordination between providers and 

schools.

• Expand the number and type of 

providers in the district.

Reach Out to 

Inform Parents

• Communicate options clearly.

• Enlist schools in a campaign to reach 

parents.

• Expand communication channels.

• Increase community involvement in 

getting the word out.

Set Clear Goals 

and Track 

Progress

• Use detailed and specific student 

learning plan forms. 

• Share data and set student 

goals aligned with the district’s 

instructional program.

• Monitor attendance.

• Set up and use regular progress 

reports to inform teachers and 

parents.

• Evaluate student progress on district 

assessments.

• Survey parents.

• Reflect on implementation and adjust 

efforts based on formative feedback.
8
9

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

If SES is to have a chance of reaching its full potential to empower parents and improve student learning, it cannot be held at a distance, treated as yet another compliance task. Rather, districts must approach SES with open arms, taking advantage of new partnerships and welcoming it for what it can add 

to the educational experience of their lowest-achieving students. Setting a positive tone, staffing SES 

strategically, identifying and addressing potential barriers to parent participation, planning rather than 

waiting for state guidance on key issues—these are essential steps to making SES work. To do otherwise 

risks confusing miscommunication, missed opportunities, inadvertent redundancies in services to students and in management of the program, and SES being undermined by other priorities—all at the cost 

of precious resources, student learning most of all. Once the SES program is up and running, districts 

may choose to adapt or create new roles and structures to more deeply institutionalize it.

Embrace the Spirit of SES 

First Steps

SET A POSITIVE TONE

The words and actions of district leaders make their 

priorities known and symbolically announce what matters most to them. As evidence of their commitment to 

the goals of NCLB, San Diego leaders quickly initiated 

a districtwide NCLB coordinating committee that consists of department directors and other key staff and 

that meets weekly. The intent of having frequent and 

face-to-face discussions is to ensure consistent strategies and communication, within the central office and 

between the district and its schools. The overall message is that the provisions of NCLB, including SES, are 

good for the district, good for its schools, and, most important, good for San Diego students and their parents, 

so get on board. This affirmative stance has prompted 

principals and teachers in SES-eligible schools to view 

the program as an important adjunct to their own 

strategies for improving student achievement, thus 

ratcheting up their commitment to communicating 

with parents about this new opportunity. 

A positive view is not always the initial reaction to SES, 

as educators in Toledo and elsewhere have discovered. 

Some in Toledo, for example, initially fretted about the 

funding earmarked by NCLB for SES, seeing it as money 

taken away from school programs in which they were 

already invested. Acknowledging the initial frustration, 

Toledo’s Chief Academic Officer says:

“The turning point for us came when we began to 

see supplemental services as a great way to give extra support to the kids who needed the most help. 
10

There should be more help for our neediest kids....

Ultimately, [SES] will help our school improvement 

buildings meet their AYP targets. That’s good.”

With its revised perspective, Toledo went on to create 

a vigorous parent outreach strategy that increased the 

participation of parents by 130 percent.

STAFF SES STRATEGICALLY

District SES programs need to be staffed by individuals who can focus time and attention on getting it going, who understand the goal—ensuring easy access for 

parents to this new opportunity for their child—and the 

many operational tasks necessary for achieving the goal. 

All five districts sought an administrative home for SES 

that offered existing expertise, cost-effective operation, 

and efficient implementation in order to jump-start the 

program early in the school year while laying the foundation for building a more developed and fully realized SES 

system. To get things started, both San Diego and Los Angeles made SES the responsibility of the particular department that was already responsible for managing existing 

extended learning programs throughout the district. Two 

other districts, Forsyth and Toledo, placed SES under the 

aegis of their Title I program. Rochester, on the other 

hand, has initially located SES in its Office of Accountability and Academics because of that office’s experience 

nurturing new initiatives. This way the program can get 

the extra attention needed to get off to a good start. One 

benefit is that this same office also houses Rochester’s 

well-developed accountability database and student 

achievement data system, both of which are likely to be 

utilized and expanded in tracking SES effectiveness.

The point in all cases is to capitalize on any existing structures that are well suited to overseeing a multifaceted 

program like SES, which requires everything from effective parent outreach to contract monitoring. At the same 

time, however, districts must find ways to ensure that 

SES retains a distinct identity within the district. SES emphasizes parental choice and this important aspect must 

not get lost or receive short shrift in departments that 

already have a lot of other responsibilities. 

PUT A PLAN IN PLACE

Each district in the study cited early planning and preparation as central to its ability not only to get SES in operation but also to align SES with strategic goals, maximize 

the impact on student learning, and avoid unnecessary 

duplication of effort. Looking back on their own implementation experience, SES administrators in all five 

districts say the same thing: Anticipate—don’t wait for 

the state. This applies whether talking about waiting for 

official notification about SES-eligible schools before 

starting to plan initial implementation or waiting for the 

state to develop a quality assurance system for providers 

rather than starting right away to identify and create a 

district process for collecting relevant data.

For the most part, districts in this study were prepared to 

begin implementation as soon as they received eligibility 

data from their state departments of education. For example, anticipating that 104 of its more than 700 schools 

would be required to offer SES and recognizing the size 

of the undertaking, Los Angeles began planning in the 

spring and summer before implementation was actually 

required. Although few districts will operate an SES program on the scale of Los Angeles, planning procedures 

and processes in advance of actual implementation is an 

important consideration for every district offering SES. 

Having a game plan and knowing how to execute it can 

help district staff align their responses and actions with 
11

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

FIGURE 5. SES Start-Up Steps

›› Review state’s list of Title I schools that have missed AYP for three years or more and notify schools. 

›› Review state’s list of providers approved to serve your district and verify those planning to provide services to 

your students.

›› Prepare parent notification and application materials.

›› Officially inform parents of eligible students about the opportunity to choose a provider.

›› Market the program in order to encourage parents to choose a provider (through parent meetings, district 

advisory council meetings, school presentations to parents, etc.)

›› Work with legal staff to establish provider contract and contracting process. 

›› Meet with teachers and principals of eligible students and with relevant community-based groups to urge them 

to engage parents about SES.

›› If necessary, determine method for identifying which students will receive services if SES demand exceeds 

available funding. 

›› Work with school principals to arrange facilities use and supervision.

›› Develop a student learning plan template to be used by providers.

›› Create separate line item in district budget to track costs.

›› Continue marketing the program to parents.

›› Set up invoicing and payment process to use with providers.

›› Integrate SES into district databases and tracking systems.

›› Contact state to offer assistance in monitoring provider quality.

›› At each stage of implementation, reflect on progress and revise accordingly.

district goals. Such a plan supports consistency of the 

district’s message to parents and the public.

Rochester’s district leaders began communicating about 

SES regulations six months in advance of starting the 

program. Anticipating that many parents would seek 

information from their children’s schools about the free 

tutoring and academic support available through NCLB, 

Rochester proactively outlined its SES implementation 

plan and informed school personnel of the procedures 

it intended to follow. 

The list of SES start-up steps in figure 5 draws from the 

experiences of these five districts as well as the advice of 

the Office of Innovation and Improvement. Although the 

order in which these steps are taken may vary according 

to local circumstances, this list offers a reasonable map 

for advanced planning. The later sections of this guide 

elaborate on many of these steps. 

For SES resources that may help in planning and implementation, see appendix C: Resources.
12

Going Deeper

REVIEW RESULTS AND IMPROVE PROCESSES

Once districts are past the first steps of putting an SES 

program in place, they have a chance to review implementation—including key indicators like the number 

of students served—and make adjustments. Rochester 

wrote a three-page memo outlining issues and solutions, and concluded:

“In general the ‘02–’03 academic year was an attempt by the RCSD to put together an SES program 

that complied with NCLB. Having succeeded on that 

front, our interest has turned to strengthening the 

program to provide the greatest academic gains to 

the greatest number of students.”

Meeting the requirements to comply with the mandates of NCLB is a beginning step. Ensuring that all 

eligible students receive the services intended for 

them, and monitoring those services to ensure intended impact, requires a deeper investment of leadership and commitment. Taking up that challenge 

calls for strategic and imaginative planning, as well as 

persistence over time. 

IDENTIFY BARRIERS TO PARENT PARTICIPATION 

SES conveys to parents the right to choose a tutor or 

academic support service for their eligible children. 

In planning SES implementation, it’s important for a 

district to think and act systemically, not just about 

how to fit the program into an effective administrative structure, but also how to manage it so as to engage the greatest number of parents and give them 

access to as broad a range as possible of high-quality 

SES providers for their children. This means identifying 

and, to the extent possible, eliminating potential barriers to parents. As an example, many parents—especially 

working parents—manage complex schedules in getting 

their children safely to school, arranging after-school 

care, and then picking their children up to go home. 

Districts are not required to transport children to and 

from off-site SES sessions; therefore, the parent of an 

elementary school student who attends a school-based 

or center-based aftercare program may be less likely 

to enroll the child in any SES program that does not 

provide services at the child’s school, the after-school 

center, or in their home. Depending on the respective 

locations of the school and an SES provider, even parents of older students may not feel comfortable having 

their child walk or take a city bus to an off-site tutoring 

session. Although a district has no mandated responsibility to make sure providers are conveniently available 

to eligible students, to facilitate broader participation, 

in the spirit of the law, it could, for example, initiate 

conversations with providers, inviting them to locate at 

schools. Where center-based rather than school-based 

aftercare is the norm, a district might broker similar 

conversations between providers and popular local 

aftercare programs, such as a YMCA or Boys and Girls 

Club—again, for the purpose of working out a system 

whereby providers could offer services at the center 

so that parents who need full-time aftercare for their 

child sign up for SES. In cases where such co-location 

of services is not possible (e.g., when a provider runs a 

computer-based program at its own center), a district 

might be able to do something as simple as providing 

parents of older students with a public bus schedule 

or may want to examine its own bus schedule to see 

if it could be easily adjusted without additional cost to 

transport some students to SES providers. 
13

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

ESTABLISH NEW ROLES AND STRUCTURES

After they get SES started, districts have a chance to 

look at how things are working and think through what 

roles and structures might strengthen the program. 

Sometimes, new positions at the school or district level 

are called for. Rochester, for example, created a new 

position at targeted improvement schools to reach out 

to parents and to coordinate academic interventions, 

including facilitating ongoing exchange of information 

between providers and classroom teachers.

After meeting all NCLB requirements for parent notification, Forsyth looked for ways to connect more 

effectively with non-English-speaking parents of SESeligible students. The answer was a new Transition 

Center. Coordinated by bilingual staff with credibility 

in the community, the center provides parents with assistance in school registration, placement testing, and 

many other areas as they settle into the community. 

Forsyth credits Center staff for breaking down cultural 

and language barriers, increasing the involvement of 

parents, and engaging more of them in enrolling their 

children in tutoring.

MAKE SES A COMPLEMENTARY PART OF ONGOING 

EXTENDED LEARNING PROGRAMS

All five districts in this study had existing programs that 

provided extended learning opportunities for students. 

They tended to see SES as a “congruent” effort that, in 

some instances, would enable them to get services to 

more students and, in other instances, would help them 

get more services to the neediest students. Beyond deciding where to place SES in the district’s organizational 

structure, as discussed above, districts wanting to make 

the most of this new student resource will want to address the larger question of how best to capitalize on 

the full array of extended learning resources, including 

SES, to meet students’ needs.

Rochester, for example, has worked to develop strong 

linkages to its state-mandated Academic Intervention 

Services (AIS) system, which provides extra support 

for students who have not passed, or are considered 

at risk of not passing, New York’s standards-based 

assessments in key academic areas. Although SES is 

not a component of AIS in the district organizational 

structure, the district has created a number of deliberate connections between the two programs. Students 

can participate both in extended-day services under 

AIS and in NCLB supplemental services. As mentioned 

above, a newly created position of AIS specialist at targeted schools helps work out the coordination. In addition, during development of their child’s SES plan, parents are encouraged to provide information from past 

AIS Progress Reports. This information helps providers 

understand students’ distinct skill needs and align 

their instruction with the indicators being assessed in 

the AIS system, which reflects state standards. One key 

purpose of this coordination is to ensure that when 

students are receiving both AIS and SES services, the 

interventions are complementary, not conflicting or 

needlessly repetitive.

