State and Local Implementation of the 

No Child Left Behind Act

Volume IV—Title I School Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Services: Interim Report 

A report from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and the 

Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB) 

Brian Gill, RAND 

Jennifer Sloan McCombs, RAND 

Scott Naftel, RAND 

Karen Ross, AIR 

Mengli Song, AIR 

Jennifer Harmon, AIR 

Georges Vernez, RAND 

Series Principal Investigators 

Georges Vernez, RAND 

Beatrice F. Birman, AIR 

Michael S. Garet, AIR 

Jennifer O’Day, AIR 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2008
 

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED-00-CO-0087 with RAND 

and Contract Number ED-01-CO-0026/0024 with AIR. Stephanie Stullich served as the contracting officer’s 

representative for the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind, and Elizabeth Eisner and Collette Roney 

served as contracting officer’s representatives for the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher 

Quality Under No Child Left Behind. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of 

the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be 

inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Bill Evers 

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

April 2008 

This report is in the public domain with the exception of the cover photo, which is © 2007 JupiterImages Corp. 

Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not 

necessary, the suggested citation is U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, 

Volume IV—Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services: Interim Report, Washington, D.C., 2008. 

To order copies of this report, write: 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U.S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

Via fax, dial (301) 470-1244. 

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

1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a 

teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-877-576-7734. 

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

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: 

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title. 

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

information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818. 
Exhibits iii 

CONTENTS 

Exhibits......................................................................................................................................v

Preface ......................................................................................................................................xi

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. xiii

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................xv

Key Findings ..........................................................................................................................................xv

Evaluation Questions and Data Sources for This Report..............................................................xvi

Overview of the Parental Choice Provisions of NCLB..................................................................xvi

Eligibility, Availability and Participation ..........................................................................................xvii

Communication With Parents ............................................................................................................xxi

Implementing and Monitoring Supplemental Educational Services............................................xxii

Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................xxiii

I. Introduction .........................................................................................................................1

Overview of the Parental Choice Provisions of NCLB.....................................................................1

Evaluation Questions and Data Sources for This Report.................................................................2

II. Eligibility, Availability and Participation ............................................................................5

Eligibility for Parental Choice................................................................................................................6

Participation in Title I Choice Options................................................................................................9

Options Offered by Districts...............................................................................................................13

Discussion...............................................................................................................................................23

III.Communication With Parents ........................................................................................... 25

Notification of Options........................................................................................................................26

Methods of Communication With Parents........................................................................................31

Supplemental Service Providers’ Communication With Parents....................................................35

Reasons for Participation in School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services ................35

Discussion...............................................................................................................................................39

IV.Implementing and Monitoring Supplemental Educational Services ............................... 41

States’ Approval of Supplemental Educational Service Providers .................................................41

Monitoring and Evaluation of Provider Performance.....................................................................42

State-Provided Technical Assistance for Supplemental Educational Services .............................46
Exhibits iv 

District Contracts With Supplemental Educational Service Providers..........................................46

Schools’ Relationship With Supplemental Educational Service Providers ...................................49

Providers and Student Assessment .....................................................................................................52

Discussion...............................................................................................................................................54

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 55

References................................................................................................................................ 57

Appendix A Description of NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB Methodologies............................... 59

Appendix B Standard Error Exhibits ...................................................................................... 69
Exhibits v 

EXHIBITS 

Executive Summary 

Exhibit S.1 Percentage of Districts and of Students in These Districts Reporting 

Availability of Title I School Choice Option, by School Level, 2004–05 

(Among Districts Required to Offer Choice)..................................................................xix

II. Eligibility, Availability and Participation 

Exhibit 1 Number and Percentage of Students Eligible for Title I School Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Services and of Title I Schools with Eligible 

Students, 2002–03 Through 2004–05..................................................................................6

Exhibit 2 Percentage of Title I Schools with Students Eligible for Title I School Choice 

and Supplemental Educational Services, by Poverty and Minority Status, 

2004–05....................................................................................................................................7

Exhibit 3 Percentage of Title I Schools with Students Eligible for Title I School Choice 

and Supplemental Educational Services, by Urbanicity, 2004–05...................................8

Exhibit 4 Percentage of Title I Schools with Students Eligible for Title I School Choice 

and Supplemental Educational Services, by School Level, 2004–05 ..............................9

Exhibit 5 Notification, Application, and Participation in Title I School Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Services, 2003–04 and 2004–05 (as Reported by 

Districts).................................................................................................................................10

Exhibit 6 Percentage of Eligible Students Participating in Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services and School Choice, by Grade Level in Nine Districts, 

2004–05..................................................................................................................................11

Exhibit 7 Percentage of Eligible Students Participating in Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services and School Choice in Nine Large, Urban Districts, by 

Demographic Categories, 2004–05....................................................................................12

Exhibit 8 Prior Achievement Levels (Measured in Z-Scores) of Students Participating 

and Eligible for Title I Choice Options in Nine Large, Urban Districts, 

2004–05..................................................................................................................................13

Exhibit 9 Percentage of Districts and of Students in These Districts Reporting 

Availability of Title I School Choice Option, by School Level, 2004–05 

(Among Districts Required to Offer Choice)...................................................................14

Exhibit 10 Percentage of Districts Required to Offer Title I School Choice That Offered 

Parents of Eligible Students Two or More Alternate Schools, by School 

Level, 2004–05 ......................................................................................................................15

Exhibit 11 Average Student Achievement in Schools That Students Participating in 

Title I School Choice Left and to Which They Transferred, Relative to 

Average District Achievement, 2003–04 and 2004–05...................................................16
Exhibits vi 

Exhibit 12 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers and of 

Participating Students, by Provider Type..........................................................................18

Exhibit 13 Percentage of Districts, by Number of Title I Supplemental Educational 

Service Providers Available to Students, 2003–04...........................................................19

Exhibit 14 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Service 

Provided and Grades Served, 2004–05 .............................................................................20

Exhibit 15 Percentage of Districts, by Number of Hours of Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services Students Received per Week, 2003–04........................................20

Exhibit 16 Average Duration and Frequency of Title I Supplemental Educational 

Services Sessions, 2004–05..................................................................................................21

Exhibit 17 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by 

Location and Grouping of Students for Delivery of Services, 2004–05 ......................22

III. Communication With Parents 

Exhibit 18 Percentage of Districts That Notified Parents of Title I Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Service Options and Percentage of Parents That 

Reported They Were Notified, 2004–05...........................................................................26

Exhibit 19 Percentage of Parents That Reported They Were Notified of Their Child’s 

Eligibility for Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Choice Decision, 

2004–05..................................................................................................................................27

Exhibit 20 Number of States, by Month of States’ Release of School Identification 

Results to Districts, 2004.....................................................................................................28

Exhibit 21 Timing of Parent Notification About Title I School Choice as Reported By 

Districts, 2003–04 and 2004–05.........................................................................................29

Exhibit 22 Percentage of Eligible Students Transferring Schools, by When District First 

Notified Parents About Their Title I School Choice, 2003–04 and 2004–05 .............30

Exhibit 23 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Notified of Title I School Choice, 

by When First Notified and Choice Decision, 2004–05.................................................30

Exhibit 24 Percentage of Districts Communicating With Parents About Title I School 

Choice and Supplemental Educational Services and of Eligible Students in 

These Districts, by Method of Communication, 2004–05 .............................................32

Exhibit 25 Percentage of Teachers Communicating with Parents About Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Type of Communication and School 

Level, 2003–04 (Among Teachers in Schools with Students Eligible for 

Supplemental Services) ........................................................................................................34

Exhibit 26 Percentage of Providers Communicating Often or Always With the Parents 

of Students Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by 

Topic, 2004–05 .....................................................................................................................35

Exhibit 27 Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I School Choice, by 

Reason for Participating, 2004–05 .....................................................................................36
Exhibits vii 

Exhibit 28 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in Title I School 

Choice, by Reason for Not Participating, 2004–05.........................................................37

Exhibit 29 Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Reason for Participating, 2004–05 .........................................38

Exhibit 30 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Reason for Not Participating, 

2004–05..................................................................................................................................39

IV. Implementing and Monitoring Supplemental Educational Services 

Exhibit 31 Number of States Requiring a Narrative or Checklist in Providers’ Title I 

Supplemental Educational Service Application to Show They Meet the 

NCLB Requirements, 2004–05 ..........................................................................................43

Exhibit 32 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by State 

and District Monitoring Mechanisms They Experienced at Least a Few 

Times During The Year, 2004–05......................................................................................45

Exhibit 33 Number of States That Provided Districts with Technical Assistance to 

Implement Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Type of Assistance, 

2004–05..................................................................................................................................46

Exhibit 34 Percentage of Districts, by Type of Provision They Included in Contracts 

With Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 2004–05 ............................48

Exhibit 35 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Type 

of Provisions Included in Contracts with Districts, 2004–05........................................49

Exhibit 36 Percentage of Principals at Schools With Students Eligible for Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Degree of Alignment of Services 

With School Academic Content Standards and Subject Area, 2003–04 ......................50

Exhibit 37 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers and of 

Teachers Reporting Communicating With Each Other, by Type of 

Communication, 2004–05 ...................................................................................................51

Exhibit 38 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting 

on the Progress of Individual Students, by Type of Recipient and Frequency, 

2004–05..................................................................................................................................52

Exhibit 39 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Type 

of Information Received on Individual Students Prior to Providing 

Supplemental Services, 2004–05.........................................................................................53

Exhibit 40 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Assessing 

Students, by Type of Measure and Frequency, 2004–05 ................................................54

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

Exhibit A.1 Sample Sizes and Survey Completion Rates for National Longitudinal Study 

of NCLB Surveys, 2004–05 ................................................................................................60
Exhibits viii 

Exhibit A.2 Characteristics of National Longitudinal Study of NCLB District and School 

Samples Compared with the Universe of Districts and Schools...................................61

Exhibit A.3 Sample Sizes and Completion Rates for National Longitudinal Study of 

NCLB Parent Surveys..........................................................................................................62

Appendix B. Standard Error Exhibits 

Exhibit B.1 Notification, Application, and Participation in Title I School Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Services, 2003–04 and 2004–05 (as Reported by 

Districts).................................................................................................................................69

Exhibit B.2 Prior Year Achievement Levels (Measured in Z-Scores) of Students 

Participating and Eligible for Title I Choice Options in Nine Large, Urban 

Districts, 2004–05.................................................................................................................69

Exhibit B.3 Percentage of Districts and of Students in These Districts Reporting 

Availability of Title I School Choice Option, by School Level, 2004–05 

(Among Districts Required to Offer Choice)...................................................................70

Exhibit B.4 Percentage of Districts Required to Offer Title I School Choice That Offered 

Parents of Eligible Students Two or More Alternate Schools, by School 

Level, 2004–05 ......................................................................................................................70

Exhibit B.5 Average Student Achievement in Schools That Students Participating in the 

Title I School Choice Left and to Which They Transferred Relative to 

Average District Achievement, 2003–04 and 2004–05...................................................71

Exhibit B.6 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers and of 

Participating Students, by Provider Type, 2003–04.........................................................71

Exhibit B.7 Percentage of Districts, by Number of Title I Supplemental Educational 

Service Providers Available to Students, 2003–04...........................................................72

Exhibit B.8 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Service 

Provided and Grades Served, 2004–05 .............................................................................72

Exhibit B.9 Percentage of Districts, by Number of Hours of Supplemental Educational 

Services Participating Students Received per Week, 2003–04.......................................72

Exhibit B.10 Average Duration and Frequency of Title I Supplemental Educational 

Services Sessions, 2004–05..................................................................................................73

Exhibit B.11 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Services Providers, by 

Location and Grouping of Students for Delivery of Services, 2004–05 ......................73

Exhibit B.12 Percentage of Parents That Reported They Were Notified of Title I School 

Choice, 2004–05 ...................................................................................................................74

Exhibit B.13 Percentage of Parents That Reported They Were Notified of Their Child’s 

Eligibility for Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Choice Decision, 

2004–05..................................................................................................................................74

Exhibit B.14 Timing of Parent Notification About Title I School Choice Option as 

Reported by Districts, 2003–04 and 2004–05 ..................................................................74
Exhibits ix 

Exhibit B.15 Percentage of Eligible Students Transferring Schools, by When District First 

Notified Parents About Their Title I School Choice, 2003–04 and 2004–05 .............75

Exhibit B.16 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Notified of Title I School Choice, 

by When First Notified and Choice Decision, 2004–05.................................................75

Exhibit B.17 Percentage of Districts Communicating With Parents About Title I School 

Choice and Supplemental Educational Services and of Eligible Students in 

These Districts, by Method of Communication, 2004–05 .............................................76

Exhibit B.18 Percentage of Teachers Communicating With Parents About Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Type of Communication and School 

Level, 2003–04 (Among Teachers Who Knew Their Students Were Eligible 

for Supplemental Services)..................................................................................................76

Exhibit B.19 Percentage of Providers Communicating With the Parents of Students 

Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Topic and 

Frequency, 2004–05 .............................................................................................................77

Exhibit B.20 Percentage of Parents of Students Participating In Title I School Choice, by 

Reason for Participating, 2004–05 .....................................................................................77

Exhibit B.21 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in Title I School 

Choice, by Reason for Not Participating, 2004–05.........................................................78

Exhibit B.22 Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Reason for Participating, 2004–05 .........................................78

Exhibit B.23 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Reason for Not Participating, 

2004–05..................................................................................................................................79

Exhibit B.24 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting 

State Monitoring of Their Services, by Monitoring Mechanism and 

Frequency, 2004–05 .............................................................................................................79

Exhibit B.25 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting 

District Monitoring of Their Services, by Monitoring Mechanism and 

Frequency, 2004–05 .............................................................................................................80

Exhibit B.26 Percentage of Districts, by Type of Provision Included in Contracts With 

Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 2004–05......................................80

Exhibit B.27 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Type 

of Provision Included in Contract With Districts, 2004–05 ..........................................81

Exhibit B.28 Percentage of Principals at Schools With Students Eligible for Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Degree of Alignment of Services 

With School Academic Content Standards and Subject Area, 2003–04 ......................81

Exhibit B.29 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers 

Communicating With the Regular Classroom Teachers of Students Receiving 

Their Services, by Type and Frequency of Communication, 2004–05.........................82
Exhibits x 

Exhibit B.30 Percentage of Teachers Communicating With Title I Supplemental 

Educational Service Providers, by Type of Communication and School Level, 

2004–05..................................................................................................................................82

Exhibit B.31 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting 

on the Progress of Individual Students, by Type of Recipient and Frequency, 

2004–05..................................................................................................................................83

Exhibit B.32 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Types 

of Information Received on Individual Students Prior to Providing Services, 

2004–05..................................................................................................................................83

Exhibit B.33 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Assessing 

Students, by Type of Measure and Frequency, 2004–05 ................................................84
Preface xi 

PREFACE 

This report presents findings about school choice and supplemental educational services from two 

longitudinal studies, the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB), and the Study 

of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB). 

The research teams for these two studies have collaborated to provide an integrated evaluation of the 

implementation of key NCLB provisions at the state level (SSI-NCLB) and at the district and school 

levels (NLS-NCLB). Together the two studies are the basis for a series of reports on the topics of 

accountability, teacher quality, Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, and targeting 

and resource allocation. 

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

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

Volume II—Teacher Quality Under NCLB: Interim Report 

Volume III—Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report 

Acknowledgments xiii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We wish to thank the many individuals who contributed to the completion of this report. Particularly 

helpful were several individuals at the U.S. Department of Education. Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth 

Eisner, and Collette Roney of the Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) served as project officers 

for the two studies that were the data sources for this report. All three project officers provided 

invaluable substantive guidance and support throughout these studies and the production of this report. 

We are also grateful to state officials responsible for supplemental educational services for their kind 

cooperation and assistance in participating in interviews and follow-up communications in the 2004–05 

data collections. In addition, teachers, principals, school district staff, parents and providers of 

supplemental services across the country took time out of their busy schedules to respond to the 

NLS-NCLB surveys. Without their efforts, this report would not have been possible, and we deeply 

appreciate their assistance. 

The information in this report was provided through two studies done by independent research firms 

under contract to the U.S. Department of Education: 

• The National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB), led by Georges Vernez 

of the RAND Corporation and Michael Garet and Beatrice Birman of the American Institutes 

for Research (AIR), assisted by Brian Stecher (accountability team leader), Brian Gill (choice 

team leader), and Meredith Ludwig (teacher quality team leader). Marie Halverson of the 

National Opinion Research Center directed data collections for the NLS-NCLB. 

• The Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left 

Behind (SSI-NCLB), led by Jennifer O’Day and Kerstin Carlson Le Floch of the American 

Institutes for Research. 

Other researchers who provided useful assistance for this report include Charles Blankenship, Kristen 

Chapman, Jennifer Harmon, and Kerstin Carlson LeFloch of the American Institutes for Research; and 

Hilary Darilek and Ron Zimmer from RAND. 

We would like to acknowledge thoughtful contributions of the members of our Technical Working 

Group, including Julian Betts, David Francis, Margaret Goertz, Brian Gong, Eric Hanushek, Richard 

Ingersoll, Phyllis McClure, Paul Peterson, Christine Steele, and Phoebe Winter. 

Many Department staff reviewed drafts of this report and provided useful comments and suggestions. 

We would like to acknowledge the assistance of David Goodwin, director of program and analytic 

studies in PPSS and Daphne Kaplan, PPSS team leader, as well as Tom Luce, Millicent Bentley-Memon, 

Kerri Briggs, Carol Cichowski, Tom Corwin, Tim D’Emilio, Sarah Dillard, David Harmon, Stacy 

Kreppel, Holly Kuzmich, Milagros Lanauze, Kathleen Leos, Jeannette Lim, Meredith Miller, Kay Rigling, 

Krista Ritacco, Phil Rosenfelt, Grace Ross, Ross Santy, Martha Snyder, and Christine Wolfe. 

While we appreciate the assistance and support of all of the above individuals, any errors in judgment or 

fact are of course the responsibility of the authors.

Executive Summary xv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

A key aim of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is to provide new educational options 

to parents whose children attend Title I schools1 that are identified for improvement, corrective action, 

or restructuring because the schools have not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward meeting state 

standards for two or more years. The first of these options is the opportunity for parents to transfer 

their children to another school in the district that has not been identified. The second option is the 

opportunity for parents to enroll their children in supplemental educational services—such as tutoring, 

remediation, or other academic instruction—that are offered by a state-approved provider and are in 

addition to instruction provided during the school day. This option is available to low-income families 

whose children attend a Title I school that is in Year 2 (or a later year) of identified for improvement 

status. 

This report presents findings on the implementation of parental choice options from the first year of the 

National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and the Study of State Implementation 

of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB). The report uses data 

from state-level interviews, from surveys of a nationally representative sample of district officials, 

principals, and teachers, surveys of parents in eight school districts, surveys of supplemental educational 

service providers in 16 districts, and student-level demographic and achievement data in nine districts, to 

examine the implementation across the country of the school choice and supplemental educational 

service components of Title I through 2004–05. 

KEY FINDINGS

3⁄4 In 2004–05, nearly 6.2 million students were eligible for Title I school choice and as many as 

1.8 million were eligible for Title I supplemental educational services. The number of students 

participating in the options grew rapidly from prior years, but only about 1 percent of eligible 

students took advantage of the school choice option, and about 17 percent (in 2003–04) took 

advantage of supplemental services.2 School choice options were constrained at the middle and 

high school levels, because large numbers of school districts have only one middle school or 

high school. Eligible high school students also apparently had fewer Title I supplemental service 

options: In a subsample of districts, providers were less likely to offer services for secondary 

school students and participation rates were lower.

3⁄4 In a subsample of large urban districts with available data, the average achievement of the 

schools chosen by students using the Title I school choice option were consistently higher than 

the average achievement of the schools they came from, and their parents were largely satisfied 

with the new schools.

3⁄4 Title I supplemental service options expanded rapidly between 2003 and 2005 with the number 

of approved providers tripling. The majority of providers were private (nonprofit and for-profit) 

 

1 Title I schools are schools that operate programs funded under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 (ESEA), the largest federal program supporting elementary and secondary education. Title I, Part A, includes the 

two parental choice options that are the subject of this paper. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the most recent 

reauthorization of ESEA. 2 Supplemental service participation rates could not be determined for 2004–05 because surveys were administered in the 

middle of the school year and not all supplemental service enrollments for the year had yet taken place. The 

Consolidated State Performance Reports for 2004–05 indicated that 19 percent of students participated in supplemental 

services in that year (50 states and the District of Columbia). 
Executive Summary xvi 

organizations, and private providers served the majority of students. In a subsample of eight 

districts, most parents of students participating in supplemental services were satisfied with the 

services.

3⁄4 Low participation rates in Title I school choice and supplemental educational services may be 

related to problems communicating with parents. Most school districts did not notify parents of 

their school choice options before the start of the school year, and many eligible parents in the 

eight-district subsample reported that they had not received information about Title I school 

choice or supplemental service options.

3⁄4 As of 2004–05, most states were working to develop and implement standards for the 

monitoring and evaluation of Title I supplemental service providers; only a small number of 

states had statewide databases incorporating participation and achievement information that 

would permit rigorous evaluations of providers’ effects. Meanwhile, providers’ communication 

with school staff and coordination with school academic programs varied substantially. 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND DATA SOURCES FOR THIS REPORT

This report addresses three broad areas in evaluating the Title I provisions for providing school choice 

and supplemental services for students in low-performing schools: 

1. Who is eligible to participate in parental school choice and supplemental educational services 

under Title I of NCLB, what choices are made available, and who participates? 

2. How are states, districts and schools providing information to make parents aware of their 

options? What information do parents have and use to make decisions about their school choice 

and supplemental service options? 

3. How do states, districts, and schools support, monitor, and collaborate in the implementation of 

supplemental educational services under Title I? 

One chapter of this report is devoted to each of these areas. Another report3 addresses a fourth 

evaluation question: 

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

students? 

OVERVIEW OF THE PARENTAL CHOICE PROVISIONS OF NCLB

Increased choice for parents of children in persistently low-achieving schools is one of the key principles 

of NCLB.4 Title I schools that do not meet state goals for “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) for two 

consecutive years are identified for improvement. NCLB requires that parents of students in Title I 

schools that are identified for improvement be given the option to transfer their children to another 

public school that has not been identified for improvement, with transportation provided by the district. 

Access to supplemental educational services is an additional parental choice available under Title I of 

NCLB. Students from low-income families in schools that have been identified for improvement are 

eligible to receive supplemental services from a provider selected by parents if the school falls short of 

AYP for a third time before exiting improvement status. These services are to be free to parents and 

 

3 Zimmer, Gill, Razquin, Booker and Lockwood, 2007. 4 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Sec. 1116, para. (1)(E) and (5)(A). 
Executive Summary xvii 

students; must be provided outside the regular school day; and may include tutoring, after-school 

services, and summer school. Supplemental services may be provided by a variety of state-approved 

organizations, including for-profit and nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, school 

districts, and public or private schools. Each state is responsible for developing criteria for approving 

providers and for providing school districts with a list of available, approved providers in their 

geographic locations, and for monitoring and evaluating the performance of providers. 

Parents are permitted to select a supplemental service provider from a list of providers that have been 

approved by the state. School districts, in consultation with parents and providers, must develop specific 

educational goals for each participating student and enter into contracts with providers to serve 

individual students. Title I supplemental service providers are responsible for measuring students’ 

progress and reporting regularly on that progress to teachers and parents. States are responsible for 

monitoring and evaluating provider performance. 

These parental choice options are closely linked to the accountability provisions of NCLB that give 

parents information on which schools in their communities are succeeding and which are not. Districts 

are required to notify parents of eligible students of choice options in a timely manner and to provide 

parents with the information needed to make informed decisions. The choice provisions are intended to 

provide better options to individual students in low-performing schools, improve outcomes for students 

who transfer or receive supplemental services, and pressure low-performing schools to improve. The 

law thereby aims to improve outcomes for all students. 

