State and Local Implementation of the 

No Child Left Behind Act

Volume VII—Title I School Choice and Supplemental 

Educational Services: Final 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) 

Georges Vernez, RAND 

Scott Naftel, RAND 

Karen Ross, American Institutes for Research 

Kerstin Carlson Le Floch, American Institutes for Research 

Christopher Beighley, RAND 

Brian Gill, Mathematica Policy Research 

Series Principal Investigators 

Georges Vernez, RAND 

Beatrice F. Birman, American Institutes for Research 

Michael S. Garet, American Institutes for Research 

Jennifer O’Day, American Institutes for Research 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2009 
 

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 American Institutes for Research (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 the 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 

January 2009 

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. Although 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 

VII—Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services: Final Report, Washington, D.C., 2009. 

To order copies of this report, write to 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U.S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

To order copies through 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 

List of Exhibits ..........................................................................................................................v

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

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

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

Focus of the Report..................................................................................................................................xv

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

Other Findings .........................................................................................................................................xvi

Conclusions...............................................................................................................................................xix

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............................................................................7

Eligibility for Parental Choice ...................................................................................................................8

Participation in Title I Choice Options .................................................................................................12

Options Offered by Districts ..................................................................................................................15

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................28

III.Communication With Parents ........................................................................................... 31

Notification of Options ...........................................................................................................................32

Methods of Communication With Parents...........................................................................................37

Supplemental Educational Service Providers’ Communication With Parents.................................42

Reasons for Participation in Title I Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational 

Services....................................................................................................................................................43

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................47

IV.Implementing and Monitoring Title I Supplemental Educational Services .................... 49

States’ Approval of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers.........................................50

District Contracts With Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers.................................51

Monitoring of Provider Performance ....................................................................................................54

State-Provided Technical Assistance for Title I Supplemental Educational Services.....................56
Exhibits iv 

Expenditures for Title I Supplemental Educational Services.............................................................56

Schools’ Relationship With Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers...........................57

Providers and Student Assessment.........................................................................................................60

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................62

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 65

References................................................................................................................................ 67

Appendix A. Description of NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB Methodologies ............................ 69

Appendix B. Standard Error Exhibits..................................................................................... 85

Appendix C. Supplemental Exhibits......................................................................................106
Exhibits v 

EXHIBITS 

II. Eligibility, Availability and Participation 

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

and Supplemental Educational Services, and Number and Percentage of Title I 

Schools With Eligible Students, 2002–03 Through 2006–07...........................................8

Exhibit 2 Percentage of Title I Schools With Students Eligible for Title I Public School 

Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, by Poverty Status, 2006–07.............10

Exhibit 3 Percentage of Title I Schools With Students Eligible for Title I Public School 

Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, by Urbanicity, 2006–07 ...................11

Exhibit 4 Percentage of Title I Schools With Students Eligible for Title I Public School 

Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, by School Level, 2006–07 ...............12

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

Supplemental Educational Services, 2003–04 to 2006–07 (as Reported by 

Districts).................................................................................................................................13

Exhibit 6 Percentage of Schools Designated to Receive Transferring Students Under 

Title I Public School Choice, by Percentage of Schools’ Populations Who Were 

Transfers, 2004–05 ...............................................................................................................14

Exhibit 7 Percentage of Districts Required to Offer Title I Public School Choice That 

Offered This Option and Percentage of Students in These Districts, by School 

Level, 2006–07 ......................................................................................................................16

Exhibit 8 Percentage of Districts Offering Title I Public School Choice That Offered 

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

2004–05 and 2006–07 ..........................................................................................................17

Exhibit 9 Percentage of Parents, by Their Rating of the Schools From Which and To 

Which Their Child Transferred, 2006–07.........................................................................18

Exhibit 10 Percentage of Districts That Offered Required Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Characteristics of Students to Whom These Services 

Were Offered, 2006–07 .......................................................................................................19

Exhibit 11 Distribution of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers and 

Participants, by Type of Provider.......................................................................................20

Exhibit 12 Distribution of Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Staff Size, 

2004–05 and 2006–07 ..........................................................................................................21

Exhibit 13 Percentage of Provider Staff Members, by Type of Instructional Staff, 2004–05 

and 2006–07 ..........................................................................................................................22

Exhibit 14 Percentage of Districts, by Number of Title I Supplemental Educational 

Service Providers Available to Students, 2003–04 and 2005–06...................................23

Exhibit 15 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Academic 

Subject and Grades Served, 2006–07.................................................................................24
Exhibits vi 

Exhibit 16 Percentage of Districts, by Number of Hours of Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services Students Were Provided per Week, 2005–06..............................25

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

Duration and Frequency of Service, 2006–07..................................................................26

Exhibit 18 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Location 

of and Grouping of Students for Delivery of Services, 2006–07 ..................................27

III. Communication With Parents 

Exhibit 19 Percentage of Districts That Notified Parents of Elementary Students of Their 

Title I Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Service Options 

and Percentage of These Parents Who Reported They Were Notified, 2006–07 

(in Eight Urban Districts)....................................................................................................33

Exhibit 20 Percentage of Parents of Elementary Students Who Reported They Were 

Notified of Their Child’s Eligibility for Title I Supplemental Educational 

Services, by Choice Decision, 2006–07 (in Eight Urban Districts)...............................33

Exhibit 21 Number of States, by Month of States’ Release of School Identification for 

Improvement Status, 2004 and 2006 .................................................................................35

Exhibit 22 Timing of Parent Notification About Title I Public School Choice as Reported 

by Districts, 2006–07............................................................................................................35

Exhibit 23 Percentage of Eligible Students Transferring Schools, by When District First 

Notified Parents About Their Title I Public School Choice, 2003–04 to 2006–

07.............................................................................................................................................36

Exhibit 24 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Notified of Title I Public School 

Choice, by When First Notified and Choice Decision, 2006–07 ..................................37

Exhibit 25 Percentage of Districts Communicating With Parents About Title I Public 

School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services and of Eligible Students 

in These Districts, by Method of Communication, 2006–07.........................................38

Exhibit 26 Percentage of Parents Reporting They Received Notice of Their Child’s 

Eligibility for Title I Public School Choice or Supplemental Educational 

Services, by How They Learned Their Child Was Eligible, 2006–07 ...........................39

Exhibit 27 Percentage of Parents Notified of Their Child’s Eligibility for Title I Parental 

Choice, by How Understandable the Information Was, 2006–07 ................................40

Exhibit 28 Percentage of Parents of Students Eligible for Title I Public School Choice, by 

Type of Information They Received About Their Options, 2006–07 .........................41

Exhibit 29 Percentage of Teachers Communicating With Parents About Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Type of Communication and School 

Level, 2006–07 (Among Teachers Who Knew Their Students Were Eligible for 

These Services)......................................................................................................................42

Exhibit 30 Percentage of Providers Communicating Often or Always With the Parents of 

Students Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Topic, 

2006–07..................................................................................................................................43
Exhibits vii 

Exhibit 31 Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I Public School Choice, 

by Reason for Participating, 2006–07................................................................................44

Exhibit 32 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in Title I Public 

School Choice, by Reason for Not Participating, 2006–07............................................45

Exhibit 33 Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Reason for Participating, 2006–07 .........................................46

Exhibit 34 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Reason for Not Participating, 2006–07........47

IV. Implementing and Monitoring Title I Supplemental Educational Services 

Exhibit 35 Percentage of Districts, by Type of Provision Included in Contracts With Title 

I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 2005–06 ...............................................52

Exhibit 36 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Type of 

Provisions Included in Contracts With Districts, 2006–07............................................53

Exhibit 37 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by State and 

District Monitoring Mechanisms They Experienced at Least a Few Times 

During The Year, 2006–07..................................................................................................55

Exhibit 38 Percentage of Districts, by Average Expenditure per Student Enrolled in Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, 2005–06 ..................................................................57

Exhibit 39 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, 2005–06 ................................58

Exhibit 40 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers and of 

Teachers Reporting That They Communicate With One Another, by Type of 

Communication, 2006–07 ...................................................................................................59

Exhibit 41 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting on 

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

2006–07..................................................................................................................................60

Exhibit 42 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Type of 

Information Received on Individual Students Before Providing Services, 2006–

07.............................................................................................................................................61

Exhibit 43 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Assessing 

Students, by Type of Measure and Frequency, 2006–07 ................................................62

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 and 2006–07..............................................................................70

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

Sample Compared with the Universe of Districts and Schools, 2004–05....................71
Exhibits viii 

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

Parent Surveys.......................................................................................................................72

Appendix B. Standard Error Exhibits 

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

Supplemental Educational Services, 2003–04 to 2006–07 (as Reported by 

Districts).................................................................................................................................85

Exhibit B.2 Percentage of Schools Designated to Receive Transferring Students Under 

Title I Public School Choice, by Percentage of Schools’ Populations Who Were 

Transferred, 2006–07 ...........................................................................................................85

Exhibit B.3 Percentage of Districts Required to Offer Title I Public School Choice That 

Offered This Option and Percentage of Students in These Districts, by School 

Level, 2006–07 ......................................................................................................................86

Exhibit B.4 Percentage of Districts Offering Title I Public School Choice That Offered 

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

2006–07..................................................................................................................................86

Exhibit B.5 Percentage of Parents, by Rating of the Schools From Which and To Which 

Their Child Transferred, 2006–07......................................................................................87

Exhibit B.6 Percentage of Districts That Offered Required Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Characteristics of Students to Whom These Services 

Were Offered, 2006–07 .......................................................................................................87

Exhibit B.7 Distribution of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers and of 

Participants, by Type of Provider, 2005–06 .....................................................................88

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

Size, 2004–05 and 2006–07.................................................................................................88

Exhibit B.9 Percentage of Provider Staff Members, by Type of Instructional Staff, 2004–05 

and 2006–07 ..........................................................................................................................88

Exhibit B.10 Percentage of Districts, by Number of Title I Supplemental Educational 

Service Providers Available to Students, 2003–04 and 2005–06...................................89

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

Subject and Grades Served, 2006–07.................................................................................89

Exhibit B.12 Percentage of Districts, by Number of Hours of Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services Students Were Provided per Week, 2005–06..............................89

Exhibit B.13 Percentage of Providers of Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by 

Duration and Frequency of Service, 2006–07..................................................................90

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

of and Grouping of Students for Delivery of Services, 2006–07 ..................................91

Exhibit B.15 Percentage of Districts That Notified Parents of Elementary Students of Their 

Title I Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Service Options 
Exhibits ix 

and Percentage of These Parents Who Reported They Were Notified, 2006–07 

(in Eight Urban Districts)....................................................................................................91

Exhibit B.16 Percentage of Parents of Elementary Students Who Reported They Were 

Notified of Their Child’s Eligibility for Title I Supplemental Educational 

Services, by Choice Decision, 2006–07 (in Eight Urban Districts)...............................92

Exhibit B.17 Timing of Parent Notification About Title I Public School Choice as Reported 

by Districts, 2003–04 to 2006–07.......................................................................................92

Exhibit B.18 Percentage of Eligible Students Transferring Schools, by When District First 

Notified Parents About Their Title I Public School Choice, 2003–04 to 2006–

07.............................................................................................................................................92

Exhibit B.19 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Notified of Title I Public School 

Choice, by When First Notified and Choice Decision, 2006–07 ..................................93

Exhibit B.20 Percentage of Districts Communicating With Parents About Title I Public School 

Choice and Supplemental Educational Services and of Eligible Students in 

These Districts, by Method of Communication, 2006–07 .............................................93

Exhibit B.21 Percentage of Parents Reporting They Received Notice of Their Child’s 

Eligibility for Title I Public School Choice or Supplemental Educational 

Services, by How They Learned Their Child Was Eligible, 2006–07 ...........................94

Exhibit B.22 Percentage of Parents Notified of Their Child’s Eligibility for Title I Parental 

Choice, by How Understandable the Information Was, 2006–07 ................................94

Exhibit B.23 Percentage of Parents Notified of Their Child’s Eligibility for Title I Public 

School Choice, by Type of Information They Received About Their Options, 

2006–07..................................................................................................................................95

Exhibit B.24 Percentage of Teachers Communicating With Parents About Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Type of Communication and Grade 

Level, 2006–07 (Among Teachers Who Knew Their Students Were Eligible for 

These Services)......................................................................................................................95

Exhibit B.25 Percentage of Providers Communicating With the Parents of Students 

Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Topic and 

Frequency, 2006–07 .............................................................................................................96

Exhibit B.26 Percentage of Parents of Students Participating In Title I Public School Choice, 

by Reason for Participating, 2006–07................................................................................96

Exhibit B.27 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in Title I Public 

School Choice, by Reason for Not Participating, 2006–07............................................97

Exhibit B.28 Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Reason for Participating, 2006–07 .........................................98

Exhibit B.29 Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Reason for Not Participating, 2006–07........98

Exhibit B.30 Percentage of Districts, by Type of Provision Included in Contracts With Title 

I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 2005–06 ...............................................99
Exhibits x 

Exhibit B.31 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Type of 

Provision Included in Contracts With Districts, 2006–07............................................100

Exhibit B.32 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting 

State Monitoring of Their Services, by Monitoring Mechanism and Frequency, 

2006–07................................................................................................................................101

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

District Monitoring of Their Services, by Monitoring Mechanism and 

Frequency, 2006–07 ...........................................................................................................101

Exhibit B.34 Percentage of Districts, by Average Expenditure per Student Enrolled in Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, 2006–07 ................................................................102

Exhibit B.35 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, 2005–06 ..............................102

Exhibit B.36 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, 2006–07.......................103

Exhibit B.37 Percentage of Teachers Communicating With Title I Supplemental Educational 

Service Providers, by Type of Communication, 2006–07 ............................................103

Exhibit B.38 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting on 

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

2006–07................................................................................................................................104

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

Information Received on Individual Students Before Providing Services, 2006–

07...........................................................................................................................................104

Exhibit B.40 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Assessing 

Students, by Type of Measure and Frequency, 2006–07 ..............................................105

Appendix C. Supplemental Exhibits 

Exhibit C.1 Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by Major 

Barriers Limiting the Number of Students They Can Serve, 2006–07.......................106

Exhibit C.2 Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Location at Which Their Child Gets These Services, 

2006–07................................................................................................................................107
Preface xi 

PREFACE 

This report presents findings about Title I 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 public school choice and supplemental educational 

services, and targeting and resource allocation. 

This publication is the seventh volume in this report series. The other six volumes are: 

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 

Volume IV—Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services: Interim Report 

Volume V—Including Students With Disabilities in Adequate Yearly Progress: Implementation of the 1 

Percent Rule and 2 Percent Interim Policy Options 

Volume VI—Targeting and Uses of Federal Education Funds 

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 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 members, parents and providers of 

supplemental educational 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, 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. A team led by Ralph Blank at Council of Chief State School Officers 

(CCSSO) assisted with state-level data collections. 

Other researchers who provided useful assistance for this report include Mengli Song, Yu Zhang and 

Kwang Suk Yoon of the American Institutes for Research. 

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. 

Although 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 goal 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 for improvement. 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 improvement. 