In Forsyth, the district’s positive experience with an 

SES provider has prompted it to expand that relationship beyond the NCLB requirements: Because the State 

of Georgia has sought to end social promotion by 

mandating the retention of third grade students who 

do not pass the state’s criterion-referenced reading 

assessment, Forsyth has approached the tutoring program about providing one-on-one instructional assistance to any students at risk of being retained in third

grade, irrespective of whether they are eligible for SES. 
14

As noted earlier, in some instances, a district may want 

to encourage and support co-location of SES services 

with pre-existing extended learning programs and 

aftercare programs. In addition to eliminating possible transportation barriers to SES for some families, 

location of multiple services at one site would allow 

students to more easily take advantage of multiple intervention services as appropriate. 

STRENGTHEN PARENT ADVISORY GROUPS AND PARTNERSHIPS

Districts benefit from engaging parents as real partners 

in SES implementation, for example, by strengthening 

formal roles for parents in district decision-making. 

Many times, districts can expand the participation of 

existing parent organizations. Los Angeles staff met 

with school parent groups and the Title I District Parents’ Advisory Council (DAC) to encourage information 

networking among parents. The DAC also advised on 

strategies to connect with parents through community 

and faith-based groups. Staff also met with other parent groups including the Title I Focus Group and the 

Parents’ Focus on Student Achievement Group.

Rochester’s District Advisory Council to Title I (DACT) 

has been in place for over 30 years. Recently, this group 

has changed its focus to include NCLB. Members attend 

regional and national conferences and provide early input to district leaders about other districts’ interpretations and implementation efforts. District staff and 

leadership make themselves available to DACT members 

and rely on their outreach efforts. DACT sponsors parent conferences on NCLB and provides information to 

parents about SES opportunities. To ensure continuity 

of the message to all parents, DACT also includes at its 

monthly meetings the parent liaisons, who coordinate 

school-level outreach efforts. 

It is critical for parents to become actively involved 

with their own child’s education, and districts can 

foster widespread commitment to improving school 

and district achievement by creating ways for parents 

to engage at the decision level. Parents can then begin to take ownership over the achievement in their 

child’s school and community. Such an effort can 

have a major impact on parent awareness about and 

participation in supplemental service programs.

SUMMARY FOR Embrace the Spirit of SES

First Steps Going Deeper

• Set a positive tone.

• Staff SES strategically within the organizational structure.

• Put a plan in place.

• Review results and improve process.

• Identify barriers to parent participation.

• Establish new roles and structures.

• Make SES a complementary part of ongoing extended 

learning programs.

• Strengthen parent advisory groups and partnerships.
15

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Build Relationships 

with Providers

A literal reading of the SES provisions might seem to suggest a fairly passive role for school districts. The 

state approves providers and, with provider input, identifies which areas of the state each provider will 

serve.5

 The district gets this list to parents of eligible students, who select a service provider for their child. 

The district then contracts with the providers who have been selected. However, this picture does not match 

the experience of the districts in this study, each of which found it valuable to take a more proactive role.

When districts reach out to providers, they can get 

more up-to-date, complete, and accurate provider 

information to share with parents. Districts can also 

give providers important localized information, such as 

whether they will be able to work at school sites, and 

how or if they will be able to get information about 

student academic performance, both past and ongoing. 

Clear district-provider communication, starting at first 

connection, can lead to specific agreements and contracts that smooth the way for and support effective 

services to students. From this solid base, even stronger programs and partnerships can be built over time. 

Especially when the district itself is a provider, it is essential that all providers feel they have equal access to 

participation in the program.

First Steps

FIND OUT ABOUT PROVIDERS WHO WILL SERVE YOUR DISTRICT

Districts need to verify which providers will, in fact, serve 

their students. The need for districts to seek current 

information from providers may have been especially 

acute in 2002–03, the first year of SES implementation. 

With what was effectively a new NCLB-driven market 

opening up, and with the extent of demand not yet determined, it was optimistic to think that initial provider 

interest would necessarily translate into commitment. 

In its memorandum analyzing SES in 2002–03, Rochester staff articulated a common problem:

“Most of the approved SES providers were not based 

in Rochester and could not adequately market the 

program from afar. They were stuck in a catch-22 

situation—trying to plan for staffing a program in 

Rochester, but unable to staff the program until 

they signed up enough students to justify the staffing. Many providers opted to drop out for a year, 

while planning for 03–04.”

The experiences of the other districts were similar, with 

some providers on the state list not able or willing to 

offer services locally, occasionally even dropping out 

after parents had signed up. 
16

Districts will need to continue to be in close communication with providers as both the supply side and demand side evolve. The market is a moving target, shifting according to the degree of demand and the success 

of providers in growing their capacity to meet it.6

Both Los Angeles and San Diego reached out to providers on the state list in order to get more complete information. They wanted to be sure that they could give 

parents information about providers that was comparable, dependable, and easy to understand, as required 

in the guidance. Although states post information 

about providers on their Web sites, the categories of 

information they include tend to vary, and individual 

providers may leave some categories blank. Some providers, but not all, have brochures or Web sites, and the 

nature of the information they offer varies. In addition, 

as noted above, specific answers may vary by location 

and change over time. 

San Diego sent a written questionnaire to providers and 

followed up with interviews. Los Angeles created a simple, standardized one-page template that each provider 

was asked to fill out addressing such issues as grade levels served, staff qualifications, and demonstrated effectiveness. The results were then compiled in a brochure 

sent to all eligible parents, as well as being posted on 

the district’s Web site in both Spanish and English. 

Los Angeles also held several meetings for all stateapproved providers who were interested in delivering 

services in Los Angeles, at which staff described district 

procedures and answered questions (see figure 6). 

WORK OUT PROVIDER ACCESS TO FACILITIES

A critical issue is where services will be provided. In 

many cases, a school site is an attractive location. 

Parents like to have after-school services housed in 

the same place their child attends school; it’s familiar and no transportation is required. But in deciding whether or which providers should be allowed to 

work at the school site, a number of factors must be 

considered, including adequate student management 

and supervision, teacher property and space, and 

costs to the district. 

Most districts have existing policies defining what types 

of organizations can use district facilities, under what 

conditions, and at what costs. Some, but not all districts 

in this study made school facilities available for providers under lease agreements, while the specifics of those 

agreements ranged significantly. For example, in one district a provider might pay only $16.80 per classroom for 

two hours although in another the provider would have 

to pay almost $300 for a four-hour minimum period.

When considering whether to offer school space to providers and when working out lease arrangements, districts will want to weigh the impact on parent’s access 

to diverse providers. As one provider notes, “If the cost 

is prohibitive and would essentially eliminate hours of 

instructional service, then the school site is not a viable 

option, [which] reduces participation in the program.”

Any decision to lease school space to SES providers must take into consideration the fact that some 

member of the school staff will need to be available 

to supervise them. Minimally, schools need to be assured that no unauthorized individuals will be in the 

building, which means someone needs to let students 

and—sometimes—their parents into the building and 

to make sure everyone is out of the building before 

locking up. Especially with young students, someone also needs to make sure that after their tutoring 
17

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

sessions they meet up with their “ride,” which may 

mean letting them go with their parent or, in some 

cases, getting them onto a bus. All districts should 

already have in place facilities-use policies and procedures for any non-district program wishing to use 

district buildings, and a standard policy is to require 

anyone using a facility to pay for supervision. This applies to SES providers along with everyone else. The 

school principal is generally the person to assure that 

someone is assigned to this role.

Besides encouraging the use of school site space, Rochester has also built on its strong community partnerships to look for other available space that would be 

convenient for parents. The district has actively sought 

out the Rochester Housing Authority in an effort to 

link it with providers who may be interested in offering 

SES in centrally located community centers throughout the city.

FIGURE 6. Agenda from 

Los Angeles Meeting 

with Service Providers
18

CREATE A FAIR CONTRACT THAT SETS CLEAR EXPECTATIONS

A contract between district and service provider that 

“leaves nothing to the imagination” provides a solid 

base for a smooth relationship, these districts emphasize. NCLB specifies a number of components that must 

be covered in such an agreement; others have been 

added in one or more of these districts. Each district 

has a detailed written agreement, ranging from the 25-

page “Supplemental Services Master Contract” in Los 

Angeles to Toledo’s eight-page agreement.

Some of the core specifics have to do with the learning 

goals set for each student, the timeline for achieving 

them, and how progress will be measured and reported 

to parents and the districts. These elements are generally laid out in a student learning plan, following 

a format set by the district, which is incorporated by 

reference in the contract. See subsequent section “Set 

Clear Goals and Monitor Progress” for further discussion and examples.

According to NCLB law and guidance (Non-regulatory 

Guidance, Section G-2)*, the district contract with a 

service provider must include:

1. Specific achievement goals for the student, which 

must be developed in consultation with the student’s parents [Section 1116(e)(3)(A)];

2. A description of how the student’s progress will 

be measured and how the student’s parents and 

teachers will be regularly informed of that progress [Section 1116(e)(3)(A) and (B)];

3. A timetable for improving the student’s achievement;

4. A provision for termination of the agreement if 

the provider [does not] meet student progress 

goals and timetables [Section 1116(e)(3)(C)];

5. Provisions governing payment for the services, 

which may include provisions addressing missed 

sessions [Section 1116(e)(3)(D)]; 

6. A provision prohibiting the provider from disclosing to the public the identity of any student 

eligible for or receiving supplemental educational 

services without the written permission of the 

student’s parents [Section 1116(e)(3)(E)]; and

7. An assurance that supplemental educational 

services will be provided consistent with applicable health, safety, and civil rights laws (see C-3 

through C-5).

Once an SES provider has been placed on a state’s approved-provider list, districts may not require that it 

meet additional criteria or go through an additional approval process before providing services in the district. 

Districts can, however, require that providers abide by 

applicable local health, safety, and civil rights laws.

Interpreting these guidelines, districts are routinely including in their contract such specifics as staff 

clearance requirements (e.g., fingerprinting and background checks), insurance needed, and child abuse 

reporting requirements. 

Some district contracts also specify the district’s own 

obligations. One states explicitly that transportation 

will not be provided for students. One includes a statement that a provider must serve all students who apply, 

up to maximum capacity. 

Billing arrangements generally require the provider to 

submit a listing of the services that have been provided, for whom, for how many hours, and at what cost. 

*The Department’s of Education’s Supplemental Educational 

Services Non-Regulatory Guidance is available as a pdf at: 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsvcsguid.pdf.
19

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Los Angeles has developed an attendance form and uses 

that form and the student’s progress report as verification of services. One district has specifically stated that 

there is “no up-front money,” specifically eliminating 

payment for services like student-accessed online tutorials that they found some students didn’t actually use.

Districts should consider the impact of their billing 

policies on providers, especially those that are smaller 

or newly established. Often operating with less capital than larger or better-established tutoring services, 

these providers may not be prepared to handle large 

amounts of paperwork or able to float expenses during 

longer billing cycles.

In all instances, districts must strive to be impartial 

brokers in dealing with and communicating about 

SES providers. Among other things, this means paying 

close attention to the possibility of negative unintended consequences resulting from district policies (e.g., 

as in billing policies, noted above, that might eliminate small providers from the mix available to parents). 

When the district itself is also an SES provider, it is especially important that it not inadvertently set up a 

system giving it an unfair competitive advantage over 

other providers. 