ELIGIBILITY, AVAILABILITY AND PARTICIPATION

In 2004–05, nearly 6.2 million students were eligible for Title I school choice and as 

many as 1.8 million students were eligible for supplemental services.5

In 2004–05, 18 percent of Title I schools were identified for improvement, with the consequence that 

their students were eligible for school choice. Some of these schools—8 percent of all Title I schools—

were in the second year of improvement status or beyond, making their students also eligible for Title I 

supplemental services. 

One-fourth (26 percent) of K–12 students in Title I schools were eligible for Title I school choice and 

8 percent were potentially eligible to receive Title I supplemental services. The number of students 

eligible for choice options grew substantially from 2002–03 to 2004–05. 

High-poverty, high-minority, and urban Title I schools were more likely to have students who were 

eligible for Title I school choice and supplemental services. Thirty-seven percent of high-poverty Title I 

schools (schools with 75 percent or more of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches) had 

students eligible for school choice, compared with 5 percent of low-poverty Title I schools (schools with 

less than 35 percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches). Similarly, 18 percent of highpoverty Title I schools had students eligible for supplemental services, compared with 2 percent of lowpoverty Title I schools. High-minority and urban schools likewise comprised a disproportionate share of 

those required to offer Title I choice and supplemental services. 

 

5 The 1.8 million students eligible for Title I supplemental services represent a maximum number of students potentially 

eligible, estimated from the number of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches in Title I schools that must offer 

supplemental services. If resources were insufficient to serve all such students, then districts were permitted to offer 

services only to low-achieving students among the population. 
Executive Summary xviii 

Nationally, the participation rate for Title I supplemental educational services was 

substantially higher than for Title I school choice, but in both instances, most 

eligible students did not participate. 

In 2003–04, 233,000 students received Title I supplemental services while 45,000 students used the 

Title I school choice option to transfer to a school not identified for improvement (in 2004–05).6 Both 

of these numbers represented substantial increases from 2002–03 when 18,000 students used Title I 

school choice and 42,000 used supplemental services. School choice participants under Title I 

represented about 1 percent of eligible students in 2004–05, a participation rate that was comparable to 

that of the previous year. Supplemental service participants represented 17 percent of the total number 

of students estimated to be eligible. In the nine-district subsample, participation rates in Title I 

supplemental services were highest in elementary grades. 

In a subsample of nine large, urban districts, students who participated in Title I 

supplemental educational services had lower scores than the eligible student 

population had. Students who participated in Title I school choice had scores 

nearly identical to those of the eligible student population. 

Overall, average prior test scores for reading and math of students participating in supplemental services 

were 0.12 of a standard deviation lower than those of the eligible population. However, there were no 

statistically significant differences in prior reading and math test scores for students participating in the 

school choice option relative to the eligible population. Average test scores of students eligible for 

supplemental services and school choice were similar because these populations largely overlap. 

Most districts required to offer Title I school choice reported offering eligible 

students school choice options; however, districts were more likely to provide 

options at the elementary level than at the middle and high school levels. 

At the elementary level, 70 percent of districts with one or more elementary schools identified for 

improvement reported offering parents in those schools the option to transfer their child to another 

school (see Exhibit S.1). By contrast, approximately two-thirds of districts with middle or high schools 

identified for improvement were not offering school choice at those grade levels because all the schools 

at that grade level were identified for improvement; indeed, a large proportion of these districts operate 

only one middle school and one high school. As a consequence, the school choice option was much less 

frequently available in secondary grades. At the middle school level, only 20 percent of affected districts 

reported offering the school choice option to parents, while the comparable figure for the high school 

level was 17 percent. Among districts offering school choice to eligible students, 40 percent reported 

that at least one student actually transferred schools in 2004–05. 

 

6 The 233,000 students using Title I supplemental services may include an unknown number of students not eligible for 

such services under the law because some districts notified a larger pool of students than the law required. Supplemental 

service participation rates could not be determined for 2004–05 because surveys were administered in the middle of the 

school year; not all supplemental service enrollments for the year had yet taken place. Data from the Consolidated State 

Performance Reports for 2004–05 indicate that 446,000 eligible students participated in Title I supplemental services 

that year (based on 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). 
Executive Summary xix 

In nine large, urban districts, students who used the Title I school choice option 

transferred to higher-performing schools. 

Students using school choice moved from schools with below-average achievement levels to schools 

with above-average achievement levels in every one of the nine districts. In several of the districts, the 

difference in achievement levels between chosen schools and former schools exceeded half a standard 

deviation. Across the nine districts, average achievement levels in the chosen schools exceeded average 

achievement levels in the schools left behind by nearly four-tenths of a standard deviation. 

In 2004–05, most districts required to offer Title I supplemental educational services 

reported offering these services to eligible elementary and middle school students; 

One-third of districts did so for eligible high school students. 

Most districts with eligible high school students did not offer Title I supplemental services in 2004–05, in 

part because providers were themselves far less likely to offer services to high school students than to 

elementary and middle school students (at least in a subsample of 16 districts where providers were 

surveyed). 

A majority of districts required to offer Title I supplemental educational services 

reported that parents could choose from multiple providers, and most had at least 

one student participate in 2003–04. 

Exhibit S.1 

Percentage of Districts and of Students in These Districts Reporting 

Availability of Title I School Choice Option, by School Level, 2004–05 

(Among Districts Required to Offer Choice) 

55%

67%

92%

17%

20%

70%

17%

16%

70%

66%

26%

29%

16%

13%

14%

3%

5%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

High Schools

Middle Schools

Elementary Schools

High Schools

Middle Schools

Elementary Schools District offers Title I

school choice at this

grade level

Title I school choice is

not available because

schools at this grade

level are identified for

improvement

District is not offering

Title I school choice for

other reasons

Exhibit reads: Seventy percent of districts required to offer school choice at the elementary level 

reported they were offering school choice at that grade level. Ninety-two percent of students in districts 

required to offer choice were located in these districts. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey; SSI-NCLB, National AYP and Identification Database (n=124, 107, 72 

districts, respectively, for elementary, middle, and high schools). 

Percentage of Districts 

Percentage of Students 
Executive Summary xx 

A majority of districts (63 percent) reported that parents could choose from at least three Title I 

supplemental service providers, and 38 percent reported they could choose among five or more 

providers. Among districts required to offer supplemental services, 88 percent reported that at least one 

student participated in 2003–04. 

From May 2003 to May 2005, the number of state-approved Title I supplemental 

educational service providers in the nation tripled. 

The total number of supplemental educational service providers increased from 997 in May 2003 to 

2,734 in May 2005. The largest increase occurred among private providers. Private providers accounted 

for 60 percent of all state-approved providers in May 2003 and 76 percent in May 2005. Meanwhile, 

school districts and public schools declined in their proportion of all providers, from 33 percent in May 

2003 to 17 percent in May 2005. Although districts and public schools, institutions of higher education, 

and other types of non-private providers accounted for a smaller proportion of the total number of 

providers in May 2005 than they did three years earlier, all types of providers increased substantially in 

number over the three years. 

Private providers served 58 percent of students participating in Title I supplemental 

educational services in 2003–04 and another 34 percent of students received 

supplemental services from districts or public schools. 

National for-profit companies, which served 39 percent of participating students, served the largest 

proportion of students served by private providers. The remainder of students received supplemental 

services from faith-based and community-based providers, from colleges and universities, or through 

distance learning. 

Title I supplemental educational service providers reported providing an average of 

57 hours of services per student per year. 

Providers reported an average of 3.5 sessions per week and 84 minutes per session, suggesting a weekly 

average dose of nearly five hours. They also reported an average of 41 sessions provided to students 

annually, suggesting an average duration of services of 12 weeks. Parents reported a similar intensity of 

weekly services as that reported by providers. 

Nine out of ten parents of students participating in Title I supplemental educational 

services were satisfied with the services; half of such parents were very satisfied. 

More than 8 out of 10 parents who participated in Title I school choice were satisfied 

with that decision. 

A large majority (91 percent) of responding parents of supplemental service participants in the 

subsample of eight urban districts reported satisfaction with the services; 53 percent were very satisfied. 

Among parents who transferred a child to a non-identified school, half reported that they were “very 

satisfied” with their decision and another third were “satisfied.” 
Executive Summary xxi 

COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS

Most districts required to offer Title I school choice and supplemental educational 

services reported notifying eligible parents of their options; however, most eligible 

parents in a sample of eight urban districts said they had not been notified—despite 

the fact that all eight districts offered these choice options and produced 

notification letters. 

Sixty-two percent of the districts required to offer Title I school choice and 97 percent of districts 

required to offer supplemental educational services reported that they notified parents of the options 

available to their children. Most of the districts that did not notify parents of their eligibility for school 

choice were not offering school choice. 

In a sample of eight urban districts, however, only 27 percent of parents of students eligible for school 

choice said they had been notified of their option to move their child to another school—despite the fact 

that all eight districts reported that they had offered choice to such parents (and provided copies of the 

parent information letter that they had sent out). Similarly, only 53 percent of eligible parents said they 

were notified of the Title I supplemental services option—again, despite the fact that all eight districts 

said they had notified parents of their options. Only about a quarter of parents of students in schools 

identified for improvement knew that the schools were so identified. 

In 2004–05, less than one-third (29 percent) of districts required to offer school 

choice notified parents of eligible students before the beginning of the school year. 

About half (49 percent) of the districts required to offer Title I school choice reported that they notified 

parents of the availability of this option after the first day of school and those districts notified parents 

an average of five weeks after the beginning of the school year. One reason for the late notice to parents 

may be that many states did not release school AYP lists to districts until late in the summer or early in 

the fall. Seven states provided districts with preliminary school identification results before August. 

Twenty-four more states provided preliminary results in August, leaving little or no time before the start 

of the school year, and 19 states and Puerto Rico provided preliminary results later than August, often 

after school had already begun. 

Districts that notified parents about Title I school choice before the first day of 

school had higher participation rates than districts that notified parents on or after 

the first day of school. 

In districts where parents were notified about the Title I school choice before the start of the school 

year, 2.9 percent of eligible students participated. In contrast, in the districts that did not notify eligible 

parents until after school started, the participation rate was 0.2 percent. This result is consistent with the 

result of parent survey data, which show that in a sample of eight urban districts, parents who took 

advantage of the school choice option were substantially more likely to have been informed before the 

start of the school year (62 percent) than were parents who kept their children in identified schools 

(38 percent). 
Executive Summary xxii 

The most frequent reasons parents gave for deciding to move their child to a school 

not identified for improvement were the better quality of teaching and good 

discipline and safety at the new school (reported by 52 and 49 percent of parents 

who used the school choice option, respectively). 

Another related reason that parents gave for using the choice option was that their child’s old school was 

not meeting his or her needs (47 percent). 

IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

As of early 2005, most states were working to develop and implement systems for 

monitoring and evaluating Title I supplemental educational service provider 

effectiveness, but very few had databases that would permit statewide examination 

of the achievement results of participating students. 

States with evaluation standards planned to use a variety of measures of effectiveness. Seventeen states 

said they will evaluate provider effectiveness based on student achievement on state assessments, 

although only one of these planned to use a matched control group. Twelve states and Puerto Rico 

reported that they planned to allow the use of provider-developed tests, and ten states intended to use 

other measures, such as student grades, homework completion, or school- or teacher-administered tests. 

Seventeen states said they planned to measure parent or student satisfaction with the services. 

Although NCLB does not give districts a formal role in the monitoring and 

evaluation of Title I supplemental educational services,providers reported higher 

frequencies of monitoring by districts than by states. 

Three-quarters of providers in a subsample of 16 districts reported that student attendance rates at 

supplemental services were tracked by districts at least a few times per year, while only 35 percent 

reported a similar frequency of monitoring by states. Nearly half of providers reported that districts 

tracked student attendance rates for supplemental services monthly. Observations of Title I 

supplemental service sessions were the next most common method of monitoring by districts, reported 

by half of providers as occurring at least a few times per year. Ten percent of providers reported that 

they were not monitored by the state in any way, although less than 1 percent reported that they had 

received no monitoring from either the district or state. 

Some district contracts required that a certified teacher supervise supplemental service sessions and some 

imposed caps on the number of students served by a given provider. 

Districts reported spending an average of $875 per participating pupil on Title I 

supplemental educational services in 2003–04. 

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

Most providers reported that they communicated with the regular classroom 

teachers of their students, but one in five never did so. 

Seventy percent of Title I supplemental educational service providers reported that they communicated 

with the classroom teachers of their students at least a few times per year. However, a non-negligible 

minority of providers (19 percent) reported no contact with classroom teachers.
Executive Summary xxiii 

CONCLUSIONS

Most districts reported that they offered Title I school choice and supplemental educational services if 

they were required to do so, and the number of students participating in both options (especially 

supplemental services) increased substantially from the initial implementation of NCLB to the most 

recent year with available data. Nonetheless, only a small proportion of eligible students actually 

participated in the choice options available to them. Three notable issues may have contributed to 

reduce participation: 

1. Absence of available options. A substantial number of districts—usually small districts with 

few schools—had no non-identified schools to which students in identified schools could 

transfer. An absence of non-identified schools is especially common at the middle and high 

school levels. With respect to supplemental services, providers were far less likely to offer 

services to high school students than to younger students. 

2. Timing of notification. Less than one-third of districts required to offer Title I school choice 

notified parents of eligible students before the beginning of the school year. 

3. Problems with communication. While almost all of the districts offering Title I school choice 

and supplemental educational services reported that they notified parents of the options available 

to their children, many parents were not aware of their options. 

For families that participated in Title I school choice, there are signs of promise. Parents who took 

advantage of Title I school choice were very satisfied with the new schools—which have substantially 

higher average student achievement than did the schools departed by the transfer students (at least in 

nine large, urban districts subsampled), as intended by NCLB. Moreover, students using the school 

choice option had lower than average levels of prior achievement. 

Parents were likewise satisfied with Title I supplemental educational services. The availability of 

supplemental services has grown rapidly over the past several years contributing to the rise in 

participation. Participating students—who also tend to be low-achieving and apparently in need of the 

services—received an average of 57 hours of additional instructional time. But systems for monitoring 

providers and evaluating their effectiveness are only in their infancy. 

In short, states, districts, and providers were working to implement Title I school choice and 

supplemental educational services, but whether they will meet the expectations envisioned in the law of 

providing a range of educational options to parents of students in persistently low-performing Title I 

school is not yet clear. 
 
Chapter I 1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A key aim of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is to provide new educational options 

to parents whose children attend Title I schools7 that are identified for improvement, corrective action, 

or restructuring because the schools have not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward meeting state 

standards for two or more years. The first of these options is the opportunity for parents to transfer 

their children to another school in the district that has not been identified. The second option is the 

opportunity for parents to enroll their children in supplemental educational services—such as tutoring, 

remediation, or other academic instruction—that are offered by a state-approved provider and are in 

addition to instruction provided during the school day. This option is available to low-income families 

whose children attend a Title I school that is in Year 2 (or a later year) of identified for improvement 

status. 

This report presents findings on the implementation of the Title I school choice and supplemental 

educational service options from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) 

and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind

(SSI-NCLB). Together, these two studies aim to provide an integrated longitudinal evaluation of the 

implementation of key NCLB provisions by states, districts and schools, focusing primarily on the 

following four areas: accountability, teacher quality, parental choice and supplemental educational 

services, and targeting and resource allocation. Using state reports, extant data on student and school 

outcomes, and interviews with state-level administrators, the SSI-NCLB is analyzing implementation in 

each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in 2004–05 and 2006–07. During the 

same two years, the NLS-NCLB is tracking implementation in a nationally representative sample of 

districts and schools through surveys of district administrators, principals, and teachers; as well as 

surveys of parents in eight districts, surveys of supplemental service providers in 16 districts, and analysis 

of student-level demographic and achievement data in nine districts.8 Data in this report are based on 

the 2004–05 data collection cycle for both studies and on a national database of the 2003–04 adequate 

yearly progress (AYP) status of all schools and of schools identified for improvement in 2004–05. 

Two companion reports, also based on these studies, will address NCLB implementation and progress in 

the areas of accountability and teacher quality, and a fourth report will examine resource targeting and 

allocation under Title I and certain other federal education programs. 

OVERVIEW OF THE PARENTAL CHOICE PROVISIONS OF NCLB

Increased choice for parents of children from disadvantaged backgrounds is one of the key principles of 

NCLB.9 Title I schools that do not meet state goals for AYP for two consecutive years are identified as 

being in need of improvement. NCLB requires that parents of students in Title I schools that are 

identified for improvement be given the option to transfer their children to another public school in the 

district that has not been identified for improvement, with transportation provided by the district. 

Priority is to be given to low-achieving, low-income students requesting transfers, and local education 

 

7 Title I schools are schools that operate programs funded under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 (ESEA), the largest federal program supporting elementary and secondary education. Title I, Part A, includes the 

two parental choice options that are the subject of this paper. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the most recent 

reauthorization of ESEA. 8 The parent survey was intended to be conducted in the same nine districts as the student-level achievement analysis, 

but one of the districts did not provide the data needed to draw a sample of parents so the parent survey was conducted 

in eight of the nine districts. 

9 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Sec. 1116, para. (1)(E) and (5)(A). 
Chapter I 2 

agencies must offer more than one choice to eligible students. Students may stay in the new school until 

they complete that school’s highest grade, but local education agencies are not required to provide 

transportation to these students once their school of origin is no longer identified for improvement. 

Access to supplemental educational services is an additional parental choice available under Title I of 

NCLB. Students from low-income families in schools that have been identified for improvement are 

eligible to receive supplemental services from a provider selected by parents if the school falls short of 

AYP for a third time before exiting improvement status. These services are free to parents and students; 

must be provided outside the regular school day; and may include tutoring, after-school services, and 

summer school. Parents are permitted to select a supplemental service provider from a list of providers 

that have been approved by the state to offer services. School districts, in consultation with parents and 

providers, must develop specific educational goals for each participating student. Supplemental service 

providers are responsible for measuring students’ progress and reporting regularly on that progress to 

teachers and parents. 

Supplemental educational services may be provided by a variety of organizations, including approved 

for-profit and nonprofit organizations, school districts, faith-based organizations, and public or private 

schools. Each state is responsible for developing criteria for approving providers and for providing 

school districts with a list of available approved providers in their geographic locations. 

Districts with students eligible for school choice and supplemental educational services are required to 

allocate at least 20 percent of their Title I, Part A, allocations for supplemental services and for 

transportation for students using school choice. Although all low-income students who attend Title I 

schools that are in the second year of improvement and beyond are eligible to receive supplemental 

services, the district must give priority to the lowest-achieving eligible students if district funds are not 

sufficient to provide services to all eligible students. 

These parental choice options are closely linked to the accountability provisions of NCLB that give 

parents information on which schools in their communities are succeeding and which are not. Indeed, 

districts are also required to notify parents of eligible students of all available choice options in a timely 

manner and must provide parents with the information needed to make informed decisions. The choice 

provisions are intended to provide better options to individual students in low-performing schools, 

improve outcomes for students who transfer or receive supplemental services, and pressure lowperforming schools to improve. The law thereby aims to improve outcomes for all students. 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND DATA SOURCES FOR THIS REPORT

This report addresses three broad areas of inquiry about the Title I provisions for providing school 

choice and supplemental services for students in low-performing schools: 

1. Who is eligible to participate in parental school choice and supplemental educational services 

under Title I of NCLB, what choices are made available, and who participates? 

2. How are states, districts, and schools providing information to make parents aware of their 

options? What information do parents have and use to make decisions about their school choice 

and supplemental service options? 

3. How do states, districts, and schools support, monitor, and collaborate in the implementation of 

supplemental educational services under Title I? 
Chapter I 3 

One chapter of this report is devoted to each of these areas. Another report10 addresses a fourth 

evaluation question: 

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

students? 

The SSI-NCLB and the NLS-NCLB, which provide the data to address the above questions, are part of 

the congressionally mandated National Assessment of Title I being conducted by the U.S. Department 

of Education. The SSI-NCLB examines state implementation of NCLB in the areas of accountability 

and teacher quality through analysis of school performance data and state documents (including state 

Web sites and consolidated applications and reports) and telephone interviews with state officials 

responsible for implementation of the accountability, teacher quality, and Title III and supplemental 

educational services requirements of NCLB. 

For this report on Title I parental choice options, the SSI-NCLB survey data primarily include 

information about state monitoring and evaluation of supplemental educational services. The state 

interviews were conducted in fall 2004 and winter 2005; a second wave of data collection will ensue in 

fall 2006. The response rate for the first wave of state interviews was 100 percent. The SSI-NCLB also 

collected state lists of schools identified for improvement, which were used to estimate the number of 

students eligible for the school choice and supplemental service options. The resulting National 

Database of School AYP and Identification was merged with National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) data on school poverty, size, grades served, and urbanicity from the Common Core of Data for 

2002–03 in order to examine how eligibility and participation vary by school demographic characteristics. 

The NLS-NCLB includes nationally representative samples of districts, principals, and teachers, as well 

as samples of parents and supplemental service providers in a subsample of 8 and 16 districts, 

respectively. Student-level demographic and achievement data was also collected in the same subsample 

of districts used for parent surveys, plus one additional district. The sample includes a national 

representation of 300 districts within which is a sample of 1,483 schools, including a mix of elementary, 

middle and high schools. The school sample includes 557 schools that were identified for improvement 

under NCLB. In each school, six teachers were randomly selected: at the elementary school level, one 

teacher in each grade; at the secondary school level, three English teachers and three math teachers. In 

total, the NLS-NCLB surveyed 4,772 elementary teachers, 2,081 secondary English language arts 

teachers, and 1,938 secondary mathematics teachers. In addition, 1,483 principals, 300 district 

administrators, 1,408 special education teachers and 950 Title I paraprofessionals (teacher aides) were 

surveyed. Response rates ranged from 82 to 96 percent. 

This report focuses on the Title I parental choice provisions, which only districts with Title I schools 

identified for improvement are required to offer; therefore, fewer respondents were eligible to answer 

these sections. The surveys asked district administrators and principals about Title I school choice in 

2003–04 and 2004–05 and about supplemental educational services in 2003–04.11 The teacher surveys 

also included questions about supplemental services. For the school choice sections, 156 district 

administrators and 355 principals responded for the 2003–04 school year and 125 district administrators 

and 278 principals responded for the 2004–05 school year. Respondents to questions about 

 

10 See Zimmer, Gill, Razquin, Booker and Lockwood, 2007. 11 This report does not address supplemental services provided in 2004–05, because in many districts, services may only 

have started when the NLS-NCLB district survey was in the field in the winter of 2004–05. 
Chapter I 4 

supplemental services in 2003–04 comprised 102 district administrators, 220 principals, and 2,503 

teachers. 

For the parent survey, a stratified random sample was drawn from a subset of eight large urban school 

districts with substantial numbers of participants in the two Title I choice options.12 Four groups of 

parents were surveyed, based on district identification of parent eligibility and participation in school 

choice and supplemental services: parents of students in schools that were not identified for 

improvement under NCLB, parents of students in schools identified for improvement who used 

supplemental services, parents of students in schools identified for improvement who did not use 

supplemental services, and parents who used the Title I school option to transfer their child to a nonidentified school. One parent per student was surveyed. A total of 1,863 parents completed surveys for 

a response rate of 61 percent. 

For the supplemental service provider survey, a random sample of 150 state-approved providers were 

surveyed in 16 districts, including the same eight districts used for the parent survey and eight additional 

districts selected to ensure variation in geographic regions, district size, and urbanicity. Surveys were 

completed by 103 providers for a response rate of 82 percent. Eighty-five percent of these providers 

were private providers, as compared with 84 percent of providers nationally. Five percent of the 

responding providers were school districts, compared with 14 percent nationally. More details are 

provided in Appendix A. 

In addition to the survey data, the report uses administrative data and documents gathered under the 

NLS-NCLB. Documents were collected in a purposive sample of 25 school districts (including the 

districts in which the parent and provider surveys were conducted). Samples of documents relevant to 

NCLB were collected in each district, including district and school improvement plans and report cards 

and parental notifications about choice options, teacher qualifications, and achievement test scores of 

children. 