This report presents trends on the implementation of Title I parental choice 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). The report uses data from 

state-level interviews; surveys of a nationally representative sample of district officials, principals and 

teachers; surveys of parents in eight school districts; and surveys of supplemental educational service 

providers in 16 districts to examine the implementation across the country of the school choice and 

supplemental educational service components of Title I through 2006–07. It is based on data collected in 

2004–05 and 2006–07. This report updates findings from the interim report that was based on data 

collected in 2004–05. 

FOCUS OF THE REPORT 

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

choice and supplemental educational services for students in schools identified for improvement, 

corrective action or restructuring: 

1. Trends in who is eligible for and participates in public school choice and supplemental 

educational services under Title I and what choices are made available. 

2. Trends in how states, districts and schools provide information to make parents aware of their 

options and what information parents have and use to make decisions about their Title I public 

school choice and supplemental educational service options. 

3. Trends in how states, districts and schools support, monitor and collaborate in the 

implementation of supplemental educational services under Title I. 

KEY FINDINGS

In 2006–07, 6.9 million students were eligible for Title I public school choice, a fourfold increase since 

2002–03, and more than 3.3 million were eligible for Title I supplemental educational services, a nearly 

sixfold increase since 2002–03. However, participation rates remained low at 1 percent for the Title I 

public school choice option and 17 percent for supplemental educational services. Public school choice 

was constrained at the middle and high school levels because large numbers of school districts have only 

 

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 (funded at $12.7 billion in 

FY 2006). Title I, Part A, targets-poverty districts and schools where the needs are greatest and 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 the ESEA. 
Executive Summary xvi 

one middle school and one high school. Eligible high school students also continued to have fewer 

Title I supplemental educational service providers from which to choose. 

In 2005–06, districts spent $375 million for Title I supplemental educational services and $56 million for 

transportation of students who transferred to an alternate school under Title I public school choice.

Districts that offered Title I public school choice and supplemental educational services showed an 

increase in the number of transfer options and providers that parents could choose from over the time 

period covered in this study. For example, 69 percent of districts offering supplemental educational 

services in 2005–06 reported that parents could choose from at least five Title I supplemental 

educational service providers, up from 38 percent in 2003–04.

Communication with parents about Title I public school choice and supplemental educational services 

continued to be an issue in 2006–07. Forty-three percent of districts that were required to offer Title I 

public school choice in 2006–07 notified parents before the start of the school year. However, many 

parents surveyed in eight large, urban districts continued to report that they had not received any 

information about the Title I public school choice or supplemental educational service options. 

By 2006–07, 42 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had developed systems for monitoring 

and evaluating the effectiveness of Title I supplemental educational service providers, but only eight 

states had databases containing student achievement and participation information that would permit 

rigorous evaluations of achievement effects of providers on a statewide basis. 

OTHER FINDINGS

Eligibility, Availability and Participation 

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

supplemental educational services increased substantially from 2002–03 to 

2005–06, but the percentage of eligible students participating remained constant, 

with most eligible students not participating. 

Participation in Title I public school choice increased from 38,000 in 2003–04 to 58,500 in 2005–06 and 

then declined to 45,000 in 2006–07. Participation in supplemental educational services increased more 

rapidly, from 233,000 in 2003–04 to 449,000 in 2005–06.2 The yearly public school choice participation 

rate remained at about 1 percent of eligible students, and the supplemental educational service 

participation rate remained at about 17 percent throughout the time period.3 

In 2005–06, as in 2004–05, high-poverty, high-minority and urban Title I schools were 

more likely to have students who were eligible for Title I public school choice and 

supplemental educational services than low-poverty schools outside of urban areas. 

Forty percent of high-poverty Title I schools had students eligible for school choice compared with 6 

percent of low-poverty Title I schools. Similarly, 29 percent of high-poverty Title I schools had students 

eligible for supplemental educational services, compared with 3 percent of low-poverty Title I schools. 

 

2 The 449,000 students using Title I supplemental educational 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. 3 The yearly participation rate includes only those students participating in Title I parental choice in a specific school 

year. Over multiple years, the cumulative participation rate can be expected to be higher. 
Executive Summary xvii 

Urban schools likewise made up a disproportionate share of those required to offer Title I public school 

choice and supplemental educational services. 

Private providers (which includes both for-profit and nonprofit providers) served 

76 percent of students participating in Title I supplemental educational services in 

2005–06, compared with 58 percent in 2003–04; another 13 percent of students 

received supplemental educational services from districts or public schools in 

2005–06, a decline from 34 percent in 2003–04. 

The number of providers steadily increased from 1,024 in May 2003 to 3,234 in May 2007 and has 

remained roughly at this level (3,050 in 2008). Private providers accounted for 88 percent of all stateapproved providers in May 2008, up from 60 percent in May 2003. Ten percent of providers were school 

districts and public schools, a decrease from 32 percent in 2003.4 

As the number of Title I supplemental educational service providers increased from 

2004–05 to 2006–07, their size and staff characteristics also changed. 

The average size of Title I supplemental educational service providers in a subsample of 16 districts 

more than doubled between 2004–05 and 2006–07 from an average of 36 staff to an average of 79 staff 

members per provider. At the same time, the experience levels of their staff members decreased. The 

average tutoring experience of staff members declined from an average of 10 years in 2004–05 to an 

average of seven years in 2006–07. Providers also became less likely to rely on full-time teachers tutoring 

in their school’s district. 

In 2006–07, Title I supplemental educational service providers reported offering an 

average of 45 hours of services per student per year. 

Providers in the subsample of 16 districts reported offering an average of 2.4 sessions per week and 76 

minutes per session, suggesting a weekly average of about three hours of services per student. They also 

reported offering an average of about 36 sessions to students annually, suggesting an average duration of 

services of 15 weeks. Districts and parents reported a similar intensity of weekly services as that reported 

by providers. 

Communication With Parents 

In 2006–07, 95 percent of districts required to offer Title I public school choice or 

supplemental educational services reported that they notified parents of eligible 

students of these options. Nonetheless, most parents of eligible students in a 

sample of eight large, urban districts continued to say they had not been notified. 

In 2006–07, 95 percent of the districts required to offer Title I public school choice reported that they 

notified parents of the options available to their children, an increase from 64 percent in 2004–05. All 

districts required to offer supplemental educational services also reported they had notified parents of 

this option in 2006–07, as nearly all did in 2004–05. 

Nonetheless, in both 2004–05 and 2006–07, in a sample of eight large, urban districts, only one out of 

five parents of students eligible for Title I public school choice indicated they had been notified of their 

 

4 Determined by a Policy and Program Studies Services review of state education agency Web sites. 
Executive Summary xviii 

option to move their child to another school. Fifty-nine percent of eligible parents said they were 

notified of the Title I supplemental educational service option. 

Of the parents who reported that they were notified that their child was eligible for 

the Title I public school choice and supplemental educational service options, about 

90 percent reported that the information they received about their choices was 

somewhat easy to very easy to understand. 

The majority of parents indicated, however, that the information received did not contain basic 

information such as how to apply to move their child to another school, whom to contact with 

questions, or availability of transportation. 

In 2006–07, 78 percent of Title I supplemental educational service providers in the 

subsample of 16 districts reported that they communicated with the parents of 

participating students at least a few times monthly. 

Similarly, about two-thirds of parents of supplemental educational service participants in eight large, 

urban districts reported that they (or another adult in the household) discussed their child’s learning 

needs, educational progress and/or attendance with the provider (parents were not asked about the 

frequency of contact with providers). Student progress and student attendance related to supplemental 

educational service activities were the most frequently discussed topics. 

Implementing and Monitoring Supplemental Educational Services 

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

evaluation of Title I supplemental educational services, providers continued to 

report that a larger percentage of districts monitored their services at least a few 

times a year than did states.

In 2006–07, 69 percent of providers in a subsample of 16 districts reported that student attendance rates 

at supplemental educational services were tracked by districts at least a few times per year while only 36 

percent reported a similar frequency of monitoring by states. Also, 50 percent of providers reported that 

districts observed supplemental educational service sessions at least a few times per year while 24 percent 

reported their state did so at this frequency. This pattern has not changed since 2004–05. 

In 2006–07, 59 percent of providers of Title I supplemental educational services 

reported they had been required to renew their state certification. 

In the subsample of 16 districts, 59 percent of providers of Title I supplemental educational services 

reported that they had been required to re-apply for state approval since they had first been approved. 

Most of these providers said the renewal process was more demanding than the initial application 

process. 

Compared with 2004–05, in 2006–07, more principals of schools with students 

eligible for Title I supplemental educational services reported that these services 

were well aligned with school academic content standards. 
Executive Summary xix 

Forty-four percent of principals reported that the services provided to their students were well aligned 

with school academic content standards in mathematics and reading in 2005–06, an increase from 32 and 

24 percent in 2003–04 and 2004–05, respectively.5 

In 2006–07, nearly all providers of Title I supplemental educational services reported 

that they were communicating with the regular classroom teachers of their students 

at least a few times per year. 

Providers in the 16-district subsample communicated with teachers most often concerning their 

students’ progress and about coordination of their curriculum and instruction. Teachers reported a 

similar pattern of communications with providers. Nearly all providers reported progress on individual 

students to their parents at least a few times a year. Fifty-five percent of providers did so a few times per 

month. 

In 2006–07, as in 2004–05, 56 percent of providers of Title I supplemental 

educational services received some information on the students they served before 

beginning tutoring services. 

Fifty-six percent of providers reported receiving any one of several types of information about their 

students’ academic performance before the initiation of services. Student scores on state assessment tests 

were given to 43 percent of providers, while student scores on other standardized tests and report cards 

were given to less than 33 percent of providers. Forty-four percent of providers reported that they did 

not receive any of the following: test scores, report card grades, examples of student work, or 

Individualized Education Programs.

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

(especially supplemental educational 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 school choice or supplemental educational services, and the participation 

rates have remained relatively constant. 

Four notable issues appeared to continue to contribute to low participation rates, in spite of the progress 

that had been made on some of these issues. 

First, the supply of options for both Title I public school choice and supplemental educational services 

was limited at the secondary level. More than half of districts required to offer choice had no alternate 

middle or high schools to which students in identified schools could be transferred. Similarly, providers 

of supplemental educational services were less likely to offer services to high school students than to 

elementary and middle school students. 

 

5 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. 
Executive Summary xx 

Second, about half of districts continued to be unable to notify parents of students eligible for Title I 

public school choice of that option before the beginning of the school year, despite the progress that 

states have made in notifying districts of the identified status of their schools early in the summer. 

Third, a majority of parents (in a subsample of eight districts) of students eligible for Title I public 

school choice and more than one-third of parents of students eligible for supplemental educational 

services continued to say they were not notified of those options, even though the districts documented 

that they had sent out written notifications. 

And fourth, even when parents said they were notified, nine out of 10 parents of students eligible for 

Title I public school choice and nearly half of parents of students eligible for Title I supplemental 

educational services chose not to participate (in eight urban districts). A primary reason for 

nonparticipation in Title I public school choice was satisfaction with the child’s current school. Parents 

chose not to enroll children in supplemental educational services primarily because of a belief that their 

child did not need help. Inconvenient locations of alternate schools and inconvenient times at which 

services were provided were also frequently given as reasons for nonparticipation in Title I public school 

choice and supplemental educational services, respectively. 

Although there continue to be issues around availability of Title I public school choice and supplemental 

educational services and timely notification of and communication with parents, in the end, it is parents 

of eligible students who will decide whether they want to avail themselves of the options offered to their 

children. To date, parents have shown a low propensity to do so for both public school choice and 

supplemental educational services. 
Chapter I 1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

One objective of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is to provide new educational 

options to parents whose children attend Title I schools6 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 for improvement, 

corrective action or restructuring. 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 improvement. 

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

educational services 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 were designed 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, school 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 analyzed 

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 tracked implementation in a nationally 

representative sample of districts and schools through surveys of district administrators, principals and 

teachers as well as through surveys of parents in eight districts, surveys of supplemental educational 

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

districts.7 Data in this final report are based on the 2004–05 and 2006–07 data collection cycles for both 

studies and on a national database of the 2003–04 and 2005–06 AYP status of all schools and of schools 

identified for improvement in 2004–05 and 2006–07. This report updates findings from the interim 

report that was based on 2004–05 data. 

Two companion final 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 is one of the key principles of NCLB.8 Title I schools that fail to meet state 

goals for AYP for two consecutive years are identified as being in need of improvement. NCLB requires 

that all students in Title I schools that are identified for improvement be given the option to transfer to 

another public school in the district that has not been identified for improvement, with transportation 

 

6 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. 7 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. 

8 The main parental choice sections of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 are §§ 1116(b)(1), 1116(b)(9–13) and 1116(e). 
Chapter I 2 

provided or paid for by the district. If demand for Title I public school choice exceeds available funding, 

priority for transportation must be given to the lowest-achieving, low-income students requesting 

transfers, although the district must allow all students requesting to transfer to do so. Districts must offer 

more than one choice of transfer options to eligible students if more than one choice exists. Students 

may stay in the new school until they complete that school’s highest grade, but districts 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 NCLB. 

Students from low-income families in Title I schools that have been identified either for improvement 

for two years or for corrective action or restructuring are eligible to receive supplemental educational 

services from a provider selected by their parents. 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 educational 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 educational 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. Although all lowincome students who attend Title I schools that are in the second year of improvement and beyond are 

eligible to receive supplemental educational services, if district funds are not sufficient to provide 

services to all eligible students whose parents request the services, then the district must give priority to 

the lowest-achieving eligible students. Districts with students eligible for Title I public school choice and 

supplemental educational services are required to spend an amount equal to 20 percent of their Title I, 

Part A, allocations for supplemental educational services and for transportation for students using public 

school choice, if sufficient demand exists. 

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 (a) to notify parents of eligible students of all available choice options in a 

timely manner and (b) to provide parents with the information needed to make informed decisions. 

These two provisions are intended to provide better options to individual students in low-performing 

schools, improve outcomes for students who transfer or receive supplemental educational services, and 

pressure low-performing schools to improve. The law thereby is intended 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 public 

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

1. Trends on who is eligible and participates in public school choice and supplemental educational 

services under Title I and on what choices are made available. 
Chapter I 3 

2. Trends on how states, districts and schools provide information to make parents aware of their 

options and on what information parents have and use to make decisions about their public 

school choice and supplemental educational service options. 

3. Trends on how states, districts and schools support, monitor and collaborate in the 

implementation of supplemental educational services under Title I. 