Going Deeper

INCREASE COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION BETWEEN 

PROVIDERS AND SCHOOLS

Because schools and teachers have regular access to parents and students, it is important for districts to link providers to schools. The key step in doing so is to encourage 

schools to take ownership of SES implementation. This 

can be as simple as having schools generate their own 

version of the district SES letter to parents. It can also 

entail something more elaborate, as in Rochester’s decision to create a Title I-funded position at each of its 

most impacted schools for the purpose of coordinating 

the various academic interventions, including SES, that 

might be in place for individual students. A key objective 

is to ensure effective communication around services so 

they are appropriately targeted, while eliminating unnecessary redundancy, both in communication and, more 

importantly, services. 

Districts should also work to link providers to classroom 

teachers. One way to do so is in the exchange of data 

regarding the student learning plans. Although most 

districts supply providers with students’ most recent 

standardized test scores, many classroom teachers 

can provide a more comprehensive understanding of 

students’ skill levels and learning needs than is available from assessment scores alone. San Diego, Forsyth 

County, and Rochester encourage teachers to provide 

student data to providers to aid in the development 

of individual student learning plans. In Forsyth, SES 

tutors were encouraged to contact teachers, who had 

ready access to recent achievement data through the 

district’s TestTrax system. Several teachers reported a 

desire to have even more contact with tutors in the 

future. Providers note that this cooperation helps them 

set targeted goals with parents and students.

These efforts are critical in supporting the work of providers and enlisting schools in implementing SES. Initially, they allow districts and schools to build stronger 

relationships with providers, but they also assist with 

fully integrating SES into the district’s improvement 

strategy and with monitoring providers’ impact on student achievement. Most importantly, they allow for the 
20

transfer of information that helps everyone do their 

best in helping students learn.

EXPAND THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF PROVIDERS

Having a broad range of providers can increase the 

opportunity for parents to find the best possible fit 

for their children, as well as ensure that all interested

FIGURE 7. Resources to Help Community Organizations Become SES Providers

Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/fbci/index.html

In an effort to provide technical assistance to faith-based and community organizations, the Office of Innovation and 

Improvement and the Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives in the U.S. Department of Education have 

produced a Webcast that is intended to help faith-based and community organizations apply to become approved 

providers of supplemental services. 

The Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives has also developed a user-friendly toolkit for organizations 

interested in applying to become supplemental services providers, available on the Web. They host free workshops 

around the country to assist faith-based and community organizations in applying to become approved providers of 

supplemental services.

The Finance Project’s Out-of-School Time Project

http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/OST

The Finance Project is a nonprofit policy, research, technical assistance, and information organization focused on 

enduring positive results for children, families, and communities. Through its out-of-school-time project, it develops 

information and technical assistance resources to assist state and community leaders in creating short- and long-term 

financing strategies to support effective out-of-school time and community school initiatives; and provides targeted 

support and assistance to national and regional out-of-school time and community school initiatives. 

Title I Supplemental Educational Services and Afterschool Programs: Opportunities and Challenges (August 2002), 

a Finance Project strategy brief, is designed to help administrators for after-school programs, such as 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers, understand what supplemental services are, consider the programmatic and administrative implications of becoming a provider, and identify the steps that they need to take to do so successfully.

parents can be served. To this end, districts can build 

on their existing partnerships and contacts in the community, encouraging more organizations to apply to 

the state as SES providers. Districts should consider approaching nontraditional providers, which may include 

county agencies, colleges and universities, and community- and faith-based organizations. In San Diego, 
21

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

SUMMARY FOR Build Relationships with Providers

First Steps Going Deeper

• Find out about providers who will serve your district.

• Work out provider access to facilities.

• Use a contract that sets clear expectations.

• Increase communication and coordination between providers 

and schools.

• Expand the number and type of providers in the district.

a nearby university had been piloting an extended 

learning program in three district schools. Pleased with 

the partnership, the district proposed that the university apply to become an SES provider, which it did. 

San Diego also worked out a partnership with a local 

nonprofit that was already transporting district students to its own after-school program. Under the new 

partnership, the organization agreed to let SES providers use its facilities so eligible students in the afterschool program could receive SES tutoring on-site. See 

figure 7 for resources to help community organizations 

become SES providers. (See, also, later discussions of 

working with community groups to get the word out.)

Some districts may find themselves with relatively 

few SES providers willing to work with their students, 

compared to the number of state-approved providers 

identified as serving the district’s geographic region. 

In such instances, the district may want to explore the 

underlying reasons by interviewing or surveying providers. If providers identify certain district policies or 

practices as problematic, the district can review them 

and determine whether they are important to keep 

as is or could be reasonably modified with the aim of 

developing a broader pool of SES providers from which 

local parents can choose. 

Districts with isolated rural schools may face the greatest challenge in ensuring that parents of SES-eligible 

children have diverse providers from which to choose. 

If the time required to travel to a school is long and the 

number of students seeking SES services is relatively 

small, providers may decide it is not worth their while 

to offer services at the school even if they were given 

space. Distance learning programs are often mentioned 

as an option in these circumstances, although such 

programs require an adequate technology infrastructure and the ability to assign personnel to supply onsite support for students during their SES sessions. If a 

district lacks these, it may want to consider partnering 

with the closest education services agency (ESA), known 

in different states as county offices of education, direct 

service districts, or boards of cooperative educational 

services. Some ESAs may already have the required 

technology and staff to support online learning. ESAs 

may also be well-positioned to become SES providers 

themselves, especially if they could serve students from 

multiple schools or from more than one district. 
22
23

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Parents are their child’s first and most important teachers, and they have a vital interest in their child’s educational progress. Some are able to hire a tutor when 

their child is falling behind or struggling. Prior to NCLB, 

low-income parents rarely had this option. Now these 

parents have the opportunity to select tutorial help for 

their child.

To do so, they need information: What services are available? Who will provide the services? How do I enroll my 

child? Districts are responsible for anticipating and answering these and other questions about SES. To help 

parents make an informed choice, they must convey the 

information clearly and fully. Although written communication with parents needs to meet legal requirements, 

the language should also be readily accessible to a range 

of parents with differing education and language backgrounds themselves. Any communication should present 

a straightforward and encouraging perspective about 

NCLB supplemental educational services.

First Steps

COMMUNICATE OPTIONS CLEARLY

To select a provider, parents must first understand the 

opportunity provided under the SES provisions. Although written communication alone rarely suffices, 

sending a letter to parents letting them know about 

their child’s eligibility for SES services is an important 

first step. San Diego mailed a letter home to the parents of every SES-eligible student. The straightforward 

letter contains seven basic components, which should 

be included in any SES parent-notification letter: 

›› clarification of NCLB supplemental educational 

services,

›› explanation of how students become eligible for 

them,

›› notice that the services are free,

›› where to return an accompanying application, 

›› the district’s timeline for enrolling, 

Reach Out to 

Inform Parents

Parental choice is the core of NCLB’s supplemental educational services provision. The right to choose 

among educational supports for their child offers parents a powerful voice and directly involves them 

in some of the most important experiences in their child’s life. Informing parents of their SES options 

starts that process. Ensuring that parents understand the options and can act on them is essential to 

fulfilling the intent of NCLB. 
24

FIGURE 8. San Diego Enrollment Form*

* An additional SES provider has since signed on to serve San Diego students.
25

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

›› the district’s process for notifying parents about 

enrollment dates and start dates, and

›› who to call with questions.

Either in the letter itself or in an accompanying publication, the district must include information about the 

providers that are offering services in the district and 

how to contact them. Because the services are free to 

eligible students, parents need not know the costs. But 

in choosing a provider, they will need to weigh costrelated information, such as how many sessions their 

child could have with each provider, how many hours 

per session, and how many other children will be taught 

at the same time. The district should include this kind 

of information in its communication to parents. 

Along with its letter, San Diego sent a list of SES providers and a parent application form that offers brief 

descriptions of each service provider. Using the application enables a parent to enroll his or her child and 

select a provider in one step (see figure 8).

Los Angeles also mailed a basic informational letter 

home to the parents of SES-eligible students. With the 

letter was enclosed a provider selection brochure giving parents very clear, comparable information about 

each of the 26 providers that offer services in Los Angeles. The district wanted to give parents fair and parallel information about providers, whether they were a 

large corporation or a small community- or faith-based 

organization. For that reason, each provider was allocated one page in the brochure and was given specific 

guidelines and template instructions for describing its 

program: In developing its description, the provider 

was asked to address ten questions about its services 

and to include contact information. (Figure 9 identifies 

FIGURE 9. Questions for Providers*

 1. What programs at which grade levels are available for my child?

 2. Along with my child, how many students will be served per session?

 3. When and where will the services be provided for my child?

 4. How often and for how many hours in total will you provide services for my child?

 5. What kind of experience do you have in providing services?

 6. What are the qualifications of your staff?

 7. What evidence do you have of your demonstrated effectiveness?

 8. Is there transportation available? 

 9. Is your staff trained in how to serve special education students effectively?

 10. Is your staff trained in how to serve English learners effectively?

 11. Is there access for students with disabilities?

* Adapted from Los Angeles’ questions for providers.
26

key provider information parents need in order to make 

a good SES choice for their child.) The brochure included fall and spring deadlines, a notice that the brochure 

was available in five languages in addition to English 

and Spanish, and an “official request form” that parents were encouraged to use to select a provider and to 

sign up an eligible child for services. A self-addressed 

envelope was included so parents could just drop the 

application in a mailbox. By making the return process 

easy and uncomplicated, Los Angeles hoped to persuade parents to take advantage of this new opportunity for their children. Los Angeles also sent reminder 

mailings designed to be eye-catching, such as the flyer 

in figure 10, which announces information available at 

the school site. The district’s Web site includes, in both 

English and Spanish, background information on SES 

along with all provider descriptions from the brochure.

All of the districts in the study found that getting basic 

information to all parents of SES-eligible students was 

a challenge. Having accurate and up-to-date addresses 

in the district’s student database is essential to avoid 

wasting time and postage. 

ENLIST SCHOOLS IN A CAMPAIGN TO REACH PARENTS

Generally speaking, parents’ most trusted connections 

to their school district are at their child’s school, with 

the principal or classroom teachers. As required by 

NCLB provisions, Toledo initially sent a letter to parents 

of SES-eligible students informing them of the law and 

encouraging them to request supplemental services for 

their children. But low response to this mailing caused 

Toledo’s Title I leaders to consider that the district might 

have more success getting parents’ attention by engaging schools in a collaborative effort to get the SES message out. Anticipating an 80 percent turnout for the 

November 2003 parent-teacher conferences—a number 

consistent with the district’s past attendance patterns—

Toledo’s NCLB facilitator identified the conferences as 

a key opportunity to reach parents of SES-eligible students. She met with principals and teachers during regular staff meetings to lay out the plan: The district’s NCLB 

staff would prepare classroom packets that included an 

individually addressed letter and a provider-description 

brochure for parents of SES-eligible students. Classroom 

teachers would hand these packets to parents during 

the conferences, explain the opportunity, and encourage them to request services for their children. Successful implementation of that plan proved a turning point 

for Toledo’s SES participation. 

Toledo’s Title I leaders also kept schools informed about 

the numbers of their students enrolled in SES and 

urged teachers to contact parents of students not yet 

enrolled. The focused and consistent message to school 

staffs began to persuade them of the importance of 

SES in their overall school improvement efforts. Even 

principals and teachers who might initially have been 

skeptical about the value of SES came to embrace it as 

an essential opportunity for all of their eligible students. 

That enthusiasm revealed itself as they communicated 

with parents about taking advantage of the opportunity. Involving the principals and teachers at targeted 

schools in this team effort has resulted in many more 

children receiving the extra academic support that is 

rightfully theirs (see figure 11). 