Taken together, the purpose of these two studies is to provide an integrated longitudinal evaluation of 

the implementation of NCLB at the state, district, and school levels, with particular focus in four areas: 

(1) accountability, (2) teacher quality, (3) Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, and 

(4) resource allocation and targeting. This report focuses on the third of these areas, while companion 

reports will address the others. 

Technical Note 

References in the text to differences between groups or over time that are based on nationally 

representative samples highlight only those differences that are statistically significant using the t-value 

and a significance level of 0.05. The significance level, or alpha level, reflects the probability that a 

difference between groups as large as the one observed could arise simply due to sampling variation, if 

there were no true difference between groups in the population. The tests were conducted by calculating 

a t-value for the difference between a pair of means and comparing that value to a published table of 

critical values for t.

 

12 One of the districts did not provide the data needed to draw a sample of parents, so that the parent data is based on 

eight districts. 
Chapter II 5 

II. ELIGIBILITY, AVAILABILITY AND PARTICIPATION 

No Child Left Behind aims to make additional educational options, including the option to choose another 

school and the option to receive supplemental service choices, available to the parents of students in 

Title I schools identified for improvement. This chapter describes the students eligible for these choices 

and the schools in which they are enrolled; the availability of the options offered to their parents, 

including the characteristics of supplemental service providers; and rates of participation in the options. 

Key Findings 

• In 2004–05, nearly 6.2 million students were eligible for Title I school choice and as 

many as 1.8 million students were eligible for supplemental educational services.

• The participation rate for Title I supplemental educational services (17 percent) was 

substantially higher than for Title I school choice (1 percent), but in both instances, 

most eligible students did not participate.

• In a subsample of nine large, urban districts, both Title I choice options were reaching 

disadvantaged students. Students who participated in supplemental educational services had 

lower achievement than did all eligible students, while school choice participants had similar 

test scores as the eligible student population. African-American students had above-average 

participation rates in both Title I choice options; Hispanic students had above-average 

participation rates for supplemental services but below-average participation rates for school 

choice. 

• Title I choice options were less likely to be offered at the middle and high school levels. 

Less than one-fourth of districts required to offer Title I school choice at the middle and high 

school levels reported doing so (20 percent and 17 percent, respectively), compared with 70 

percent at the elementary level. Most districts required to offer supplemental educational 

services reported doing so for elementary and middle school students, but only 44 percent of 

districts did so for eligible high school students. 

• In nine large, urban districts, students who used the Title I school choice option 

transferred to higher-performing schools. 

• From May 2003 to May 2005, the number of state-approved Title I supplemental 

educational service providers in the nation more than tripled from 997 to 2,734. The 

largest increase occurred among private providers. 

• Private providers served a majority of students (58 percent) participating in Title I 

supplemental educational services in 2003–04. Most of the remaining participants 

(34 percent) received supplemental educational services from districts or public schools. 

• Supplemental educational service providers reported providing an average of 57 hours 

of services per student per year. Most parents of students participating in supplemental 

educational services in a subsample of urban districts reported that the students received 

supplemental services at their own schools, in a group with other students and the tutor. 
Chapter II 6 

ELIGIBILITY FOR PARENTAL CHOICE 

In 2004–05, nearly 6.2 million students were eligible for Title I school choice and as 

many as 1.8 million students were eligible for supplemental educational services. 

Over one-fourth (26 percent) of K–12 students in Title I schools were eligible for Title I school choice 

and 8 percent were potentially eligible to receive supplemental educational services (see Exhibit 1). 

Most districts were not required to offer parental choice options in 2004–05, because most Title I 

schools were not identified for improvement. In 2004–05, 18 percent of Title I schools were identified 

for improvement, with the consequence that their students were eligible for school choice. Some of 

these schools—8 percent of all Title I schools—were in the second year of improvement status or 

beyond, making their students also eligible for supplemental services (see Exhibit 1).13

Exhibit 1 

Number and Percentage of Students Eligible for Title I School Choice and Supplemental 

Educational Services and of Title I Schools with Eligible Students, 

2002–03 Through 2004–05 

School Choice Supplemental Educational Services 

2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 

Students eligible 

Number of students 1,535,000 3,946,000 6,185,000 592,000 1,377,000a 1,828,000 a

Percentage of students in Title I 

schools 6% 16% 26% 2% 6% 8% 

Title I schools 

Number of Title I schools 6,094 5,944 8,873 1,300 3,191 3,851 

Percentage of Title I schools 12% 12% 18% 2% 6% 8% 

Exhibit reads: In 2002–03, 1,535,000 students were eligible for Title I school choice representing 

6 percent of all students in Title I schools. In 2002–03, 6,094 schools, 12 percent of all Title I schools, had 

students eligible for school choice. 

a The number of students eligible for supplemental services is the maximum number of students potentially eligible, 

estimated from the number of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches in Title I schools that must offer 

supplemental services. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Education (2006) (for 2002–03); SSI-NCLB, National AYP and Identification Database 

(for 2003–04 and 2004–05, based on data reported by 50 states and the District of Columbia for 50,731 Title I 

schools). 

Some states and districts have expanded eligibility for parental choice options beyond the students that 

NCLB requires they serve. Idaho and New Mexico required non-Title I schools that have been 

identified for improvement to offer school choice and Tennessee required non-Title I schools in 

corrective action to offer choice. These three states also required districts to offer supplemental services 

in non-Title I identified schools. (Exhibit 1, however, includes only Title I schools.) Among districts 

required to offer supplemental services in 2004–05, 35 percent reported that they also offered 

supplemental services to students in schools in the first year of improvement. 

 

13 These findings are in line with the most recent report issued by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) (2006), which 

found that in 2005–06, 12 percent of districts were required to offer supplemental services. 
Chapter II 7 

The number of students eligible for Title I school choice and supplemental services grew substantially 

from 2002–03 to 2004–05, as did the number of schools and districts with such students (see 

Exhibit 1).14 The number of students eligible for school choice grew to over six million in 2004–05, 

while the number of students eligible for supplemental services rose from nearly 600,000 to 1.8 million 

from 2002–03 to 2004–05. This increase in eligibility for school choice represents a jump from 6 

percent of students in Title I schools being eligible in 2002–03 to 26 percent in 2004–05; the 

corresponding increase for those eligible for supplemental services was from 2 percent to 8 percent. 

High-poverty, high-minority, and urban Title I schools were more likely to have 

students eligible for Title I school choice and supplemental educational services. 

In 2004–05, 37 percent of high-poverty Title I schools (schools with 75 percent or more of students 

receiving free or reduced-price lunches) had students eligible for school choice, compared with 5 percent 

of low-poverty Title I schools (schools with less than 35 percent of students receiving free or reducedprice lunches) (see Exhibit 2). Similarly, 18 percent of high-poverty Title I schools had students eligible 

for supplemental services, compared with 2 percent of low-poverty Title I schools. 

 

14 The U.S. Department of Education’s 2006 report on the implementation of Title I (TASSIE), suggests that the 

seemingly inconsistent doubling of the number of students eligible for school choice from 2002–03 to 2003–04 while 

the number of schools with such students declined may be because NCLB led to the identification of an increasing 

proportion of large schools. 

Exhibit 2 

Percentage of Title I Schools with Students Eligible for Title I School Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Poverty and Minority Status, 2004–05 

37% 38%

18%

21%

5% 5%

2% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Poverty Minority Poverty Minority

Percentage of Title I Schools

High

Low

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, 37 percent of high-poverty Title I schools had students eligible for school 

choice, compared with 5 percent of low-poverty Title I schools. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, National AYP and Identification Database (based on data reported by 50 states and the District 

of Columbia for 48,761 Title I schools). 

Title I Schools Where Choice Must 

Be Offered 

Title I Schools Where Supplemental 

Services Must Be Offered 
Chapter II 8 

Schools with high concentrations of minority students (75 percent or more) were much more likely to 

have students eligible for the two Title I choice options in 2004–05 than were schools with low 

concentrations of minority students (less than 25 percent). Specifically, 38 percent of high-minority 

Title I schools had students eligible for school choice and 21 percent had students eligible for 

supplemental services, compared with 5 percent and 1 percent, respectively, of low-minority schools. 

Urban schools were more likely than suburban and rural schools to have students eligible for the Title I 

choice options. In 2004–05, 31 percent of urban Title I schools had students eligible for school choice, 

compared with 15 percent of suburban Title I schools and 9 percent of rural Title I schools (see 

Exhibit 3). This pattern held for supplemental services as well.15

Secondary students were more likely to be eligible for school choice and supplemental services than were 

elementary students, because secondary Title I schools, particularly middle schools, were more likely to 

be identified for improvement. While students in 15 percent of Title I elementary schools were eligible 

for school choice, students in 31 percent of Title I middle schools and 24 percent of Title I high schools 

were eligible. Similarly, students in 6 percent of Title I elementary schools were eligible for supplemental 

services compared with students in 12 percent of Title I middle schools and 7 percent of Title I high 

schools (see Exhibit 4). 

 

15 The CEP (2006) report likewise found that urban districts were most likely to be required to offer supplemental 

services, with rural districts least likely to be in the same situation. 

Exhibit 3 

Percentage of Title I Schools with Students Eligible for Title I School Choice 

and Supplemental Educational Services, by Urbanicity, 2004–05 

32%

14% 16%

5%

9%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

 Title I Schools Where Choice Must Be

Offered

Title I Schools Where Supplemental

Services Must Be Offered

Percentage of Title I Schools

Urban

Suburban

Rural

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, 32 percent of urban Title I schools with students eligible for school choice, 

compared with 16 percent of suburban and 9 percent of rural Title I schools.

Source: SSI-NCLB, National AYP and Identification Database (based on data reported by 50 states and the District 

of Columbia for 48,761 Title I schools). 
Chapter II 9 

PARTICIPATION IN TITLE I CHOICE OPTIONS

The number of students participating in Title I school choice and supplemental 

educational services increased substantially from 2002–03 to subsequent years. 

Both school choice and supplemental services showed increases in the number of students participating. 

Nationally, school choice participation increased from 18,000 in 2002–03 to 38,000 in 2003–04 and 

45,000 in 2004–05. Participation in supplemental educational services grew more rapidly, from 42,000 in 

2002–03 to 233,000 in 2003–04.16

Nationally, the participation rate for Title I supplemental educational services was 

substantially higher than for Title I school choice, but in both instances, most 

eligible students did not participate. 

Students participating in Title I school choice represented about 1 percent of eligible and 1 percent of 

notified students, a participation rate that was comparable to that of the previous year, while students 

participating in supplemental services represented about 17 percent of the number of students estimated 

to be eligible for these services nationally in 2003–04 (see Exhibit 5). 

 

16 Participation in supplemental services could not be determined for 2004–05 because surveys were administered in the 

middle of the school year and not all supplemental service enrollments for the year had yet taken place. Data from the 

Consolidated State Performance Reports for 2004–05 indicate that 446,000 eligible students participated in Title I 

supplemental services that year (based on 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). 

Exhibit 4 

Percentage of Title I Schools with Students Eligible for Title I School Choice 

and Supplemental Educational Services, by School Level, 2004–05 

15%

6%

31%

12%

24%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

 Title I Schools Where Choice Must Be

Offered

Title I Schools Where Supplemental

Services Must Be Offered

Percentage of Title I Schools

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, 15 percent of elementary Title I schools had students eligible for school choice, 

compared with 31 percent of Title I middle schools and 24 percent of Title I high schools. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, National AYP and Identification Database (based on data reported by 50 states and the District of 

Columbia for 48,761 Title I schools). 
Chapter II 10 

These participation rates are similar to those estimated by the Center on Education Policy (2006) study, 

which reported that about 1 percent of eligible students were using the Title I school choice option 

during the 2004–05 school year and about 18 percent of eligible students were using NCLB-related 

supplemental services during the 2004–05 school year. The Government Accountability Office (2006) 

counted 245,000 students participating in supplemental educational services in 2003–04, a result similar 

to the one reported here. 

Participation rates in Title I supplemental educational services were lower in 

secondary schools than in elementary schools. 

Elementary principals of schools with eligible students reported participation numbers in supplemental 

educational services for 2003–04 that indicated an average rate of 17 percent of eligible students. Middle 

school principals, by contrast, reported participation numbers that indicated that only 5 percent of 

eligible students were participating in supplemental services. Too few high school principals responded 

Exhibit 5 

Notification, Application, and Participation in Title I School Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Services, 2003–04 and 2004–05 (as Reported by Districts) 

Supplemental Educational 

Services 

2003–04 

(n=80) 

School Choice 

2003–04 

(n=109) 

School Choice 

2004–05 

(n=121) 

Estimated Number 

of Students 

Percentage of 

Eligible Students

Estimated Number 

of Students 

Percentage of 

Eligible Students

Estimated Number 

of Students 

Percentage of 

Eligible Students

Eligiblea 1,380,000 N/A 3,850,000 NA 6,526,000 NA 

Notified 1,714,000 124% 3,269,000 85% 4,175,000 64% 

Applied 265,000 19% 68,000 2% 82,000 1% 

Participatedb 233,000 17% 38,000 1% 45,000 1% 

Exhibit reads: In 2003–04, 1,380,000 students were eligible for Title I supplemental educational services. 

a The number of eligible students in this exhibit differs slightly from the number of eligible students noted in Exhibit 1 

because they are based on different sources. Exhibit 5 estimates of eligible students for the Title I parental choice were 

based on responses from the NLS-NCLB sample of districts whereas Exhibit 1 estimates were based on administrative 

records. 

b The 233,000 students participating in supplemental services may include students that districts were not required to offer 

these services to, under the law; some districts notified a larger pool of students than the law required. 

Note: The percentage of eligible students was estimated based on two different sources of data—the estimated number of 

students notified, taken from district survey responses, and actual national counts of students eligible for choice and 

supplemental services. NA means not applicable. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey; SSI-NCLB, National AYP and Identification Database.
Chapter II 11 

with knowledge of the number of their students participating to permit an accurate estimate of the 

national participation rate for high school students.17

Student-level administrative data on the participation in Title I supplemental services were provided by a 

subsample of nine large, urban districts: Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Palm 

Beach, Philadelphia, San Diego, and Washington, D.C. Average participation rates in those districts 

were generally consistent with the national survey results: they were consistently highest in elementary 

grades ranging from 16 to 23 percent and lowest in high school grades ranging from 2 to 4 percent (see 

Exhibit 6). 

Exhibit 6 

Percentage of Eligible Students Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational 

Services and School Choice, by Grade Level in Nine Districts, 2004–05

Grade 

Number of Districts 

Reporting 

Participation 

Percentage of Eligible 

Students Participating in 

Supplemental Services 

Percentage of Eligible 

Students Participating 

in School Choice 

K 2 1.2% 4.1% 

1 5 16.4% 0.9% 

2 7 23.8% 0.6% 

3 9 28.3% 1.0% 

4 9 27.5% 0.7% 

5 9 25.1% 0.6% 

6 8 15.6% 1.5% 

7 9 12.8% 0.6% 

8 9 12.0% 0.4% 

9 6 3.4% 0.4% 

10 6 4.0% 0.4% 

11 4 2.8% 0.2% 

12 3 2.4% 0.4% 

Exhibit reads: In two districts for which information on kindergarten students was available, 

1.2 percent of kindergarten students participated in Title I supplemental services and 4.1 percent 

participated in the school choice option. 

Note: Data for one of the nine districts are for 2003–04. 

Source: Zimmer, Gill, Razquin, Booker and Lockwood, 2007. 

For Title I school choice, average student participation rates across the subsample of nine urban districts 

were below 1 percent in each of grades one through five and seven through twelve.18 The second-highest 

average participation rate (1.5 percent) was in sixth grade, perhaps because many students were moving 

from elementary to middle school at that point. Similarly, ninth grade showed higher transfer rates than 

the adjoining grades in four of the five districts reporting school choice participation data for grades 

eight through ten. School choice participation was not included in the data for kindergarten, the other 

grade level that might be expected to show higher-than-average participation. 

 

17 Forty percent of high school principals in schools with eligible students indicated that they did not know how many of 

their students were participating, and a substantial additional proportion did not answer the question. 18 See Zimmer, Gill, Razquin, Booker and Lockwood, 2007. 
Chapter II 12 

Of particular interest is whether disadvantaged students and students with low levels of prior 

achievement were taking advantage of the Tile I choice options. This is an important question, given 

that these disadvantaged students are the primary focus of NCLB.

In a subsample of nine large, urban districts, African-American students had the 

highest rates of participation, compared with other racial or ethnic groups, in Title I 

supplemental educational services, and an above-average participation rate in 

school choice. 

For supplemental educational services, eligible African-American and Hispanic students had higher 

participation rates (16.9 percent and 11.6 percent, respectively) than did eligible white students 

(10.1 percent). Above-average participation rates were also found for students with disabilities 

(14.6 percent) and LEP students (13.1 percent) (see Exhibit 7). 

Exhibit 7 

Percentage of Eligible Students Participating in Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services and School Choice in Nine Large, Urban Districts, 

by Demographic Categories, 2004–05

Demographic Characteristic Supplemental Educational Services School Choice 

White 10.1% 1.1% 

African-American 16.9% 0.9% 

Hispanic 11.6% 0.4% 

LEP students 13.1% 0.3% 

Students with disabilities 14.6% 0.4% 

Exhibit reads: For the 2004–05 school year, 10.1 percent of eligible white students participated in 

Title I supplemental educational services. 

Note: Data for one district are for 2003–04. 

Source: Zimmer, Gill, Razquin, Booker and Lockwood, 2007.

For school choice, eligible African-American students again had an above-average participation rate 

(0.9 percent), but eligible Hispanic students were less likely to participate (0.4 percent). White students 

had an above-average participation rate (1.1 percent). LEP students and students with disabilities had 

relatively low participation rates (0.3 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively). 

The nine districts in the subsample also provided information about the achievement levels of students 

in the year prior to participation in the Title I choice options. Exhibit 8 shows average achievement 

results across the nine districts for participants and all eligible students for both school choice and 

supplemental educational services. For this analysis, test results were converted to standardized z-scores 

to permit comparison and averaging across districts with different tests. A value below zero indicates an 

average score below the district average while a score above zero indicates it is above the district average. 
Chapter II 13 

Exhibit 8 

Prior Achievement Levels (Measured in Z-Scores) of Students Participating and 

Eligible for Title I Choice Options in Nine Large, Urban Districts, 2004–05

Supplemental Educational Services School Choice 

Demographic 

Characteristic

Participating 

Students 

Eligible 

Students 

Participating 

Students 

Eligible 

Students 

Prior year reading 

z-score 

-0.35a

 -0.23 -0.19 -0.21 

Prior year math 

z-score 

-0.31a

 -0.19 -0.19 -0.19 

Exhibit reads: For the 2004–05 school year, students participating in Title I supplemental educational 

services had, on average, prior reading achievement scores of 0.35 of a standard deviation below the 

districtwide mean score, while students eligible for supplemental services had, on average, reading prior 

achievement scores of 0.23 of a standard deviation below the districtwide mean. 

a Indicates that the prior test scores of participants were significantly different from prior test scores of eligible 

students at the 5 percent level. 

Notes: Data for one district are for 2003–04. Values less than 0 are below the districtwide averages while values 

greater than 0 are above districtwide averages. 

Source: Zimmer, Gill, Razquin, Booker and Lockwood, 2007. 

In a subsample of nine large, urban districts, students who participated in Title I 

supplemental educational services had lower scores than the eligible student 

population had. Students who participated in Title I school choice had scores 

nearly identical to those of the eligible student population. 

Overall, average prior test scores for reading and math of students participating in supplemental services 

were 0.12 of a standard deviation lower than those of the eligible population. However, there were no 

statistically significant differences in prior reading and math test scores for students participating in the 

school choice option relative to the eligible population. Average test scores of students eligible for 

supplemental services and school choice were similar because these populations largely overlap. 

OPTIONS OFFERED BY DISTRICTS 

School Choice Options 

Most districts that were required to offer Title I school choice reported offering 

school choice options to eligible students; however, districts were more likely to 

provide options at the elementary level than at the middle and high school levels. 

At the elementary level, 70 percent of districts with one or more elementary schools identified for 

improvement reported offering students in those schools the option to transfer to another school (see 

Exhibit 9). At the middle school level, 20 percent of affected districts reported offering the school 

choice option, while the comparable figure for the high school level was 17 percent. Approximately 

two-thirds of districts with middle or high schools that were identified for improvement were not 

offering school choice at those grade levels because all the schools at that grade level were identified for 

improvement. Typically, districts have fewer middle and high schools than elementary schools. Across 
Chapter II 14 

the country, 77 percent of school districts with high schools have only one high school, 67 percent of 

districts with middle schools have only one middle school, and 53 percent of districts with elementary 

schools have only one elementary school.19

Among districts offering school choice to eligible students, 40 percent reported at least one student 

actually transferred schools in 2004–05. 

Nationwide, greater percentages of students are being offered Title I school choice than the above 

numbers suggest, because large districts are more likely to be offering choice to at least some of their 

students. Among elementary students eligible for choice, 92 percent attended school in a district that 

reported offering choice, while 67 and 55 percent of eligible middle and high school students attended 

school in a district that reported offering choice (see Exhibit 9). 

Exhibit 9 

Percentage of Districts and of Students in These Districts Reporting 

Availability of Title I School Choice Option, by School Level, 2004–05 

(Among Districts Required to Offer Choice) 

55%

67%

92%

17%

20%

70%

17%

16%

70%

66%

26%

29%

16%

13%

14%

3%

5%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

High Schools

Middle Schools

Elementary Schools

High Schools

Middle Schools

Elementary Schools District offers Title I

school choice at this

grade level

Title I school choice is

not available because

schools at this grade

level are identified for

improvement

District is not offering

Title I school choice for

other reasons

Exhibit reads: Seventy percent of districts required to offer school choice at the elementary level reported 

they were offering school choice at that grade level. Ninety-two percent of students in districts required to 

offer choice were located in these districts. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey; SSI-NCLB, National AYP and Identification Database (n=124, 109, and 72 

districts, respectively, for elementary, middle and high schools). 

 

19 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, 2002–03. Special tabulation done 

for NLS-NCLB.

Percentage of Districts 

Percentage of Students 
Chapter II 15 

Districts that offered Title I school choice typically offered parents of eligible 

elementary students multiple alternate schools to choose from; parents of eligible 

middle and high school students were typically offered fewer options. 

In 2004–05, the median number of alternate schools that districts reported offering parents of students 

eligible for school choice, was two at the elementary level and one at the middle and high school levels. 

However, the range was quite wide (e.g., 0 to 39 for elementary schools). More than three-fourths of 

districts required to offer choice at the elementary level in 2004–05 offered two or more alternate 

schools, but this was less common at the middle and high school levels (30 percent and 20 percent, 

respectively) (see Exhibit 10). 

The proportion of eligible students for Title I school choice who were offered at least two options of 

alternate schools, was substantially higher than the proportion of districts able to offer such options, 

because eligible students are disproportionately located in large districts. Ninety-five percent of eligible 

elementary students had at least two schools from which to choose from, as did 70 percent of middle 

school students and 56 percent of high school students. 

Districts in the subsample of eight large, urban districts in which parents were surveyed, reported 

offering parents of eligible students an average of seven elementary schools from which to choose, while 

parents in these districts reported being offered an average of four schools. Sixty-nine percent of parents 

taking advantage of the Title I school choice, reported they had been allowed to transfer their child to 

Exhibit 10 

Percentage of Districts Required to Offer Title I School Choice That 

Offered Parents of Eligible Students Two or More Alternate Schools, 

by School Level, 2004–05 

20%

30%

78%

56%

70%

95%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

High Schools

Middle School

Elementary

Schools

Percentage of Districts or Students

Student 

District

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, 56 percent of students attended schools in districts that offered choice at 

the high school level and that reported they offered parents of students eligible for school choice at 

least two alternate schools. Twenty percent of districts that offered choice at the high school level 

reported that they offered parents of students eligible for school choice at least two alternate schools. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n=67, 106, and 108 districts, respectively, for high, middle, and elementary 

schools). 
Chapter II 16 

their first-choice alternate school. Non-choosing parents did not report being offered fewer choices 

than choosing parents. 