These three areas are each addressed by a chapter in this report. Another report9 addresses a fourth 

evaluation question: 

4. What are the effects of the Title I public school choice and supplemental educational service 

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 (a) analysis of school performance data and state documents (including state Web 

sites and consolidated applications and reports) and (b) telephone interviews with state officials 

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

educational services requirements of NCLB. Administrators in all states, Puerto Rico and the District of 

Columbia were interviewed during fall and winter 2004–05 and 2006–07. The response rate for both 

waves of state interviews was 100 percent.10

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

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

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

of students eligible for the public school choice and supplemental educational service options. The 

resulting 2003–04 National Database of School AYP and Identification was merged with National 

Center for Education Statistics data on school poverty, size, grades served and urbanicity from the 

2002–03 Common Core of Data for the 2003–04 database and from the 2004–05 Common Core of 

Data for the 2005–06 database 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 educational service providers in a subsample of eight and 16 

districts, respectively. Student-level demographic and achievement data were also collected in the same 

subsample of districts used for parent surveys, plus one additional district. Specifically, the 2004–05 

sample included 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 included 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 2004–05. 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 percent to 96 percent. 

In 2006–07, the same 300 districts and 1,487 schools, of which 1,287 were in the 2004–05 sample, were 

again surveyed, as were a new random sample of 4,783 elementary teachers, 2,116 secondary English 

teachers, 2,020 secondary mathematics teachers, 1,416 special education teachers and 820 

paraprofessionals. 

 

9 See U.S. Department of Education (2007). 

10 Including all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 
Chapter I 4 

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: 

(a) accountability, (b) teacher quality, (c) Title I public school choice and supplemental educational 

services and (d) resource allocation and targeting. 

This report focuses on the Title I public school choice and supplemental educational service 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 public school choice in 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2006–07 and about supplemental 

educational services in 2003–04 and 2005–06.11 The teacher surveys also included questions about 

supplemental educational services. For the school choice sections, 125 district administrators and 278 

principals responded for the 2004–05 school year, and 147 district administrators and 433 principals for 

the 2006–07 school year. Respondents to questions about supplemental educational services in 2003–04 

included 102 district administrators and 220 principals and, in 2005–06, included 129 district 

administrators and 383 principals. 

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

school districts with substantial numbers of participants in the Title I public school choice and 

supplemental educational service options in each of the survey years.12 Four groups of parents were 

surveyed, based on district identification of parent eligibility and participation in public school choice 

and supplemental educational services: (a) parents of students in elementary schools that were not 

identified for improvement under NCLB, (b) parents of students in elementary schools identified for 

improvement who used supplemental educational services, (c) parents of students in elementary schools 

identified for improvement who did not use supplemental educational services, and (d) parents who used 

the option to transfer their child to a non-identified school. One parent per student was surveyed. A 

total of 1,866 parents completed surveys for a response rate of 61 percent in 2004–05, and a total of 

1,876 parents completed surveys for a 63 percent response rate in 2006–07. 

For the supplemental educational service provider survey, different random samples of 125 and 130 

state-approved providers were surveyed in 16 districts in 2004–05 and 2006–07, respectively, 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 in 2004–05 and by 107 providers for a response rate of 82 percent in 

2006–07. In 2004–05, 85 percent of these providers were private providers compared with 84 percent 

of all providers nationally; in 2006–07, 77 percent of the providers sampled were private providers, 

compared with 86 percent nationally. Five percent of the responding providers were school districts in 

2004–05, compared with 14 percent nationally. In 2006–07, 3 percent of the sampled providers were 

schools or school districts, compared with 11 percent nationally. More details are provided in 

Appendix A. 

 

11 This report does not provide data on supplemental educational services offered in 2004–05 and 2006–07 because 

districts often do not have complete data about participation in this option until the end of the school year, and the 

surveys were completed primarily during the fall and winter of those school years. Unlike public school choice, in which 

participants usually choose to participate before or at the beginning of the school year, supplemental educational service 

participants often may enroll in the middle of the school year. Consequently, the surveys administered in 2004–05 and 

2006–07 asked about supplemental educational services provided in the prior year, not the current year, but asked about 

participation in the public school choice option for both the prior year and the current year. 

12 One of the nine districts surveyed did not provide the data needed to draw a sample of parents, so the parent data are 

based on eight districts. 
Chapter I 5 

Technical Note 

References in the text to differences between groups or differences 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 because of 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 with a 

published table of critical values for t.

Chapter II 7 

II. ELIGIBILITY, AVAILABILITY AND PARTICIPATION 

No Child Left Behind is intended to make additional educational options, including the option to choose 

another school and the option to receive supplemental educational services, 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 educational service providers; and rates of 

participation in the options. 

Key Findings 

• The number of students eligible for Title I public school choice quadrupled between 

2002–03 and 2006–07 from 1.5 to 6.9 million. In 2006–07, more than 3.3 million students 

were eligible for Title I supplemental educational services, a nearly sixfold increase since 

2002–03. 

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

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

instances, most eligible students continued to not participate.

• Districts that offered Title I public school choice and supplemental educational services 

generally offered parents of eligible students more transfer options and providers of 

supplemental educational services from which to choose in 2006–07 than in 2004–05. 

• In 2006–07, as in 2004–05, most districts (67 percent) that were required to offer Title I 

public school choice reported doing so at the elementary school level, but continued to be 

less likely to do so at the middle school (41 percent) and high school (22 percent) levels. 

Most districts that were required to offer Title I supplemental educational services reported doing 

so for elementary and middle school students, but only one-third of districts did so for eligible high 

school students. 

• From May 2003 to May 2007, the number of state-approved Title I supplemental 

educational service providers in the nation more than tripled from 887 to 3,234 providers. 

The largest increase occurred among private providers, which includes both for-profit and 

nonprofit providers. About 9 percent of all providers provided services online. 

• Private providers served three-quarters of students participating in Title I supplemental 

educational services in 2005–06 compared with 58 percent in 2003–04; another 13 percent of 

students received supplemental educational services from districts or public schools, a decline from 

34 percent in 2003–04. 

• As the number of Title I supplemental educational service providers increased between 

2004–05 and 2006–07, their characteristics also changed. The average staff size of providers 

doubled between 2004–05 and 2006–07, and the average number of years of tutoring experience 

among their staff members declined from 10 years to seven years.

• Supplemental educational service providers reported offering an average of 45 hours of 

services per student per year in 2006–07. Most parents of students participating in supplemental 

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

services at their own schools and that the services were often one-on-one. 
Chapter II 8 

ELIGIBILITY FOR PARENTAL CHOICE 

In 2006–07, about 3.3 million students were eligible for Title I supplemental 

educational services, a nearly sixfold increase since 2002–03; the number of 

students eligible for Title I public school choice more than quadrupled between 

2002–03 and 2006–07 from 1.5 to 6.9 million. 

In 2006–07, 13 percent of K–12 students in Title I schools were eligible for Title I supplemental 

educational services, compared with 11 percent the previous year and 2 percent in 2002–03. A larger 

share (26 percent) of students were eligible for Title I public school choice, an increase from 6 percent in 

2002–03 (see Exhibit 1). 

Exhibit 1 

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

Supplemental Educational Services, and Number and Percentage of Title I Schools With 

Eligible Students, 2002–03 Through 2006–07

Students Eligible Title I Schools With Eligible Students 

Year 

Number of 

Students 

Percentage of Students 

in Title I Schools 

Number of Title I 

Schools 

Percentage of 

Title I Schools 

Public School Choice

2002–03 1,535,000 6% 6,094 12% 

2003–04 3,946,000 16% 6,219 12% 

2004–05 6,185,000 26% 9,333 18% 

2005–06 6,468,000 24% 9,694 18% 

2006–07 6,858,000 26% 10,781 20% 

Supplemental Educational Services

2002–03 592,000 2% 1,300 2% 

2003–04 1,377,000a 6% 3,191 6% 

2004–05 1,828,000a 8% 3,851 8% 

2005–06 2,844,000a 11% 6,590 12% 

2006–07 3,299,000a 13% 7,254 13% 

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

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

schools, had students eligible for school choice. 

a The number of students eligible for supplemental educational 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 were 

required to offer supplemental educational services. 

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

2003–04, 2004–05, 2005–06, and 2006–07 based on data reported by 50 states and the District of Columbia for 50,731, 

52,581, 53,420 and 54,247 Title I schools in 2003–04, 2004–05, 2005–06 and 2006–07, respectively.

In 2006–07, as in previous years, most districts were not required to offer these two parental choice 

options because most Title I schools were not identified for improvement; districts that had no Title I 

schools identified for improvement were not required to offer these two options. In 2006–07, 20 percent 

of Title I schools were identified for improvement, an increase from 18 percent in 2004–05, with the 
Chapter II 9 

consequence that their students were eligible for public school choice (see Exhibit 1). Sixty percent of 

these schools—14 percent of all Title I schools—were in the second year of improvement status or 

beyond, making their students also eligible for supplemental educational services.13 Among districts 

required to offer supplemental educational services in 2005–06, 14 percent reported that they also 

offered these services to students in schools in the first year of improvement, down from 35 percent in 

2004–05.

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

requires they serve. Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho and New Mexico required non–Title I schools that 

have been identified for improvement to offer public school choice, and Tennessee required non–Title I 

schools in restructuring to offer public school choice. Districts in these states are not required to pay for 

the transportation of students who choose to transfer to a school that is not identified. Georgia, Hawaii 

and Idaho also required districts to offer supplemental educational services in non–Title I identified 

schools. (Note that Exhibit 1 includes only Title I schools.) 

The number of students eligible for Title I supplemental educational services grew substantially, being 

nearly six times greater in 2006–07 than in 2002–03, as did the number of schools with such students 

(see Exhibit 1).14 By 2006–07, nearly 3.3 million students were eligible for these services. The number of 

students eligible for public school choice also grew rapidly, more than quadrupling from 1,535,000 in 

2002–03 to 6,858,000 in 2006–07. 

In 2006–07, as in 2004–05, high-poverty and urban Title I schools were more likely to 

have students eligible for Title I public school choice and supplemental educational 

services than low-poverty and suburban and rural schools. 

In 2006–07, 40 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 public school choice, compared with 

6 percent of low-poverty Title I schools (schools with less than 35 percent of students receiving free or 

reduced-price lunches) (see Exhibit 2). Similarly, 29 percent of high-poverty Title I schools had students 

eligible for supplemental educational services, compared with 3 percent of low-poverty Title I schools. 

 

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

that in 2005–06, 12 percent of districts were required to offer supplemental educational services. 

14 The U.S. Department of Education’s 2006 report on the implementation of Title I 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. 
Chapter II 10 

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

choice options. In 2006–07, 35 percent of urban Title I schools had students eligible for public school 

choice, compared with 20 percent of suburban Title I schools and 12 percent of rural Title I schools (see 

Exhibit 3). A similar pattern was seen with supplemental educational services.15

 

15 The Center on Education Policy (2006) report likewise found that urban districts were most likely to be required to 

offer supplemental educational services and that rural districts were least likely to be required to offer the services. 

Exhibit 2 

Percentage of Title I Schools With Students Eligible for Title I Public School Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Poverty Status, 2006–07 

40%

29%

6%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Percentage of Title I Schools

High poverty

Low poverty

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, 40 percent of high-poverty Title I schools had students eligible for public school 

choice, compared with 6 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 49,378 Title I schools). 

Schools Where Public School 

Choice Must Be Offered 

Schools Where Supplemental 

Educational Services Must Be Offered
Chapter II 11 

Secondary Title I schools were more likely to be identified for improvement than elementary Title I 

schools. While students in 18 percent of Title I elementary schools were eligible for public school choice, 

students in 34 percent of Title I middle schools and 27 percent of Title I high schools were eligible. 

Similarly, students in 11 percent of Title I elementary schools were eligible for supplemental educational 

services, compared with students in 24 percent of Title I middle schools and 17 percent of Title I high 

schools (see Exhibit 4). 

Exhibit 3 

Percentage of Title I Schools With Students Eligible for Title I Public School Choice 

and Supplemental Educational Services, by Urbanicity, 2006–07 

35%

25%

20%

12% 12%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Title I Schools Where Public School Choice Must Be

Offered

Title I Schools Where Supplemental Educational

Services Must Be Offered

Percentage of Title I Schools

Urban

Suburban

Rural

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, 35 percent of urban Title I schools had students eligible for public school 

choice, compared with 20 percent of suburban and 12 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 52,581 Title I schools). 
Chapter II 12 

PARTICIPATION IN TITLE I CHOICE OPTIONS

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

supplemental educational services increased substantially from 2002–03 to 

2006–07. 

Both public school choice and supplemental educational services showed increases in the number of 

students participating. Nationally, school choice participation increased from 38,000 in 2003–04 to 

58,500 in 2005–06 and then decreased to 45,000 in 2006–07. Participation in supplemental educational 

services grew more rapidly, from 233,000 in 2003–04 to 449,000 in 2005–06.16

Nationally, the participation rate for Title I supplemental educational services 

continued to be substantially higher than for Title I public school choice, but in both 

instances, most eligible students did not participate. 

In 2005–06, students participating in Title I public school choice represented about 1 percent of eligible 

students and 1 percent of notified students, a participation rate that was comparable with that of 

previous years, while students enrolled in Title I supplemental educational services represented about 17 

percent of the number of students estimated to be eligible for these services nationally in 2005–06 (see 

 

16 The 449,000 students participating in supplemental educational services may include some who were not required to 

have been offered Title I supplemental educational services under the law; some districts notified a larger pool of 

students than the law required. 

Exhibit 4 

Percentage of Title I Schools With Students Eligible for Title I Public School Choice 

and Supplemental Educational Services, by School Level, 2006–07 

18%

11%

34%

24%

27%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Title I Schools Where Public School Choice Must Be

Offered

Title I Schools Where Supplemental Educational

Services Must Be Offered

Percentage of Title I Schools

Elementary schools

Middle schools

High schools

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, 18 percent of elementary Title I schools had students eligible for public school 

choice, compared with 34 percent of Title I middle schools and 27 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 50,663 Title I schools). 
Chapter II 13 

Exhibit 5). In 2005–06, districts also reported that 378,000 students completed Title I supplemental 

educational services, about 84 percent of students that had enrolled in the services.