In Los Angeles, a similar campaign was initiated after an extensive mailing to parents yielded disheartening returns. Acknowledging that mail from “the 

district” might not grab parents’ attention, district 

leaders held strategy meetings with principals and 
27

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

FIGURE 10. Los Angeles Flyer 
28

FIGURE 11. Toledo School Site Instructions
29

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Title I coordinators from the 104 identified “program 

improvement” schools. Together, they undertook an 

information campaign to get parents’ attention and 

encourage them to return the request form in the 

booklet they had received. In addition, staff prepared 

SES supply boxes for each school. The boxes contained 

extra provider selection booklets in English, Spanish, 

and five other languages; mailing labels for all eligible 

students; a CD listing all of the eligible students; and 

informational flyers in multiple languages to be sent 

home with eligible students. Schools became local information centers and principals and teachers communicated with parents about SES opportunities by 

holding parent meetings, greeting parents when they 

brought their children to school or picked them up, and 

by calling eligible parents to urge them to enroll their 

children in supplemental services.

Going Deeper

EXPAND COMMUNICATION CHANNELS

The districts in this study have discovered through 

many attempts that merely notifying parents by letter, 

as called for in NCLB guidelines, is insufficient. Because 

of the low return from their initial mail campaigns, every district in the study started seeking other methods 

and media to let parents know about SES opportunities. 

As noted above, connecting with parents through their 

children’s schools is a practical strategy for informing 

them of their options. The broader school community 

offers other possibilities to connect with parents and 

let them know about their SES options. Parents can 

communicate the information through their informal 

networks—for example, as one mother tells another 

and she, in turn, tells yet another, the news spreads 

throughout the community. Natural gathering places 

like community centers, churches, health centers, and 

commercial shopping centers also lend themselves to 

serving as information and recruiting locations.

Other marketing strategies that districts have used 

include:

›› articles and ads in local newspapers, especially in 

neighborhood and ethnic publications;

›› press releases and news conferences;

›› public service announcements on radio and 

television;

›› flyers and posters (see figure 10, for example);

›› interviews on radio and television;

›› refrigerator magnets; and

›› postcard reminders.

When effectively deployed, these strategies successfully accomplish six important communication goals:

1. get parents’ attention;

2. inform them about their SES options;

3. help them understand how to access their options;

4. motivate parents to take action to exercise their 

options;

5. encourage them to follow and communicate 

about their children’s progress; and

6. influence them to provide evaluative feedback 

regarding the impact and quality of the services 

their children receive.

INCREASE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN GETTING THE 

WORD OUT

Using the natural informal communication networks of 

a community may be one of the most effective ways 

of getting information to parents about the NCLB 
30

supplemental educational services available to their 

children. With many people, word-of-mouth recommendations from credible people seem to be an effective way to sell an idea or a service. 

For example, with the help of its very active Title I District Advisory Council, Rochester began to get the word 

out about SES opportunities through its existing parent information networks. Parents whose children were 

receiving NCLB supplemental educational services were 

asked to “spread the word” to other parents about the 

opportunities available. Parent liaisons at SES-eligible 

schools began calling parents and encouraging them 

to sign their children up for SES. The parents’ marketing 

strategy worked: Many more eligible students began 

working with tutors and other providers.

The Rochester parents also suggested taking advantage 

of the district’s popular regional parent outreach centers 

by using them as information and enrollment centers 

for SES. Having information about providers and enrollment forms available in these parent-friendly environments was another successful strategy for attracting 

and informing parents about the services their children 

were eligible to receive. Similarly, Forsyth’s Transition 

Center has been successful in overcoming cultural and 

language barriers and has had similar results recruiting 

parents to select providers and enroll their children in 

supplemental services. 

Working with respected community leaders and community- and faith-based organizations is another approach 

that several districts have used to encourage parents to 

take advantage of their new options. Community leaders and local grassroots organizations have well-established avenues into their communities and can generate 

a sense of urgency and importance about SES. Stressing 

the importance of parental choice as a newly available 

right for parents, community leaders can also emphasize 

parents’ responsibility to use their opportunity to assist 

their children’s academic progress. 

Districts can also partner with any of a number of other 

organizations focused on improving education opportunities for children, in part, by getting relevant information to parents. To find out about specific organizations 

of this ilk, including each state’s Parent Information 

Resource Center, the Black Alliance for Educational Options, the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational 

Options, and the National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education, see appendix C: Resources. 

SUMMARY FOR Reach Out to Inform Parents

First Steps Going Deeper

• Communicate options clearly.

• Enlist schools in a campaign to reach parents.

• Expand communication channels.

• Increase community involvement in getting the word out.
31

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Where the rubber meets the road is in providing academic instruction that boosts student achievement. 

SES service providers have met state requirements that include evidence of effectiveness. But how does 

that translate into instruction tailored to each student’s specific needs that will complement and extend 

classroom instruction and contribute to reaching standards on state assessments? 

Set Clear Goals and 

Track Progress

NCLB regulations give states the responsibility of ensuring that SES services are high quality and effective in 

raising students’ academic achievement. Each state must 

identify methods of measuring each provider’s impact 

on students’ academic learning, and it may enlist the 

assistance of local districts to collect data and supply 

input. Many states are just now gearing up to meet this 

requirement, which will inform decisions about which 

providers remain on the list. Although states must take 

the initiative to evaluate providers, they may solicit 

districts to collect student participation data, feedback 

from parents, and other information from district contracts with providers. According to the U.S. Department 

of Education’s non-regulatory guidance on SES, “The 

State may want to request assistance from its LEAs or 

may want to handle this monitoring [of continued effectiveness by the provider] at the State level.”7

Although each state has chief responsibility for ensuring 

that its SES-eligible students overall receive high quality, effective SES services, the law has embedded certain 

mechanisms at the local level that are also intended to 

help ensure the success of SES services for individual 

students. Most important are its requirements for individual student learning plans, for services to be aligned 

with state standards and consistent with district curriculum and instruction, and for progress reports. It falls 

to the district to make sure these elements are in place.

First Steps

USE DETAILED AND SPECIFIC STUDENT LEARNING PLAN 

FORMS 

According to NCLB’s SES provisions, a district’s contract 

with a provider must require detailed achievement goals 

for the individual student, a timeline for meeting the 

goals, a method to measure student improvement, and a 

schedule for informing parents and teachers about student progress. The provider must develop student goals 

in concert with parents. To streamline the communication and contracting process, many districts have created 

a learning plan template as an independent, yet integral, 

part of their contract with providers; this ensures that 

learning plans, although tailored to the needs of each 

student, are also consistent across providers and students 

in what they address. Districts have discretion over how 
32

these plans are formatted and what, if any, additional 

content will be included, resulting in a range of templates and a variety of data being collected across districts. But by and large, the templates ensure two things: 

that unique goals are established for each student and 

that providers indicate the evaluation tools they will use 

to document student improvement.

In Los Angeles, the student learning plan calls for providers to work with parents to identify achievement goals, 

services a student will receive based on those goals, and 

the measurement and assessment tools to be used to 

track progress. Such tools may include a pre- and posttest, a daily written or oral diagnostic, or other assessment measures determined or developed by the provider. See figure 12 for an example of a student learning 

plan that has been completed. The goals are generally 

drawn from the provider’s understanding of the state 

standards that are applicable to each student’s needs.

Rochester has created a slightly different Supplemental 

Education Plan template for providers to use in developing a learning plan for each client. Providers do not 

simply select a set of mathematics or reading goals 

from a list of state or district standards. Instead, they 

select an area of service (e.g., English language arts, 

mathematics, IEP, 504, or LEP) and then, in consultation with parents, determine the unique skills to target 

for each student. Providers also indicate how student 

progress on these skills will be measured and how often 

parents will receive reports on student achievement as 

required in the SES provisions. 

SHARE DATA AND SET STUDENT GOALS ALIGNED WITH THE 

DISTRICT’S INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM

An important step in developing student learning plans 

is ensuring that, as required in the law, SES services are 

consistent with the district’s curriculum and instruction 

and are aligned with the state’s academic standards. In 

approving providers, states must first ensure that a provider’s services are “consistent with the instructional program of the LEA [local education agency] and with State 

academic content and achievement standards.”8

 This does 

not mean, however, that there is only one acceptable service approach. Far from it: SES tutoring might amplify 

and reinforce the student’s classroom instruction, giving more practice and perhaps a different explanation 

or perspective; or, a student might have a weakness in 

some very specific skill areas and need concentrated 

practice in those areas. Whichever strategy is pursued, it 

should be deliberate and informed by a thorough understanding of the standards the student needs to master 

and by as much diagnostic information as possible, with 

input from parents and classroom teachers. 

To facilitate development of the student learning plan 

and help ensure that it addresses the student’s individual needs, districts may need to seek parent permission 

to share student data with the SES provider. In addition 

to sharing assessment data, they may also try to link 

the provider to the classroom teacher so that the classroom teacher can share additional information—again, 

with parent permission. Close coordination at this level 

also helps ensure that SES complements, rather than 

duplicates or conflicts with, district efforts. Once students are receiving services, districts can encourage 

continued communication between teachers and SES 

tutors about student progress. Such efforts are critical 

in supporting the work both of providers and classroom 

teachers. Not incidentally, they also help build greater 

school-level commitment to the SES program.

In Forsyth, data-driven decision-making is a key component of the district’s long-term strategic planning, 
33

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

FIGURE 12. Los Angeles Unified School District Student Learning Plan (Sample)
34

of schools’ day-to-day operations, and of teachers’ 

instructional planning. So, not surprisingly, Forsyth 

has encouraged its SES provider to contact students’ 

classroom teachers and solicit additional achievement 

data beyond what the district supplied. The provider 

developed a Teacher-Tutor Data Collection Sheet (see 

figure 13) that was used to determine students’ initial 

skill set and to provide feedback to teachers and the 

district about student progress. After obtaining parent permission, provider staff would contact students’ 

regular classroom teachers and request input on student performance in reading, writing, and mathematics. Tutors also had an opportunity to provide their own 

input on the same indicators after meeting with and 

assessing students. This sheet also included the results 

of the diagnostic test conducted by the provider, who 

used the data to develop student learning plans and 

report to the district on students’ progress in the program. Teachers also had access to this data to inform 

their work with students. By creating a feedback loop 

between teachers and tutors, Forsyth is able to ensure 

instructional goals are being met. 

In several of the districts studied, the state department 

of education required them to maintain a learning plan 

for all students at risk of not meeting state grade-level 

standards. In addition, the districts’ own strategic goals 

called for a learning plan for such students. To avoid 

piling one learning plan on top of another, the districts 

are trying to devise their own systems to coordinate 

the information in all of the learning plans.

San Diego and Rochester are ahead of the curve here 

because they have chosen to use previously required 

student progress plans as a base for the SES plan. Under Rochester’s Academic Intervention Services (AIS)

system, mentioned earlier, instructors are required 

to monitor and document student progress on state 

learning standards in an AIS plan. Because the indicators on the AIS progress report are identical to those 

that need to be measured in a Supplemental Education Plan, the AIS report now serves double duty as the 

basis of the district’s Supplemental Education Plan. In 

San Diego, the Learning Contract is a key component of 

the district’s Blueprint for Student Success. A Learning 

Contract must be developed for every student at risk of 

not meeting grade-level standards in reading or math. 

Because SES is one of many interventions supporting 

students at academic risk, San Diego has made students’ SES plan a component of their learning contract 

rather than a separate stand-alone document.

San Diego and Rochester, along with Los Angeles, 

are also in the process of modifying their student achievement data systems to coordinate each 

student’s learning plan information into a coherent 

record that will be a meaningful and useful guide to 

academic intervention.

MONITOR ATTENDANCE

Day-to-day tracking efforts, like reviewing student attendance, can enable districts to get an early handle 

on the benefit a student receives from SES. A student’s 

attendance record suggests whether he or she is responding to an SES program. Using attendance as a 

metric encourages providers to maintain communication and positive relationships with parents, ensuring 

students’ consistent participation. It can give an early 

warning of the need for extra attention. 