More than 8 out of 10 parents who took advantage of the Title I school choice option 

were satisfied with their decision. 

Among parents who transferred their child to a non-identified school, one-half reported that they were 

“very satisfied” with their decision and another third were “satisfied.” 

In nine large, urban districts, students who used the Title I school choice option 

transferred to higher-performing schools. 

Students using school choice moved from schools with below-average achievement levels to schools 

with above-average achievement levels in every one of the nine districts (see Exhibit 11). In several of 

the districts, the difference in achievement levels between chosen schools and former schools exceeded 

half a standard deviation. Across the nine districts, average achievement levels in the chosen schools 

exceeded average achievement levels in the schools left behind by nearly four-tenths of a standard 

deviation. 

Exhibit 11 

Average Student Achievement in Schools That Students Participating in Title I 

School Choice Left and to Which They Transferred, Relative to Average District 

Achievement, 2003–04 and 2004–05

Reading Z-Score Math Z-Score 

District n 

Schools 

Students 

Left 

Schools to 

Which Students 

Transferred n 

Schools 

Students 

Left 

Schools to 

Which Students 

Transferred 

A 436 -0.12 0.06 436 -0.13 0.12 

B 449 -0.14 0.01 373 -0.08 0.02 

C 147 -0.25 0.34 147 -0.33 0.27 

D 830 -0.23 0.11 710 -0.25 0.11 

E 553 -0.33 0.36 553 -0.25 0.35 

F 18 -0.42 0.08 18 -0.30 0.05 

G 673 -0.20 0.17 673 -0.20 0.14 

H 5 -0.62 0.30 5 -0.45 0.30 

I 29 -0.11 0.60 29 -0.21 0.66 

Total 3,140 -0.21 0.16 2,944 -0.20 0.17 

Exhibit reads: In District A, the 436 students using Title I school choice in 2004–05 left schools that 

had reading scores (2003–04) that were 0.12 standard deviations below the districtwide average and 

entered schools (2004–05) that were 0.06 standard deviations above the districtwide average. 

Note: Results for one district are for 2003–04. In all instances, the average student achievement for schools 

students left and schools to which students transferred were significantly different from the average student 

achievement in their respective districts. 

Source: Zimmer, Gill, Razquin, Booker and Lockwood, 2007.
Chapter II 17 

Nonidentified schools could see declines in their own proficiency levels (and an increase in the 

probability that they will miss AYP) as a result of receiving students who transfer under the Title I 

school choice provision. On average, such schools have above-average achievement levels (0.16 and 

0.17) of a standard deviation above districtwide averages in reading and math, as shown in Exhibit 11), 

but they are accepting students with below-average achievement levels (0.19 of a standard deviation 

below districtwide averages in reading and math, as shown in Exhibit 8). Therefore, their overall 

proficiency rates may decline with the acceptance of transfer students. However, few schools are likely 

to be substantially affected by transfers because the number of students actually transferring to schools is 

generally small. 

Supplemental Educational Service Options 

In 2004–05, most districts required to offer Title I supplemental educational services 

reported offering these services to eligible elementary and middle school students; 

One-third of districts did so for eligible high school students. 

Ninety percent of districts with eligible elementary students and 96 percent of districts with eligible 

middle school students offered supplemental services to these students in 2004–05 while one-third of 

districts did so for eligible high school students. As discussed below, one reason is that providers of 

supplemental services were significantly less likely to provide services to high school students than they 

were to provide services to elementary and middle school students. 

From May 2003 to May 2006, the number of state-approved Title I supplemental 

educational service providers in the nation more than tripled. 

The number of supplemental educational service providers increased from 997 in May 2003 to 2,734 in 

May 2005.20 The largest increase occurred among private providers. Private providers accounted for 76 

percent of all state-approved providers in May 2005, up from 60 percent in May 2003. In 2005, these 

included 249 faith-based private providers (9 percent of all approved providers), an increase from 18 

authorized faith-based providers in May 2003. Meanwhile, the proportion of all providers that were 

school districts or public schools decreased from 33 percent in May 2003 to 17 percent in May 2005. 

Although districts and public schools, institutions of higher education, and other types of non-private 

providers accounted for a smaller proportion of the total number of providers in May 2005 than they did 

two years earlier, all types of providers increased substantially in number over the three-year period. 

Private providers served 58 percent of students participating in Title I supplemental 

educational services in 2003–04 while 34 percent received supplemental services 

from districts or public schools. 

In 2003–04, most students were served by private providers, but in slightly lower proportions than the 

number of private providers would indicate. Public schools and districts, by contrast, served more 

students than their numbers would indicate. Faith-based providers were typically small, and they served 

less than 1 percent of all participating students (see Exhibit 12). 

 

20 Policy and Program Studies Service review of State Education Agency Web sites (2005).
Chapter II 18 

Exhibit 12 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers 

and of Participating Students, by Provider Type 

Percentage of State-Approved Providers, 

May 2003 to May 2005 

Percentage of Student Participants, 

2003–04 

7% 6% 6%

33%

25%

17%

60%

70%

76%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

 May 2003 May 2004 May 2005

Private Providers

School Districts and

Public Schools

Other

8%

34%

58%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Private Providers

School Districts

and Public Schools

Other

Exhibit reads: In May 2003, 60 percent of state-approved providers were private providers, 33 percent were 

school districts and public schools, and 7 percent were other types of providers. In the 2003–04 school year, 

58 percent of students were served by private providers, 34 percent were served by school districts and 

public schools, and 8 percent were served by other types of providers. 

Note: Individual items may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Sources: Policy and Program Studies Services review of State Educational Agency Web sites; NLS-NCLB, District 

Survey. Percentages of providers are based on data reported by 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

Percentages of participating students are based on 71 districts in 2003–04. 

In 2003–04, approximately one-third of districts that offered supplemented services reported that 

parents of eligible students had one or two supplemental service providers from which to choose, while 

26 percent of districts reported that parents could choose from between three or four providers, and 

38 percent reported that parents had five or more providers from which to choose (Exhibit 13). 

Supplemental service providers operating in a subsample of 16 geographically diverse districts in 

2004–05 served varying numbers of districts.21 Forty-two percent of all providers served only one 

school district, while 23 percent served two to five districts, and 34 percent served more than five 

districts. 

 

21 Providers were surveyed in eight large, urban districts where parents were also surveyed and achievement data were 

collected, and in eight other rural, suburban, and mid-sized urban districts representing a range of geographic regions. 

Sampling of providers is described in more detail in Appendix A. 

997 1,890 2,734 
Chapter II 19 

Most surveyed providers in the 16-district subsample concentrated their services on students in the 

elementary and middle grades, and primarily on mathematics and reading. Although more than 85 

percent of providers offered services in reading in elementary and middle grades, only about half the 

providers offered services in reading to high school students (see Exhibit 14). Similarly, 84 percent of 

providers offered services in mathematics for elementary students, 81 percent for middle school 

students, and 46 percent for high school students. Writing was the next most-common subject for 

which services were offered, while less than one provider in five offered services in science and social 

studies or history, at any grade level. 

Most service providers operating in the subsample of 16 districts reported that they were able to meet 

parental demand and student needs. Seventy-eight percent of providers reported being able to serve all 

students they were asked to serve. Also, a majority of providers reported that they provided services to 

special populations: Ninety-eight percent of providers served students performing below grade level, 

89 percent served students with disabilities, and 74 percent served students with limited English 

proficiency.

Exhibit 13 

Percentage of Districts, by Number of Title I Supplemental Educational Service 

Providers Available to Students, 2003–04 

38%

26%

37%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

 Five or more

 Three or four

One or two

Percentage of Districts

Number of Providers

Exhibit reads: Thirty-seven percent of districts that offered students supplemental services in 2003–04 

reported that parents had an average of one or two supplemental service providers from which to 

choose. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n=75 districts). 
Chapter II 20 

The amount of supplemental educational services that a student may receive is not specified in the 

NCLB statute and can vary across districts and providers. Half of districts offering supplemental 

educational services reported that students received one or two hours of supplemental educational 

services per week in 2003–04. About 47 percent of districts reported that students received services for 

three or four hours per week; and 2 percent reported that students received services for five or more 

hours per week (see Exhibit 15). 

Exhibit 14 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by Service Provided and Grades Served, 2004–05 

Service Provided Served 

Grades K–5 

Served 

Grades 6–8 

Served 

Grades 9–12 

Reading (n=98) 91% 88% 49% 

Mathematics (n=98) 84% 81% 46% 

Writing (n=98) 49% 46% 21% 

Social studies or history (n=98) 17% 15% 11% 

Science (n=98) 17% 14% 10% 

Other (n=98) 4% 6% 4% 

Offering services in any subject 

(n=101) 91% 89% 51% 

Exhibit reads: In a sample of 16 geographically diverse districts, 91 percent of providers offered 

services in reading for students in grades K–5. 

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

Exhibit 15 

Percentage of Districts, by Number of Hours of Title I Supplemental Educational 

Services Students Received per Week, 2003–04 

2%

12%

35%

51%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Five hours or more

Four hours

Three hours

One or two hours

Percentage of Districts

Exhibit reads: In 2003–04, 51 percent of districts offering supplemental services reported that students 

received one or two hours of supplemental services per week. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n=83 districts). 
Chapter II 21 

Title I supplemental educational service providers reported providing an average of 

57 hours of services per student annually. 

Parents and supplemental educational service providers surveyed in a subsample of 16 districts reported 

a somewhat higher intensity of supplemental services than the districts reported nationally. Providers 

reported an average of 3.5 sessions per week and 84 minutes per session, suggesting a weekly average 

dose of nearly five hours (see Exhibit 16). They also reported an average of 41 sessions provided to 

students annually, suggesting an average duration of services of 12 weeks. Parents reported a similar 

intensity of weekly services as that reported by providers.22 Providers reported an average rate of 

absenteeism of about 20 percent. 

A 2005 U.S. Department of Education report involving case studies of supplemental service providers 

found a range of 18–120 hours per student, with an average of 60 hours (U.S. Department of Education, 

2005a). Another analysis of a separate survey of providers across the country found that about 

50 percent of providers offer between 31–60 hours of instruction per student (AIR and EIA, 2005). 

Providers in the 16-district subsample reported that student attendance rates for supplemental services 

averaged 78 percent in 2004–05, ranging from a low of 10 percent reported by one provider, to a high of 

100 percent reported by another. The average student-to-tutor ratio was 5 to 1, ranging from one-to-one 

to 20-to-1. 

Most Title I supplemental educational service providers reported serving students at 

their own schools and often provided these services one-on-one. 

According to supplemental service provider reports, 61 percent provided services at the schools of 

students served either often or always, while services were less likely to be given at public buildings or 

the local offices of the provider (see Exhibit 17). A recent report of a national survey of supplemental 

 

22 Parents reported that children received an average of six hours of services per week and six months per year, but their 

reports do not distinguish NCLB-related supplemental educational services from similar services that may be offered at 

other points in the year. 

Exhibit 16 

Average Duration and Frequency of Title I Supplemental Educational Services 

Sessions, 2004–05 

Duration or Frequency Average Duration 

or Frequency 

Shortest Duration 

or Frequency 

Longest Duration 

or Frequency 

Number of minutes (n=95) 84 30 200 

Number of sessions per week (n=98) 3 1 25 

Number of sessions per year (n=93) 41 9 130 

Exhibit reads: In a subsample of 16 districts, supplemental educational service providers reported that 

their average supplemental service session lasted 84 minutes. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Service Provider Survey (in 16 districts). 
Chapter II 22 

service providers likewise found that the school was the most common site for services, followed by 

community-based sites and students’ homes (AIR and EIA, 2005). 

Twenty-nine percent of providers reported that they always provided services one-on-one, and another 

23 percent reported doing so often. More than one-half provided services in small groups either often 

or always, and one-third reported always or often providing services in large groups (see Exhibit 17). 

Exhibit 17 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Location and 

Grouping of Students for Delivery of Services, 2004–05 

Location and Student Grouping Never Sometimes Often Always 

Location where supplemental services are provided

(n=92) 

At the schools of served students 33% 6% 14% 47% 

At other schools or administrative buildings in the 

district 79% 16% 3% 2% 

At a public building, i.e., a library or community center 59% 22% 8% 11% 

At the local office of the provider 69% 5% 4% 22% 

On the internet 85% 3% 3% 8% 

Student grouping for delivery of supplemental 

services (n=97) 

In large groups 39% 27% 21% 13% 

In small groups 26% 19% 38% 17% 

One-on-one 18% 30% 23% 29% 

Exhibit reads: In a subsample of 16 districts, 33 percent of supplemental service providers reported that 

they never provided services at the schools of the students they served. 

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

Nine out of ten parents of students participating in Title I supplemental educational 

services were satisfied with the services; half of such parents were very satisfied. 

The overwhelming majority (91 percent) of responding parents of students participating in supplemental 

services reported satisfaction with the services provided; 53 percent were very satisfied. These levels of 

satisfaction are consistent with the reports of parents enrolled in other varieties of (non-NCLB-related) 

supplemental services.23

 

23 Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey. The comparison is based on survey results from parents whose children were 

receiving supplemental services but were not listed by districts as participating in NCLB-related services. 
Chapter II 23 

DISCUSSION

The number of students eligible for Title I school choice quadrupled between 2002–03 and 2004–05, 

while the number of students eligible for supplemental educational services tripled. As eligibility for 

Title I school choice and supplemental services increased, most districts required to offer the options 

reported that they were in fact doing so. In the case of school choice, however, the availability of 

options varied substantially by grade level, with two-thirds of districts required to offer choice actually 

doing so at the elementary level versus less than one-fifth of districts at the middle and high school 

levels. At the middle and high school levels, choice was most often constrained by a lack of nonidentified schools within the district; in many cases, the school identified for improvement was the only 

school in the district serving those grade levels. 

Although the supply of providers nationally has grown rapidly—to about 2,800 by spring 2005—many 

providers did not offer services for high school students. This is surely an important reason that fewer 

than half of districts with eligible high school students offered supplemental services at the high school 

level in 2004–05, while nearly all districts with eligible students reported offering supplemental services 

in the elementary and middle grades. 

Although the number of students participating in school choice and supplemental educational services 

has grown, participation rates have remained low, at 1 percent of eligible students for school choice (in 

2004–05) and at 17 percent for supplemental services (in 2003–04). Nonetheless, both options were 

succeeding in enrolling the low-achieving students who are the intended beneficiaries. Also, parents of 

participating students (in a subsample of eight urban districts) were quite satisfied with both 

supplemental services and school choice. 

Reports from supplemental service providers in 16 districts suggest that services averaged about 

57 hours per pupil over the course of the school year. An absenteeism rate of around 20 percent (also 

reported by providers), suggests that the average “dose” of supplemental services received by students 

would be somewhat less than 57 hours. 

Chapter III 25 

III. COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS 

When students are eligible for school choice or supplemental educational services under NCLB, the 

statute gives school districts the responsibility of notifying parents of their children’s eligibility, and of 

providing them with information about the schools and supplemental service providers available to 

them. In addition to the written notification required, school districts may use a variety of additional 

methods to communicate with parents, including relying to some extent on principals and teachers at 

individual school sites. For school choice, notification is expected to occur before the beginning of the 

school year. For supplemental services, communication is expected to include a negotiated agreement 

among parent, provider, and school district about the goals for the individual child. 

Key Findings

• Most districts required to offer Title I school choice and supplemental educational 

services reported notifying eligible parents of their options; however, many eligible 

parents in a sample of eight urban districts reported they had not been notified—

despite the fact that all eight districts offered these choice options and produced 

notification letters. 

• In a sample of eight urban districts, only about a quarter of parents of students in 

schools identified for improvement knew that the schools had been identified as lowperforming. 

• In 2004-05, less than one-third of districts required to offer Title I school choice 

notified parents of eligible students before the beginning of the school year. Many 

states released school identification status data too late to permit districts to notify parents 

before the start of the 2004-05 school year.

• Districts that notified parents about the Title I school choice option before the first 

day of school had higher participation rates than districts that notified parents on or 

after the first day of school. 

• Although some district notification letters were clear and direct, others were 

confusing, misleading, or biased in favor of district-provided services. The majority 

of a collected sample of 21 notification letters did not provide all of the information 

required by the U.S. Department of Education.

• About 40 percent of teachers in schools in which students were eligible for 

supplemental educational services reported talking with parents about supplemental 

services. 

• The most frequent reasons parents gave for deciding to move their child to a school 

not identified for improvement were the better quality of teaching and good 

discipline and safety at the new school. 
Chapter III 26 

NOTIFICATION OF OPTIONS

Most districts required to offer Title I school choice and supplemental educational 

services reported notifying eligible parents of their options; however, most eligible 

parents in a sample of eight urban districts said they had not been notified—despite 

the fact that all eight districts offered these choice options and produced 

notification letters. 

Sixty-two percent of the districts required to offer Title I school choice and 97 percent of districts 

required to offer supplemental educational services reported that they notified parents of the options 

available to their children. Most of the districts that did not notify parents of their eligibility for school 

choice were not offering school choice. 

In a subsample of eight urban districts, however, only 27 percent of parents of students who were 

eligible for school choice said they had been notified of the option to transfer their child to another 

school, while 66 percent said they had not been notified and 7 percent said they were not sure—despite 

the fact that all eight districts reported that they had offered choice options to such parents (and 

provided copies of the parent information letters that they had sent out) (see Exhibit 18). 

Exhibit 18 

Percentage of Districts That Notified Parents of Title I Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Service Options and Percentage of Parents 

That Reported They Were Notified, 2004–05 

27%

53%

100%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

School Choice

Supplemental

Services

Percentage of Districts & Parents

Districts

Parents

Exhibit reads: In a sample of eight urban districts, all of the districts reported notifying parents of 

eligible students of their Title I school choice and supplemental educational services options, but only 

53 percent of these parents said they were notified about the supplemental services option and only 

27 percent of these parents said they were notified about the school choice option. 

Sources: NLS-NCLB, District and Parent Surveys (n=8 districts, 779 parents for supplemental services, and 932 

parents for school choice).
Chapter III 27 

Similarly, all eight urban districts reported that they notified parents of the supplemental educational 

service options available to their children.24 But as for school choice, many parents in those districts 

reported they were not given the chance to receive supplemental services. About half of the parents 

(53 percent) of students eligible for supplemental services reported that they had been notified of their 

child’s eligibility, while 40 percent said they had not been told and 7 percent were not sure (see Exhibit 

19). Parents of eligible students who used supplemental services were more likely to report having been 

notified (two-thirds) than those who did not (one-half). It is unclear why 25 percent of the parents of 

students who were using supplemental services according to district records reported that they had not 

been notified of their eligibility. These parents may be confused about what supplemental services are. 

In a sample of eight urban districts, only about a quarter of parents of students in 

schools identified for improvement knew that the schools were so identified. 

Meanwhile, substantial numbers of parents were unsure of whether their child’s school was identified for 

improvement under NCLB. Half of parents who took advantage of the school choice option knew that 

their child’s previous school had been identified, but less than 25 percent of parents who kept their 

children in identified schools were aware of their children’s school status. Moreover, among parents of 

students in schools identified for improvement—all of whose children should have been eligible for 

Title I school choice—only 40 percent were aware of the Title I school choice provision of NCLB. 

 

24 Districts were asked whether they had notified parents in writing either this year or last year because, in some districts, 

supplemental services for the current year may not have been fully underway at the time of the survey. It is therefore 

possible that some districts may have been responding regarding the previous year. Nevertheless, most parent surveys 

were completed several months after the administration of the district surveys, late in the school year, by which time 

most required notifications should have been sent. 

Exhibit 19 

Percentage of Parents That Reported They Were Notified of Their Child’s Eligibility 

for Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Choice Decision, 2004–05 

Parents Were 

Notified 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible 

Students (Including Participating and 

Non-Participating Students) 

(n=779)

Percentage of Parents 

of Participating 

Students 

(n=493)

Percentage of Parents 

of Non-Participating 

Students 

(n=286)

Yes 53% 66% 51% 

No 40% 25% 42% 

Not sure 7% 9% 7% 

Exhibit reads: In a sample of eight urban districts, 53 percent of all parents of students eligible for 

supplemental services reported that they were told that their child was eligible to receive these services. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts).
Chapter III 28 

Timing of Parental Notification for School Choice 

Many states released school identification status data too late to permit districts to notify parents before 

the start of the 2004–05 school year. In order for districts to notify parents of eligible students about 

Title I parental choice options, the districts must first receive information from their states about 

schools’ identification status. Only seven states provided districts with preliminary school identification 

results before August 2004 (see Exhibit 20). Twenty-four more states provided preliminary results in 

August, leaving little or no time before the start of the school year, and 19 states and Puerto Rico 

provided preliminary results later than August, often after school had already begun. Final results came 

even later. 

In 2004–05, less than one-third of districts required to offer Title I school choice 

notified parents of eligible students before the beginning of the school year. 

Because of the delay in states’ reports of school identification to districts, they, in turn, were often unable 

to notify parents of their options in a timely manner. About half of the districts required to offer choice 

reported that they notified eligible parents of the availability of this option after the first day of school, 

and those districts notified parents an average of five weeks after the beginning of the school year. The 

timing of parental notification did not substantially improve between 2003–04 and 2004–05 (see 

Exhibit 21). The Government Accountability Office (2006) similarly found that in 2005–06, 58 percent 

Exhibit 20 

Number of States, by Month of States’ Release of 

School Identification Results to Districts, 2004 

Exhibit reads: Two states released final 2004 school identification results to districts in July or earlier, and 

seven states released preliminary results during that timeframe. 

a Includes Puerto Rico. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, Accountability Interviews and State Education Agency Web sites (n=50 states, Puerto Rico, and 

the District of Columbia). 

2

13

12

10

11

7

24

3a

8a

2

4

6

July or earlier

August

September

October

November

December

Final School Identification

Results Released to Districts

Preliminary School Identification

Results Released to Districts
Chapter III 29 

of districts did not notify parents of their supplemental services option prior to the start of the school 

year. 

Exhibit 21 

Timing of Parent Notification About Title I School Choice 

as Reported By Districts, 2003–04 and 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In 2003–04, 23 percent of districts required to offer Title I school choice notified eligible 

parents before the first day of school. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n=104 districts in 2003–04 and 181 districts in 2004–05). 

The timing of the release of state data was correlated with the timing of districts’ parental notifications 

about Title I school choice. In the 34 states that notified districts about the identification status of 

schools before Labor Day (which is around the start of the school year in many states and districts), 

58 percent of the districts notified eligible parents about Title I school choice before the first day of 

school. In contrast, in Puerto Rico and the 20 states that released school identification data after Labor 

Day, 20 percent of the districts notified eligible parents about Title I school choice before the first day of 

school. (Those districts presumably used information from the prior year to identify schools that would 

be identified for improvement regardless of their current achievement results.) 

Districts that notified parents about the Title I school choice before the first day of 

school had higher participation rates than districts that notified parents on or after 

the first day of school. 

In districts where parents were notified about Title I school choice before the start of the school year, 

3.2 percent of eligible students participated in 2003–04 and 2.9 percent participated in 2004–05 (see 

Exhibit 22). In contrast, in the districts that did not notify eligible parents until after school started, the 

participation rates were only 0.4 in 2003–04 and 0.2 percent in 2004–05. 