Exhibit 5 

Notification, Application, and Participation in Title I Public School Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Services, 2003–04 to 2006–07 (as Reported by Districts)a

School Year Number of Students Percentage of Eligible Students 

(n = Number of 

Districts) Eligibleb

 Notified Applied Participants Notified Applied Participants

Public School Choice 

2003–04 (n = 109) 3,850,000 3,269,000 68,000 38,000 85% 2% 1% 

2004–05 (n = 121) 6,526,000 4,175,000 82,000 45,000 64% 1% 1% 

2005–06 (n = 110) 6,064,000 4,826,000 111,000 58,000 80% 2% 1% 

2006–07 (n = 95) 5,981,000 4,616,000 97,000 45,000 77% 2% 1% 

Supplemental Educational Services 

2003–04 (n = 80) 1,380,000 1,714,000 265,000 233,000c 124% 19% 17% 

2005–06 (n = 116) 2,662,000 3,555,000 493,000 449,000c 134% 19% 17% 

Exhibit reads: In 2003–04, 3,850,000 students were eligible for Title I public school choice, 3,269,000 of 

those students were notified of their eligibility, 68,000 of those applied, and 38,000 actually participated.

a For alternate data on participation trends dating from the 2002–03 school year, see the forthcoming report, Title I 

Implementation: Update on Recent Evaluation Findings (U.S. Department of Education, forthcoming), which uses data 

from Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs) submitted by state education agencies. The two data 

sources—CSPR state reports and NLS district survey-based estimates—produced similar trends for the period from 

2002–03 to 2005–06, although numbers for individual years vary. For example, in 2005–06, the NLS estimate and 

the CSPR count of school choice participation were 58,000 and 65,000, respectively, and supplemental services 

participation was at 449, 000 and 497,000 students, respectively. However, the 2006–07 NLS school choice 

participation estimate of 45,000 was less than half the count from the CSPR (120,000). In 2006–07, U.S. Department 

of Education changed its guidance and instructed states to include in the CSPR all students who transferred from a 

school identified for improvement to a non-identified school, regardless of whether students transferred under 

NCLB Title I school choice or another choice option.

b The number of eligible students in this exhibit differs from the number of eligible students in Exhibit 1 because 

they are based on different sources. This exhibit’s estimates were based on responses from the NLS-NCLB sample 

of districts because only this database permitted estimating the number of students who were notified, who applied 

and who participated in the two parental options whereas Exhibit 1 was based on administrative records of the 

universe of schools in the nation, but the information it contained was limited to school status and number of 

students enrolled in these schools. 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 educational services. 

c The 2003–04 estimate is of students who received supplemental educational services as reported by districts while 

the 2005–06 estimate is of students who enrolled for these services, also as reported by districts. The estimates of 

students who received or enrolled in supplemental educational services may include students that districts were not 

legally required to provide with services. Some districts offered these services to students in schools in the first year 

of not making AYP and others to students in non–Title I schools. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey; SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database.
Chapter II 14 

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 public school choice 

option during the 2004–05 school year and about 18 percent of eligible students were using NCLBrelated supplemental educational 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 in Exhibit 5. 

Principals of schools with eligible students also reported an average student participation rate (16 

percent) in supplemental educational services comparable with that reported by districts. One in 10 

schools reported having no students participating, and 42 percent of schools reported having less than 

10 percent of their eligible students participating. About 30 percent of schools had 20 percent or more 

of their eligible students participating. Principals also reported that, on the average, 17 percent of their 

students participating in Title I supplemental educational services were students with disabilities and 

another 17 percent were limited English proficient students. 

Sixty-two percent of schools designated by their district to receive students eligible 

to transfer under Title I public school choice had no students transferring into their 

schools; students who transferred under Title I public school choice accounted for 

no more than 5 percent of enrollment in most schools. 

Districts required to offer Title I public school choice designated 62 percent of their schools not 

identified for improvement to receive transferring students under NCLB. About two-thirds of these 

schools reported that no students transferred into their schools. Only 4 percent of designated schools 

reported that more than 5 percent of their students were transfers from schools identified for 

improvement (see Exhibit 6). On average, middle schools receiving transferring students under Title I 

public school choice received three students, while elementary and high schools received one student. 

Exhibit 6 

Percentage of Schools Designated to Receive Transferring Students Under Title I 

Public School Choice, by Percentage of Schools’ Populations Who Were Transfers, 

2004–05 

Percentage of Receiving Schools’ Populations 

That Transferred Under Public School Choice 

Percentage of Receiving Schools 

(n = 404) 

0% 62% 

0.1% to 1% 18% 

1.1% to 2% 4% 

2.1% to 5% 12% 

5.1% or more 4% 

Exhibit reads: Sixty-two percent of schools designated to receive transfer students under Title I public 

school choice received no students. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey.

Few of the principals of schools that were designated to receive transferring students reported that they 

needed additional resources to accommodate these students. Less than 13 percent of these principals 

reported that they needed additional books and instructional materials, classroom teachers, instruction 

specialists or facilities. If they did need these additional resources, they received them to varying extents: 

72 percent of receiving schools needing books and instructional materials received them, about 50 
Chapter II 15 

percent of schools needing classroom teachers or facilities received them, and 12 percent of receiving 

schools needing instructional specialists received them. 

OPTIONS OFFERED BY DISTRICTS 

Title I Public School Choice Options 

In 2006–07, as in 2004–05, most districts that were required to offer Title I public 

school choice reported offering this option to eligible elementary students; 

however, districts continued to be less likely to provide this option at the middle and 

high school levels. 

In 2006–07, at the elementary school level, 67 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 7). At the middle school level, 41 percent of affected districts reported offering the 

public school choice option (an increase from 20 percent in 2004–05) while the comparable figure for 

the high school level was 22 percent. About half of districts with middle or high schools that were 

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

schools at that grade level were identified for improvement. Across the country, 77 percent of school 

districts with high schools have only one high school, 67 percent of districts with middle schools have 

one middle school, and 53 percent of districts with elementary schools have one elementary school.17

In such districts, if the one school at the pertinent grade level is identified for improvement, then the 

district must, to the extent possible, establish a cooperative agreement to allow transfer to nonidentified 

schools in one or more districts in the area18 and may offer supplemental educational services to eligible 

students. 

Among districts offering public school choice to eligible students, 51 percent reported that at least one 

student actually transferred schools for 2006–07. Although about 20 percent of districts required to offer 

Title I public school choice did not offer this choice to all eligible students, such districts accounted for a 

relatively small percentage of students eligible for school choice. Large districts include more students 

and have a greater capacity to offer school choice. Thus, although 67 percent of districts required to 

offer public school choice at the elementary level did so, 94 percent of students in districts required to 

offer school choice attended schools in a district that offered the option. Similarly, 73 percent and 69 

percent of eligible middle and high school students, respectively, attended schools in a district that 

reported offering public school choice. 

More than one-quarter of districts reported that lack of space in nonidentified 

schools was a major obstacle to offering Title I public school choice. 

Some districts that had nonidentified schools at the appropriate school level found it difficult to offer 

public school choice to eligible students: 27 percent of districts reported they were constrained by lack of 

space in nonidentified schools. In 15 percent of districts, a major challenge was an inability to negotiate 

agreements with other districts for interdistrict transfers. Finally, 10 percent of districts reported that 

inadequate funding and an inability to meet the needs of students with disabilities or LEP students were 

major challenges. 

 

17 Special tabulation by the National Center for Education Statistics, based on the Common Core of Data, 2002–03. 

18 In 2006–07, 17 percent of districts reported they had negotiated an agreement with one or more neighboring districts 

to accommodate students who wish to transfer. 
Chapter II 16 

Exhibit 7 

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

This Option and Percentage of Students in These Districts, by School Level, 2006–07 

69%

73%

94%

22%

41%

67%

14%

17%

58%

48%

26%

17%

9%

20%

11%

4%

2%

6%

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

High Schools

Middle Schools

Elementary Schools

High Schools

Middle Schools

Elementary Schools

District offers Title I public schoo

choice at this grade level

Title I public school choice is not

available because all schools at th

grade level are identified for

improvement

District is not offering Title I pub

school choice for other reasons

Exhibit reads: Sixty-seven percent of districts required to offer public school choice at the elementary 

level reported they were offering school choice at that school level. Ninety-four percent of elementary 

school students in districts required to offer school choice at the elementary level, were in a district that 

offered this option. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n = 108, 114 and 54 districts, respectively, for elementary, middle and high 

schools). 

Some districts with schools identified for improvement reported taking various measures to expand 

public school choice options for parents of students eligible for transfer. Sixteen percent of districts 

added teachers or classrooms, 17 percent negotiated agreements with one or more neighboring districts, 

and 6.5 percent allowed students to transfer to private schools at district expense. Other actions such as 

establishing new schools, schools within schools or charter schools were reported by less than 6 percent 

of districts. 

Districts that offered Title I public school choice generally offered parents of eligible 

elementary students more transfer schools from which to choose in 2006–07 than in 

2004–05. 

The number of options that districts offered to parents of students eligible for Title I public school 

choice increased between 2004–05 and 2006–07. Of districts that reported offering school choice at 

the elementary school level in 2006–07, 90 percent of districts offered two or more alternate schools, 

an increase from 78 percent in 2004–05. Similarly, the share of districts offering more than two 

options to parents of middle school students increased from 30 to 55 percent from 2004–05 to 

2006–07. In 2006–07, 30 percent of districts that offered Title I public school choice offered more 

than two options to parents of high school students, which was not a significant change from the 20 

percent of districts that offered such options in 2004–05 (see Exhibit 8). 

Percentage of Students 

Percentage of Districts 
Chapter II 17 

Because eligible students are disproportionately located in large districts, the proportion of students 

eligible for public school choice who were offered at least two options of transfer schools was 

substantially higher than the proportion of districts able to offer such options. In 2006–07, 95 percent of 

eligible elementary students had at least two schools from which to choose, as did 76 percent of middle 

school students and 66 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, 

although parents in these districts reported being actually offered an average of three schools. 

Sixty-seven percent of parents taking advantage of the Title I public school choice option reported they 

had been allowed to transfer their child to their first-choice transfer school in 2006–07, the same 

proportion as in 2004–05. 

In the eight-district sample, among parents who said they were notified that their child was eligible to 

move to another school, 8 percent reported that they actually applied for a school transfer. One-third of 

these applicants reported their child had been approved to transfer. 

In 2006–07, as in 2004–05, more than eight out of 10 parents in eight large, urban 

districts who took advantage of the Title I public school choice option were satisfied 

with their decision. 

Exhibit 8 

Percentage of Districts Offering Title I Public School Choice That Offered Parents of 

Eligible Students Two or More Alternate Schools, by School Level, 2004–05 and 2006–07 

78%

30%

20%

90%

55%

30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Elementary

school

 Middle 

school

 High 

school

Percentage of Districts

Districts, 2004–0

Districts, 2006–0

95%

70%

56%

91%

76%

66%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Elementary

school

 Middle 

school

 High 

school

Percentage of Students

Eligible students, 2004–0

Eligible students, 2006–0

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, 78 percent of districts offered public school choice at the elementary school 

level and reported they offered parents of students eligible for school choice at least two alternate schools 

compared to 90 percent in 2006–07. In the same year, 95 percent of elementary school students were in 

districts that offered school choice and offered two or more alternate schools. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n = 67, 106 and 188 districts, respectively, for high, middle and elementary 

schools in 2004–05; n = 68, 105 and 103 districts, respectively, for high, middle and elementary schools in 2006–07). 
Chapter II 18 

Among parents who transferred their child to a nonidentified school, one-half reported that they were 

“very satisfied” with their decision, and another third reported that they were “satisfied,” in both 

2004–05 and 2006–07. 

In 2006–07, as in 2004–05, parents of students who transferred under the Title I 

public school option rated the school to which their child transferred much higher 

than the school they left. 

Seventy-one percent of parents rated the school to which their child transferred under Title I public 

school choice as a B or above, but only about 25 percent of these parents rated the school their child left 

at the same levels. At the same time, only 9 percent of parents rated their child’s new school a D or F 

while five times more parents rated the school their child left a D or an F (see Exhibit 9). Parents 

reported similar ratings in 2004–05. 

Exhibit 9 

Percentage of Parents, by Their Rating of the Schools From Which and To Which 

Their Child Transferred, 2006–07 

22%

23%

30%

18%

8%

3%

6%

20%

40%

31%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Failing - F

Unsatisfactory - D

Fair - C

Good - B

Excellent - A

School child transferred to

School child transferred from

Exhibit reads: Thirty-one percent of parents of children who transferred under Title I public school 

choice rated the school to which their child transferred an A while 8 percent rated the school from which 

their child transferred an A. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (n = 323 parents in eight districts).

Supplemental Educational Service Options 

In 2006–07, as in 2004–05, most that were districts required to offer Title I 

supplemental educational services reported offering these services to eligible 

elementary and middle school students; about one-third of districts did so for 

eligible high school students. 

More than three-quarters of districts with eligible elementary and middle school students offered 

supplemental educational services to these students in 2004–05 and in 2006–07. At the high school level, 

only about one-third of districts offered the services to eligible students. 
Chapter II 19 

In 2006–07, 47 percent of the districts offering supplemental educational services said that they offered 

them to all students in schools identified for improvement, regardless of income level, 30 percent of 

districts offered them to students from low-income families only, and 10 percent offered them only to 

low-achieving students from low-income families (see Exhibit 10). 

Exhibit 10 

Percentage of Districts That Offered Required Title I Supplemental Educational 

Services, by Characteristics of Students to Whom These Services Were Offered, 

2006–07 

9%

10%

32%

47%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

No students in identified schools w ere offered

supplemental educational services

Students that are both low -achieving and from low -

income families in identified schools

Only students from low -income families in identified

schools

All students in identified schools

Exhibit reads: Forty-seven percent of districts required to offer supplemental educational services 

offered these services to all students in schools identified for improvement. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n = 129 districts).

From May 2003 to May 2007, the number of state-approved Title I supplemental 

educational service providers in the nation more than tripled, but has stabilized in 

2008 at 3,050. 

The number of supplemental educational service providers increased from 1,024 in May 2003 to 3,234 in 

May 2007 and has remained roughly at this level (3,050 in 2008).19 The largest increase in the number of 

providers occurred among private providers. Private providers accounted for 88 percent of all stateapproved providers in May 2008, up from 60 percent in May 2003 (see Exhibit 11). In 2008, these 

providers included 201 faith-based private providers (7 percent of all approved providers), an increase 

from 18 faith-based providers in May 2003. Meanwhile, the proportion of providers that were school 

districts or public schools decreased from 32 percent in May 2003 to 10 percent in May 2008. Their 

numbers decreased from a high of 444 in May 2006 to 291 in May 2008. 

 

19 Policy and Program Studies Service, 2008 review of state education agency Web sites.
Chapter II 20 

Private providers served 76 percent of students participating in Title I supplemental 

educational services in 2005–06 compared with 58 percent in 2003–04; 13 percent of 

students received supplemental educational services from districts or public 

schools in 2005–06, a decline from 34 percent in 2003–04. 

The proportion of students served by private supplemental educational service providers increased 

between 2003–04 and 2005–06 while the proportion of students served by public districts or schools 

declined over these two years. The proportion of participating students served by private providers 

increased from 58 percent in 2003–04 to 76 percent in 2005–06 while the proportion of students served 

by districts and schools decreased by two-thirds from 34 percent to 13 percent (see Exhibit 11). 

Exhibit 11 

Distribution of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers and Participants, 

by Type of Provider 

Number and Distribution of State-Approved 

Providers, May 2003 to May 2008 

Distribution of Student Participants, 

2003–04 and 2005–06 

8% 6% 6%

32%

25% 17%

14% 11% 10%

60%

70% 76% 84% 86% 88%

2% 2% 2% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

 May

2003

 May

2004

 May

2005

 May

2006

 May

2007

 May

2008

Private providers

School districts

and public schools

Other

8% 11%

34%

13%

58%

76%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Private providers

School districts

and public schools

Other

Exhibit reads: As of May 2003, states had approved a total of 1,024 supplemental educational service 

providers, of which 60 percent were private providers, 33 percent were school districts and public schools, 

and 7 percent were other types of providers. During 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: Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Sources: Policy and Program Studies Services review of state education 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 and 76 districts in 2005–06. 