Los Angeles is one of several districts that track student 

attendance as a measure of SES program effectiveness. 
35

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

FIGURE 13. Forsyth Teacher-Tutor Data Collection Sheet (page 2 of 3)
36

Rather than using separate forms to collect the data, 

Los Angeles asks that providers include the information 

as part of the invoice they submit for payment. 

Forsyth has also found an efficient way to monitor student attendance in SES: SES tutors report attendance 

on the Teacher-Tutor Data Collection Sheet. Making attendance reporting a natural part of the work providers 

do with students—as opposed to requiring a separate 

report—can make the process easier for both the district and SES providers.

SET UP AND USE REGULAR PROGRESS REPORTS TO PARENTS 

AND TEACHERS

Providers must be accountable to parents by giving 

them regular reports on student progress. As required 

by NCLB, classroom teachers must also receive progress reports to help ensure that “students are improving their academic achievement and that instructional 

goals are being met.”9

 Each district in this group has 

progress reporting in place, with slightly different features and timelines.

To facilitate the billing and reporting components of its 

provider contract, Los Angeles requires all providers to 

send progress reports to a student’s parents and teachers after every 15 hours of service. Providers can report 

more frequently if they choose to or if parents request 

it. But this length of time gives providers a chance to 

work with students to meet initial goals and gives parents a chance to revise learning goals after talking with 

teachers or reflecting on student progress.

Forsyth’s contract calls for providers to supply parents 

and teachers with the results of pre- and post-testing, as well as biweekly progress reports (see figure 

14). In addition, the district’s provider—a one-on-one, 

in-home tutoring service—boasts that its tutors meet 

with parents at the end of each tutoring session to discuss the work they did and homework expectations for 

students. This provider encourages parents to monitor 

students’ work and even to replicate some of the teaching behaviors used by tutors. All of this is intended to 

make sure students receive the greatest benefit from 

the SES program. 

Going Deeper

EVALUATE STUDENT PROGRESS ON DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS

Many districts are in the midst of strengthening their 

assessment systems and database capacity so that data 

on student performance and other measures can be 

better used to guide decisions. Benchmark assessments 

throughout the school year, perhaps paced by units in 

the curriculum, are increasingly common. These assessment tools can be used to judge the contribution of 

different instructional programs, including SES.

In 2003, Rochester was in conversation with Tungsten 

Learning—a division of Edison Schools—and Scantron 

to contract to use their systems, which provide benchmark assessments aligned with state standards. The 

Tungsten system assesses students monthly, while 

Scantron would do so every nine weeks. District leadership approved a pilot of both programs at various grade 

levels in a limited number of schools. Rochester intends 

to use one of these systems to measure provider impact on student achievement over the next few years. 

Most providers are already using their own pre- and 

post-test assessments to evaluate student progress; 

however, lacking early evaluation data from the state, 

the district is trying to establish a way to supply parents with objective information that can be compared 

across providers. 
37

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

FIGURE 14. Forsyth Biweekly SES Progress Report
38

FIGURE 15. Rochester Parent Survey
39

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

SURVEY PARENTS

Parents are a key source of information to evaluate SES. 

Some districts have begun surveying parents about 

their experiences with SES providers. Like student attendance, the degree of parent satisfaction with a 

provider is an important early indicator of effectiveness. Los Angeles and Toledo use parent comments and 

evaluations as a means of determining a provider’s effectiveness. Parents’ satisfaction with the progress their 

children are making as a result of the services they are 

receiving is a fundamental indicator of how well providers are serving students’ needs.

The staff overseeing Rochester’s SES implementation 

are committed to finding meaningful ways of evaluating both SES providers and district SES implementation. 

The district conducted a survey of parents whose children received supplemental services during 2002–03. 

This survey asked parents to rate both the provider and 

the district’s NCLB Office (see figure 15). Staff have discussed reporting the results as part of the letter or brochure to parents of eligible students. At the very least, 

the district will use parent feedback in reviewing its SES 

policies and compare results over the duration of SES 

implementation as part of its evaluation efforts.

REFLECT ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADJUST EFFORTS BASED 

ON FORMATIVE FEEDBACK

Evaluating SES is not just about student performance. 

It’s also about districts themselves learning how best to 

implement the program. Many of the previous sections 

of this guide highlighted practices that emerged when 

districts were trying to improve upon initial practice. 

Ongoing reflection informed by a range of indicators is 

the hallmark of a learning organization.

In Toledo, for example, when the early mailing to 

parents failed to generate much response, staff considered this feedback and quickly changed tack. They 

switched from a largely central office outreach effort 

to site-based outreach, recruiting parents and teachers 

at participating schools to make phone calls to other 

parents of SES-eligible students. The district also conducted outreach during parent-teacher conferences, 

parent meetings, and other school-based events. This 

kind of responsiveness resulted in both a higher yield of 

eligible student participants and a school community 

more actively engaged around implementing SES. 

SUMMARY FOR Set Clear Goals and Track Progress

First Steps Going Deeper

• Use detailed and specific student learning plan forms. 

• Share data and set student goals aligned with the district’s 

instructional program.

• Monitor attendance.

• Set up and use regular progress reports to inform teachers 

and parents.

• Evaluate student progress on district assessments.

• Survey parents.

• Reflect on implementation and adjust efforts based on 

formative feedback.
40
41

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Considerations 

for States

State departments of education have been given an essential role in establishing effective supplemental educational services under No Child Left Behind. Chief among their responsibilities are soliciting, screening, and 

approving a broad array of SES providers and implementing a system for then monitoring the quality and effectiveness of the services offered by those providers. In addition to these direct responsibilities, state departments 

have an implied duty to support districts striving to meet both the letter and the spirit of SES provisions. 

Meet District Data Needs

States need to provide districts accurate and timely data 

on school eligibility and on which providers have met 

state requirements to supply SES services to students.

PROVIDE SCHOOL AND STUDENT DATA

Although schools can anticipate certain aspects of their 

improvement status (e.g., once they have missed AYP 

two years running and have had to offer school choice, 

they may need to offer SES the following year), they rely 

on states for ongoing information about their improvement status. States should release provisional improvement lists as soon as possible following administration 

of the state assessment, minimally before the beginning 

of the next school year. They should also expedite their 

appeals process. 

SUPPLY APPROVED PROVIDER LISTS

To grow their provider list, states may want to maintain 

a rolling provider-application deadline, while keeping 

in mind districts’ need to inform parents of their SES 

choices in a timely fashion. States are required to give 

school districts updated lists of approved providers in 

their “general geographic locations.” To be as helpful 

as possible to districts whose job it is to inform parents 

about their SES choices, states should also consider soliciting and sharing additional provider information. In 

addition to more specificity about where providers are 

willing or able to work (e.g., statewide, only in certain 

regions or cities), state agencies may also share more 

detail about each provider’s evidence of effectiveness 

and type of service offered (e.g., one-on-one tutoring, 

small group instruction, any content specialties, grade 

level served, any set locations of service, ability to serve 

special populations). Most states maintain a Web site 

with up-to-date provider information. 

States should also consider ways to attract a diverse pool 

of providers to serve their SES-eligible students. By reaching out to entities across the state, including faith- and 

community-based organizations, charter and private 
42

schools, universities, and others, states can better ensure 

a large and diverse pool of providers. In the same vein, 

states may want to consider holding technical assistance 

workshops to help potential providers apply. 

Monitor Districts’ SES Implementation

States should consider how they will monitor district 

implementation of SES. At a minimum, they should include SES as part of their overall Title I monitoring plan. 

Additionally, to support effective SES programs, states 

might consider offering their LEAs a model provider 

contract and a model letter to parents. States should 

also be prepared to address any SES implementation 

concerns brought to their attention by parents, community groups, providers, or others with interest in ensuring 

successful SES programs. 

Move Forward on Provider Evaluation Efforts

Under NCLB, state educational agencies are responsible 

for monitoring the quality and effectiveness of SES providers and should move quickly to initiate the process 

if they have not already done so. In developing their 

evaluation systems and indicators, states may want to 

survey local districts, many of which have already begun collecting data on provider effects by such means 

as monitoring individual student learning plans, surveying parents, and administering uniform benchmark assessments. To strengthen their provider monitoring and 

evaluation efforts, states may also want to enlist one of 

their universities as a partner or collaborate with neighboring states. One state requires all providers to assess 

their students using a pre-test and a post-test. Although 

providers can choose their own assessment tool, they 

must document how the assessment is aligned to the 

state standards. This same state has developed and is 

about to implement a statewide, Web-based SES student 

tracking and reporting system through which providers

can record student enrollment, attendance, and progress. As incentive for providers to use the system, it also 

includes an invoicing function for providers. Once the 

system is integrated into the state’s overall student data 

system, the SEA will be able to look at student progress 

in supplemental services in the context of other information about students’ overall school experience and 

achievement. In conjunction with this electronic system, 

however, the state intends to continue face-to-face provider reviews to make sure services reflect what the SES 

provider has committed to providing.

Outreach to Parents

States may want to begin outreach campaigns to let parents 

know about SES and their child’s eligibility. State-level outreach might include conferences, public service announcements, printed materials, and other communication. 

Collaborate With Other States 

As noted above, states can profit from working with one 

another or informing each other on any number of SESrelated issues, such as discussing how to refine their provider screening processes or identifying longitudinal measures of student progress under SES. Inter-state sharing 

of information could be an important first step in finding 

efficient solutions that build on others’ lessons learned. 

Encourage District Collaboration

Similarly, states should encourage cross-district collaboration and sharing of SES experiences and strategies. 

Neighboring districts or districts with similar demographics often face common challenges (e.g., rural districts 

may face similar transportation issues or have difficulty 

attracting any service providers) and could benefit from 

hearing each other’s strategies or, in some instances, 

from approaching common problems collaboratively.
43

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Forsyth County Schools

1120 Dahlonega Highway

Cumming, GA 30040

http://www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/

Paula Gault

Superintendent

Melinda Ness

Special Programs Coordinator

Los Angeles Unified School 

District

333 South Beaudry Avenue, 

24th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017

http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/

Roy Romer

Superintendent

John Leichty

Associate Superintendent

Becki Robinson

Program Specialist, 

Extended Learning

Rochester City School District

131 West Broad Street

Rochester, NY 14614

http://www.rcsdk12.org/

Manuel Rivera

Superintendent

Terry Hofer

Director, Grant and Program 

Accountability

San Diego City Schools

Eugene Brucker Education Center

4100 Normal Street

San Diego, CA 92103

http://www.sdcs.k12.ca.us/

Alan Bersin

Superintendent

Christiane McPhee

Extended Learning Programs

Toledo Public Schools

420 East Manhattan Boulevard

Toledo, OH 43608

http://www.tps.org/

Eugene Sanders

Superintendent

Lu Lane

Compensatory Programs Director

Cindy Kline

NCLB Facilitator

WestEd

730 Harrison Street

San Francisco, CA 94107

http://www.wested.org/

Glen Harvey

Chief Executive Officer

Nikola Filby

Associate Director, 

Regional Laboratory Program

Edvance

123 Post Oak Lane, Floor 3

Houston, TX 77024

http://www.edvance.org/

C. Jackson Grayson Jr.

Chief Executive Officer 

Kristin Arnold

Project Director

Acknowledgments

The development of this guide was initiated and directed by Nina 

S. Rees, Deputy Under Secretary of the Office of Innovation and 

Improvement at the U.S. Department of Education. Sharon Horn 

was the project manager. 

An external advisory panel provided feedback to refine the study 

scope and prioritize issues to investigate, as well as reviewed and 

provided feedback on drafts of the guide. The panel consisted of 

Mike Casserly, Executive Director, Council of Great City Schools; Jeffrey Cohen, President, Sylvan Education Solutions; Steve Fleischman, 

Principal Research Scientist, American Institutes for Research; Jane 

Hannaway, Director, Education Policy Center, The Urban Institute; 

Laura Hensinger, Colorado Department of Education; Frederick M. 