49%

21%

29%

38%

39%

23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

After the First

Day of School

Around the First

Day of School

Before the First

Day of School

Percentage of Districts

2003-04

2004-05
Chapter III 30 

Exhibit 22 

Percentage of Eligible Students Transferring Schools, by When District First 

Notified Parents About Their Title I School Choice, 2003–04 and 2004–05 

Parent Notified 

Percentage of Students 

Transferring Schools in 

2003–04 

(n=118) 

Percentage of Students 

Transferring Schools in 

2004–05 

(n=159) 

Before the first day of the 2004–05 school year 3.2% 2.9% 

On or about the first day of the 2004–05 school year 1.6% 1.8% 

After the first day of the 2004–05 school year 0.4% 0.2% 

Total 1.0% 0.9% 

Exhibit reads: In 2003–04, in districts that reported notifying parents of Title I school choice before 

the first day of the school year, 3.2 percent of students eligible for Title I school choice actually 

transferred schools. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey.

This finding is consistent with the parent reports in a subsample of eight large, urban districts. 

Sixty-two percent of parents who took advantage of the Title I school choice option reported having 

been informed before the start of the school year, compared to 38 percent of parents who kept their 

children in identified schools (see Exhibit 23). 

Exhibit 23 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Notified of Title I School Choice, 

by When First Notified and Choice Decision, 2004–05 

Parent Notified 

Percentage of Parents of 

Eligible Students (Including 

Both Participating and NonParticipating Students ) 

(n=612)

Percentage of 

Parents of NonParticipating 

Students 

(n=231) 

Percentage of 

Parents of 

Participating 

Students 

(n=381) 

Before the first day of the 2004–05 

school year 53% 38% 62% 

On or about the first day of the 2004–05 

school year 7% 11% 4% 

After the first day of the 2004–05 school 

year 

16% 28% 9% 

Not sure 24% 22% 25% 

Exhibit reads: Among parents of all eligible students in identified schools, 39 percent said they were 

notified of their school choice options before the start of the school year. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts).
Chapter III 31 

METHODS OF COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS

According to the U.S. Department of Education’s non-regulatory guidance on the Title I school choice 

option, school districts must “provide an explanation of the choice option to all parents of students 

enrolled in Title I schools that have been identified for school improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring” and “must be in a comprehensive, easy-to-understand format.” At a minimum, the 

notification must (1) inform parents of their child’s eligibility to attend another school because the 

current school is identified for improvement; (2) name the specific public schools available for choice; 

and (3) include information on student achievement in the schools available for choice. 

Similarly, school districts must “provide notice to the parents of each eligible student regarding the 

availability of supplemental educational services.” At a minimum, the notice must (1) identify each 

approved provider; (2) describe each provider’s services, qualifications, and effectiveness; (3) describe the 

process by which parents may select and enroll with a provider; and (4) be easily available and 

understandable, in languages other than English if necessary and practicable. 

Districts used various methods to notify parents regarding Title I school choice and supplemental 

services; written communication was the most frequently used means of notification. More than 90 

percent of districts used written communication in English to notify parents of their children’s eligibility 

for supplemental services and more than two-thirds of districts did so for school choice (see Exhibit 24). 

(Ninety-seven percent of the districts that did not use written communication to notify parents of 

school-choice or supplemental service options did not use any method to notify parents.) Approximately 

half of districts also reported providing written materials in languages other than English (47 percent for 

school choice and 53 percent for supplemental services). They frequently also used individual meetings 

with interested parents and placed notices in district or school newsletters. Districts were less likely to 

hold enrollment fairs or open houses, place notices in public newspapers or make public service 

announcements. 

A letter from the district was the most common method of notification mentioned by 70 percent of 

parents who were notified of their child’s school choice and 80 percent of parents who were notified of 

the supplemental service options. 

Although some district notification letters were clear and direct, others were 

confusing, misleading, or biased in favor of district-provided services. Most did not 

provide all of the information required by the U.S. Department of Education. 

Notification letters were collected in a geographically diverse subsample of 25 school districts. Among 

21 letters used to notify parents of school choice options, all informed parents of their child’s eligibility 

for school choice, but only ten identified each public school available for selection, and only five 

included information on academic achievement in the schools available for choice. More than half of 

the letters did not offer any advice to parents for how to choose a school that is best for their child. The 

majority of the school-choice letters did include information about transportation to alternate schools 

and some included details on charter and online school alternatives. 

Of a sample of 20 letters collected notifying parents of supplemental services, only half identified each 

approved provider, four described the services and qualifications of providers, and 13 described 

procedures for selection and enrollment. Few letters were “easily understandable.” As measured by the 

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator, the average parent notification letter regarding supplemental 

services was written above the 11th-grade level. In contrast, a sample letter provided by the U.S. 
Chapter III 32 

Department of Education with the June 13, 2005 guidance, was written at the 8th-grade level. Only 

seven letters defined supplemental services as “free tutoring,” a wording that makes letters more easily 

understood by parents. 

Exhibit 24 

Percentage of Districts Communicating With Parents About Title I School Choice 

and Supplemental Educational Services and of Eligible Students in 

These Districts, by Method of Communication, 2004–05

School Choice 

(n=156 districts)

Supplemental Services 

(n=109 districts)

Method of Communication 

Percentage 

of Districts 

Percentage of 

Eligible 

Students

Percentage 

of Districts 

Percentage of 

Eligible 

Students

Written notification in English 68% 88% 94% 94% 

Written notification in language(s) other than English 47% 64% 53% 72% 

Individual meetings with interested parents 52% 68% 78% 79% 

Notices in district or school newsletters 40% 59% 64% 72% 

Notices in public newspapers 26% 45% 23% 48% 

Enrollment fairs or open houses to provide 

 information about alternate schools and providers 19% 42% 51% 71% 

Public service announcements 10% 32% 19% 41% 

Worked with a local community partner 

 (e.g., Parent Information & Resource Center) 10% 20% 16% 40% 

Other 12% 22% 26% 30% 

Exhibit reads: Sixty-eight percent of districts that were required to offer Title I school choice reported 

notifying parents about their choice options through written materials; 88 percent of students in districts 

required to offer school choice were located in these districts. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 

While nearly all letters included information about where and when services would be provided, most 

did not include any supporting information, such as contact information for providers, whether 

providers could serve students with disabilities or LEP, nor suggestions for selecting a provider. 

One example of a clear and direct parental notification letter on supplemental services from a school 

district began, “Your child may be eligible to participate in a free tutorial program designed to improve 

his/her achievement in math and/or reading.” By defining supplemental services as a “free tutorial 

program” upfront, the message in this district’s letter is easy to understand and likely to appeal to 

parents. 

In contrast, the letter from another district lacked similar clarity. The letter did not define supplemental 

services as free tutoring and began with a lengthy explanation of the legislation: 

Your child’s school is in need of improvement, even though the school may have made Adequate 

Yearly Progress this past year, and as a result your child may be eligible to participate in 

Supplemental Education Services (supplemental services) for the current school year. (In order 

to exit School Improvement Status, a school needs to make Adequate Yearly Progress for two 

consecutive years.) Supplemental services programs provide your child additional instruction in 

math, reading, and language arts. Supplemental services programs are authorized under the 

federal No Child Left Behind Act to provide additional educational choice to parents and pupils. 
Chapter III 33 

We give this annual notice of availability of Supplemental Education Services in compliance with 

Section 1116(e) of the No Child Left Behind Act. 

In meetings with parents, the Public Education Network (2004) found that parents reported that much 

of the information they received about their schools’ performance and their options under NCLB often 

arrived in a letter that is “written in jargon,” arrived late without enough time to reply, and lacked clear 

enough detail on which parents could take action. 

Another aspect of the parental notification letters that demonstrates substantial differences is the way in 

which available options were described to parents. The parental notification letter on supplemental 

services from one school, for example, put a highly favorable spin on the supplemental services program 

offered by their district. The paragraph began, “I’m also delighted to inform you that again this fall, the 

school district will implement an exciting and educationally innovative after-school program with funding provided by 

“No Child Left Behind,” (emphasis in the original letter) and continues with a positive description of the 

program. It is not until the end of the paragraph that the letter reveals that parents have other options: 

“Please note that you may also choose to have your child attend a similar type of supplemental program 

at another school or site in [the school district], but transportation to and from the site you select will 

not be provided and will be your responsibility to provide.” The letter provides no further description of 

any of these programs. 

The discouragement of choice options other than supplemental services offered at the child’s own 

school is also evident in the following letter’s discussion about the school choice options: 

Also, although the students in the elementary grades at [this school] have made tremendous 

strides toward meeting the high standards the state has set in language arts literacy and 

mathematics, you still have the option of school choice. Please note, however, all of [the 

district’s] elementary schools are very crowded and available space is severely limited. Any 

requests that are received for these limited openings will be ranked according to the seriousness 

of each applicant's academic problems, as well as his/her financial status as determined by the 

family's application for free/reduced-price school meals. In addition, if a parent or guardian 

requests school choice, he or she may not also place his/her child in the district's after-school 

program. If you are interested in school choice, please call to make an appointment to speak 

with me. 

In contrast to this very negative language, the letter used by another school district to inform parents of 

school choice was more neutral, beginning: 

Your child’s school has been identified as being in School Improvement Status for the 2003–04 

school year under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (“NCLB”). As a parent, you have the 

option under NCLB to apply to transfer your child from his or her current School Improvement 

school to another District school or a charter school that has not been identified as in need of 

improvement. 

The letter continues to present clearly, in a series of bullets, the steps that parents need to take if they 

decide to take the transfer option. Furthermore, attached to the letter is a detailed description of each of 

the schools available to receive transferring students. 

Although notification to parents of students eligible for supplemental services is a district responsibility, 

schools and teachers sometimes also communicated with parents about their choices. A recent report on 

supplemental services found that parents “paid careful attention to teacher and principal 
Chapter III 34 

recommendations in deciding to sign their child up for services and in choosing a provider” (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2005a, p. 55). 

About 40 percent of teachers in schools in which students were eligible for Title I 

supplemental educational services reported talking with parents about such 

services. 

Elementary school teachers were more likely than teachers in middle and high schools to talk to parents 

about supplemental services (53 percent of teachers in elementary schools with eligible students, 

compared with 38 percent of middle school teachers and 12 percent of high school teachers). 

The most common topic of such communication was encouraging parents to apply, which was reported 

by 27 percent of teachers (in schools with eligible students), including 39 percent of elementary teachers, 

27 percent of middle school teachers, and 6 percent of high school teachers (see Exhibit 25). 

Fifteen percent of teachers also provided advice to parents on selecting supplemental service providers. 

Just over one-tenth of teachers reported that parents contacted them regarding supplemental service 

options. 

Exhibit 25 

Percentage of Teachers Communicating with Parents About Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Type of Communication and School Level, 2003–04 

(Among Teachers in Schools with Students Eligible for Supplemental Services)

Exhibit reads: Among all teachers in schools with students eligible for supplemental services in 2003–04, 

11 percent reported that parents had contacted them about supplemental services. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey (n=376, 255 and 746 teachers, respectively, for high, middle and elementary 

schools). 

39%

23%

17%

27%

11%

7%

6%

3%

4%

27%

15%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

I encouraged

parents to

apply

I advised

parents on

providers

Percentage of Teachers

All Grades

High

Middle

Elementary

Parents 

contacted 

me
Chapter III 35 

SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICE PROVIDERS’ COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS

Seventy-seven percent of supplemental service providers in the subsample of 16 districts reported that 

they communicated with the parents of participating students at least a few times monthly. Meanwhile, 

71 percent of the parents of supplemental service participating students in eight urban districts reported 

that they (or another adult in the household) discussed their child’s learning needs with the provider 

(although parents were not asked about the frequency of contact with providers). 

Providers reported that they communicated with parents about a variety of topics. Student attendance 

and student progress related to supplemental service activities were the most frequently discussed topics. 

They were discussed often or always by 84 percent and 82 percent of providers, respectively (see 

Exhibit 26). 

REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN SCHOOL CHOICE AND SUPPLEMENTAL 

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

The most frequent reasons parents gave for deciding to move their child to a school 

not identified for improvement were the better quality of teaching and good 

discipline and safety at the new school. 

Exhibit 26 

Percentage of Providers Communicating Often or Always With the Parents of Students 

Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Topic, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-four percent of supplemental service providers in 16 districts reported discussing 

student attendance at supplemental services centers with the parents of students they served often or always. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Service Provider Survey (n=84 to 97 providers in 16 districts). 

84%

82%

77%

28%

55%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Student attendance at

supplemental service centers

Student progress related to

supplemental service

activities or goals)

Student behavior or

motivation during sessions

Student progress related to

regular classroom instruction

Student achievement on

state assessments

Percentage of Providers
Chapter III 36 

Among parents with students participating in the Title I school choice in the eight urban districts 

subsample, the most frequent reasons for doing so were “the quality of teaching is better at the new 

school” (mentioned by 52 percent of choosing parents); and “the new school has good discipline, 

safety, and order” (49 percent). A third related reason was that the previous school was not meeting 

their child’s needs (47 percent) (see Exhibit 27). 

Exhibit 27 

Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in 

Title I School Choice, by Reason for Participating, 2004–05 

Reason 

Percentage of Parents of Students 

Participating in School Choice 

(n=356) 

The quality of teaching at the new school is better 52% 

There is good discipline, safety, and order at the new school 49% 

My child’s old school was not meeting his/her needs 47% 

My child got transportation to the new school 35% 

The new school is located in a place that is easy to get to 34% 

There are different academic programs at the new school 29% 

My child wanted to change schools 25% 

There are activities after school and sports teams at the new school 20% 

There is free tutoring or other extra help with schoolwork at the new 

school 19% 

My child had been getting bad grades 17% 

There are services for children with disabilities at the new school 11% 

My child’s old teacher thought he/she should move 10% 

There are services at the school for children whose first language is not 

English 5% 

Exhibit reads: Among parents choosing to move their child to a school not identified for improvement, 

52 percent reported that one reason for their decision was that the quality of teaching at their child’s new 

school was better. 

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

Among parents of eligible students for Title I school choice who chose to keep their child in their 

current school, the reason mentioned most often (by three-fourths of parents) was that their child’s 

school was conveniently located. The next-most-frequent reason, mentioned by half of parents, was that 

their child wanted to stay in the current school (see Exhibit 28). The decision not to use the choice 

option did not necessarily indicate satisfaction with the child’s current school; less than half of parents 

(47 percent) said that a reason for remaining in the current school was that they were satisfied with the 

quality of teaching at the school. Some parents gave reasons suggesting that they might have moved 

their children under different circumstances: Twenty-three percent said they did not have enough 

information about the schools they could choose from, 18 percent said the district did not offer 
Chapter III 37 

transportation to alternate schools, and 17 percent said they were not given enough time to make a 

decision.25

Exhibit 28 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in 

Title I School Choice, by Reason for Not Participating, 2004–05 

Reason 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students 

Not Participating in School Choice 

(n=217)

My child’s school is located in a place that is easy to get to. 75% 

My child wanted to stay. 50% 

I was satisfied with the quality of teaching at my child’s school. 47% 

My child was getting good grades at the current school. 47% 

I didn’t want to disrupt my child. 42% 

There is good discipline, safety, and order at my child’s school. 34% 

There are activities after school and sports teams at my child’s 

school. 27% 

There is free tutoring or other extra help with schoolwork at my 

child’s school. 26% 

I didn’t have enough information about the schools from which I 

could choose. 23% 

There are different academic programs at my child’s school. 22% 

There are services at my child’s school for children with 

disabilities. 20% 

The district did not have transportation to any of the new 

schools from which I could choose. 18% 

I was not given enough time to make the decision to move my 

child to another school. 17% 

There are services at my child’s school for children whose first 

language is not English. 9% 

Exhibit reads: Among parents of students in schools identified for improvement, 75 percent chose to 

keep their child in their current school because the school is located in a place that is easy to get to. 

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

Parents who enrolled their children in Title I supplemental educational services most often reported that 

they did so because tutoring was offered in a subject in which their child needed extra help, because 

tutoring was free, or because the child’s teacher thought the child should get this extra help (see 

Exhibit 29). 

 

25 The No Child Left Behind Act specifies that if a school does not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two 

consecutive years, the LEA must provide all students enrolled in the school with the option to transfer to another public 

school served by the LEA that is not identified for improvement no later than the first day of the school year following 

its identification. 
Chapter III 38 

Among parents who had declined the offer of supplemental educational services for their child, the most 

common reason stated (by nearly half of responding parents in the eight-district subsample) was that 

tutoring was given “at times that are not good for my family” (see Exhibit 30). Twenty-eight percent of 

parents reported that they did not use supplemental services because their child did not need help. 

Other reasons were cited by 12 percent of parents or less. 

Exhibit 29 

Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Reason for Participating, 2004–05 

Reason 

Percentage of Parents of 

Students Participating in 

Supplemental Services 

(n=260) 

There is tutoring in the subject area(s) in which my child needs extra help. 60% 

Tutoring is free. 58% 

My child’s teacher thought he/she should get this extra help. 52% 

Tutoring is given at a place that is easy to get to. 47% 

My child wanted to get this extra help. 43% 

My child had been getting bad grades. 37% 

My child got a low score on a yearly achievement test. 33% 

My child’s school is not meeting his/her needs. 18% 

I needed after-school care. 12% 

There is tutoring for children with disabilities. 11% 

There is tutoring for children whose first language is not English. 6% 

Exhibit reads: Sixty percent of parents of students using supplemental services reported that one of 

the reasons they decided to have their child use these services was that tutoring was available in the 

subject area(s) in which their child needed help. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts). 
Chapter III 39 

DISCUSSION

A majority of states did not notify districts about the identification status of their schools before the 

beginning of the 2004–05 school year. As a result, just one-quarter of districts were able to notify 

parents of their eligibility for school choice prior to the beginning of the school year, surely contributing 

to the low participation rate for school choice reported in the previous chapter. Parents who were 

notified of their eligibility for school choice prior to the beginning of the school year were more likely to 

have transferred their child to a non-identified school than parents who were notified later. 

Nearly all districts reported that they eventually notified parents of their eligibility for choice or 

supplemental services. Nevertheless, in the eight large, urban districts where parents were surveyed—all 

of which reported that they had notified parents of their eligibility for school choice and provided copies 

of the notification letters that they sent out—only 27 percent of parents of students eligible for Title I 

school choice and 53 percent of parents of students eligible for Title I supplemental educational services 

said they had been notified about these options. Similarly, only one-fourth of parents of students in 

identified schools were aware that the schools were on the list of schools identified for improvement, 

bringing into question the effectiveness of the notification strategies used by districts. 

Written notifications were the most common method that districts used to inform parents about their 

Title I school choice, but in a sample of 21 notification letters, most letters did not contain all the 

information required by NCLB and lacked information needed to make an informed decision. 

Moreover, notification letters were often unclear or misleading. 

Exhibit 30 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in 

Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Reason for Not Participating, 2004–05

Reason 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible 

Students Not Participating in 

Supplemental Services 

(n=52) 

Tutoring is given at times that are not good for my family. 46% 

My child doesn’t need help. 28% 

Tutoring is given at a place that is not easy to get to. 12% 

My child did not want to get this extra help. 12% 

There is no tutoring at my child’s grade level. 5% 

There is no tutoring in the subject areas in which my child needs 

extra help. 5% 

Tutoring does not meet the needs of children with disabilities. 5% 

Tutoring does not meet the needs of children whose first language is 

not English. <1% 

Exhibit reads: Among parents of eligible students deciding not to have their child use supplemental 

services, 46 percent reported that they did not use them because tutoring was given at times that were 

not good for their family. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts). 
Chapter III 40 

Parents surveyed in eight urban districts indicated that the main reason for participating in either the 

Title I school choice or supplemental service option was to better meet the educational needs of their 

child. Among parents who transferred their child to a new school, 52 percent thought the quality of 

teaching at the new school was better and 47 percent said the previous school was not meeting their 

child’s needs. Similarly, among parents who chose to participate in Title I supplemental services, 

60 percent said it was because their child needed extra help. In contrast, among parents who chose not 

to participate, parents more commonly reported reasons of convenience rather than satisfaction with 

their child’s current school or academic performance.
Chapter IV 41 

IV. IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING SUPPLEMENTAL 

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 

No Child Left Behind gives states and districts different responsibilities in implementing the supplemental 

educational services provisions of the law. It mandates that states must develop, apply, and publicly 

report objective criteria for approving supplemental service providers. Once providers are operating, 

states are expected to monitor them and evaluate their performance. States are also expected to provide 

technical assistance to districts. Districts, meanwhile, are responsible for contracting with the providers 

for services and paying for services. In addition, individual schools may work with providers in various 

ways, from providing space to communicating with providers about students’ academic needs, 

objectives, and progress. 

STATES’ APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS

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

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

• uses instructional strategies that are high quality, based on research, and designed to increase 

student academic achievement; 

• provides services that are consistent with the instructional program of the local education agency 

and with state academic content and achievement standards; 

Key Findings 

• As of early 2005, most states were working to develop and implement systems for 

monitoring and evaluating Title I supplemental educational service providers 

effectiveness, but very few had databases that would permit statewide examination of 

the achievement results of participating students. 

• As of early 2005, half of the states had established some standards for evaluating 

provider effectiveness, although none had finalized their evaluation standards. 

• Although NCLB does not give districts a formal role in the monitoring and 

evaluation of Title I supplemental educational services, providers reported higher 

frequencies of monitoring by districts than by states. 

• Districts reported spending an average of $875 per participating pupil on Title I 

supplemental educational services in 2003–04. Total spending on supplemental 

educational services was estimated at $192 million.

• Over 40 percent of the principals of schools with students eligible for Title I 

supplemental educational services did not know how well these services were aligned 

with their school academic content standards in 2004–05.

• Most providers reported that they communicated with the regular classroom teachers 

of their students, but one in five never did so. 
Chapter IV 42 

• is financially sound; 

• provides supplemental educational services consistent with applicable federal, state, and local 

health, safety, and civil rights laws; 

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

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

State applications for Title I supplemental educational service providers focused most closely on the first 

four of the above criteria, with the majority of states requiring potential providers to include a narrative 

description of how the criteria would be met (see Exhibit 31). States were less demanding of providers 

with respect to the requirement to provide services consistent with applicable federal, state, and local health, safety, 

and civil rights laws and the requirement to provide instruction and content provided are secular, neutral, and nonideological, with most states requiring a signed checklist but not a narrative of how the criteria would be 

met. The requirement to provide services in addition to instruction provided during the school day received the least 

attention in states’ provider application forms. 

NCLB requires that states withdraw from the approved list any provider that fails to contribute to 

increased student proficiency relative to state academic content and achievement standards for two 

consecutive years. States are also expected to remove providers that fail to provide supplemental 

services consistent with applicable health, safety, and civil rights requirements at any time. 

As of 2004–05, only about 1 percent of approved providers (29 providers in 

16 states) had their state approvals withdrawn. 

States that removed providers from the approved list did so for a variety of reasons: the providers had 

failed to deliver services, engaged in illegal or unethical activities, lacked capacity to provide services, 

went bankrupt, or were unresponsive to the state. In addition, a few district providers became ineligible 

to offer services when the districts became identified for improvement. Only eight states had official 

standards in place for withdrawing service providers from state-approved lists.26

MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF PROVIDER PERFORMANCE

As of early 2005, most states were working to develop and implement systems for 

monitoring and evaluating Title I supplemental educational service provider 

effectiveness, but very few had databases that would permit statewide examination 

of the achievement results of participating students. 

States reported that they were working to develop and implement systems for monitoring the 

performance of Title I supplemental service providers, but as of early 2005, 15 states had not yet 

established any monitoring processes and 21 states had not finalized their monitoring processes. Even 

among the 16 states that had documented monitoring standards, officials often reported that they were 

still fine-tuning the way in which they monitored providers. As a typical state official explained, “We’re 

just getting into [developing monitoring standards] because this will be our first year for numbers of 

schools to be required to offer supplemental services . . . so this is our first year to really get into the 

process.” Rural states with small numbers of students participating in Title I supplemental services were 

particularly likely to be just beginning to establish monitoring processes. 

 

26 Source: SSI-NCLB Interviews. Data were available from 49 states. 
Chapter IV 43 

The most common approaches that states have implemented to monitor providers included surveying 

the districts about provider effectiveness (25 states) and using providers’ reports on student progress 

(18 states). The Government Accountability Office (2006) reached a similar conclusion. Fewer states 

reported conducting on-site monitoring (14 states) or having districts report student-level data to the 

state (nine states). 