In 2006–07, about one-third of principals of schools with students eligible for supplemental educational 

services reported that the largest provider of these services was their district. The other two-thirds of 

principals reported that the largest provider was a private provider. 

2003–04

n = 71 

2005–06 

n = 76 

1,024 1,860 2,734 3,168 3,234 3,050 
Chapter II 21 

As the number of Title I supplemental educational service providers increased 

between 2004–05 and 2006–07, their size and staff characteristics also changed. 

One in three providers had 50 or more staff members, and fewer than one in three had ten or fewer staff 

members in 2006–07. In 2004–05, 15 percent of providers had 50 or more staff members, and nearly 50 

percent had 10 or fewer staff members (see Exhibit 12). Overall, the average-size provider had 79 staff 

members, more than twice as many as in 2004–05 (36 staff members). Also, in 2006–07, nearly 66 

percent of providers operated in two or more districts. 

Exhibit 12 

Distribution of Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by Staff Size, 2004–05 and 2006–07 

47%

31%

18%

15%

21%

19%

15%

34%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2004-05 2006-07

Percentage of Providers

51 or more staff

21–50 staff

11–20 staff

10 or few er staff

members

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, 47 percent of providers had 10 or fewer staff members. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 99 providers in 2004–05 and 98 

providers in 2006–07 in 16 districts). 
Chapter II 22 

Along with the changes in number and size of providers came a change in the characteristics of their 

staff members. The average number of years of staff tutoring experience decreased from nearly 10 years 

to seven years between 2004–05 and 2006–07.20 The share of staff members with three or fewer years 

of experience increased from 10 percent to 20 percent over the two years. At the same time, providers 

became less likely to rely on full-time teachers from the district in which they operated; 58 percent of 

providers relied on these teachers in 2004–05, but 38 percent of providers did in 2006–07 (see 

Exhibit 13).

Exhibit 13 

Percentage of Provider Staff Members, by Type of Instructional Staff, 

2004–05 and 2006–07 

10%

36%

38%

59%

19%

44%

58%

64%

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

Teacher w ho also teaches in classroom the

students they tutor

Teacher in school w ith students eligible for

supplemental services

Teachers in district w here provider operates

Certified teachers

Average Percentage of Instructional Staff

2004–05

2006–07

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, 64 percent of provider staff members were certified teachers. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 100 providers in 2004–05 and 103 

providers in 2006–07 in 16 districts). 

 

20 Statistically significant at .10. 
Chapter II 23 

Among districts required to offer Title I supplemental educational services, twice as 

many districts offered five or more options of providers in 2005–06 than in 2003–04. 

In 2003–04, parents had five or more options of providers in approximately one-third of districts that 

offered supplemental educational services; by 2005–06, parents had these multiple options in more than 

two-thirds of districts (see Exhibit 14). 

Supplemental educational service providers operating in a subsample of 16 geographically diverse 

districts were more likely in 2006–07 to serve five or more districts (50 percent) than they were in 

2004–05 (34 percent).21 Twenty-seven percent of providers served only one school district in 2006–07 

compared with 42 percent in 2004–05. Half of these providers were not operating before the passage of 

NCLB, and three-quarters of these providers had been providing NCLB-related services for three or 

fewer years. 

In 2006–07, as in 2004–05, providers of supplemental educational services in the 16-district subsample 

continued to concentrate their services on students in the elementary and middle school grades, primarily 

in mathematics and reading. More than three-quarters of providers offered services in reading and 

mathematics in elementary and middle school grades, but only approximately one-third of providers 

offered these services to high school students (see Exhibit 15). Writing was the next most-common 

 

21 Providers were surveyed in eight large, urban districts where parents were also surveyed and where 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. 

Exhibit 14 

Percentage of Districts, by Number of Title I Supplemental Educational Service 

Providers Available to Students, 2003–04 and 2005–06 

69%

10%

22%

38%

26%

37%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Five or more

Three or four

One or tw o

Number of Providers

Percentage of Districts

Districts, 2003–04

Districts, 2005–06

Exhibit reads: Thirty-seven and 22 percent of districts that offered students supplemental educational 

services in 2003–04 and 2005–06, respectively, reported that parents had an average of one or two 

supplemental educational service providers from which to choose. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n = 75 districts in 2003–04 and 106 districts in 2005–06.). 
Chapter II 24 

subject for which services were offered, although less than one provider in seven offered services in that 

subject. Almost no provider offered services in other subjects, including science, reflecting the initial 

emphasis placed by NCLB on holding schools and districts accountable for reading and mathematics.22 

All providers served students performing below grade level, and a majority of providers reported that 

they continued to provide services to special populations: 88 percent served students with disabilities, 

and 86 percent served students with limited English proficiency. 

Service providers operating in the subsample of 16 districts reported that they were less able to meet 

parental demand and student needs in 2006–07 than in 2004–05, possibly because of increased demand 

in these districts. Forty-eight percent of providers in 2006–07 reported being able to serve all students 

whom parents asked them to serve, compared with 76 percent in 2004–05. Providers cited various 

barriers limiting the number of students they could serve. Access to school facilities and contractual 

agreements were mentioned most frequently, by about one-third of providers. Competition with 

extracurricular activities, late notification of parents, confusing notification letters to parents, and 

restriction on marketing to parents were cited by about one-quarter of providers. The ability to hire 

tutors was cited as a barrier by a little more than 10 percent of providers (see Exhibit C.1, Appendix C). 

Inconvenient access to providers presented a major challenge to the use of Title I 

supplemental educational services in one out of five districts. 

Districts reported various challenges to parents’ accessing supplemental educational services. In 

2006–07, as in 2004–05, 20 percent of districts reported that the location of supplemental educational 

services was a barrier for parents. A similar proportion of districts reported that inadequate access to 

 

22 Under NCLB, testing for science was not required to begin until school year 2007–08. States and districts must report 

science scores, but those scores are not included in AYP determinations. 

Exhibit 15 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by Academic Subject and Grades Served, 2006–07 

Service Provided Served 

Grades K–5 

Served 

Grades 6–8 

Served 

Grades 9–12 

Reading 91% 82% 38% 

Mathematics 84% 78% 38% 

Writing 14% 12% 9% 

Social studies or history 0% 1% 1% 

Science 0% 1% 1% 

Other 1% 1% 1% 

Offering services in any of the above 

subjects 96% 86% 41% 

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 Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 100 providers in 16 districts). 
Chapter II 25 

online providers was a major challenge. Approximately one-third of parents (35 percent) further 

indicated that providers’ service hours were not convenient for their families (see Chapter 3). 

Amount and Type of Title I Supplemental Educational Services 

Offered 

The number of hours and duration of supplemental educational services that a student can receive is 

not specified in the NCLB statute and can vary across districts and providers. About half of districts 

offering Title I supplemental educational services reported that students were provided one or two 

hours of supplemental educational services per week in 2005–06, as they had reported in 2003–04. 

Also in 2005–06, about 33 percent of districts reported that students were provided services for three 

or four hours per week, and 19 percent reported that students were provided services for five or more 

hours per week (see Exhibit 16). On average, districts reported that students were provided about three 

hours and 10 minutes per week of supplemental educational services, an amount similar to the average 

weekly hours providers reported offering. 

In 2006–07, Title I supplemental educational service providers in a subsample of 16 

districts reported providing an average of 45 hours of services per student per year. 

In 2006–07, providers in the subsample of 16 districts reported offering an average of 76 minutes per 

session and 2.4 sessions per week, suggesting a weekly average of services of about three hours (see 

Exhibit 17). They also reported an average of 36 sessions offered to students annually, suggesting an 

average duration of services of 15 weeks. This level of service was not significantly different from that 

provided in 2004–05. Parents reported a greater intensity of weekly services than reported by providers 

Exhibit 16 

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

Educational Services Students Were Provided per Week, 2005–06 

19%

8%

25%

44%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Five hours or more

Four hours

Three hours

Tw o hours

One hour

Percentage of Districts

Exhibit reads: In 2005–06, 4 percent of districts offering Title I supplemental educational services 

reported that students were provided 1 hour of supplemental educational services per week. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n = 109 districts). 
Chapter II 26 

in 2006–07, but their reports did not distinguish NCLB-related services from other similar services that 

may have been provided.23 

A 2005 U.S. Department of Education report involving case studies of supplemental educational service 

providers found a range of 18–120 hours of services per student per year, with an average of 60 hours 

per year (U.S. Department of Education 2005a). Another analysis of a separate survey of providers 

across the country found that about 50 percent of providers offered between 31 and 60 hours of 

instruction per student (American Institutes for Research and Education Industry Association 2005). 

Exhibit 17 

Percentage of Providers of Title I Supplemental Educational Services, 

by Duration and Frequency of Service, 2006–07 

Minutes per Sessiona Sessions per Week Sessions per Year 

14%

45%

28%

13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120 minute

90 minutes

60 minutes

Other

59%

24%

8%

9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

4+ sessions

3 sessions

2 sessions

1 session

23%

31%

23%

23%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

41+

sessions

31–40

sessions

21–30

sessions

< 20

sessions

Exhibit reads: In a subsample of 16 districts, 13 percent of supplemental educational service providers 

reported that their supplemental service session lasted 120 minutes in 2006–07, 9 percent reported providing 

four or more sessions per week per student, and 23 percent reported providing more than 41 sessions per 

student per year. 

a About 14 percent of providers reported their supplemental educational services session lasted less than 60 minutes, 

between 61 and 89 minutes, or more than 120 minutes. 

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

Providers in the 16-district subsample reported that student attendance rates for supplemental 

educational services averaged 76 percent in 2006–07 (similar to the 78 percent reported in 2004–05), 

ranging from a low of 30 percent reported by three providers to a high of 100 percent reported by four 

providers. Nearly all providers reported making reminder calls to students’ homes to promote student 

attendance, and 57 percent of providers called the students’ schools. 

In 2006–07, the average student-to-tutor ratio was four to one, ranging from one to one (reported by 

one-third of providers) to six or more to one (reported by 23 percent of providers). 

 

23 Parents reported that their children received an average of six hours of services per week over six months per year. 

n = 100 providers n = 105 providers n = 100 providers
Chapter II 27 

Most Title I supplemental educational service providers reported serving students at 

the students’ schools and often provided these services one-on-one. 

According to supplemental educational service providers in the 16-district subsample, about half offered 

services at the schools of the students they served either often or always, and almost one-third offered 

these services at the student’s home either often or always (see Exhibit 18). Services were somewhat less 

likely to be given at public buildings or at the local offices of the provider, a pattern similar to the one 

reported in 2004–05. 

Principals were also more likely to report that their students were receiving supplemental educational 

services at their school than at another location. Seventy percent of principals of schools with students 

eligible for supplemental educational services reported that their students were receiving these services in 

their school building regardless of the type of provider. 

Parents of students participating in supplemental educational services in eight large, urban districts 

reported a similar pattern, with 83 percent reporting their child received free tutoring at their school and 

20 percent reporting their child received free tutoring at their home. A little more than 6 percent of 

parents reported that their child had received services at a public facility, and less than 3 percent reported 

that their child had received services at the local office of the provider (see Exhibit C.2, Appendix C).

Exhibit 18 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, by 

Location of and Grouping of Students for Delivery of Services, 2006–07 

Location and Student Grouping Always Often Sometimes Never 

Location where supplemental educational services are provided 

At the schools of served students (n = 103) 37% 10% 7% 46% 

At other schools or administrative buildings in the 

district (n = 98) 1% 5% 6% 87% 

At a public building such as a library or community 

center 

(n = 100) 

4% 18% 22% 56% 

At the local office of the provider (n = 97) 16% 9% 5% 71% 

At the student’s home (n = 99) 9% 21% 5% 65% 

On the internet (n = 100) 15% 2% 4% 79% 

Student grouping for delivery of supplemental educational services 

In large groups (n = 92) 11% 15% 17% 57% 

In small groups (n = 99) 20% 17% 30% 32% 

One-on-one (n = 100) 33% 20% 27% 20% 

Exhibit reads: In a subsample of 16 districts, 37 percent of supplemental educational service providers 

reported that they always provided services at the schools of the students they served. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (in 16 districts). 
Chapter II 28 

In 2006–07, as in 2005–06, about half of providers in the 16-district subsample reported offering 

services one-on-one either often or always. But providers were less likely to offer services in small 

groups in 2006–07 than they did in 2004–05. One-third of providers offered services in small groups 

either often or always in 2006–07, compared with a little more than half of providers in 2005–06. Onequarter to one-third of providers during these years reported offering services in large groups always or 

often. 

The majority of parents (76 percent) of children participating in supplemental educational services in 

eight large, urban districts reported that their child received these services in groups; 25 percent of 

parents reported their child received services in one-on-one sessions. Eighty-three percent of these 

parents reported that their child received supplemental educational services after the end of the school 

day and 20 percent of parents reported that they received them on weekends. Relatively few parents 

reported that their child received supplemental educational services during the summer (12 percent), 

school vacations (12 percent) or before the start of the school day (8 percent). 

In 2006–07, as in 2004–05, more than eight out of 10 parents of students 

participating in Title I public school choice and supplemental educational services 

were satisfied with their decision; a little less than half were very satisfied. 

The overwhelming majority (85 percent) of responding parents of students participating in supplemental 

educational services reported satisfaction with the services provided; 41 percent were very satisfied. 

Among parents who transferred their child to a nonidentified school, 84 percent were satisfied with their 

decision and 49 percent were very satisfied. 

DISCUSSION

Since 2002–03, the number of students eligible for Title I public school choice has more than 

quadrupled to 6.9 million in 2006–07 and the number of students eligible for Title I supplemental 

educational services has increased nearly six times to 3.3 million. About 25 percent of the nation’s 

students in Title I schools were eligible for public school choice, and 13 percent of students in Title I 

schools were eligible for supplemental educational services. 

Lack of available public school choice and supplemental educational service options for a significant 

proportion of students likely has contributed to the continued low participation of eligible students in 

these two options. The estimated participation rate of eligible students for Title I public school choice 

has remained at approximately 1 percent, even though the number of participants increased to 58,000 in 

2005–06 from 38,000 in 2003–04, and decreased back to 45,000 in 2006–07. Similarly, the participation 

rate for supplemental educational services has remained at about 17 percent, in spite of a doubling in the 

number of participants to nearly half a million. As discussed in the next chapter, ineffective notification 

of parents of students eligible for these two options and parental preferences also have contributed to 

these low participation rates. 

The ability of districts to offer Title I public school choice to parents of eligible students has continued 

to be constrained by the unavailability and lack of space in nonidentified schools, most particularly at the 

middle and high school levels. About one-quarter and one-third of middle and high school students, 

respectively, were affected. In districts that were able to offer public school choice, however, parents 

were offered more options of nonidentified schools in 2006–07 than in 2004–05 at the elementary and 

middle school levels, although not at the high school level. 
Chapter II 29 

Availability of Title I supplemental educational services was also constrained, in part by providers who 

were less likely to provide services at the high school level than at the other two levels. About onequarter of districts did not have such services available for eligible elementary and middle school 

students. Three-quarters of districts did not have them available for high school students. 