Hess, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; and Lana 

Watkins, NCLB Coordinator, Philadelphia Office, Black Alliance for 

Educational Options. Drafts of the guide were also reviewed by district staff of the five districts included in the underlying study and 

by a sample of SES providers working in those districts.

Staff in the Department who reviewed drafts include: Tom Corwin, 

Michael Petrilli, Cynthia Dorfman, Stacy Kotzin, Meredith Miller, 

Christie Wolfe, Phil Rosenfelt, Susan Wilhelm, Fran Walter, John 

Gibbons, Jeff Sims, and Margaret West Guenther.

This guide was written, designed, and based on a report by WestEd. 

WestEd is a nonprofit research, development, and service agency 

committed to improving learning at all stages of life, both in school 

and out. WestEd has offices across the United States and also serves 

as one of the nation’s ten regional educational laboratories.

WestEd’s partner in developing this series of research reports and 

innovation guides is Edvance. Created by the American Productivity and Quality Center, Edvance is a resource for process and performance improvement with a focus on benchmarking, knowledge 

management, performance measurement, and quality improvement initiatives in education.

The five districts cooperating in the development of this guide 

and the report from which it is drawn were generous with both 

their time and attention to this project. We would like to thank 

the district superintendents and the many district staff members 

who were instrumental in coordinating and participating in the site 

visits that inform the report and this guide. 
44
45

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Appendix A: 

District Profiles

Forsyth County Schools 47

 Los Angeles Unified School District 49

Rochester City School District 51

San Diego City Schools 53

Toledo Public Schools 55 
46
47

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Forsyth County Schools, Georgia

District Demographics 2003–04

Enrollment Enrollment Trend Number of Schools Population Type Subsidized Meals English Learners Special Needs

22,048 Increasing 23 Suburban/Rural 12% 5% 12%

of participating students. It was this broad recognition 

of the value of additional instruction and time on task 

that lead Forsyth to see SES as a benefit. And because 

district leaders and staff saw SES as a benefit, they set 

a positive tone for implementation. 

Forsyth initially had two schools whose improvement 

status triggered SES. Early on, Forsyth realized that its 

success in getting eligible students at these schools 

connected to SES was contingent upon parent trust. 

Although the district sent letters notifying eligible 

parents about SES, it also recognized that, for many 

parents, their most important connections to the education system are their relationships at the school level, 

with classroom teachers and principals. Thus, Forsyth 

has encouraged and supported school-level outreach. 

The district also reaches out to new parents through 

its recently established Transition Center, which provides assistance on such things as student registration, 

placement testing, and, not least, signing up for SES. 

Because many new district families are Hispanic, the 

district sought out as Center coordinator a particular 

bilingual teacher-on-assignment who has extensive 

credibility in the community. Parents can thus receive 

information from someone who speaks their native 

language and who is well known and well respected. 

This targeted outreach has proved effective: 99 percent 

of SES students in 2002–03 were classified as “English 

as a Second Language” students.

The district was approached by four service providers but two dropped out early on: one determined 

To say that this Georgia district has been growing is 

putting it mildly. In 1991, Forsyth County Schools’ enrollment stood at 8,000. Today, a dozen years later, the 

district serves over 22,000 in 23 schools, and its student 

population is expected to grow to 34,000 within the 

next five years. District leaders have been aggressive 

in developing the infrastructure necessary to respond 

to Forsyth’s dramatic growth. One important strategy 

was a decision in 1996 to join the Center for Leadership and School Reform’s Standard Bearer Network, 

under the direction of noted reformer Philip Schlechty. 

Through its participation in this 10-district pilot effort, 

Forsyth has had access to collaboration and resources 

otherwise more difficult to find. With the help of this 

network, the district has been increasing its use of 

data-driven decision-making and reliance on research 

to guide strategic planning and practice. 

Research about how best to support students who 

have fallen behind academically has informed Forsyth’s 

implementation of extended learning opportunities 

(ELOs). Its Early Intervention Program (EIP) provides 

supplemental instruction during the school day to K–5 

students (irrespective of Title I status) who have scored 

below standard on the state’s criterion-referenced 

competency test. Its Extended-Day Program provides 

after-school instruction for students performing below 

grade level on state reading and mathematics assessments, with priority given to EIP and Title I students. All 

involved—district leaders and staff, teachers, and parents—view these programs as essential to the success 
48

that the distict’s per-child allocation was insufficient 

to cover its costs and the other, a community-based 

organization, concluded that it did not have adequate 

internal resources to carry out the services. The two that 

remained were different franchises of the same parent 

company. When that parent company declared that 

Forsyth County was in the service territory of only one 

franchisee, the district was left with that one provider. 

Although district staff have consistently made themselves available to organizations considering becoming SES providers in Forsyth County, to date no other 

providers have signed on. Although the district had no 

say in the provider selection, it saw the potential of 

partnering with its one provider to assist the district’s 

neediest students, and it looked for ways to collaborate 

to gain even greater pay-off. One strategy for leveraging the SES was to facilitate the ongoing exchange of 

data between a student’s tutor and classroom teacher.

Forsyth’s SES tutors use lesson plans available on the 

Georgia Department of Education Web site to ensure 

instruction is aligned both to state standards and to 

classroom learning. Additionally, instructors supplement 

their lessons by assisting students with homework assigned by classroom teachers. In this way, the program 

targets students’ distinct abilities and needs. The program also uses an in-depth assessment to measure 

starting points and monitor progress. The results of this 

diagnostic, along with biweekly progress reports, are 

provided to parents and teachers. 

Forsyth has instituted a continuous feedback loop to 

support the efforts of both classroom teacher and tutor. Teachers are encouraged to work with tutors and 

parents to develop the required student learning plans 

and to review the results of the provider’s pre- and 

post-test. They are also expected to supply tutors with 

current assessment data: In 2003, the district launched 

TestTrax, which enables parents, teachers, and school 

leaders to access standardized and standards-based 

test data in digestible reports to better understand how 

students are performing. Classroom teachers provide 

that data to SES tutors.
49

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Los Angeles Unified School District, California

District Demographics 2003–04

Enrollment Enrollment Trend Number of Schools Population Type Subsidized Meals English Learners Special Needs

746,020 Stable 713 Urban 75.4% 42.9% 10.7%

of the new program has been a tremendous undertaking, involving virtually every district department. The 

district placed SES within its Beyond the Bell (BTB) department, which managed its existing extended learning programs. But to ensure that this important new 

program did not get lost in the mix, LAUSD appointed 

a full-time SES manager and an assistant. They oversee 

all of the information and recordkeeping systems and 

monitor the communication loop among the students, 

their parents, the students’ classroom teachers, SES providers, and BTB. Managing information has been a major focus: To effectively carry out the massive process of 

informing parents, the district modified both its information management systems and its student database 

to include specific fields for SES data. It has also created additional databases to monitor and verify student 

registrations, parental provider selections, SES facilities 

information, and provider recordkeeping. 

Twenty-six SES providers offer academic assistance 

to Los Angeles’s students, including LAUSD’s own Beyond the Bell Learning Centers. Given the extremely 

large number of eligible students, the district decided 

to create a “master” contract for each provider, rather 

than a separate one for every student served; in addition to signing this umbrella contract, providers must 

complete a learning plan for each student. Providers 

are also required to document student attendance 

and to send progress reports to a student’s parents 

and teacher after every 15 hours of service. To notify 

eligible parents, LAUSD mailed an explanatory letter, 

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is a 

large, sprawling school system covering some 700 

square miles and serving nearly 750,000 K–12 students 

in 713 schools. In addition to the city of Los Angeles, the 

district encompasses 25 other cities and unincorporated 

areas in Los Angeles County. Many district schools and 

the students and families they serve are affected by the 

challenges found in most large urban areas, including 

severe poverty, crime, and violence. Compounding these 

challenges for the district are overcrowding, facilities in 

need of repair, and staffing difficulties. Many students 

enrolled in these schools also contend with issues related to immigration and language. The predominant 

ethnic group in the student population is Hispanic, 

representing over 72 percent of the enrollment, with 

African American students making up 12 percent, white 

students 9 percent, and Asian American students 6 percent. Taken together, Hispanic and African American 

students perform at significantly lower levels than all 

other groups—resulting in a major achievement gap 

that the district is aggressively tackling. 

Although some LAUSD schools are showing steady 

progress (13 Title I schools earned a Title I Achieving 

Schools Award for having met and sustained their 

Annual-Yearly-Progress targets for three consecutive 

years), 106 schools are currently designated as “Program Improvement Schools.” SES is an important avenue to help serve the children in these schools.

Given the size of the district and the number of students 

eligible for SES—164,000 the first year—implementation
50

along with a provider-selection booklet and an “Official 

Request Form” in English and Spanish. Upon request, 

the information was also sent out in one of five other 

languages. Following a disappointingly low response 

to that initial mailing, BTB leaders held strategy meetings with principals and Title I coordinators from the 

program improvement schools and planned a more intensive marketing effort centered on school-to-parent 

communication. Each school was given an SES supply 

box containing, among other things, a CD listing all eligible students, mailing labels for each one, extra provider-selection booklets (available in seven languages), 

and informational flyers in multiple languages to be 

sent home. Urging parents to take advantage of SES’s 

free tutoring, the provider brochure and one of the district’s flyers caution, “Don’t throw away your child’s future!” Principals and teachers also communicated with 

eligible parents through meetings, by greeting parents 

when they brought children to school or picked them 

up, and by telephoning them. 

BTB staff met with a variety of parent groups, including 

the Title I District Advisory Council (DAC), to encourage participants to spread the word. The DAC, in turn, 

proposed strategies to connect with parents through 

community- and faith-based groups. The district also 

advertised SES in local newspapers, including ethnic 

language papers, and on radio and television. The superintendent and other district leaders held press conferences, and the Office of Communications published 

several news releases.

Although actual SES impact on student progress will 

be determined by evaluating a student’s classroom 

performance and assessment results, Los Angeles 

keeps track of two other near-term indicators of effectiveness: student attendance and the usefulness and 

quality of information providers supply to parents and 

teachers about student progress after every 15 hours 

of service. 
51

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Rochester City School District, New York

District Demographics 2003–04

Enrollment Enrollment Trend Number of Schools Population Type Subsidized Meals English Learners Special Needs

36,500 Decreasing 57 Urban 78% 8% 15%

both parents and district staff about NCLB’s various provisions, including SES. In addition to its members reaching out personally to other parents, the council has held 

town hall meetings on NCLB, hosted an application night 

to link parents to SES providers, and written about SES 

in its newsletter. The DACT also coordinates its message 

with the parent liaisons at Title I schools. In addition to 

helping parents understand how to support their child’s 

learning, these liaisons have become an important link to 

parents not yet aware of SES. 

To ensure that the SES program receives the attention it 

warrants and the set-up expertise necessary for an important new program, Rochester has placed it in a district 

office that is experienced in incubating new initiatives. 

Once it has been solidly established, it may be moved into 

the office that oversees Rochester’s state-mandated Academic Intervention Services (AIS), which serve students 

who have not passed, or are considered at risk of not 

passing, New York’s standards-based assessments in key 

academic areas. Identification of a student’s needs and 

appropriate services are made jointly by the student’s 

parent(s) and classroom teacher and documented in an 

AIS plan, just as the learning needs and targeted services 

for students receiving SES are documented in a Supplemental Education Plan (SEP). 