As of early 2005, three states (Louisiana, Maryland, and New Jersey) had databases containing student 

achievement and participation information that would permit rigorous evaluations of achievement 

effects of providers on a statewide basis. Four more states (Colorado, Florida, Oklahoma, and 

Tennessee) had plans to create such databases. 

Nearly all state respondents were developing strategies to manage monitoring tasks, but staff capacity 

was a constraint. Said one, “the reality of life is the feds don’t pay us enough to have monitors for all the 

providers.” State officials with responsibility for supplemental educational services often have multiple 

Exhibit 31 

Number of States Requiring a Narrative or Checklist in Providers’ Title I Supplemental 

Educational Service Application to Show They Meet the NCLB Requirements, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Among the 46 states for which data were available on their use of NCLB criteria for 

approving supplemental service providers, all require providers to include in their application a narrative 

describing how they meet the requirement to have a demonstrated record of effectiveness. 

a Includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

b Includes the District of Columbia. 

Notes: Six states (Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Wyoming) did not provide copies of their 

application forms for this analysis. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, State Application Forms (n=44 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico). 

9

3

1

42b

36b

1

26b

10

19a

35a

44a

45a

46a

0 10 20 30 40 50

Number of States

Narrative

Checklist

Demonstrates record of effectiveness 

Uses high quality research-based instructional 

strategies

Provides services that are consistent with the 

state and LEA academic standards 

Financially sound 

Consistent with applicable federal, state, and 

local health, safety, and civil rights laws 

Instruction and content are secular, neutral, 

and non-ideological 

Services in addition to instruction provided 

during the school day 
Chapter IV 44 

roles: In one state, the key staff member for supplemental services was primarily the “HIV/Sexuality 

specialist.” About 10 states had opted to hire outside consultants or experts to develop and implement a 

monitoring process. In a few cases, however, this was a limited role; as one state explained, “We’ve got a 

graduate student who’s doing some calling around to states to find out what they’re doing to see if there 

are some good models out there that we could follow.” A similar number of states sought assistance 

from districts to gather data to inform the monitoring process. Few states indicated that they intended 

to hire new staff for the supplemental educational service role, but one noted, “We are in the process of 

hiring a new full-time person who can [focus] more closely on the monitoring.”27

As of early 2005, half of the states had established some standards for evaluating 

provider effectiveness, although none had finalized its evaluation standards. 

The 25 states with standards for evaluating provider effectiveness in place by early 2005 planned to use a 

variety of measures. Seventeen states said they will evaluate provider effectiveness based on student 

achievement on state assessments though, as noted above, only seven states have plans for statewide 

databases integrating participation and achievement data. Thirteen states reported that they planned to 

allow the use of provider-developed tests, and 10 states planned to use other measures, such as student 

grades, homework completion, or school- or teacher-administered tests. Seventeen states said they 

planned to measure parent or student satisfaction with the services. The Government Accountability 

Office (2006) likewise found that very few states had developed rigorous evaluation methods. 

According to supplemental service providers in 16 geographically diverse districts, the most frequent 

forms of state monitoring of their services were reviews of student attendance, meetings with provider 

organizations to discuss implementation and exchange feedback, and observation of supplemental 

service sessions (see Exhibit 32). Tracking the academic success of participating students occurred less 

frequently, although more than 60 percent of providers reported that states monitored state achievement 

test results of participating students once per year, and nearly half of providers reported that states 

monitored some other form of academic success of participating students. 

Although NCLB does not give districts a formal role in the monitoring and 

evaluation of Title I supplemental educational services, providers reported higher 

frequencies of monitoring by districts than by states. 

For example, three-quarters of providers reported that districts tracked student attendance rates, at least 

a few times per year, compared with 35 percent of states reporting a similar frequency of monitoring (see 

Exhibit 32). Similarly, nearly two-thirds of providers reported that districts met with them at least a few 

times per year to discuss implementation, while 42 percent reported that states did so. Districts 

observed supplemental service sessions likewise more often than did states, with more than twice as 

many providers reporting district monitoring (51 percent) than state monitoring (22 percent). 

 

27 Other research has indicated that states are finding their responsibility for monitoring and evaluating providers to be a 

challenge. The Center on Education Policy (2006) found that 40 states said that it is a moderate or serious challenge to 

determine whether providers’ instructional strategies are effective in raising student achievement. 
Chapter IV 45 

Exhibit 32 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by State and District Monitoring Mechanisms They Experienced 

at Least a Few Times During The Year, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Seventy-five percent of providers reported that districts reviewed reports of 

student attendance rates at least a few times per year, whereas 35 percent of providers reported 

that states did so. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Service Provider Survey (n=89 to 95 providers in 16 districts). 

A minority (10 percent) of providers reported that they were not monitored by the state in any way, and 

less than 1 percent reported that they had received no monitoring from either the district or state. 

Although districts are often in a better position to monitor providers than are states, one-third of those 

required to offer supplemental services were themselves approved providers, in direct competition with 

private providers. This may create a conflict of interest. A district that would prefer to have students 

enroll in its own services may be tempted to use the monitoring function to create undue burdens for the 

private providers it is competing against. The NLS surveys provide no direct evidence that this is 

occurring, but the U.S. Department of Education’s regulatory guidance recognizes it as a potential 

problem, and encourages state education agencies not to rely too extensively on local districts for 

monitoring, especially when the district is acting as a competing provider.28

 

28 The U.S. Department of Education’s guidance on the role of local districts reads as follows: “An SEA might request 

assistance from its LEAs [local education agencies] in gathering information to help the SEA monitor the quality and 

effectiveness of the services offered by providers. However, an SEA is ultimately responsible for monitoring providers 

and should request assistance from its LEAs only in collecting data from providers, not in evaluating the effectiveness of 

providers. Additionally, if some LEAs in a State are approved providers, an SEA should recognize that an LEA’s status 

as a provider may create a conflict of interest in providing information to the SEA on the quality of competing 

providers’ services. In such situations, the SEA should consider not involving such LEAs in the monitoring process at 

all” (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b). 

10%

10%

43%

22%

36%

26%

32%

64%

51%

75% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Tracked grades, grade promotion, and/or

graduation rates of participating students

Tracked state achievement test scores of

participating students

Met with provider organizations to discuss

implementation

Observed supplemental service sessions

Reviewed reports of student attendance

rates

Percentage of Providers

District Monitoring

State Monitoring
Chapter IV 46 

STATE-PROVIDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL 

SERVICES

The majority of states (40 and the District of Columbia) provided districts with general information 

about the Title I supplemental service provisions of NCLB in 2004–05. Nineteen states assisted districts 

with the notification and communication with parents, and 13 states assisted districts with developing 

contracts with providers (see Exhibit 33). 

States most commonly targeted this technical assistance to Title I administrators in districts with schools 

identified for improvement (33 states and the District of Columbia). Some states also provided 

assistance directly to schools (12 states), supplemental service providers (10), and, less commonly, to 

district superintendents (five) or parents (four). 

DISTRICT CONTRACTS WITH SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS

Among the statutory requirements for school districts is the obligation to establish contracts with 

providers. NCLB identifies seven specific elements of these formal agreements: 

1. specific achievement goals for the student, which must be developed in consultation with the 

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

Exhibit 33 

Number of States That Provided Districts with Technical Assistance to 

Implement Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Type of Assistance, 2004–05 

1

2

3

13

19

41

0 10 20 30 40 50

Unspecified

Title I allocation and budget information

Provider partnerships

Provider contracts

Notification and communication with parents

General information on supplemental 

service provisions of NCLB

Number of States

Exhibit reads: Forty-one states provided districts with general information about supplemental service 

legislation in 2004–05. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, Supplemental Services Interviews. 
Chapter IV 47 

2. a description of how the student’s progress will be measured and how the student’s parents 

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

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

4. a provision for termination of the agreement if the provider fails to meet student progress 

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

5. provisions governing payment for the services, which may include provisions addressing 

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

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

eligible for or receiving supplemental educational services without the written permission of 

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

7. an assurance that supplemental educational services will be provided consistent with 

applicable health, safety, and civil rights laws [Section 1116(e)(5(C)]. 

According to districts, other provisions beyond those explicitly required by the law are often included in 

their contract with providers. Four-fifths of districts required providers to submit regular reports to 

parents and teachers. Half of districts reported that they offered providers the use of district facilities for 

free, while one-fourth said they offered district facilities for a fee. One-fourth of districts required all 

providers to use the same standardized form for reporting on student learning goals and progress toward 

those goals. Over one-third of districts reported that their provider contracts required services to be 

supervised by certified teachers. One-tenth of districts reported that they imposed caps on the number 

of students a provider could serve (see Exhibit 34). 
Chapter IV 48 

In a subsample of 16 districts, most supplemental service providers described contractual provisions that 

were consistent with those described by the districts (see Exhibit 35). However, they were more likely than 

districts to report they could use district facilities for a fee instead of free of charge. They were also more 

likely than districts to report having a cap on the number of students they could serve.

Districts reported spending an average of $875 per participating pupil on Title I 

supplemental educational services in 2003–04, about 30 percent less than the 

maximum ($1,225) per-child amount they reported allocating for such services. 

Half of the districts reported spending between $385 and $1,234 per student for supplemental services in 

2003–04.29 The average maximum amount that districts reported allocating per pupil for NCLB

supplemental services increased by 17 percent from 2003–04 ($1,225) to 2004–05 ($1,434). Total 

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

According to 86 providers of all types in the 16-district subsample, the average rate charged to districts 

for services was $38 per student per hour. 

 

29 Source: NLS-NCLB District Survey. Based on $38 per student per hour, the estimated average amount spent by 

providers in the 16-district subsample was $1,732 per student, twice the national average reported by districts. The 

difference between the two estimates may be because the 16-district subsample is dominated by large urban districts 

where providers may be charging relatively more. 

Exhibit 34 

Percentage of Districts, by Type of Provision They Included in Contracts With 

Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 2004–05 

11%

25%

38%

25%

50%

76%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cap on number of students a provider can serve

All providers use the same standardized reporting form to 

establish student learning goals and evaluate progress 

Services provided be supervised by a certified teacher

Providers can use district facilities for a fee

Providers can use district facilities free of charge

Providers receive payment based on the number of

sessions students received

Providers send progress reports to parents and teachers 

on a regular basis

Percentage of Districts

Exhibit reads: Among districts that had contracts with supplemental service providers in 2004–05, 

81 percent included in those contracts a requirement that providers send progress reports to parents and 

teachers on a regular basis. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n=94 districts). 
Chapter IV 49 

Exhibit 35 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by Type of Provisions Included in Contracts with Districts, 2004–05 

Provision Included in Contract Percentage of Providers 

Provision that your organization will receive payment based on the number of 

sessions of tutoring that students attend (n=92) 95% 

Requirement that your organization send progress reports to parents and/or 

teachers on a regular basis (n=91) 94% 

Agreement that your organization can use district facilities free of charge (n=92) 16% 

Agreement that your organization can use district facilities for a fee (n=91) 42% 

Requirement that services provided to students be supervised or attended by 

certified teacher (n=91) 48% 

Cap on the number of students your organization can serve (n=90) 39% 

Exhibit reads: Forty percent of supplemental service providers in a subsample of 16 districts reported 

that their contracts included an agreement that they could use district facilities for a fee. 

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

SCHOOLS’ RELATIONSHIP WITH SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICE 

PROVIDERS

Principal and Teacher Knowledge of Supplemental Services 

The No Child Left Behind Act says little about the roles of principals and teachers with respect to Title I 

supplemental educational services, but there are a variety of ways they may become engaged with service 

providers. However, principals were only occasionally informed about the content of supplemental 

services provided to their students. 

Over 40 percent of principals of schools with students eligible for Title I 

supplemental educational services did not know how well these services were 

aligned with school academic content standards. 

Less than one-third of the principals reported that the services provided to their students were well 

aligned with school academic content standards in mathematics and reading (see Exhibit 36).30

 

30 Although schools do not generally have their own unique academic content standards, the survey question asked 

about the school’s standards to avoid potential confusion between state standards and district standards. The phrasing 

was intended to allow principals to report on the content standards in use in their schools, regardless of the source of 

those standards. 
Chapter IV 50 

A similar lack of knowledge about supplemental services offered to students at their schools was evident 

among teachers. In schools with students eligible for Title I supplemental services, 30 percent of 

teachers did not know whether students in their schools were actually being offered supplemental 

services. Secondary teachers were more likely than elementary teachers to say they did not know 

whether their district students were receiving these services (55 percent in high schools and 28 percent in 

middle schools, compared with 23 percent in elementary schools). This absence of teachers’ knowledge 

about availability of supplemental services may be partly due to the fact that many districts started 

supplemental services late in the school year—in some instances perhaps after the administration of the 

NLS-NCLB surveys. 

Among teachers who were aware that students in their schools were participating in supplemental 

services, the majority (96 percent) knew whether their own students were participating, and as discussed 

earlier, many of these teachers communicated with parents about their supplemental services options 

(see Chapter III). 

Provider Communication with Principals and Teachers 

Most providers reported that they communicated with the regular classroom 

teachers of their students, but one in five never did so. 

In a sample of 16 districts, 70 percent of Title I supplemental educational service providers reported that 

their staff communicated with the classroom teachers of their students at least a few times per year. 

However, nearly one-fifth (19 percent) reported no contact with classroom teachers. The Government 

Exhibit 36 

Percentage of Principals at Schools With Students Eligible for 

Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Degree of Alignment of Services 

With School Academic Content Standards and Subject Area, 2003–04 

Exhibit reads: In 2003–04, 32 percent of the principals at schools with students eligible for 

supplemental services said the services were well aligned with school academic content standards in 

reading. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey (n=206 and 204 principals, respectively, for reading and mathematics). 

43%

5%

25%

26%

40%

5%

22%

32%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Don't Know

Not at All Aligned

Partially Aligned

Well Aligned

Percentage of Principals

Reading

Mathematics
Chapter IV 51 

Accountability Office (2006) likewise reported that many providers were not connected with teachers, 

finding that some providers had no contact with teachers in 40 percent of districts. 

Providers reported that the most common topics of their communication with teachers included student 

academic progress (related to supplemental service goals or to regular classroom instruction), 

coordination of curriculum and instruction, and student attendance at sessions. Student achievement on 

state assessments was less frequently discussed (see Exhibit 37). 

Exhibit 37 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers and of Teachers 

Reporting Communicating With Each Other, by Type of Communication, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Fifty-eight percent of teachers reported that they communicated with the supplemental 

service providers serving their students regarding student progress related to regular classroom instruction, 

while 59 percent of providers (in a sample of 16 districts) reported that they often or always communicated 

with teachers regarding student progress related to regular classroom instruction. 

Note: Teacher survey responses are from a nationally representative sample, while providers were surveyed only in a 

subsample of 16 districts. 

Sources: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey and Supplemental Service Provider Survey (n=67 to 75 providers in 

16 districts and 524 teachers). 

Among teachers who knew their own students were receiving supplemental services, over half in 

elementary and middle schools and nearly half in high schools said they had communicated with 

supplemental service providers on student progress related to regular instruction. Regardless of grade 

level, about half of these teachers communicated with providers about their students’ progress, students’ 

attendance, and coordination of curriculum and instruction (see Exhibit 37). About one-third of these 

teachers reported discussing student achievement on state tests with providers of supplemental services. 

82%

91%

95%

97%

98%

25%

45%

48%

57%

59%

32%

47%

48%

50%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Student achievement on state

assessments

Student attendance at supplemental

service sessions

Coordination of curriculum and/or

instruction

Student progress related to

supplemental service activities and/or

goals

Student progress related to regular

classroom instruction

As Reported by Teachers

(Yes)

As Reported by Providers

(Often or Always)

As Reported by Providers

(Sometimes, Often or

Always)

Percentage of Providers or Teachers 
Chapter IV 52 

Providers in the 16-district subsample reported higher rates of communication with teachers than did 

teachers in the national sample, as suggested by Exhibit 37. But the percentages of providers reporting 

communicating with teachers “often” or “always” on particular topics were quite consistent with the 

percentages of teachers (in the national sample) who reported contact with providers on the same issues. 

Providers in the 16-district subsample indicated that they had regular contact about the progress of 

individual students with parents, principals, and district officials as well as teachers. Providers reported 

on student progress most frequently to parents (see Exhibit 38). One-fifth of providers said that they 

reported to parents following each session of supplemental services, while another 31 percent said that 

they gave reports to parents a few times monthly. Providers also reported back to principals and district 

officials with some regularity: About half of providers indicated that they reported to principals and to 

district officials at least a few times per semester or per year. Providers reported to the state less 

frequently: Half reported once annually and one-third never reported to the state about the progress of 

individual students. 

Exhibit 38 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting on the 

Progress of Individual Students, by Type of Recipient and Frequency, 2004–05 

Frequency of Reporting 

Recipient 

After Every 

Session 

Few Times 

Per Month 

Few Times 

Per 

Semester 

Few Times 

Per Year 

Once Per 

Year Never 

Parents (n=99) 20% 32% 30% 16% 1% 1% 

Principals (n=97) 4% 12% 33% 20% 8% 22% 

District officials (n=96) 3% 10% 37% 25% 19% 7% 

The state (n=92) 3% 1% 7% 7% 48% 34% 

Exhibit reads: Twenty percent of supplemental service providers reported that they reported to parents 

of students they served after every session. 

Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

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

PROVIDERS AND STUDENT ASSESSMENT 

Providers often received little or no information on the students they served prior to beginning services. 

Slightly more than half of providers reported receiving any one of various kinds of information about 

their students’ academic performance prior to the initiation of services (see Exhibit 39). Student scores 

on state assessment tests were received by 41 percent of providers, while individualized education 

programs (IEPs) and report card grades were given to about one-fourth of providers. Nearly half of 

providers reported that they received none of the various types of information about their students prior 

to the start of services. 
Chapter IV 53 

Although most providers did not receive many types of information about students’ academic 

backgrounds, 9 out of 10 providers surveyed reported formally assessing students prior to providing 

supplemental services. Providers reported using a variety of instruments to assess the progress of 

students they were serving (see Exhibit 40). Most commonly, providers used assignments completed by 

students during sessions: Over half did so after every session. Forty percent of providers also used 

assignments completed outside of sessions at least a few times per month, although half of providers 

never assessed students in this manner. Meanwhile, over 40 percent of providers used tests developed 

by their organization at least a few times per month. Smaller numbers of providers used district-based 

assessments, state practice tests, or student portfolios. 

Exhibit 39 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by Type of Information Received on Individual Students 

Prior to Providing Supplemental Services, 2004–05 

Type of Information Received on Students Percentage of Providers Receiving 

Information Prior to Providing Services 

Scores on state assessment tests (n=95) 41% 

Scores on other standardized tests (n=94) 36% 

Report card grades (n=94) 26% 

Examples of student work (n=94) 18% 

IEPs for students we are serving (n=93) 27% 

Received at least one type of information (n=95) 54% 

Exhibit reads: Forty percent of supplemental service providers reported that they received student 

scores on state assessment tests prior to providing supplemental services. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Service Provider Survey (in 16 districts). 
Chapter IV 54 

DISCUSSION

As of 2004–05, virtually all states had established approval criteria for supplemental service providers, 

but they were much slower in setting up monitoring processes and standards for evaluating provider 

effectiveness. Very few states had any systematic way to assess the effects of supplemental services on 

student achievement. Local school districts were to some extent stepping into the breach: Providers 

reported more frequent monitoring by districts than by states, despite the fact that NCLB does not give 

districts a formal role in the monitoring and evaluation of supplemental services, and despite the fact that 

one-third of districts were themselves approved providers, creating a potential conflict of interest. 

NCLB expects parents, providers, and school districts to reach an agreement on the learning goals for 

each child, and district contracts with providers often require them to communicate regularly with 

classroom teachers. In practice, the evidence suggests uneven levels of provider communication with 

school staff and inconsistent integration of supplemental services with school academic programs. Over 

40 percent of the principals of schools with students eligible to participate in supplemental services did 

not know how well services offered to their students were aligned with their school academic content 

standards in 2004–05. Less than one-third of the principals reported that the services provided to their 

students were well aligned with school academic content standards in mathematics or reading. Most 

providers reported that they communicated with the regular classroom teachers of their students, but 

one in five never did so. 

Exhibit 40 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Assessing Students, 

by Type of Measure and Frequency, 2004–05 

Frequency of Assessment 

Measure 

After Every 

Session 

Few Times 

Per Month 

Few Times 

Per Semester 

Few Times 

Per Year 

Once Per 

Year Never 

Tests developed by your 

organization (n=79) 13% 30% 20% 23% 1% 13% 

Tests aligned with regular 

classroom instruction (n=84) 5% 29% 17% 20% 4% 25% 

District-developed 

assessments or benchmark 

tests (n=84) 

4% 13% 11% 16% 2% 55% 

Practice tests for state 

assessments (n=86) 6% 19% 11% 10% 2% 52% 

Assignments completed by 

students during sessions with 

your organization (n=86) 

55% 23% 4% 9% 0% 9% 

Assignments completed by 

students outside of sessions 

with your organization (n=83) 

25% 16% 2% 8% 2% 47% 

Student portfolios (n=84) 19% 11% 11% 6% 3% 50% 

Exhibit reads: Fourteen percent of supplemental service providers reported using tests developed by their 

own organization to assess students after every session. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Service Provider Survey (in 16 districts). 
Conclusions 55 

CONCLUSIONS 

In 2004–05, about 6.2 million students were eligible for Title I school choice and as many as 1.8 million 

students were eligible for Title I supplemental educational services. Although the number of students 

participating in school choice and supplemental services grew substantially from previous years, most 

eligible students did not participate. One percent of eligible students participated in school choice and 

17 percent of eligible students received supplemental educational services, according to the most recent 

nationally representative data available. Three notable issues may have affected participation: 

1. Absence of available options. About one-third of districts—usually small districts with few 

schools—had no non-identified schools to which students in identified schools could transfer. 

All of their schools at the relevant grade levels were identified for improvement (which is not 

unusual in small districts that have only a few schools.) An absence of non-identified schools is 

especially common at the middle and high school levels. With respect to supplemental services, 

providers were far less likely to offer services to high school students than to elementary and 

middle school students, despite the fact that, across the country, these students were more likely 

to be eligible for services than were elementary students. 

2. Timing of notification. Many districts did not receive information on the improvement status 

of their schools from their states until late summer or early fall, reducing their ability to inform 

parents about Title I school choice before the start of the school year. Less than one-third of 

districts required to offer school choice notified parents of eligible students before the beginning 

of the school year. Districts that notified parents prior to the beginning of the school year had 

higher participation rates than did those that notified parents after school had started. 

3. Problems with communication. While almost all of the districts offering Title I school choice 

and supplemental educational services reported that they notified parents of the options available 

to their children, many parents were not aware of their options. For example, in the eight urban 

districts subsampled for additional study, three-quarters of parents of elementary students who 

were eligible for school choice indicated they had not been notified of the option to move their 

child to another school—despite the fact that all eight districts provided copies of parent 

information letters that they reported were sent to eligible parents. Many (but fewer) parents 

likewise reported they were not notified about the availability of supplemental educational 

services. 

For families that participated in Title I choice options, there are signs of promise. Parents who took 

advantage of Title I school choice were very satisfied with the new schools—which had substantially 

higher levels of average student achievement than did the schools departed by the transfer students (at 

least in nine large, urban districts that were subsampled), as intended by NCLB. Moreover, students 

using the school choice option had lower-than-average levels of prior achievement. 

Parent, provider, and district reports suggest that many students who participated in Title I supplemental 

educational services received a substantial amount of additional instructional time. Providers reported 

serving students an average of 57 hours per year. Given the low levels of prior achievement of 

supplemental educational service participants, that additional time was appropriately directed to students 

who needed it. Parents reported high levels of satisfaction with supplemental services as well. 