In those districts that offered Title I supplemental educational services, the number of service provider 

options increased. The number of supplemental educational service providers more than tripled between 

2003 and 2007 to 3,234, although the number has leveled in 2008 at 3,050 providers. Private providers 

accounted for most of the increase. Along with the increase in the number of providers came a doubling 

in their average staff size, a decrease in staff tutoring experience, and a decrease in the share of provider 

staff members who teach in the district in which they tutor. Students were offered an average of 45 

hours of services in 2006–07. Providers reported offering these services most frequently at their 

students’ school or home and on a one-on-one basis. 

Chapter III 31 

III. COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS 

When students are eligible for Title I public school choice or supplemental educational services under 

NCLB, districts are required to notify parents in a timely manner of all options available to them and to 

provide parents with the information needed to make informed decisions. School districts, at their 

discretion, may use a variety of methods to communicate with parents about parental choices, including 

relying to some extent on principals and teachers to communicate with parents of eligible students. 

Key Findings

• In 2006–07, nearly all districts required to offer Title I public school choice and 

supplemental educational services reported notifying eligible parents of their 

options. However, similarly to 2004–05, many eligible parents in a sample of eight large, 

urban districts continued to report in 2006–07 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 large, urban districts, less than one-quarter of parents of 

students in elementary schools identified for improvement knew that the schools 

were so identified in either 2006–07 or 2004–05. 

• In 2006–07, 43 percent of districts required to offer Title I public school choice 

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

states continued to release school identification status data too late to permit districts to 

notify parents before the start of the 2006–07 school year.

• Districts that notified parents about the Title I public school choice option before 

the first day of school had continuously higher participation rates than districts that 

notified parents on or after the first day of school. 

• About 90 percent of parents notified that their child was eligible for Title I public 

school choice or supplemental educational services reported that the information 

they received about their choices was understandable. But the majority of parents 

indicated that the information received did not contain basic information such as how to 

apply, where to call for questions or what transportation was available. 

• About three-quarters of teachers in schools in which students were eligible for 

supplemental educational services reported talking with parents about this option. 

• Satisfaction with the quality of teaching at their child’s school and the convenience 

of the location of their child’s school were cited by nearly two-thirds of parents as 

reasons they chose not to transfer their child to a nonidentified school. 

• Inconvenient time and location of tutoring services, as well as their child’s not 

needing help were the reasons most frequently cited by parents for nonparticipation 

of their eligible child in Title I supplemental educational services. 
Chapter III 32 

NOTIFICATION OF OPTIONS

In 2006–07, nearly all districts (95 percent) required to offer Title I public school 

choice reported that they notified parents of eligible students of this option, up from 

64 percent in 2004–05. All districts required to offer Title I supplemental educational 

services also reported that they notified parents of eligible students of this option. 

In 2006–07, 95 percent of the districts required to offer Title I public school choice reported that they 

notified parents of the option to transfer their children to another school, an increase from 64 percent in 

2004–05. The few districts required to offer public school choice that did not notify parents reported 

that they could not offer school choice because they did not have transfer options available at all grade 

levels. All districts required to offer supplemental educational services reported that they had notified 

parents of this option in 2006–07, as they nearly all did in 2004–05. 

Nonetheless, most eligible parents in a sample of eight large, urban districts 

continued to say they had not been notified of their Title I public school choice 

option—despite the fact that all eight districts offered this option and produced 

notification letters. 

In a subsample of eight urban districts, only one out of five parents of elementary students (20 percent) 

who were eligible for Title I public school choice indicated they had been notified of the option to 

transfer their child to another school in either 2004–05 or 2006–07—despite the fact that all eight 

districts reported that they had offered this choice option to parents and sent notification letters (see 

Exhibit 19). Of the remaining parents, 68 percent said they were not notified, and 11 percent were not 

sure whether they had been notified.24

A larger percentage (59 percent) of parents of elementary students eligible for Title I supplemental 

educational services in these eight districts reported they had been notified of this option, the same 

percentage as in the earlier year. Again, all eight districts reported sending notification letters to parents.25

Of the remaining parents, 31 percent said they had not been told of the supplemental educational service 

option and 10 percent were not sure whether or not they had been told (see Exhibit 20). Parents of 

eligible students who used supplemental educational services were more likely to report having been 

notified (81 percent) than those who did not (about one-half). 

 

24 Percentages do not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

25 Districts were asked whether they had notified parents in writing either the current year or the preceding year because, 

in some districts, supplemental educational services for the year in which the survey was conducted were not fully 

underway at the time of the survey. It is therefore possible that some districts responded with respect to 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. 
Chapter III 33 

Exhibit 19 

Percentage of Districts That Notified Parents of Elementary Students of Their Title I 

Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Service Options and Percentage of 

These Parents Who Reported They Were Notified, 2006–07 (in Eight Urban Districts) 

59%

20%

100%

100%

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

Supplemental

services

School choice

Percentage of Districts and Parents

Districts

Parents

Exhibit reads: In a sample of eight urban districts, all of the districts reported notifying parents of eligible 

elementary students of their Title I public school choice and supplemental educational service options, but 

only 20 percent of these parents said they were notified about the school choice option and only 59 

percent of these parents said they were notified about the supplemental educational services option. 

Sources: NLS-NCLB, District and Parent Surveys (n = 961 parents for school choice and 959 parents for 

supplemental educational services in eight districts).

Exhibit 20 

Percentage of Parents of Elementary Students Who Reported They Were Notified of 

Their Child’s Eligibility for Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Choice 

Decision, 2006–07 (in Eight Urban Districts) 

Parents Were Notified

Percentage of Parents of Eligible 

Students (Including Participating and

Nonparticipating Students) 

(n = 959)

Percentage of Parents

of Participating 

Students 

(n = 505)

Percentage of Parents 

of Nonparticipating 

Students 

(n = 454)

Yes 59% 81% 54% 

No 31% 15% 35% 

Not sure 10% 4% 12%

Exhibit reads: In a sample of eight urban districts, 59 percent of all parents of elementary students 

eligible for supplemental educational services reported that they were told that their child was eligible 

to receive these services. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts).
Chapter III 34 

More than half (57 percent) of the parents who were notified that their child was eligible for Title I 

supplemental educational services reported that their child had received extra help during the 2006–07 

school year. 

In a sample of eight urban districts, less than one-quarter of parents of students in 

schools identified for improvement knew that the schools were so identified in both 

2004–05 and 2006–07. 

In 2006–07, 74 percent of parents of students in elementary schools identified for improvement in eight 

large, urban districts had heard of NCLB and 57 percent knew that, according to NCLB, they must be 

given the choice to move their child to another school. The latter is an increase from 40 percent in 

2004–05. However, only 19 percent of parents of students in schools identified for improvement knew 

that their child’s school was so identified. A substantial number of parents continued to be unsure of 

whether their child’s school was identified for improvement under NCLB. Sixty-eight percent of parents 

of students in schools identified for improvement were unsure whether their school was low-performing 

and another 13 percent incorrectly thought their child’s school was not on the list of low-performing 

schools. 

Timing of Parental Notification for Title I Public School Choice 

More states released preliminary data on schools identified for improvement, on 

corrective action or on restructuring before the start of the 2006–07 school year than 

they did before the start of the 2004–05 school year. 

In 2004–05, many states released school identification status data too late to permit districts to notify 

parents before the start of the school year; however, more states released preliminary notification before 

the 2006–07 school year. Before districts can notify parents of eligible students about Title I public 

school choice and supplemental educational services, the districts must first receive information from 

their states about the schools’ identification status. Twenty-four states released information on schools 

identified for improvement before August 2006, compared with only seven states that did so before 

August 2004 (see Exhibit 21). Twenty-three more states released preliminary results in August 2006, 

leaving limited time before the start of the school year. Timely release of data still proved a challenge for 

seven states that released information on schools identified for improvement in December 2006 or later. 

Overall, states notified districts of the final results on their schools’ status two to three months after 

having released preliminary results. 

In 2006–07, 43 percent of districts required to offer Title I public school choice 

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

In part because of the delay in states’ reports of school identification, a majority of districts continued to 

be unable to notify parents of their options in a timely manner. More than half of the districts required 

to offer choice reported that they notified eligible parents of the availability of this option on or after the 

first day of school, and those districts notified parents an average of five weeks after the beginning of the 

school year (see Exhibit 22). 
Chapter III 35 

Exhibit 21 

Number of States, by Month of States’ Release of School Identification for Improvement 

Status, 2004 and 2006

Preliminary Notification

2 4 6 8

24

7

0 2 1 3

23 23

0

13

26

39

52

July or

earlier

Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

or later

Number of States

2004

2006

Final Notification

2

13

3

12 10 11

8

19

7 6 5 7

0

13

26

39

52

July or

earlier

Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

or later

Number of States

2004

2006

Exhibit reads: Seven states released preliminary notification regarding school identification for 

improvement status in July or earlier in 2004 whereas 24 states did so in 2006. 

Note: If states released accountability results at different dates for elementary and high schools, the earlier month was 

counted for the purpose of this exhibit. 

Source: SSI-NCLB, Accountability Interviews and state education agency Web sites (n = 50 states and Puerto Rico for 

2004, and 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico for 2006).

Exhibit 22 

Timing of Parent Notification About Title I Public School Choice as 

Reported by Districts, 2006–07 

42%

15%

43%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

After the First Day of

School

On or About the First

Day of School

Before the First Day of

School

Percentage of Districts

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, 43 percent of districts required to offer Title I public school choice notified 

eligible parents before the first day of school. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n = 132 districts). 

In 2006–07, the timing of the release of final state information on school AYP and identification for 

improvement was weakly correlated with districts’ timing of parental notifications about choice options. 
Chapter III 36 

In 26 states that notified districts about their schools’ identification status before Labor Day (which is 

near the start of the school year in many states and districts), 49 percent of the districts reported 

notifying eligible parents about public school choice options before the first day of school. In contrast, 

in the 26 states that released final school identification data after Labor Day, 37 percent of the districts 

notified eligible parents about public school choice options before the first day of school. Many of these 

districts had received preliminary notification of their schools’ status before the beginning of the school 

year and went ahead to notify parents. 

Districts that notified parents about their Title I public school choice option before 

the first day of school had continuously 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 public school choice before the start of the school 

year, eligible students’ participation in school choice varied from 1.4 to 3.2 percent between 2003–04 and 

2006–07. In contrast, in the districts that did not notify eligible parents until after school started, the 

participation rates varied between 0.1 and 0.6 percent over these four years (see Exhibit 23). 

Exhibit 23 

Percentage of Eligible Students Transferring Schools, by When District First Notified 

Parents About Their Title I Public School Choice, 2003–04 to 2006–07

Timing of Parent 

Notification 

Percentage of 

Students 

Transferring 

Schools in 2003–04 

(n = 118) 

Percentage of 

Students 

Transferring 

Schools in 2004–05 

(n = 159)

Percentage of 

Students 

Transferring 

Schools in 2005–06 

(n = 135)

Percentage of 

Students 

Transferring 

Schools in 2006–07 

(n = 127) 

Before the first day 3.2% 2.9% 1.7% 1.4% 

On or about the first day 1.6% 1.8% 0.5% 0.6% 

After the first day 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 

Notified any time 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 

Exhibit reads: In 2003–04, in districts that reported notifying parents of Title I public school choice 

before the first day of the school year, 3.2 percent of students eligible for Title I public 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. In 

2006–07, 62 percent of parents who took advantage of the Title I public school choice option reported 

having been informed before the start of the school year, compared with 26 percent of parents who 

did not take advantage of the Title I public school choice option (see Exhibit 24). 
Chapter III 37 

Exhibit 24 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Notified of Title I Public School Choice, 

by When First Notified and Choice Decision, 2006–07 

Parent Notified 

Percentage of Parents of 

Eligible Students (Including 

Both Participating and 

Nonparticipating Students)

(n = 542)

Percentage of 

Parents of 

Nonparticipating 

Students 

(n = 237) 

Percentage of 

Parents of 

Participating 

Students 

(n = 305) 

Before the first day of the 2006–07 school 

year 

46% 26% 62% 

On or about the first day of the 2006–07 

school year 5% 7% 4% 

After the first day of the 2006–07 school 

year 

28% 45% 14% 

Not sure 21% 22% 20% 

Exhibit reads: Among parents of all eligible students in identified schools, 46 percent said they were 

notified of their public school choice options before the start of the school year. 

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

METHODS OF COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS

According to the U.S. Department of Education’s nonregulatory guidance on the Title I public school 

choice option (U.S. Department of Education 2005b), 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-tounderstand format.” At a minimum, the notification must (a) inform parents of their child’s eligibility to 

attend another school because the current school is identified for improvement, (b) name the specific 

public schools available for choice and (c) 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 (a) identify each 

approved provider, (b) describe each provider’s services, qualifications and evidence of effectiveness, 

(c) describe the process by which parents may select and enroll with a provider and (d) be easily available 

and understandable, in languages other than English if necessary and practicable (U.S. Department of 

Education 2005b.

Districts used various methods to notify parents regarding Title I public school choice and supplemental 

educational 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 Title I supplemental educational services and public school choice (see Exhibit 25). 

Approximately two-thirds of districts also reported providing written materials in languages other than 

English: 59 percent for school choice and 67 percent for supplemental educational services, an increase 

from 47 and 53 percent, respectively, in 2004–05. In addition, districts frequently used individual 

meetings with interested parents and placed notices in district or school newsletters. Relatively few 

districts held enrollment fairs or open houses, placed notices in public newspapers or made public 
Chapter III 38 

service announcements, although a higher percentage of districts used these means of communication in 

2006–07 than in 2004–05. 

Approximately three-quarters of parents who said they were notified of their child’s 

eligibility for either of the Title I parental options reported receiving a written 

notification. 

Among parents in eight large, urban districts who said they had been informed of their child’s eligibility 

for Title I public school choice or supplemental educational services, 76 percent said they had received 

this notification through a letter or other written communication from the school or district. For Title I 

school choice, the next most common ways that parents learned of their child’s eligibility were through a 

district or school newsletter or Web site (19 percent) and through general school meetings for parents 

(11 percent). For supplemental educational services, the next most common ways that parents learned 

of their child’s eligibility was through general school meetings for parents (18 percent), by someone from 

the school or district letting them know (13 percent), and through an enrollment fair or open house 

(12 percent) (see Exhibit 26). 