Rochester City School District and many of its families 

face difficult conditions. According to 2000 census data, 

out of America’s 245 largest districts, Rochester had the 

11th highest child poverty rate, with 38 percent of its 

children ages 0–17 living below the poverty line.1

 Of the 

nearly 37,000 students enrolled during 2002–03, 78 percent qualified for the free lunch program and 80 percent 

for Title I services.2

 All of Rochester’s 57 schools are eligible 

for Title I services, and a third of its students, at 8 schools, 

qualify for SES.3

 The poor achievement in 21 schools that 

have not met AYP goals has caused the district itself to be 

designated as “in need of improvement.” In this challenging environment, Rochester developed SES as a means of 

augmenting existing district efforts to raise the achievement of its lowest-performing students. 

The district’s concerted outreach efforts have begun to 

pay off: Between the first and second year of SES implementation, the number of students requesting services 

more than quadrupled, rising from 429 to 1878. The district has profited from an established culture in which 

parents are treated as collaborative partners. For more 

than 30 years, local parents interested in ensuring highquality Title I education have worked through the District 

Advisory Council to Title I (DACT). Although all Title I programs are required to fund a parent advisory board, the 

district’s proven receptiveness to working with the DACT 

meant that when NCLB passed, the group stepped up immediately to help move it forward.

DACT members attended state and national conferences 

about Title I and NCLB and became knowledgeable enough 

to assume a critical role in providing early information to 

1

 2000 census data, as presented by Children’s Defense Fund. 

Available at: http://www.childrensdefense.org/data/census00/

pov/city.txt.

2

 District Web site: http://www.rcsdk12.org.

3

 Democrat and Chronicle.com (January 22, 2004). Create real 

reform [editorial]. Rochester, NY: Author.
52

In Rochester’s first year of SES, 11 providers were serving 

district students. The district is intent on getting those 

who work with students on the same page. To that end: 

The SEP template specifies the NCLB requirement that 

all supplemental services align with state academic standards and district curriculum. Parents are encouraged to 

share with the provider information from their child’s 

AIS reports, which can be used to target instruction. The 

district has also created a new Title I-funded position of 

AIS specialist for each of its most impacted schools to 

coordinate academic interventions, including facilitating ongoing exchange of information between providers 

(both AIS and SES) and classroom teachers. 

The district has also been focused on how to assess student learning under SES. Qualitatively, it solicits parent 

satisfaction data, and to get the big picture, it looks at 

students’ scores on the statewide test. But the district 

has begun investigating the use of standards-based 

benchmarking assessments common to all providers. Although the district contracted for and has begun piloting such assessment in a limited number of schools, the 

question of how to fund them on a larger scale remains 

unanswered. Either way, Rochester’s intent to both qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the impact of SES 

reflects its commitment to keep everyone focused on the 

primary goal of better meeting students’ learning needs.
53

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

San Diego City Schools, California

District Demographics 2003–04

Enrollment Enrollment Trend Number of Schools Population Type Subsidized Meals English Learners Special Needs

138,613 Decreasing 185 Urban 56.4% 29.4% 10.9%

providers were available to San Diego students, and parents signed on with two of them.

District leaders attribute much of the generally positive 

API results to the district’s Blueprint for Student Success in a Standards-Based System, a comprehensive and 

ambitious long-range reform plan adopted in 2000 and 

aimed at improving academic performance. Quick implementation of many of the Blueprint strategies meant 

that when No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was adopted a 

year later, many of the legislation’s key requirements 

were already in place, including extended learning opportunities (ELOs). Recognizing SES as an important addition to its existing ELOs, San Diego placed SES in the 

Office of Instructional Support, which also oversees the 

ELO Department, and it gave direct, day-to-day management of the new program to the ELO director. 

When it came to developing SES’s required student learning plan, San Diego was ahead of the game thanks to the 

Blueprint, which requires classroom teachers in program 

improvement schools to complete a learning contract for 

every student at risk of not meeting grade-level reading 

or math standards. Regularly updated with performance 

data, a student’s learning contract is used to guide both 

classroom teaching and the district’s after-school academic intervention efforts. Instead of creating a separate 

document for the SES student learning plan, the district 

has chosen to incorporate the required information (e.g., 

SES learning goals, timeline, progress reports) into students’ existing learning contract. This one-student, oneplan approach is the district’s attempt to keep student 

In San Diego, poverty is not readily apparent to casual 

visitors who tend to be more familiar with the area’s 

beautiful beaches, its world-famous zoo, and other 

tourist attractions. But in school year 2002–03, 56.4 

percent of San Diego’s almost 140,000 public school 

students were eligible for free or reduced meals, 31 of 

its 185 schools had such high percentages of eligible 

students that under federal regulations the schools 

rated as 100 percent eligible, and 126 schools received 

Title I funds. In this 200-square-mile district just north 

of the U.S.-Mexico border, 29.4 percent of the students 

are designated English learners, and more than 64 languages other than English are spoken as the primary 

language in students’ homes. 

San Diego has been working hard to close a challenging 

achievement gap, work that has started to yield results. 

District achievement data over the last six years reveal 

consistent improvement in student performance. For 

school year 2002–03, California’s student achievement 

accountability barometer—Academic Performance Index 

(API) results—showed growth in student achievement 

across all district schools and all student subgroups. 

Moreover, Hispanic, African American, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students made greater gains 

districtwide than any other group. But more progress is 

needed. Of the 126 San Diego schools receiving Title I 

funding in 2003, 37 had been designated “program improvement” schools by the state, and 24 of those had 

been in program improvement status long enough to require that they offer supplemental educational services. 

In the district’s first year offering SES, four approved 
54

achievement information coherent and organized in one 

document that follows the student electronically.

San Diego uses several strategies to inform parents about 

SES. Every identified parent receives a letter, sent out in 

five languages, telling them that free tutoring is available 

and including a list of providers and an application form. 

When the initial mailing yielded a low response, the 

district got the principal and teachers at each programimprovement school to communicate directly with their 

parents. The district sends principals SES timelines and a 

list of eligible students along with SES enrollment information and application forms to keep at the school. In 

addition, the district’s Web site (http://www.sandi.net/) 

offers a variety of NCLB-related information for district 

staff, school-site staff, and parents alike.

Rather than wait for the state department of education 

to provide evaluative information about providers, San 

Diego is developing an assessment of provider effectiveness. Thus far the district has been using two primary 

strategies: close monitoring of students’ learning contracts to track progress, with follow-up meetings with 

teachers and parents regarding students’ academic progress, and solicitation of parent feedback about how they 

think their children are doing.
55

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Toledo Public Schools, Ohio

District Demographics 2002–03

Enrollment Enrollment Trend Number of Schools Population Type Subsidized Meals English Learners Special Needs

35,600 Decreasing 62 Urban 54% 0.6% 15.9%

SES-eligible students, who were served by three of 18 

approved providers.

Toledo placed its SES program in the Title I Education 

Center under the director of compensatory services. 

The Center was chosen because it had the expertise 

to get SES up and going most quickly and easily. The 

director of compensatory services is responsible for 

building SES into Toledo’s strategic plan, and she also 

works directly with eligible schools. But the complexity of the SES endeavor led the district to also appoint 

a full-time NCLB facilitator to supervise day-to-day 

SES operations. 

Anticipating that some of its schools would have SESeligible students, the district did not wait for official 

notification to start moving on SES. Toledo carefully reviewed NCLB regulations and laid the groundwork for 

implementation. Making decisions about where to locate the program, how to staff it, and how to integrate 

it into existing district operations was an important 

early step. The district’s Title I leaders also made sure 

that principals and teachers understood the law and its 

implications for eligible students. All these preliminary 

actions made for a smooth implementation process 

once official notice came from the state.

SES staff also worked with the district’s Business Affairs 

Department to develop a comprehensive “Supplemental 

Toledo Public Schools serves a diverse 84-square mile 

community on the western shore of Lake Erie. Among 

its broadly recognized assets are a world-class art museum, a major symphony orchestra, and an expanding 

and progressive zoo. But like many urban centers, the 

city has suffered from an economic decline that has 

continued since the recession of the eighties. Many of 

its residents struggle from job loss or low wages and the 

resulting poverty. Of the nearly 36,000* K–12 students 

served by the district’s 62 schools, 54 percent qualify 

for free or reduced lunch. So it’s not surprising to hear 

that local schools demonstrate a clear achievement 

gap, with the district’s lowest-performing students 

clustered in schools serving the largest concentrations 

of high-poverty students. 

Determined to do better by its students, during the 

2000–01 school year the district embarked on an ambitious accountability agenda. When No Child Left Behind became law, district leaders quickly recognized the 

convergence of its goals and their own reform efforts. 

They saw its SES requirement as particularly supportive of their improvement goals. But not everyone was 

so sure. Toledo’s Title I schools initially saw the associated set-asides as money being “taken away from the 

schools that needed it most.” In time, however, says 

one administrator, even the skeptics began to see SES 

“as a great way to give extra support to the kids who 

needed the most help. ...[as something] that will help 

our program-improvement schools meet their AYP targets.” During Toledo’s first year of SES, 11 schools had 

* Toledo’s public school population is 46 percent African American, 44 percent white, and 7 percent Hispanic, with 2 percent 

representing other groups.
56

Educational Services Agreement” identifying the roles 

and responsibilities of the provider and of the district. 

Central to that agreement is the Student Learning Plan, 

which describes learning objectives, the timeline for 

meeting them, performance measures, how parents, 

school district staff, and the state department of education will be kept apprised of the student’s progress, and 

the timetable for improving the student’s achievement.

Once eligible students were identified, Title I staff began notifying parents by mail, informing them that 

they could obtain free tutoring for their children and 

giving them a brochure that briefly describes the services of each of the 14 providers from whom their child 

can get tutoring, including the district’s own Reading 

Academy program. The mailing included a request-forservices form in English and Spanish, and the materials 

urged parents to select a provider and return the form 

by the deadline in order to enroll their children in the 

SES program of their choice. Fewer than 30 parents out 

of 1,500 whose children were eligible for SES responded 

to this first mailing. 

The lesson was quickly driven home that the district 

needed to take a more personalized approach. Deciding 

to capitalize on parents’ connection to their children’s 

school and classroom, district SES staff met with the 

principals and Title I coordinators from the targeted 

schools to create a parent outreach campaign. The district kept schools informed about who had and had not 

enrolled for SES services, and principals and teachers 

began calling or meeting with the parents to encourage them to register their children. In addition, staff 

from the Title I Education Center set up information 

tables with flyers and applications in English and Spanish during parent conference periods, parent meetings, 

and other school events. With some SES experience behind them, satisfied parents have also begun spreading 

the word. With participation numbers increasing (from 

96 the first year to over 500 the second), Toledo’s SES 

staff identifies school-based marketing as an essential 

strategy for SES success.
57

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

The project methodology is an adaptation of the four-phase benchmarking process used by the American Productivity and Quality Center,* along with case descriptions of individual districts and cross-site analysis of key 

findings. Although classic benchmarking looks for best or promising practices, using quantitative measures and 

comparisons among organizations, the practice of implementing supplemental educational services programs is 

too new to fully support this methodology. A brief description of this project’s adapted methodology follows. 

Plan

First, a conceptual framework was developed from an 

analysis of research on out-of-school programs and 

organizational management as well as an examination 

of what districts need to do to meet the No Child Left 

Behind Act’s supplemental educational services requirements. Researchers, providers, and district administrators recruited to serve on an external advisory panel (see 

page 43) provided feedback to refine this framework and 

set priorities for issues to investigate. The resulting study 

scope guided all aspects of the study (see figure 16).

Site selection was a multistep process to ensure that the 

guide would feature an array of practices covering the 

elements of the framework and would represent a variety of geographic locations and contexts with which district administrators could identify. A list of 36 potential 

supplemental educational services sites was compiled 

through primary and secondary research by WestEd with 

suggestions from the expert advisory panel. A screening 

template was developed to systematically analyze the 

weighted criteria for site selection identified by the advisors, including the presence of clearly articulated strategic plans for administering SES, outreach and communications strategies for both parents and providers, 

and explicit contracting and recordkeeping procedures. 