The availability and use of Title I supplemental educational services has grown rapidly over the past 

several years, but systems for monitoring providers and evaluating their effectiveness are only in their 

infancy. Most states did not yet have clear standards or methods for evaluating providers, and provider 
Conclusions 56 

reports suggest that districts were often taking on evaluation roles, despite the fact that the law 

designates this responsibility to states. Moreover, although NCLB requires that providers, districts, and 

parents work together to identify academic goals for each student, communication channels among these 

three partners appeared to be uneven. Although most providers reported some communication with 

schools and parents, one-fifth of providers acknowledged that they never communicated with classroom 

teachers about student progress. 

In short, states, districts, and providers were working to implement Title I school choice and 

supplemental educational services, but whether they will meet the expectations envisioned in the law of 

providing a range of educational options to parents of students in persistently low-performing Title I 

schools is not yet clear. 
References 57 

REFERENCES 

American Institutes for Research (AIR) and Education Industry Association (EIA). (2005). The Promise 

and Challenge of Supplemental Educational Services: The Providers’ Perspective, Washington, D.C.: AIR. 

Center on Education Policy. (2006). From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind

Act, Washington, D.C. Available on CEP Web site: www.cep-dc.org/nclb/Year4/CEP-NCLBReport-4.pdf (accessed Sept. 8, 2006). 

Government Accountability Office. (2006). Education Actions Needed to Improve Local Implementation and 

State Evaluation of Supplemental Services. GAO-06-758. Washington, D.C. 

Howell, W. (2004). “Worcester: Thunderous Clouds, No Rain,” in Frederick M. Hess and Chester E. 

Finn, eds., Leaving No Child Behind?: Options for Kids in Failing Schools, New York: Palgrave 

Macmillan, pp. 239–263. 

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

Public Education Network. (2004). Open to the Public: Speaking Out on No Child Left Behind. Summary of 

Nine Hearings. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Education. ( 2004). “Overview: Four Pillars of NCLB.” Available on Department 

of Education Web site: www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html (accessed Aug. 24, 

2006). 

U.S. Department of Education. (2005a). Case Studies of Supplemental Services Under the No Child Left 

Behind Act: Findings from 2003–04, Washington, D.C. Available on Department of Education 

Web site: www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/supplementalyear2/final-year2.pdf (accessed Aug. 

25, 2006). 

U.S. Department of Education. (2005b). Supplemental Educational Services: Non-Regulatory Guidance, 

Washington, D.C. Available on Department of Education Web site: 

www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsucsguid.doc (accessed Aug. 25, 2006). 

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

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. 

Zimmer, R., B. Gill, P. Razquin, K. Booker, and J.R. Lockwood. (2007). State and Local Implementation of 

the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume I—Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and 

Student Achievement. Available on Department of Education Web site: 

www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/implementation/achievementanalysis.pdf (accessed Jan. 30, 

2008). 

Appendix A 59 

APPENDIX A 

DESCRIPTION OF NLS-NCLB AND SSI-NCLB METHODOLOGIES 

The purpose of the NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB is to provide an integrated longitudinal evaluation of the 

implementation of No Child Left Behind by states, districts and schools, focusing primarily on NCLB

provisions in the following four areas: accountability, teacher quality, parental choice and supplemental 

educational services, and targeting and resource allocation. 

Data collection for NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB was coordinated to ensure coverage of the same set of 

questions as well as questions pertinent to each state, district and school levels. Taken together, the 

linked dataset on state policies, district policies, school strategies, teacher qualifications, parental choice 

activities, provision of supplemental services, resource allocation, and student achievement that were 

developed provide a unique resource for understanding the implementation of the key provisions of 

No Child Left Behind, including in Title I and non-Title I schools. 

Sample and Response Rates 

The nationally representative sample selected for NLS-NCLB includes 300 districts. The sampling frame 

included all districts with at least one public and regular school in the 2001 National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) school database. The sample was selected 

using a probability proportional to size (PPS) scheme in which the measure of size was district 

enrollment; 36 very large districts were selected with certainty. In order to ensure sufficient sample sizes 

of schools identified for improvement under Title I, the study over-sampled high-poverty districts, 

defined as those in the highest poverty quartile. District poverty quartiles were based on Census Bureau 

estimates of the number of school-age children and poor children living in each district (2002 Small-Area 

Income and Poverty Estimates). The poverty quartiles were created by ranking all districts by the 

percentage of poor school-age children and then dividing these districts into quartiles that each contains 

25 percent of the school-age children. 

The school sample included 1,483 schools randomly sampled from strata within sampled districts. 

Title I schools, high-poverty schools, and elementary schools with Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) 

programs were over-sampled. Title I status and the percentage of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunches in schools were taken from the Common Core of Data maintained by the National Center 

for Education Statistics. The eligibility threshold for the subsidized lunch program is lower than the 

official poverty definition. Elementary CSR schools were identified through the Southwest Educational 

Development Laboratory database on CSR schools. he sample of schools was designed so that on 

average two non-CSR schools, one CSR, one middle school, and one high school were selected from 

each district. 

The teacher sample included approximately seven teachers per school (six classroom teachers and one 

special education teacher). School staff rosters were collected and divided into teacher strata by grade 

level taught; a stratum of Title I paraprofessionals was also created. After school rosters were stratified, 

independent random sampling took place within each stratum. At the elementary level, one teacher was 

selected per grade. At the secondary level, about three math teachers and three English teachers were 

selected per school. One Title I paraprofessional was selected from each Title I school. The resulting 

sample included a total of 8,791 classroom teachers (including 4,772 elementary teachers, 2,081 

secondary English teachers, and 1,938 secondary mathematics teachers), 1,408 special education teachers, 

and 950 paraprofessionals. 
Appendix A 60 

Of the 300 districts in the sample, all but three agreed to participate in the study. These three districts 

were replaced, 289 responded by returning completed surveys yielding a response rate of 96 percent. Of 

the 1,483 schools in the sample, 36 refused to participate and were replaced. The response rate for 

principal surveys in sampled schools was 89 percent. Among teachers, response rates were highest for 

elementary teachers at 86 percent, while English and mathematics teachers responded at a rate of 

82 percent. 

Exhibit A.1 

Sample Sizes and Survey Completion Rates for 

National Longitudinal Study of NCLB Surveys, 2004–05 

 Sample Size 

Completed 

Surveys Completion Rate

Districts 300 289 96% 

Schools 1,483 1,315 89% 

Elementary teachers 4,772 4,089 86% 

English teachers 2,081 1,707 82% 

Mathematics teachers 1,938 1,598 82% 

Special education teachers 1,408 1,191 85% 

Paraprofessionals 950 828 87% 

The following table presents characteristics of the district and school samples compared with the 

universe of districts and schools based on CCD data. As intended, the sample contains higher 

proportions of high-poverty districts and schools compared with the universe. 

 
Appendix A 61 

Exhibit A.2 

Characteristics of National Longitudinal Study of NCLB District and 

School Samples Compared with the Universe of Districts and Schools 

Sample Universe 

Number Percentage Number Percentage

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

 Highest poverty quartile 163 54% 3,743 25% 

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

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

 Lowest poverty quartile 46 15% 3,743 25% 

Schools, by poverty level 1,502 83,298 

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

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

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

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

 Missing 146 10% 9,827 12% 

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

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

 Non–Title I 259 17% 31,312 38% 

 Missing 80 5% 5,938 7% 

Schools, by grade level 1,502 83,298 

 Elementary 906 60% 50,597 61% 

 Middle 298 20% 15,700 19% 

 High 298 20% 17,001 20% 

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

In addition, a subsample of nine large, urban districts was selected for additional data collection focused 

on student-level demographic and achievement data as well as a survey of parents. The nine districts 

were selected based on availability of the necessary longitudinal individual student achievement data as 

well as sufficient numbers of students participating in the Title I school choice and supplemental services 

options to enable sampling of 100 parents in each district who had children participating in the Title I 

school choice option and an additional 100 parents with children receiving Title I supplemental services. 

As a result, these districts are all large urban districts and do not reflect the diversity of Title I districts. 

A stratified simple random sample of about 400 parents was selected in each of eight districts (one 

district did not provide the data needed to select a parent sample). In each district, four sampling strata 

were created for use in sampling parents. The four strata included parents of children who transferred 

under NCLB, received supplemental services, were eligible to transfer or receive supplemental services 

but chose not to participate, and children who were in schools not identified for improvement. 

Sample sizes of 100 were randomly selected with equal probabilities from each of the four strata within 

each district. Districts generally fell short of the 100 sample size within the transfers stratum, and thus 

the total sample size in some districts was under 400. One district did not distinguish transfers under 

NCLB from other transfers in their district and thus had a sample equally distributed within strata 2, 3, 

and 4 (i.e., with 133 parents in each of the three strata). A total of 3,094 parents were sampled and 1,866 

completed surveys for a response rate of 61 percent. Response rates for each of the strata varied from 

55 percent to 67 percent. Response rates in six of the eight districts were above 60 percent, while one 
Appendix A 62 

district had a response rate of 52 percent and one district (which refused to permit telephone follow-ups) 

had a response rate of 36 percent. 

Exhibit A.3 

Sample Sizes and Completion Rates 

for National Longitudinal Study of NCLB Parent Surveys 

 Sample Size 

Completed 

Surveys 

Completion 

Rate 

Parents of children who transferred under NCLB 602 403 67% 

Parents of children who received supplemental services 839 493 58% 

Parents of children who were eligible to transfer or receive 

supplemental services but chose not to participate 798 439 55% 

Parents of children who were in schools not identified for 

improvement 855 531 63% 

All parents 3,094 1,866 61% 

Supplemental educational service providers were surveyed in these eight districts as well as an additional 

eight districts where supplemental services were being offered. The additional eight districts were 

randomly selected from high-poverty districts distributed across regions and across mid-sized cities and 

suburban and rural areas. Ten supplemental service providers were randomly chosen in each of the 

16 districts, except in districts with fewer than ten providers, where all providers were surveyed. In five 

districts, the district itself was providing supplemental services and in those cases the district was 

surveyed in addition to the ten other providers. A total of 125 providers were surveyed (out of a 

universe of 226 providers operating in the 16 districts) and 103 completed surveys for a response rate of 

82 percent. 

In the above 16 districts, plus 9 additional districts, again randomly selected from the study sample of 

districts, various documents were collected, including district improvement plans, district report cards, 

parental choice notification letters, and school improvement plans for selected schools. All of these 

districts cooperated with the document collection activities. 

Across all survey items, nonresponse was generally low. That is, respondents tended to answer all 

questions in the surveys. Survey items with item nonresponse rates greater than 10 percent are generally 

not included in the report. When items with high nonresponse are reported, the nonresponse rate is 

reported and discussed in the text. No item-level imputations for missing data were made for this 

report. 

The interview sample for the SSI-NCLB was straightforward, including all 50 states plus the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico. The response rate for all four types of interviews (accountability, teacher 

quality, supplemental educational services, and Title III) was 100 percent. However, responses for some 

specific variables were occasionally less than 100 percent, if respondents did not respond to the interview 

question, or if data were absent from state documentation. 

Data Collection 

NLS-NCLB data used in this report were gathered using instruments that included mail surveys of 

district federal program coordinators, school principals, classroom teachers, Title I paraprofessionals, 
Appendix A 63 

parents, and supplemental educational services providers. In some instances parents were surveyed by 

telephone. Survey administration began in October 2004 and was completed in March 2005, except for 

the parent and supplemental service provider surveys that began in early 2005 and extended into 

October 2005. A second complete wave of data collection will be conducted in the 2006–07 school year. 

Topics covered in the survey questionnaires included accountability systems, AYP and school and 

district identification for improvement, technical assistance, improvement strategies, use of assessment 

results, Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, teacher quality, and professional 

development. 

In addition, NLS-NCLB gathered pertinent documents, including district and school improvement plans 

and school report cards, and parental notifications about choice options, teacher qualifications, and 

achievement test scores of children. 

The SSI-NCLB relied on interviews with state education officials and extant data. Interviews were 

conducted between September 2004 and February 2005 with state officials who had primary 

responsibility for accountability, teacher quality, supplemental educational services, and Title III 

implementation. A second wave of interviews will be conducted in the 2006–07 school year. The 

interview protocols addressed topics including assessments, AYP definitions, state support for schools 

identified for improvement, sanctions for schools in corrective action and restructuring, state data 

systems, state definitions of highly qualified teachers, professional development, technical assistance for 

teacher quality, monitoring supplemental educational service providers, and state approaches to the 

implementation of NCLB provisions related to English language proficiency. Each interview included a 

short section of survey questions to which state officials responded in writing (these were referred to as 

“Introductory Materials”) and a document request, if necessary. 

States are required to submit much documentation to the U.S. Department of Education, and the 

SSI-NCLB collected documents such as the Consolidated State Applications under NCLB (primarily the 

state accountability workbooks) as well as the annual Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs). 

In addition, state education agency Web sites were an important source of data on topics including high 

objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE) policies, assessment systems, and technical 

assistance. 

A national database of the 2003–04 AYP status of all schools and of schools identified for improvement 

in 2004–05 was created from data on state education agency Web sites and the CSPRs. In some cases, 

state education officials provided the necessary data files, requested during the interview process. The 

resulting database contains 88,160 schools (including both Title I and non-Title I schools) in 50 states 

and the District of Columbia. It does not include 2,529 schools for which states reported AYP as “not 

determined,” and about 4,000 schools that were not included in state-provided data files or Web sites. 

Sample Weights for NLS-NCLB Survey Data 

Survey data were weighted to adjust for differences between the composition of the sample and the 

composition of the population of interest. These differences arose partly by design—for example, 

differential sampling rates for high- and low-poverty districts. However, differences between the 

composition of the sample and that of the population also arose because of differences in cooperation 

rates. Not every district, school, or teacher agreed to participate in the survey, and members of some 

groups cooperated at higher rates than members of other groups. Differences between the composition 

of the sample and that of the universe may also arise because of various forms of under-coverage. 

Weights were used to compensate for all of these differences between samples and populations. 
Appendix A 64 

Two sets of weights were created for districts and schools: A-weights and B-weights. The A-weights 

were used to compute enrollment weighted estimates (i.e., the percentage of students enrolled in districts 

or schools that have specific features); and the B-weights were used to compute estimates of the 

percentage of districts or schools. The calculation methods for the sets of weights for districts, schools, 

and teachers are described below. 

District Weights 

1. Base weights were computed as the reciprocal of the inclusion probability, corresponding to the 

original sample of 300. The frame included all districts with at least one public and regular 

school in the 2001 NCES CCD school database. The sample was selected using a PPS scheme, 

where the measure of size was district enrollment; however, 36 very large districts were selected 

with certainty. 

2. After substitution for three non-cooperating districts, revised base weights corresponding to the 

expanded sample of 303 districts were computed. 

3. Non-cooperation-adjusted weights were computed. Because there were only three noncooperating districts, response rates approached 100 percent. The non-cooperating cells were 

defined by crossing district certainty status (certainty, non-certainty) by region (NE, MW, S, W) 

and poverty status (high, low). As all certainty districts responded, no nonresponse adjustment 

was made to them. 

4. A second adjustment was made for nonresponse, accounting for 11 cooperating districts that did 

not complete and return the district questionnaire. Similar to the non-cooperation adjustment in 

Step 3, response rates approached 100 percent. The non-responding cells were defined by 

crossing district certainty status (certainty, non-certainty) by region (NE, MW, S, W) and poverty 

status (high, low). As all certainty districts responded, no nonresponse adjustment was made to 

them. 

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

6. The weights were raked to district totals on three dimensions: district size (four categories), 

region by poverty strata (eight categories), and Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three categories). 

With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after six iterations. It should be 

noted that raking of district weights was applied only to the non-certainty districts. The certainty 

districts maintained their original final weights as described above. 

7. Three districts had a raked weight under 1.00. The raked weight was reset to 1.00 for these three 

districts to produce the final raked B-weights for districts. 

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

9. Finally, those weights were raked to enrollment totals on three dimensions: district size (four 

categories), region by poverty strata (eight categories), and Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three 

categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after eight iterations. 

These raked weights are the final raked district A-weights. 
Appendix A 65 

School Weights 

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

2. The conditional school base weight was computed as the reciprocal of the school inclusion 

probability after allowing for replacement schools, mergers, splits, and any other status changes. 

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

school conditional weights. 

4. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to four outliers. 

5. The conditional school base weight was computed as the reciprocal of the school inclusion 

probability after allowing for replacement schools, mergers, splits, and any other status changes. 

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

school conditional weights. 

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

8. A nonresponse adjustment was made to the weights for the remaining (open) schools, 

accounting for non-cooperating schools. 

9. Using the non-cooperating-adjusted school weight from Step 8, a second nonresponse 

adjustment was made for open schools, accounting for 168 missing principal questionnaires. 

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

preliminary B-weights. 

11. These weights were raked to school totals on four dimensions: school size (four categories), 

region by poverty strata (eight categories), Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three categories), and 

school type (four categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after 

seven iterations. The result is called the preliminary raked B-weight. 

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

Winsorized. The result is called outlier adjusted raked B-weight. 

13. Finally, 10 schools had a raked weight under 1.00. They were reset to 1.00, while the rest of the 

school sample maintained its weights from Step 11. The result is the final raked school 

B-weights. 

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

CCD file). 

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

preliminary A-weights. 

16. Finally, these weights were raked to school enrollment on four dimensions: school size (four 

categories), region by poverty strata (eight categories), Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three 

categories), and school type (four categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence 

was satisfied after eight iterations. The resulting weights are the final raked school A-weights. 
Appendix A 66 

Teacher Weights 

1. Teacher weights began with Step 8 school weights. 

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

3. Those weights were then raked to school totals on four dimensions: school size (four categories), 

region by poverty strata (eight categories), Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three categories), and 

school type (four categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after 

six iterations. 

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

Winsorized. 

5. Finally, 15 schools had a raked weight under 1.00. These weights were reset to 1.00, while the 

rest of the school sample maintained the weight from Step 4. 

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

selection. 

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

conditional weight. 

8. Teachers determined to be ineligible or out of scope (assuming no permanent replacement 

teacher was available) were given a weight of zero. 

9. A nonresponse adjustment was made for teachers who refused to complete the questionnaire 

and a proportion of the teachers with unknown eligibility. Nonresponse adjustment cells were 

defined by crossing region by poverty stratum (eight categories) by teacher stratum (14 

categories), with the collapsing of a few small cells (those with fewer than 30 cases). Collapsing 

of small cells involved cells for sixth-grade classroom teachers, seventh and eighth grade 

mathematics teachers, and seventh and eighth grade ELA teachers. 

10. The nonresponse adjusted weights were then outlier adjusted. Outliers were defined to be any 

weights that were at or above the 99.5 percentile within nonresponse adjustment cell. Fifty-one 

outliers were flagged and Winsorized. 

Standard Errors 

Calculation of standard errors adjusted for the complex sampling design using SAS statistical software 

that makes use of the Taylor expansion method for calculating standard errors. 

The standard errors provide an indicator of the reliability of each estimate. For example, if all possible 

samples of the same size were surveyed under identical conditions, an interval calculated by adding and 

subtracting 1.96 times the standard error from a particular estimate would include the population value 

in approximately 95 percent of the samples. 
Appendix A 67 

Statistical Tests and Modeling 

National Longitudinal Study of NCLB Survey Data 

Analyses of survey data presented in this report are mostly descriptive and involve comparisons 

of means or ratios between groups or over time. Survey-based comparisons discussed in the text of the 

report have been tested for statistical significance. Tests of significance for these analyses were 

conducted using the t statistic and a significance level of 0.05. The significance level, or alpha 

level, reflects the probability that a difference between groups as large as the one observed could arise 

simply due to sampling variation, if there were no true difference between groups in the population. The 

tests were conducted by calculating a t value for the difference between a pair of means and comparing 

that value to a published table of critical values for t . The following formula can be used to compute 

the t statistic for the difference between estimates for subgroups: 

1 2

2 2

1 2

x x

t

SE SE

− = +

Where 1 x and 2 x are the estimated means or ratios being compared and SE1 and SE2 are their 

corresponding standard errors. 

Multivariate Analysis 

A multivariate logistic model was used to measure the net effect of different variables on an outcome, 

such as designation of a school as being in need of improvement, that is, the effect of a particular factor 

on that outcome, while controlling for the effects of other variables. Empirically, the outcome is 

summarized by a dichotomous dependent variable. 

The logistic regression model is an appropriate choice for the functional form, because it restricts the 

value of the predicted probability to between 0 and 1. The model relates the occurrence of an event for 

the i th case, Yi , to a vector of characteristics for that case, Xi . 

( ) 0

( = 1 ) 1/(1 ) jXij P EY X e i ii − +Σ β β = ⏐= +

where 

Pi = probability of occurrence of an outcome for case i , 

Xij = values of the explanatory variable j for case i , 

β j = estimated coefficients for the Xj , and

β 0= estimated constant term. 
 
Appendix B 69 

APPENDIX B 

STANDARD ERROR EXHIBITS 

Exhibit B.2 

Prior Year Achievement Levels (Measured in Z-Scores) of Students Participating and 

Eligible for Title I Choice Options in Nine Large, Urban Districts, 2004–05 

Supplemental Educational Services School Choice 

 Participating Students Eligible Students Participating Students Eligible Students

Prior year reading 

score 

–0.35a

(0.004) 

–0.23b 

(0.001) 

–0.19 

(0.02) 

–0.21b 

(0.001) 

Prior year math 

score 

–0.31a

(0.004) 

–0.19b 

(0.001) 

–0.19 

(0.02) 

–0.19b 

(0.001) 

Exhibit reads: Among Title I school choice participating students in nine urban districts, average 

standardized reading scores were below the district average by 0.19 of a standard deviation. 

a Indicates a significant difference between participating students and nonparticipating students at the 5 percent level. b Indicates a significant difference between eligible and ineligible students at the 5 percent level. 

Notes: Scores are expressed as z-scores. Figures are based on 2004–05 data in eight districts and on 2003–04 data for 

the ninth district. 

Source: Zimmer, Gill, Razquin, Booker and Lockwood, 2007.