Exhibit 25 

Percentage of Districts Communicating With Parents About Title I Public School Choice 

and Supplemental Educational Services and of Eligible Students in 

These Districts, by Method of Communication, 2006–07

Public School Choice 

(n = 156)

Supplemental Educational 

Services 

(n = 129)

Method of Communication 

Percentage 

of Districts 

Percentage of

Eligible 

Students

Percentage 

of Districts 

Percentage of

Eligible 

Students

Written notification in English 99% 99% 91% 98% 

Written notification in language(s) other than English 59% 74% 67% 83% 

Enrollment fairs or open houses 22% 47% 63% 82% 

Individual meetings with interested parents 61% 73% 63% 83% 

Notices in district or school newsletters 53% 67% 50% 63% 

Public service announcements 15% 26% 31% 42% 

Worked with a local community partner 17% 31% 33% 40% 

Notices in public newspapers 26% 35% 13% 37% 

Notices on school district’s Web site 24% 53% 31% 63% 

Other 43% 53% 35% 59% 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-nine percent of districts that were required to offer Title I public school choice 

reported notifying parents about their choice options through written materials in English; 99 percent of 

students in districts required to offer school choice were located in districts that notified parents about their

choice options through written materials in English. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Chapter III 39 

Exhibit 26 

Percentage of Parents Reporting They Received Notice of Their Child’s Eligibility for 

Title I Public School Choice or Supplemental Educational Services, 

by How They Learned Their Child Was Eligible, 2006–07 

12%

13%

7%

18%

76%

10%

4%

4%

8%

11%

19%

76%

7%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other

Went to an enrollment fair or

open house

Someone from the school or

district let me know

Heard from other parents of

other students

Went to a general meeting for

parents

Read information in district or

school new sletter, or Web site

Received a letter

Percentage of Parents

Public school choice

Supplemental

educational services

Exhibit reads: Seventy-six percent of parents of students eligible for Title I public school choice learned of 

their child’s eligibility by receiving a letter. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (n = 239 and 652 parents for public school choice and supplemental educational 

services, respectively, in eight districts). 

About 90 percent of parents who were notified that their child was eligible for the 

Title I parental choice options reported that the information they received was 

somewhat easy or very easy to understand. 

When asked how well they understood the information they received about their child’s eligibility for 

Title I public school choice and their options of schools in 2006–07, a majority of parents in eight large, 

urban districts said, as they did in 2004–05, that the information received was very easy to understand. 

Another 38 percent said the information received was somewhat easy to understand (see Exhibit 27). 
Chapter III 40 

Exhibit 27 

Percentage of Parents Notified of Their Child’s Eligibility for Title I Parental Choice, 

by How Understandable the Information Was, 2006–07 

1%

4%

27%

68%

4%

6%

38%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Very difficult to understand

Somew hat difficult to

understand

Somew hat easy to

understand

Very easy to understand

Percentage of Parents

Public school choice

Supplemental

educational services

Exhibit reads: Fifty-two percent of parents of students eligible for public school choice that received 

information about school choice rated that information very easy to understand. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (n = 239 and 652 parents for public school choice and supplemental educational 

services, respectively, in eight districts). 

About one-third or fewer parents reported that the information they received provided information 

about how to apply to move their child, whom to contact with questions about transferring their child, 

and what transportation was available (see Exhibit 28). Sixty percent of parents reported receiving 

information on the academic performance of the schools from which parents could choose. 

A majority of schools with students eligible for Title I supplemental educational 

services notified parents of this opportunity for their children. 

Eighty-one percent of principals of schools with students eligible for Title I supplemental educational 

services reported that their school had notified parents of the availability of these services, with the 

remaining principals reporting that only their districts had done so. Similar to districts, nearly all schools 

(99 percent) provided written information, and about three-quarters of schools provided information in 

languages other than English, held group discussions with parents, held individual meetings, placed 

notices in their school newsletters or some combination of approaches. Nevertheless, about 40 percent 

of parents of children eligible for supplemental educational services in eight large, urban districts 

reported that they had not received notification regarding their child’s eligibility for supplemental 

educational services or that they were not sure they had been notified. 
Chapter III 41 

Exhibit 28 

Percentage of Parents of Students Eligible for Title I Public School Choice, 

by Type of Information They Received About Their Options, 2006–07 

19%

27%

34%

36%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Services at their child's current school not available at

schools offered for choice

Transportation available

Whom to contact w ith questions about moving their child

How to apply to move their child to another school

Academic performance of schools given as choices

Percentage of Parents

Exhibit reads: Sixty percent of parents of students eligible for Title I school choice received information 

about the academic performance of schools given as choices. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (n = 230 parents in eight districts). 

In 2006–07, 54 percent of teachers who knew their students were eligible for Title I 

supplemental educational services reported they encouraged parents to apply for 

the services. 

Among teachers who knew that some of their own students were eligible for supplemental educational 

services, a little more than three out of four reported that they communicated with parents about these 

services. More than half of these teachers, including 58 percent of elementary school teachers, 53 percent 

of middle school teachers, and 44 percent of high school teachers, encouraged parents to apply (see 

Exhibit 29). About one-third of teachers also provided advice to parents on selecting supplemental 

educational service providers; and a little less than one-quarter of teachers reported that parents 

contacted them regarding supplemental educational service options. 
Chapter III 42 

SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS’ COMMUNICATION WITH 

PARENTS

In 2006–07, about three-quarters of Title I supplemental educational service 

providers in a subsample of 16 districts reported that they communicated with the 

parents of participating students ”often or always.” 

Providers in the 16-district subsample reported that they communicated with parents about a variety of 

topics. Seventy-four percent of providers discussed student progress and 67 percent discussed student 

attendance “often or always” when they communicated with parents. Providers were less likely to discuss 

student attendance in 2006–07 than in 2004–05 when 84 percent of providers reported discussing 

attendance “often or always” when they communicated with parents. Providers in 2006–07 also were less 

likely to discuss student achievement on state assessments with parents; about one-third of providers did 

so “often or always” when they communicated with parents (see Exhibit 30). 

Exhibit 29 

Percentage of Teachers Communicating With Parents About Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Type of Communication and School Level, 2006–07 

(Among Teachers Who Knew Their Students Were Eligible for These Services)

58%

33%

27%

53%

25%

22%

44%

17%

9%

54%

29%

23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Teacher encouraged

parents to apply

Teacher advised

parents on providers

Parents contacted

teacher

Percentage of Teachers

All grades

High

Middle

Elementary

Exhibit reads: Among all teachers in schools with students eligible for supplemental educational services 

in 2006–07, 23 percent reported that parents had contacted them about supplemental educational services. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey (n = 150, 316 and 531 teachers, respectively, for high, middle and elementary 

schools). 
Chapter III 43 

About two-thirds of parents of supplemental educational service participants in eight large, urban 

districts reported that they (or another adult in the household) discussed their child’s learning needs, 

educational progress, attendance or some combination with the provider (parents were not asked about 

the frequency of contact with providers). 

Supplemental educational service providers in the 16-district subsample indicated they encountered few 

serious challenges communicating with parents. Serious challenges reported by these providers included 

parent’s lack of an e-mail address (38 percent of providers), parent’s work schedule (26 percent), and 

parent’s lack of a telephone (21 percent). Ninety-one percent of providers indicated they had the 

capability to communicate with parents in languages other than English. 

REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN TITLE I PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE AND 

SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

In eight large, urban districts, about one in 10 parents who were notified that their child was eligible 

for Title I public school choice applied to transfer their child to another school. Among parents with 

students participating in Title I public school choice, the most frequent reasons for doing so were “the 

quality of teaching is better at the new school” (mentioned by 62 percent of parents who chose this 

option) and “my child’s old school was not meeting his/her needs” (also mentioned by 62 percent of 

parents who took advantage of this option). A third reason reported by about half of parents was that 

the “new school has good discipline, safety, and order” (see Exhibit 31). 

Exhibit 30 

Percentage of Providers Communicating Often or Always With the Parents of Students 

Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Topic, 2006–07 

31%

54%

59%

65%

67%

74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Student achievement on state assessments

Student behavior or motivation during sessions

Student progress related to regular classroom instruction

Specific learning needs of the child

Student attendance at supplemental service centers

Student progress related to supplemental service activities or

goals

Percentage of Providers

Exhibit reads: Seventy-four percent of supplemental educational service providers in 16 districts reported 

discussing student progress related to supplemental educational service activities or goals “often or always” 

when they communicated with parents of students they served. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 103 providers in 16 districts). 
Chapter III 44 

Exhibit 31 

Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in 

Title I Public School Choice, by Reason for Participating, 2006–07 

Reason 

Percentage of Parents of Students 

Participating in Public School Choice 

(n = 282) 

The quality of teaching at the new school is better 62% 

My child’s old school was not meeting his/her needs 62% 

There is good discipline, safety, and order at the new school 47% 

My child got transportation to the new school 35% 

The new school is located in a place that is easy to get to 30% 

There are different academic programs at the new school 30% 

My child wanted to change schools 28% 

There are activities after school and sports teams at the new school 24% 

There is free tutoring or other extra help with schoolwork at the new 

school 20% 

My child had been getting bad grades 19% 

There are services for children with disabilities at the new school 12% 

My child’s old teacher thought he/she should move 11% 

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, 

62 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).

Satisfaction with quality of teaching at their child’s school and convenience of their 

child’s school location were the reasons most frequently cited by nearly two-thirds 

of parents of students eligible for Title I public school choice who chose not to 

transfer their child to a school not identified for improvement. 

Among parents of students eligible for Title I public school choice who chose to keep their child in their 

current school, the reason mentioned most often (by 63 percent of parents, almost two-thirds) for the 

decision not to take advantage of the choice option was that they were satisfied with the quality of 

teaching at their child’s school. The next-most-frequent reason, mentioned by 60 percent of parents, was 

that their child’s school was conveniently located. Concerns about change were also frequently reported: 

Forty-five percent of parents reported that their child wanted to stay, 42 percent that their child was 

getting good grades at the current school and 42 percent that they did not want to disrupt their child (see 

Exhibit 32). 
Chapter III 45 

Exhibit 32 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in 

Title I Public School Choice, by Reason for Not Participating, 2006–07 

Reason 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students 

Not Participating in Public School Choice 

(n = 220)

I was satisfied with the quality of teaching at my child’s school 63% 

My child’s school is located in a place that is easy to get to 60% 

My child wanted to stay 45% 

My child was getting good grades at the current school 42% 

I didn’t want to disrupt my child 42% 

There is free tutoring or other extra help with schoolwork at my 

child’s school 34% 

There are activities after school and sports teams at my child’s 

school 33% 

There is good discipline, safety, and order at my child’s school 28% 

There are different academic programs at my child’s school 25% 

There are services at my child’s school for children whose first 

language is not English 25% 

There are services at my child’s school for children with 

disabilities 21% 

I didn’t have enough information about the schools from which I 

could choose 13% 

There was no space for my child at the school I wanted 5% 

The district did not have transportation to any of the new 

schools from which I could choose 4% 

I was not given enough time to make the decision to move my 

child to another school 2% 

Exhibit reads: Among parents of students in schools identified for improvement, 63 percent chose to 

keep their child in their current school because they were satisfied with the quality of teaching at their 

child’s school. 

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

In the eight large, urban districts, 57 percent of parents who were notified of their child’s eligibility for 

these services enrolled their child in supplemental educational services. Parents who enrolled their 

children in Title I supplemental educational services most often reported that they did so because 

tutoring was free (53 percent), there was tutoring in the subject area in which their child needed extra 

help (51 percent), their child’s teacher thought the child should get this extra help (48 percent) or some 

combination (see Exhibit 33). In addition, 35 percent of parents reported that their child wanted to get 

the extra help. 
Chapter III 46 

Parents most frequently cited inconvenient time and location of tutoring services 

and their child not needing help as the reasons for nonparticipation of their eligible 

child in Title I supplemental educational services. 

Among parents who had declined the offer of Title I supplemental educational services for their child, 

nearly half, or 46 percent of responding parents in the eight-district subsample, stated as the most 

common reason that their child did not need the help. In addition, a little more than one-third (35 

percent) of parents reported that tutoring was given “at times that are not good for my family” (see 

Exhibit 34). Other reasons were cited by 15 percent (or less) of parents. 

Exhibit 33 

Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, by Reason for Participating, 2006–07 

Reason 

Percentage of Parents of Students 

Participating in Supplemental 

Educational Services 

(n = 452) 

Tutoring is free 53% 

There is tutoring in the subject area (or areas) in which my child needs 

extra help 51% 

My child’s teacher thought he/she should get this extra help 48% 

My child wanted to get this extra help 35% 

Tutoring is given at a place that is easy to get to 30% 

My child got a low score on a yearly achievement test 29% 

My child had been getting bad grades 27% 

There is tutoring for children with disabilities 14% 

There is tutoring for children whose first language is not English 9% 

My child’s school is not meeting his/her needs 8% 

I needed after-school care 8% 

Exhibit reads: Fifty-three percent of parents of students enrolled in supplemental educational services 

reported that one of the reasons they decided to have their child enroll in these services was that tutoring 

was free. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts). 
Chapter III 47 

DISCUSSION

In 2006–07, 24 states provided districts with preliminary notification of the identification status of their 

schools before the month of August, more than three times as many as the seven states in 2004–05. In 

2006–07, 43 percent of districts reported they had notified parents of students in identified schools of 

their eligibility for Title I public school choice before the beginning of the school year. In 2006–07, as in 

2004–05, parents notified of their eligibility before the beginning of the school year were twice as likely 

to transfer their child to a nonidentified school as parents who were notified on or after the first day of 

the school year. 

The share of districts that reported they eventually notified parents of their parental choice options 

increased from 64 to 95 percent between 2004–05 and 2006–07. However, in eight large, urban districts 

that had notified parents and where parents were surveyed, only 20 percent of parents of students in 

identified schools reported that they were notified of their public school choice option, and 59 percent 

reported that they were notified of their supplemental educational service option in 2006–07, as they had 

reported in 2004–05. Similarly, only 19 percent of parents of students in identified schools knew that 

their child’s school was a school in need of improvement, and about two-thirds of parents were unsure 

of their child’s school status. 

Written notification to communicate with parents on public school choice and supplemental educational 

services was the most common notification strategy used by districts in 2006–07, as in 2004–05. 

Exhibit 34 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in 

Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Reason for Not Participating, 2006–07

Reason 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible 

Students Not Participating in 

Supplemental Educational Services 

(n = 125) 

My child doesn’t need help 46% 

Tutoring is given at times that are not good for my family 35% 

Tutoring is given at a place that is not easy to get to 15% 

My child did not want to get this extra help 13% 

There is no tutoring in the subject areas in which my child needs 

extra help 11% 

Tutoring does not meet the needs of children whose first language is

not English 3% 

Tutoring does not meet the needs of children with disabilities 2% 

There is no tutoring at my child’s grade level 1% 

Exhibit reads: Among parents of eligible students deciding not to have their child enroll in 

supplemental educational services, 46 percent reported that they did not take advantage of this option 

because their child did not need help. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts). 
Chapter III 48 

Fifty-three percent of districts included notices in district and school newsletters and significantly fewer 

districts made public service announcements or included notices on school websites. Most principals also 

reported sending notifications to parents of students eligible for supplemental educational services and 

held parent meetings regarding supplemental educational services. In addition, 54 percent of teachers 

who knew their students were eligible for Title I supplemental educational services said they encouraged 

parents to apply for these services.