The template was completed for the candidate districts 

based on public documents such as brochures, reports, 

and district Web sites, supplemented by targeted phone 

interviews with district staff. The five districts that were 

selected had relatively high ratings on the template for 

preliminary evidence that promising practices were in 

place. No site was uniformly excellent, but each had 

developed practices in several areas from which others 

might learn.

Collect Data

Collecting detailed descriptive information from project participants was key to understanding the district’s 

practices, the outcomes or impact achieved, and lessons 

learned in implementation from which others could 

benefit. The major steps to this phase were finalizing the * American Productivity and Quality Center. (2001). Benchmarking 

in education: Pure and simple. Houston, TX: Author.

Appendix B: 

Research Methodology
58

perspectives on the questions in the site-visit discussion 

guide. In addition, artifacts from the sites, such as letters to parents or brochures or contracts, were collected 

to provide concrete examples of district practices. The 

study team collated the information collected during 

the site visits and developed a case study for each site.

Analyze and Report

Once all the information was collected, the project team 

analyzed the data to understand the promising practices 

uncovered throughout the benchmarking project, both 

within and across sites. Thirteen key findings discussed 

in the final report emerged from the cross-site analysis. 

Two products resulted from this research: a report of 

findings and this practitioner’s guide. The report of findings provides an analysis of key findings across sites, 

a detailed profile of each site, a collection of artifacts, 

and key project documents. The practitioner’s guide is a 

shorter excerpt and summary that is intended for broad 

distribution. The guide and report are also accessible online at http://www.ed.gov/nclb/choice.

Adapt

Ultimately, readers of this guide will need to select, adapt, 

and implement practices that meet their individual needs 

and contexts. Dissemination will take place through a variety of channels. The guide will be broadly distributed 

around the country through presentations at national 

and regional conferences, as well as through national associations and networks.

Districts coming together in learning communities 

may continue the study, using the ideas and practices 

from these sites as a springboard for their own action 

research. In this way, a pool of promising practices will 

grow, and districts can support each other in implementation and learning. 

FIGURE 16. Study Scope and 

Guiding Questions

Integration of Supplemental Educational Services into 

the District’s Strategy to Improve Student Achievement

How does the district integrate out-of-school services, including SES under NCLB, into its strategy to improve student learning?

Building Relationships With Providers

How is the district creating cooperative partnerships with outside providers? 

How is the district framing contractual agreements 

with service providers in order to consistently improve services to students?

Outreach and Communication with Parents to Select 

a Supplemental Educational Services Provider for 

Their Children 

How does the district communicate with parents 

and students to notify them of their options regarding supplemental educational services?

What are the outreach strategies employed by the 

district to assist parents in accessing appropriate 

services for their children?

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Indicators of Success

What criteria and indicators are used to track the 

effectiveness of supplemental services? How is 

the district determining the impact of supplemental educational services on student achievement?

site-visit interview guide and arranging and conducting 

site visits to the innovation sites. 

Each of the five innovation sites hosted a two-day site 

visit that included interviews with providers, principals, 

and parents, as well as district staff, to obtain multiple 
59

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Appendix C: 

Resources

General

American Association of School Administrators 

(AASA). AASA compiles resources and best practices to 

support implementation of NCLB, including relevant articles and organizations. http://www.aasa.org/nclb

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). 

CCSSO’s Web site includes a section on NCLB, highlighting a variety of resources, including the SEA Toolkit on 

Supplemental Educational Services (http://www.ccsso.

org/Federal_Programs/nclb/3349.cfm). The Toolkit provides 

suggested criteria, tools, and advice for state education 

agencies to use in approving supplemental educational 

service providers. http://www.ccsso.org 

Early Implementation of Supplemental Educational Services Under the No Child Left Behind 

Act: One Year Report. This April 2004 report by the 

U.S. Department of Education offers an in-depth look 

at early SES implementation through case studies of 

six states and nine school districts. The study intentionally included states and districts that were relatively 

far along in their implementation; so while they are 

not representative of implementation nationwide, they 

offer useful insights. The report is available online:

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/ppss/reports.html#title

Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP) Out-ofSchool Time (OST) Program Evaluation Database. 

This database is a searchable compilation of HFRP-written 

profiles of evaluations of OST programs and initiatives. It 

provides accessible information about evaluation work on 

both large and small OST programs to support the development of high-quality evaluations and programs in the outof-school time field. http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~hfrp/

projects/afterschool/evaldatabase.html

National Governors Association (NGA). The NGA has 

an initiative on “Extra Learning Opportunities,” including tutoring. The NGA’s Center for Best Practices provides 

assistance to states and publishes resource materials.

http://www.nga.org/center/topics/1,1188,D_363,00.html

National Institute on Out-of-School Time (NIOST). 

NIOST provides information and research reports on outof-school time, including an annual Fact Sheet. It also 

provides training for directors and staff, school administrators, community leaders, and others committed to 

providing high-quality after-school programs for children 

and youth. http://www.niost.org

Supplemental Educational Services Quality Center.

This project of the American Institutes for Research provides technical assistance at the local and state level 

through a network of demonstration districts and states. 

The Center Web site will present “lessons learned,” tools, 

and other resources for effective supplemental services 

implementation. The Center also facilitates a national 

network of organizations to coordinate and improve 

research and assistance on supplemental services.

http://www.tutorsforkids.org

Supplemental Educational Services Webcast. This series of Web-based video segments about SES implementation was developed to inform the staff of state and local 

education agencies who guide and support the work of 
60

schools. Produced by the U. S. Department of Education, 

the segments include an overview of SES implementation and a panel discussion with three SES practitioners.

http://www.ed.gov/print/admins/comm/suppsvcs/

seswebcast.html

Resources for Engaging Parents

Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO). 

Founded in 2000, BAEO is a national, nonprofit organization that actively supports parental choice to empower 

families and to increase educational options for black children. BAEO has been funded by the U.S. Department of 

Education to develop a public information campaign to 

reach parents about the choices available to them under 

NCLB, and it currently works through 30 local chapters in 

20 states. http://www.baeo.org

Committee for Hispanic Children and Families, Inc. 

(CHCF). The organization was founded in 1982 by a group 

of Latino health and human service professionals to improve the quality of life for Latino children and families 

and their communities. Its mission is to help educators 

and health professionals communicate with Latino parents in culturally sensitive ways. The Committee develops 

and implements outreach programs for low-income families and children in youth development and education. 

http://www.chcfinc.org

Education Resource Organization Directory (EROD). 

Districts can search this large, U. S. Department of Education-sponsored database to find local agencies and organizations whose purpose is to create connections with 

parents and inform them about educational options. 

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD

Greater Educational Options (GEO) Foundation. GEO 

was founded in 1998 with the goal of making educational 

choice a reality through extensive community outreach 

and educational awareness programs. Focusing primarily on Indiana and Colorado, GEO maintains a Web-based 

parent information and resource center. http://www.

geofoundation.org

Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options 

(CREO). Founded in 2001, CREO is dedicated to improving 

educational outcomes for Hispanic children by empowering families through parental choice in education. Hispanic 

CREO has parent organizers on staff. In 2004, with funding 

from the U.S. Department of Education, it created Project 

CREO 2004 to reach out to Latino parents in five urban 

communities with high concentration of Hispanics (Austin, 

Dallas , and San Antonio, Texas; Miami, Florida; and Camden, New Jersey) for the express purpose of raising parents’ 

awareness about NCLB’s school choice and SES provisions. 

http://www.hcreo.org/index.html

The National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education (NCPIE). Founded in 1980 as an advocacy group 

for parents, NCPIE also offers a database of resources and 

organizations that support outreach to parents. Coalition 

members include parent organizations, foundations, and 

national education groups representing teachers and administrators. The coalition monitors legislation, initiates 

projects, and shares information and ideas about parent involvement in public education. NCPIE’s recent publication, 

Helping Parents & Your Community Better Understand No 

Child Left Behind, is a set of action briefs that provide useful information about the major themes covered in NCLB in 

parent-friendly language. http://www.ncpie.org

Parent Information Resource Center (PIRC). Funded 

through a discretionary grant program of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement 

(OII) under Parent Options and Information, PIRCs have 

operated since 1995 to support parent involvement in 

Title I schools. Their mission is to provide parents, schools, 

and organizations with training, information, and technical assistance to understand how children develop and 

what they need to succeed in school. More than 70 PIRCs 

across the country work closely with parents, educators, 

and community-based organizations to strengthen partnerships that support children in reaching high academic 

standards. PIRCs are ideally positioned to help school districts get the SES word out to parents of eligible students. 

http://www.pirc-info.net 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII). OII’s Web site includes pdf 

versions of an SES poster and brochure that districts can 

tailor for their own use. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/about/index.html
61

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services Programs

Notes

1 The providers who had identified themselves as willing to work in one or more of the districts at the time of this study 

were: A+ Educational Centers, ABC-Learn, Inc., Acadamia.NET, LLP, Baden Street Settlement, Beyond the Bell Learning 

Centers of LAUSD, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Brainfuse, Club Z! In-Home Tutoring Services, Dial-A-Teacher, Dream 

Builders, EdSolutions, Educational and Tutorial Services, Educational Enterprises, Failure Free Reading Instant Achievement 

Center, Fresh Start Academy, Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., Kaplan K-12 Learning Services, Kumon Math and Reading 

Centers, Learning for Life, Boy Scouts of America, Math*Ability, Monroe #1 BOCES, Nazareth College, Neighborhood Youth 

Association, New Life Learning Center, Newton Learning, Pacific Metrics Corporation, Paradigm Learning Center, Platform 

Learning, Princeton Review, Professional Tutors of America, Progressive Learning, Project IMPACT, PSI Affiliates, Inc., Reading Academy of Toledo Public Schools, Reading and Language Arts Centers, Inc., Reading Revolution, San Diego State 

University, San Diego Unified School District, Say Yes to Life, SCORE! Educational Centers, Smart Kids Tutoring and Learning 

Center, Inc., SMARTHINKING, Inc., Specialized Student Services, Inc., Sylvan Education Solutions, Sylvan Learning Systems, 

Inc., The Talking Page Literacy Organization, Tutors Of The Inland Empire, and Ventures Education Systems.

2 Another guide in this series covers creating a strong district school choice program.

3 As explained in the U.S. Department of Education’s Supplemental Educational Services Non-Regulatory Guidance (2003, 

August 22, p. 17), an LEA might be unable to offer choice within the district if all of its schools at the relevant grade level 

are in school improvement or it has only a single school at that grade level. Also, choice may be impractical if the district’s 

other schools are located at a large distance (e.g., 100 miles) from the school in improvement status. In such cases, LEAs 

must, if possible, enter into cooperative agreements with neighboring LEAs (or with charter or “virtual” schools in the 

state) that can accept their students as transfers. When such options are not possible or practical, LEAs are encouraged to 

offer SES to students attending schools in their first year of improvement.

4 This is the range from the lowest 10th percentile to the highest 90th percentile in district per-pupil funding level in the 

states in which the five study districts are located. Figures are drawn from the ESEA Title I LEA Allocations, FY 2003, as 

posted at: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy03/index.html

5 One resource for states as they screen providers is the SEA Toolkit disseminated by the Council of Chief State School 

Officers. This toolkit provides approval criteria, tools, and advice for state educational agencies to use as they approve 

supplemental educational service providers. http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/SSPToolkit.pdf

6 One resource for districts in working with service providers is the Guide to Working with Model Providers in comprehensive 

school reform. This guide advises schools on the stages involved in the development of effective partnerships from the negotiation of a contract, to the end of the contract. http://www.ncrel.org/csri/tools/gwwmp/intro.htm

7 U.S. Department of Education. (2003, August 22). Supplemental Educational Services Non-Regulatory Guidance, p. 13.

8 Ibid, p. 5.

9 Ibid, p. 27.