Exhibit B.1 

Notification, Application, and Participation in Title I School Choice and Supplemental 

Educational Services, 2003–04 and 2004–05 (as Reported by Districts) 

Supplemental Educational 

Services 

2003–04 

(n=80) 

Title I School Choice 

2003–04 

(n=109) 

Title I School Choice 

2004–05 

(n=121) 

Estimated 

Number 

Percentage 

of Eligible 

Students 

Estimated 

Number 

Percentage 

of Eligible 

Students 

Estimated 

Number 

Percentage 

of Eligible 

Students 

Eligible 1,380,000 

(101,885) N/A 3,850,000 

(269,713) N/A 6,526,000 

(373,560) N/A 

Notified 1,714,000 

(89,237) 124.3% 3,269,000 

(274,279) 84.9% 4,175,000 

(303,227) 64.0% 

Applied 265,000 

(15,650) 19.2% 68,000 (6,624) 1.8% 82,000 (12,936) 1.3% 

Participated 233,000 

(15,515) 16.9% 38,000 

(6,248) 1.0% 45,000 

(8,870) 0.7% 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey; SSI-NCLB, National AYP and Identification Database.
Appendix B 70 

Exhibit B.4 

Percentage of Districts Required to Offer Title I School Choice That Offered Parents 

of Eligible Students Two or More Alternate Schools, by School Level, 2004–05 

Elementary 

Schools 

Middle 

Schools 

High 

Schools 

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

Students in districts offering two ore more alternate 

schools 95.3 (1.5) 69.9 (5.3) 55.7 (6.4) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 

Exhibit B.3 

Percentage of Districts and of Students in These Districts Reporting 

Availability of Title I School Choice Option, by School Level, 2004–05 

(Among Districts Required to Offer Choice) 

Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools 

Percentage 

of Districts

(n=129) 

Percentage 

of Students

Percentage 

of Districts 

(n=112)

Percentage 

of Students

Percentage 

of Districts 

(n=73)

Percentage 

of Students

District offers Title I school 

choice at this grade level 70.1 (12.4) 92.1 (1.9) 19.8 (5.1) 67.3 (4.7) 16.8 (5.7) 54.7 (5.5) 

Title I school choice not 

available because all schools 

at this grade level are 

identified for improvement 

26.3 (12.4) 3.4 (1.3) 66.4 (8.4) 16.5 (3.3) 69.9 (8.8) 16.5 (2.6) 

District is not offering Title I 

school choice for other 

reasons 

3.6 (1.9) 4.5 (1.5) 13.7 (5.1) 16.3 (4.7) 13.3 (6.8) 28.8 (4.9) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey; SSI-NCLB National Database of School AYP and Identification. 
Appendix B 71 

Exhibit B.5 

Average Student Achievement in Schools That Students Participating in the 

Title I School Choice Left and to Which They Transferred Relative to 

Average District Achievement, 2003–04 and 2004–05

Reading Z-Score Math Z-Score

District

n

Schools 

Students Left

Schools to Which 

Students 

Transferred n 

Schools 

Students Left

Schools to Which 

Students 

Transferred

 A 436 -0.12 (0.02)a 0.06 (0.01)a 436 -0.13 (0.02)a 0.12 (0.01)a

 B 449 -0.14 (0.02)a 0.01 (0.02)a 373 -0.08 (0.02)a 0.02 (0.02)a

 C 147 -0.25 (0.02)a 0.34 (0.03)a 147 -0.33 (0.02)a 0.27 (0.03)a

 D 830 -0.23 (0.01)a 0.11 (0.02)a 710 -0.25 (0.01)a 0.11 (0.02)a

 E 553 -0.33 (0.01)a 0.36 (0.01)a 553 -0.25 (0.01)a 0.35 (0.01)a

 F 18 -0.42 (0.04)a 0.08 (0.11)a 18 -0.30 (0.06)a 0.05 (0.10)a

 G 673 -0.20 (0.01)a 0.17 (0.01)a 673 -0.20 (0.01)a 0.14 (0.01)a

 H 5 -0.62 (0.09)a 0.30 (0.28)a 5 -0.45 (0.10)a 0.30 (0.28)a

 I 28 -0.10 (0.07)a 0.57 (0.08)a 28 -0.21 (0.07)a 0.64 (0.09)a

All 3,140 -0.21 (0.01)a 0.16 (0.01)a 2,944 -0.20 (0.01)a 0.17 (0.01)a

Exhibit reads: In District A, the 436 students using Title I school choice in 2004–05 left schools that 

had reading scores (2003–04) that were 0.12 standard deviations below the districtwide average and 

entered schools (2004–05) that were .06 standardized deviations above the districtwide average. 

a Indicates that the results for exiting and entering schools are statistically distinguishable at the 5 percent level.

Notes: Results for District D are for 2003–04. 

Source: Zimmer, Gill, Razquin, Booker and Lockwood, 2007.

Exhibit B.6 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers and of 

Participating Students, by Provider Type, 2003–04 

Provider Type Percentage of 

Approved Providers 

Percentage of 

Participating Students 

All private providers 58.7 (9.2) 58.1 (5.4) 

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

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

Colleges and universities 8.3 (6.11) 7.0 (5.3) 

Sources: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n=71 districts). 
Appendix B 72 

Exhibit B.7 

Percentage of Districts, by Number of Title I Supplemental Educational 

Service Providers Available to Students, 2003–04 

Number of Providers Percentage of Districts 

(n=75) 

One or two providers 37.0 (12.1) 

Three or four providers 25.7 (14.0) 

Five or more providers 38.4 (9.6) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 

Exhibit B.8 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by Service Provided and Grades Served, 2004–05 

Service Provided Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9–12 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit B.9 

Percentage of Districts, by Number of Hours of Supplemental Educational 

Services Participating Students Received per Week, 2003–04 

Number of Hours Percentage of Districts 

(n=83) 

One or two hours 50.9 (11.2) 

Three hours 35.4 (11.3) 

Four hours 12.0 (4.3) 

Five hours or more 1.7 (.9) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Appendix B 73 

Exhibit B.10 

Average Duration and Frequency of Title I Supplemental Educational Services 

Sessions, 2004–05 

Duration or Frequency Average Duration or Frequency 

Average number of minutes (n=95) 83.8 (3.4) 

Average sessions per week (n=98) 3.5 (0.5) 

Average sessions per year (n=93) 41.2 (3.2) 

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

Exhibit B.11 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Services Providers, by 

Location and Grouping of Students for Delivery of Services, 2004–05 

Location and Student Grouping Never Sometimes Often Always 

Location where supplemental services are provided 

(n=92) 

At the schools of served students 32.5 (5.7) 6.1 (2.4) 14.1 (3.6) 47.2 (6.2) 

At other schools or administrative buildings in the 

district 78.7 (6.3) 15.8 (6.3) 3.4 (2.0) 2.2 (1.3) 

At a public building, i.e., a library or community 

center 59.4 (6.5) 21.7 (6.4) 8.2 (3.0) 10.6 (4.3) 

At the local office of the provider 69.2 (5.3) 4.9 (2.1) 3.6 (1.7) 22.3 (4.7) 

On the internet 85.4 (4.1) 3.3 (2.0) 2.8 (2.0) 8.5 (3.2) 

Student grouping for delivery of supplemental 

services (n=97) 

In large groups 39.2 (6.4) 26.6 (5.5) 21.0 (4.4) 13.3 (3.6) 

In small groups 25.8 (6.4) 18.8 (4.2) 37.9 (5.9) 17.5 (3.9) 

One-on-one 17.9 (4.1) 30.3 (5.1) 22.7 (5.1) 29.1 (6.4) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Service Provider Survey (in 16 districts). 
Appendix B 74 

Exhibit B.13 

Percentage of Parents That Reported They Were Notified of Their Child’s Eligibility for 

Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Choice Decision, 2004–05 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible 

Students (Including Participating 

and Non-Participating Students)

(n=779)

Percentage of Parents of 

Eligible Non-Participating 

Students 

(n=286)

Percentage of Parents of 

Participating Students 

(n=493)

Yes 52.9 (3.8) 50.7 (4.4) 66.1 (2.5) 

No 40.2 (3.8) 42.5 (4.4) 25.3 (2.3) 

Not sure 7.0 (1.9) 6.8 (2.1) 8.6 (1.4) 

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

Exhibit B.14 

Timing of Parent Notification About Title I School Choice Option as 

Reported by Districts, 2003–04 and 2004–05 

Parent Notified 2003–04 

(n=104) 

2004–05 

(n=131) 

Before the first day of school 23.1 (9.9) 29.5 (8.9) 

On or about the first day of school 38.7 (19.4) 21.2 (14.8) 

After the first day of school 38.2 (12.4) 49.4 (12.1) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 

Exhibit B.12 

Percentage of Parents That Reported They Were Notified of Title I School Choice, 

2004–05

Parents of Students Eligible for 

School Choice 

(n=932)

Parents of Students Eligible for 

Supplemental Services 

(n=779)

Yes 26.8 (2.7) 52.8 (3.8) 

No 66.5 (2.9) 40.2 (3.80) 

Not sure 7.2 (1.5) 7.0 (1.9) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts). 
Appendix B 75 

Exhibit B.15 

Percentage of Eligible Students Transferring Schools, by When District First Notified 

Parents About Their Title I School Choice, 2003–04 and 2004–05 

Parent Notified 

Percentage of 

Students Transferring 

Schools in 2003–04 

(n=118) 

Percentage of 

Students Transferring 

Schools in 2004–05 

(n=159)

Before the first day of the 2004–05 school year 3.2 (.008) 2.9 (.004) 

On or about the first day of the 2004–05 school year 1.6 (.0002) 1.8 (.009) 

After the first day of the 2004–05 school year 0.4 (.002) 0.2 (.0002) 

Total 1.0 (0.003) 0.9 (0.003) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey.

Exhibit B.16 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Notified of Title I School Choice, by When 

First Notified and Choice Decision, 2004–05 

Parent Notified 

Percentage of 

Parents of 

Eligible 

Students 

(n=612) 

Percentage of 

Parents of Eligible 

Non-Participating 

Students 

(n=231) 

Percentage of 

Parents of 

Participating 

Students 

(n=381) 

Before the first day of the 2004–05 school year 53.3 (4.2) 38.6 (6.0) 61.7 (3.1) 

On or about the first day of the 2004–05 school year 6.6 (2.2) 11.4 (3.9) 3.9 (1.2) 

After the first day of the 2004–05 school year 16.2 (3.2) 28.2 (5.4) 9.0 (1.8) 

Not sure 23.9 (3.5) 22.2 (4.7) 25.4 (2.8) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts).
Appendix B 76 

Exhibit B.18 

Percentage of Teachers Communicating With Parents About Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Type of Communication and School Level, 2003–04 

(Among Teachers Who Knew Their Students Were Eligible for Supplemental Services) 

Type of Communication 

All 

Grades 

(n=1,377) 

Elementary 

School 

(n=746) 

Middle 

School 

(n=255) 

High 

School 

(n=376) 

I encouraged parents to apply 58.9 (3.3) 66.7 (4.0) 52.4 (4.7) 29.6 (8.6) 

I advised parents on providers 31.7 (3.4) 38.8 (4.6) 21.9 (4.4) 13.8 (4.9) 

Parents contacted me 24.4 (3.2) 29.5 (4.3) 14.0 (3.0) 20.0 (13.1) 

Other 17.4 (1.9) 17.0 (2.5) 18.0 (3.1) 18.5 (6.2) 

I have not communicated with parents 19.0 (2.4) 12.7 (2.1) 26.7 (4.2) 36.5 (12.8) 

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

Exhibit B.17 

Percentage of Districts Communicating With Parents About Title I School Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Services and of Eligible Students in These Districts, 

by Method of Communication, 2004–05

School Choice 

(n=156 ) 

Supplemental Services 

(n=109) Method of Communication 

Percent of 

Districts 

Percent of 

Students 

Percent of 

Districts 

Percent of 

Students 

Written notification in English 67.9 (9.9) 87.9 (<1.0) 94.0 (<3.1) 94.2 (<0.9) 

Written notification in language(s) other than English 47.0 (9.6) 63.9 (1.7) 52.9 (10.0) 71.6 (1.9) 

Enrollment fairs or open houses to provide information 

about alternate schools and providers 

19.2 (5.2) 41.7 (1.9) 51.4 (10.3) 70.8 (1.8) 

Individual meetings with interested parents 51.7 (9.2) 67.8 (1.6) 78.3 (6.9) 78.7 (1.7) 

Notices in district or school newsletters 39.7 (8.6) 58.7 (1.7) 64.2 (8.5) 71.7 (1.8) 

Public service announcements 10.0 (<3.3) 31.7 (1.8) 19.1 (5.8) 40.6 (2.4) 

Worked with a local community partner (e.g., Parent 

Information & Resource Center) 

10.1 (<4.0) 20.1 (1.6) 16.2 (6.8) 40.4 (2.5) 

Notices in public newspapers 26.0 (7.4) 45.0 (1.9) 23.4 (8.0) 48.2 (2.4) 

Other 11.8 (<4.1) 22.0 (1.7) 26.0 (7.8) 30.5 (2.1) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey.
Appendix B 77 

Exhibit B.19 

Percentage of Providers Communicating With the Parents of Students Participating in 

Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Topic and Frequency, 2004–05 

Topic Never Sometimes Often Always 

Student attendance at supplemental service centers 

(n=95) 0.9 (0.9) 15.3 (4.9) 36.5 (5.4) 47.1 (5.7) 

Student progress related to regular classroom 

instruction (n=96) 8.2 (2.8) 20.7 (5.2) 37.8 (5.4) 33.2 (5.2) 

Student progress related to supplemental service 

activities and/or goals (n=97) 0.9 (0.9) 17.3 (5.1) 33.6 (5.1) 48.2 (5.6) 

Student achievement on state achievement tests 

(n=84) 17.5 (4.2) 53.0 (6.1) 16.2 (4.5) 13.3 (3.9) 

Student behavior and / or motivation during 

sessions (n=94) 0.9 (0.9) 22.2 (5.3) 34.8 (5.3) 42.1 (5.6) 

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

Exhibit B.20 

Percentage of Parents of Students Participating In Title I School Choice, 

by Reason for Participating, 2004–05 

Reason 

Percentage of Parents of 

Students Participating in 

School Choice 

(n=356)

The quality of teaching at the new school was better 52.2 (3.2) 

There is good discipline, safety, and order at the new school 49.4 (3.2) 

My child’s old school was not meeting his/her needs 47.1 (3.2) 

My child got transportation to the new school 34.8 (2.8) 

The new school is located in a place that is easy to get to 33.7 (3.2) 

There are different academic programs at the new school 28.6 (2.8) 

My child wanted to change schools 25.3 (2.7) 

There are activities after school and sports teams at the new school 19.8 (2.4) 

There is free tutoring or other extra help with schoolwork at the new school 18.9 (2.4) 

My child had been getting bad grades 17.1 (2.1) 

There are services for children with disabilities at the new school 11.0 (1.9) 

My child’s old teacher thought he/she should move 9.6 (1.4) 

There are services at the school for children whose first language is not English 4.8 (1.3) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts). 
Appendix B 78 

Exhibit B.22 

Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational 

Services, by Reason for Participating, 2004–05 

Reason 

Percentage of Parents of Students 

Participating in Supplemental 

Services 

(n=260) 

There is tutoring in the subject area(s) in which my child needs extra help 60.3 (3.5) 

Tutoring is free 57.9 (3.5) 

My child’s teacher thought he/she should get this extra help 51.7 (3.6) 

Tutoring is given at a place that is easy to get to 47.0 (3.6) 

My child wanted to get this extra help 43.1 (3.5) 

My child had been getting bad grades 26.9 (3.2) 

My child got a low score on a yearly achievement test 33.2 (3.4) 

My child’s school is not meeting his/her needs 18.3 (2.8) 

I needed after-school care 11.6 (2.4) 

There is tutoring for children with disabilities 10.9 (2.3) 

There is tutoring for children whose first language is not English 6.3 (1.8) 

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

Exhibit B.21 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in 

Title I School Choice, by Reason for Not Participating, 2004–05 

Reason 

Percentage of Parents 

of Eligible Students Not 

Participating in School 

Choice 

(n=217)

My child’s school is located in a place that is easy to get to 75.2 (5.4) 

My child wanted to stay 49.6 (6.2) 

I was satisfied with the quality of teaching at my child’s school 46.7 (6.2) 

My child was getting good grades at the current school 47.4 (6.2) 

I didn’t want to disrupt my child 42.1 (6.2) 

There is good discipline, safety, and order at my child’s school 33.9 (6.0) 

There are activities after school and sports teams at my child’s school 27.4 (5.5) 

There is free tutoring or other extra help with schoolwork at my child’s school 26.5 (5.3) 

I didn’t have enough information about the schools I could choose from 22.9 (5.0) 

There are different academic programs at my child’s school 21.6 (5.3) 

There are services at my child’s school for children with disabilities 19.7 (4.9) 

The district did not have transportation to any of the new schools I could choose from 18.4 (5.0) 

I was not given enough time to make the decision to move my child to another school 17.2 (5.2) 

There are services at my child’s school for children whose first language is not English 9.2 (3.3) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts).
Appendix B 79 

Exhibit B.23 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Reason for Not Participating, 2004–05 

Reason 

Parents of Eligible Students Not 

Participating in Supplemental 

Services 

(n=52) 

Tutoring is given at times that are not good for my family 46.5 (10.2) 

My child doesn’t need help 27.6 (7.2) 

Tutoring is given at a place that is not easy to get to 12.1 (7.2) 

My child did not want to get this extra help 11.8 (7.0) 

There is no tutoring at my child’s grade level 5.2 (3.3) 

There is no tutoring in the subject areas where my child needs extra help 4.8 (2.9) 

Tutoring does not meet the needs of children with disabilities 5.3 (4.5) 

Tutoring does not meet the needs of children whose first language is not 

English <1 (.) 

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

Exhibit B.24 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting State 

Monitoring of Their Services, by Monitoring Mechanism and Frequency, 2004–05 

State Monitoring Mechanism 

Monthly 

A Few 

Times Per 

Year 

Once Per 

Year 

Every 

Two 

Years Never 

Reviewed reports of student attendance 

rates at supplemental service sessions 

(n=93) 

19.1 (6.7) 16.2 (4.0) 35.1 (5.9) 0 29.5 (5.2)

Observed supplemental service sessions 

(n=95) 11.1 (6.5) 10.6 (3.3) 20.1 (4.3) 0.6 (0.6) 57.5 (6.6)

Met with provider organizations to discuss 

implementation (n=96) 1.4 (1.0) 41.8 (6.6) 28.9 (5.1) 0.6 (0.6) 27.4 (5.1)

Tracked the state achievement test scores 

of participating students (n=89) 1.5 (7.1) 8.1 (2.9) 60.4 (6.0) 2.7 (1.6) 27.4 (5.2)

Tracked the academic success of 

participating students in terms of grades, 

promotion, and/or graduation (n=90) 

1.5 (1.0) 9.0 (3.1) 47.9 (6.6) 4.4 (2.3) 37.6 (5.9)

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Service Provider Survey (in 16 districts). 
Appendix B 80 

 

Exhibit B.26 

Percentage of Districts, by Type of Provision Included in Contracts With 

Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 2004–05 

Provision Included in Contract 

Percentage of 

Districts 

(n=94) 

Providers send progress reports to parents and teachers on a regular basis 81.1 (7.1) 

Providers receive payment based on the number of sessions students received 75.3 (9.1) 

Providers can use district facilities free of charge 49.8 (10.1) 

Providers can use district facilities for a fee 25.4 (7.7) 

Services provided be supervised by a certified teacher 37.8 (9.2) 

All providers use the same standardized reporting form to establish student learning 

goals and evaluate progress 25.3 (7.3) 

Cap on number of students a provider can serve 11.4 (4.6) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 

Exhibit B.25 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting District 

Monitoring of Their Services, by Monitoring Mechanism and Frequency, 2004–05 

District Monitoring Mechanism 

Monthly 

A Few 

Times Per 

Year 

Once Per 

Year 

Every 

Two 

Years Never 

Reviewed reports of student attendance 

rates at supplemental service sessions 

(n=96) 

48.3 (6.3) 27.1 (5.1) 18.0 (4.9) 0.0 (0) 6.6 (2.4) 

Observed supplemental service sessions 

(n=95) 22.8 (6.6) 27.7 (5.5) 14.1 (3.4) 0.0 (0) 35.3 (5.7) 

Conducted meetings with provider 

organizations to discuss implementation 

(n=94) 

6.7 (2.7) 57.0 (6.0) 26.3 (5.9) 0.0 (0) 10.0 (3.4) 

Tracked the academic success of 

participating students in terms of grades, 

promotion, or graduation (n=87) 

8.6 (3.2) 25.6 (6.9) 41.5 (6.4) 1.8 (1.8) 22.6 (4.9) 

Tracked the state achievement test scores 

of participating students (n=87) 4.2 (2.3) 22.0 (6.9) 58.8 (6.8) 0.0 (0) 15.0 (3.9) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Service Provider Survey (in 16 districts). 
Appendix B 81 

Exhibit B.27 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by Type of Provision Included in Contract With Districts, 2004–05 

Provision Included in Contract Percentage of Providers 

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

Requirement that your organization send progress reports to parents and/or 

teachers on a regular basis (n=91) 93.8 (2.6) 

Requirement that services provided to students be supervised or attended by 

certified teacher (n=91) 47.9 (6.5) 

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

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

Provision that your organization will receive payment based on the number of 

sessions of tutoring that students attend (n=92) 94.5 (2.4) 

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

Exhibit B.28 

Percentage of Principals at Schools With Students Eligible for Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Degree of Alignment of Services With School Academic 

Content Standards and Subject Area, 2003–04 

Aligned With Content Standards Reading 

(n=206)

Mathematics 

(n=204) 

Not at all aligned 5.0 (1.1) 4.9 (1.0) 

Partially aligned 22.1 (5.0) 24.7 (5.4) 

Well aligned 32.3 (4.6) 26.3 (3.6) 

Don’t know 40.5 (6.5) 43.1 (6.5) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey.
Appendix B 82 

Exhibit B.29 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Communicating 

With the Regular Classroom Teachers of Students Receiving Their Services, 

by Type and Frequency of Communication, 2004–05 

Type of Communication Never Sometimes Often Always 

Student attendance at supplemental service 

centers (n=75) 8.5 (3.3) 45.9 (7.7) 31.7 (6.2) 13.9 (4.1) 

Student progress related to regular classroom 

instruction (n=75) 2.2 (1.6) 39.3 (8.1) 38.1 (6.6) 21.4 (5.3) 

Student progress related to supplemental 

service activities and/or goals (n=76) 2.2 (1.6) 40.4 (7.9) 31.7 (6.1) 25.7 (5.7) 

Student achievement on state assessments 

(n=67) 17.1 (4.5) 55.9 (7.4) 18.9 (4.9) 8.1 (3.7) 

Coordination of curriculum and/or instruction 

(n=72) 5.7 (2.7) 45.6 (7.7) 30.4 (6.1) 18.3 (4.8) 

Student behavior and / or motivation during 

sessions (n=73) 4.4 (2.4) 39.7 (8.9) 40.0 (6.8) 15.9 (4.7) 

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

Exhibit B.30 

Percentage of Teachers Communicating With Title I Supplemental Educational 

Service Providers, by Type of Communication and School Level, 2004–05 

Type of Communication All Grades 

Elementary 

School 

Middle 

School High School 

Student progress related to regular 

instruction 58.0 (4.1) 59.8 (5.0) 57.4 (6.2) 46.2 (19.6) 

Student progress related to supplemental 

services activities and/or goals 49.8 (4.2) 50.8 (5.2) 48.8 (6.1) 44.5 (19.6) 

Student attendance at supplemental service 

sessions 47.3 (4.1) 49.4 (5.2) 50.4 (6.1) 22.7 (10.4) 

Coordination of curriculum and/or 

instruction 47.6 (4.2) 47.9 (5.1) 48.2 (6.1) 44.0 (19.6) 

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

Source: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey (n=524 teachers). 
Appendix B 83 

Exhibit B.31 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting on the 

Progress of Individual Students, by Type of Recipient and Frequency, 2004–05 

After Every 

Session 

A Few 

Times Per 

Month 

A Few 

Times Per 

Semester 

A Few 

Times Per 

Year 

Once Per 

Year Never 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Exhibit B.32 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Types of 

Information Received on Individual Students Prior to Providing Services, 2004–05 

Type of Information Received on Students 

Percentage of Providers Receiving 

Information Prior to Providing 

Services 

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

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

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

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

Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for students we are serving 

(n=93) 27.0 (5.1) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Service Provider Survey (in 16 districts). 
Appendix B 84 

Exhibit B.33 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Assessing Students, 

by Type of Measure and Frequency, 2004–05 

Measure After Every 

Session 

A Few 

Times Per 

Month 

A Few 

Times Per 

Semester 

A Few 

Times Per 

Year 

Once Per 

Year Never 

Tests developed by your 

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

Tests aligned with regular 

classroom instruction 

(n=84) 

4.7 (2.5) 29.2 (7.6) 16.9 (4.7) 20.3 (4.7) 4.1 (2.2) 24.3 (5.1) 

District-developed 

assessments or benchmark 

tests (n=84) 

3.6 (2.2) 13.2 (7.1) 10.7 (4.8) 15.5 (4.2) 2.4 (1.8) 54.6 (7.0) 

Practice tests for state 

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

Assignments completed by 

students during sessions 

with your organization 

(n=86) 

54.6 (6.6) 22.7 (5.7) 4.3 (1.8) 9.3 (3.2) 0.0 (0) 9.2 (3.3) 

Assignments completed by 

students outside of 

sessions with your 

organization (n=83) 

25.0 (7.2) 16.1 (5.4) 2.4 (2.0) 7.5 (2.6) 1.3 (1.5) 47.4 (6.7) 

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

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