Although districts and schools used multiple methods to reach parents, most parents learned of their 

child’s eligibility for Title I public school choice or supplemental educational services by receiving written 

notification. The majority of these parents rated the letters they received somewhat to very easy to 

understand, but also reported that some key information was not included in the letters. For instance, 

two-thirds of parents notified of their child’s eligibility for public school choice reported their 

notification did not contain information on how to apply to move their child to another school, whom 

to contact with questions about moving their child, transportation availability or some combination. 

A better quality of teachers and the desire to better meet the educational needs of their child were the 

reasons most frequently reported by parents who transferred their child to a nonidentified school (in a 

sample of parents in eight large, urban school districts). For parents who did not participate in public 

school choice, the most frequently reported reason (by two-thirds of sampled parents) was that they 

were satisfied with their child’s current school. The convenient location of their child’s current school 

and the desire of their child to stay in their current school were also frequently mentioned. Lack of 

available space and lack of transportation were rarely given as reasons for not participating in public 

school choice. 

In a sample of eight large, urban school districts, parents of students participating in Title I supplemental 

educational services frequently reported that they enrolled their child in supplemental educational 

services because they or their child’s teacher thought their child needed extra help. Another frequently 

reported reason for participating was the free tutoring. The reason most frequently given by parents for 

not participating in supplemental educational services was that their child did not need the help. Also 

frequently reported as reasons for nonparticipation were the inconvenient times and locations at which 

tutoring was provided. 
Chapter IV 49 

IV. IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING TITLE I 

SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 

No Child Left Behind gives states and districts different responsibilities in implementing the supplemental 

educational services provisions of the law. States must develop, apply and publicly report objective 

criteria for approving supplemental educational service providers. Once providers are operating, states 

are expected to monitor them and evaluate their performance. States are also expected to ensure that 

districts’ implementation of the supplemental educational service option is in conformance with the law. 

Districts 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. 

Key Findings 

• By 2006–07, 42 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had developed systems 

for monitoring and evaluating Title I supplemental educational service providers’ 

effectiveness; however, few states had databases that would permit statewide examination

of the achievement results of participating students. 

• By 2006–07, more than half of the states had begun to conduct evaluations of the 

effectiveness of Title I supplemental educational service providers. 

• Although NCLB does not give districts a formal role in monitoring and evaluating Title I 

supplemental educational services, providers continued to report higher frequencies of 

monitoring of their services by districts than by states. 

• In 2006–07, 59 percent of providers reported they had been required to renew their state 

certification. Most reported the renewal process was more demanding than the initial application

process.

• Average per pupil expenditures for Title I supplemental educational services remained 

constant between 2003–04 and 2005–06 at about $838, but total expenditures for these 

services nearly doubled between these two years because of an increase in participants. 

Total spending on Title I supplemental educational services increased to $375 million in 2005–06 

from $192 million in 2003–04. Expenditures for transportation of students transferred under 

Title I public school choice increased from $24 million in 2003–04 to $56 million in 2005–06. 

• In 2006–07, 40 percent of principals of schools with students eligible for Title I 

supplemental educational services reported that these services were well-aligned with 

their school’s academic content standards, an increase from 24 percent of principals in 

2003–04. 

• In 2006–07, nearly all providers reported that they communicated with the regular 

classroom teachers of their students at least a few times a year. 

• In 2006–07, as in 2004–05, a majority of Title I supplemental educational service providers

received little or no information on the students they served before beginning 

supplemental educational services. 
Chapter IV 50 

STATES’ APPROVAL OF TITLE I SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICE 

PROVIDERS

NCLB requires that states 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, research-based, 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 state student achievement standards; 

• is financially sound; 

• provides supplemental educational services consistent with applicable federal, state and local 

health, safety and civil rights laws; 

• provides instruction and content that are secular, neutral and nonideological; and 

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

In 2004–05, 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. 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 that are 

secular, neutral and nonideological, with most states requiring a signed checklist but not a narrative of 

how these 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. 

By 2006–07, thirty-two states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico reported that they had updated 

their initial application forms. Although 10 of these states reported that the changes were relatively 

minor, seven states and Puerto Rico reported that their applications were more rigorous, and four states 

reported that they required more specific evidence regarding the effectiveness of providers. Two states 

and the District of Columbia reported that they changed their applications to require providers to detail 

measurable outcomes and goals. Other changes reported by states were the inclusion of statements 

regarding financial stability or pricing (five states), ethical practices (three states), or implementing an 

online application (two states). Six states reported stricter requirements for individuals who provide 

tutoring services, including minimum educational levels and background checks. 

In nearly all states (48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), applications are evaluated with a 

rubric by a team that may consist of teachers, district administrators, state education staff members or 

university professors.26 In 37 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, applications are reviewed 

once or twice a year; in 10 states, applications are accepted on an ongoing basis. South Dakota now 

requires a telephone interview as part of the application process, and the District of Columbia was 

considering adding a site visit component. 

 

26 In Illinois, applications were evaluated by a team of outside evaluators and, in Nevada, by a Committee of 

Practitioners (which included parents, district-level coordinators and a superintendent).
Chapter IV 51 

NCLB requires that states withdraw from the approved list any provider that fails, for two consecutive 

years, to contribute to increased student proficiency relative to state academic content and achievement 

standards. States are also expected to remove providers that fail to provide supplemental educational 

services consistent with applicable health, safety and civil rights requirements at any time. 

About 1 percent of approved providers, approximately 80 providers in 13 states, had 

their state approvals withdrawn between 2005–06 and 2006–07. 

By 2006–07, 21 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had official standards in place for 

withdrawing supplemental educational service providers from state-approved lists, and 12 states reported 

that they were developing such standards.27 States that removed providers from the approved list did so 

for a variety of reasons, including the following: the providers had failed to deliver services; the providers 

engaged in illegal or unethical activities; and, in one case, the provider refused to participate in an 

external evaluation. Three states reported that providers were removed because they failed to 

demonstrate improvement in student achievement. Pennsylvania, for example, reported that it removed 

providers if they did not demonstrate that 80 percent of students showed at least 10 percent 

improvement in grades. In addition, a few district providers became ineligible to offer services when the 

districts became identified for improvement. 

DISTRICT CONTRACTS WITH TITLE I SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICE 

PROVIDERS

Among the statutory requirements for school districts is the obligation to establish contracts with 

providers. NCLB identifies six specific elements of these formal agreements: 

1. Specific achievement goals for the student, which must be developed in consultation with the 

student’s parents (Section 1116(e)(3)(A)); 

2. A description of how the student’s progress will be measured and how the student’s parents and 

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

3. A timetable for improving the student’s achievement (Section 1116(e)(3)(A)); 

4. A provision for termination of the agreement if the provider fails to meet student progress goals 

and timetables (Section 1116(e)(3)(C)); 

5. Provisions governing payment for the services (Section 1116(e)(3)(D)); and 

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)). 

According to districts, other provisions beyond those explicitly required by the law are often included in 

their contracts with providers. Ninety-three percent of districts required providers to submit regular 

reports to parents and teachers. Many districts included a provision in their contracts regarding 

providers’ use of district facilities; about half of districts offered providers the use of district facilities for 

free while about one-fifth said they offered providers the use of district facilities for a fee. Forty-four 

percent of districts reported that their provider contracts required services to be supervised by certified 

 

27 Information from SSI-NCLB Interviews. Data were available from 49 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto 

Rico. 
Chapter IV 52 

teachers.28 Nine percent of districts reported that they imposed caps on the number of students a 

provider could serve (see Exhibit 35). In 2005–06, more districts (47 percent) required that providers use 

the same standardized form for reporting on student learning goals and progress toward those goals than 

in 2004–05 (25 percent). 

In 2006–07, 59 percent of providers reported they had been required to renew their 

state certification. 

Fifty-nine percent of providers of Title I supplemental educational services in 16 diverse districts 

reported that their state had required them to re-apply since they had first been approved by the state. 

Eighty percent of these providers said the renewal process was more demanding than the initial 

application process. And nearly all (95 percent) said that they were required to demonstrate that the 

services they had provided had resulted in measurable achievement benefits for participating students. 

 

28 Under NCLB, states are responsible to develop and apply objective criteria to ensure that the programs of approved 

supplemental educational service providers have a demonstrated record of effectiveness in increasing the academic 

proficiency of students (NCLB section 116(e)(4)(B)). A district may not include additional criteria to those of the state’s 

in its contracts with providers. However, a district may include in its provider contracts provisions that are consistent 

with the criteria developed by the state. For example, if the state requires that providers offer services that are supervised 

by certified teachers, then a district may include a provision regarding that requirement in its contract. 

Exhibit 35 

Percentage of Districts, by Type of Provision Included in Contracts With 

Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 2005–06 

9%

22%

44%

47%

47%

76%

93%

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

Cap on number of students a provider can serve

Providers can use district facilities for a fee

Services provided must be supervised by a certified teacher

All providers use the same standardized reporting form to

establish student learning goals and evaluate progress

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 Providers

Exhibit reads: Among districts that had contracts with supplemental educational service providers in 

2005–06, 93 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 = 113 districts). 
Chapter IV 53 

In the subsample of 16 districts, most supplemental educational service providers described contractual 

provisions that were consistent with those described by the districts (see Exhibit 36). Forty percent of 

these providers’ contracts included a provision that allowed their use of district facilities for a fee; 14 

percent were allowed to do so free of charge. Nearly all providers in the 16-district subsample reported 

that they were required to use a standardized form to establish student learning goals and evaluate 

progress. Also, nearly all of these providers were restricted on how they could market their services to 

parents or school staff members. 

Although nearly all providers in the district subsample reported that they were contractually required to 

set academic goals for each individual student in collaboration with the district, school, parents or some 

combination, 60 percent of them reported they did so with districts for all or some students, and 81 

percent did so with a parent of their students for all or some students. 

Several state respondents expressed continuing concerns about providers of Title I supplemental 

educational services. Eight states reported concerns regarding student recruitment strategies (primarily 

inappropriate use of incentives), five cited low quality of services, and three had reservations about 

Exhibit 36 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by Type of Provisions Included in Contracts With Districts, 2006–07 

Provision Included in Contract Percentage of Providers 

Provision that your organization set academic goals for each individual student in 

collaboration with the district, school and/or parents 95% 

Provision that your organization will receive payment based on the number of 

sessions of tutoring that students attend 95% 

Requirement that your organization send progress reports to parents on a regular 

basis 93% 

Requirement that your organization use a standardized reporting form to establish 

student learning goals and evaluate progress 88% 

Restrictions on how you may market your services to parents or school staff 86% 

Requirement that your organization send progress reports to teachers on a regular 

basis 56% 

Agreement that your organization can use district facilities for a fee 40% 

Cap on the number of students your organization can serve 35% 

Requirement that services provided to students be supervised or attended by certified 

teacher 22% 

Agreement that your organization can use district facilities free of charge 14% 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-five percent of supplemental educational service providers in a subsample of 16 

districts reported that their contracts required them to set academic goals for each individual student. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 100 providers in 16 districts). 
Chapter IV 54 

providers’ ethics. In addition, five states reported concerns specific to rural states, most notably a lack of 

providers. 

MONITORING OF PROVIDER PERFORMANCE

By 2006–07, 42 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had developed 

systems for monitoring Title I supplemental educational service providers’ 

effectiveness; however, very few had databases that would permit statewide 

examination of the achievement results of participating students. 

In 2004–05, states were still developing standards and processes for monitoring the performance of Title 

I supplemental educational service providers. Even among the 16 states that had documented 

monitoring standards in 2005, officials often reported that they were still fine-tuning the way in which 

they monitored providers. By 2006–07, however, 42 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico 

had documented monitoring standards, and in 17 of those states, officials had finalized them. Rural 

states with small numbers of students participating in Title I supplemental educational services (e.g., 

Idaho, Iowa, Montana) had made little progress in establishing monitoring processes by 2006–07. 

In 2006–07, the most common data sources that states used to monitor providers included surveys of 

districts, parents or students (in 13 states) and reports of student enrollment or attendance (11 states, the 

District of Columbia and Puerto Rico). Eight states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico took test 

scores into account, either from state assessments or from pre- and posttests administered by the 

providers. Officials in six states also monitored compliance issues, both legal and financial. Some states 

reported specific monitoring objectives. For example, Alaska monitored provider contacts with teachers, 

and Puerto Rico collected data on how providers communicated with parents. The District of Columbia 

monitored providers for enrollment of students with disabilities or limited English proficiency. Eight 

states reported that monitoring was a task that was generally left to the discretion of school districts. 

Nearly all state respondents reported that they were refining strategies to manage monitoring tasks but 

that staff capacity was a constraint. 

By 2006–07, 32 states and Puerto Rico had begun to conduct evaluations of the 

effectiveness of Title I supplemental educational service providers. 

By fall of the 2006–07 school year, 32 states and Puerto Rico had begun their supplemental educational 

service evaluations, and another 10 states anticipated beginning evaluations later in the school year. Of 

the states that had either started evaluations or planned to begin in the near future, 18 states and Puerto 

Rico were conducting the evaluation within the state education agency, and 22 states had hired external 

consultants to conduct the evaluation. One state—Oregon—was using both state education agency staff 

members and an external consultant for the evaluation. 

Thirty-two states and Puerto Rico planned to use state achievement test results as a primary source of 

data in their evaluation; of these, 12 states reported plans to use a matched comparison group of 

students. Twenty-one states and Puerto Rico also reported using achievement results from providerdeveloped assessments. With regard to other data sources, 26 states and Puerto Rico collected data on 

client satisfaction (primarily students and parents), six states on student attendance, and five states on 

school grades of participating students. 

As of 2006–07, eight states had databases containing student achievement and participation information 

that would permit rigorous evaluations of achievement effects of providers on a statewide basis. The 

states were Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Utah, Virginia and Tennessee. 
Chapter IV 55 

About one-third of providers of Title I supplemental educational services in 16 geographically 

diverse districts reported that states reviewed their reports of student attendance and met with 

districts to discuss implementation at least a few times during the year (see Exhibit 37). Twenty-four 

percent of providers reported that states observed supplemental educational service sessions, and 16 

percent reported that states tracked the academic achievement of participating students at least a few 

times a year. 

Exhibit 37 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by State and District Monitoring Mechanisms They Experienced 

at Least a Few Times During The Year, 2006–07 

21%

16%

32%

24%

36%

27%

21%

55%

49%

69%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Tracked grades, grade promotion, and/or graduation rates

of participating students

Tracked state achievement test scores of participating

students

Met w ith provider organizations to discuss implementation

Observed supplemental service sessions

Review ed reports of student attendance rates

Percentage of Providers

District monitoring

State monitoring

Exhibit reads: Sixty-nine percent of providers reported that districts reviewed reports of student 

attendance rates at least a few times per year, and 36 percent of providers reported that states did so. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 97 providers in 16 districts). 

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

evaluation of Title I supplemental educational services, providers continued to 

report that a larger percentage of districts monitored their services at least a few 

times a year than did states. 

About one-third of providers in a 16-district subsample reported that states tracked student attendance 

at least a few times a year, but almost three-quarters of providers reported that districts did so (see 

Exhibit 37). A little more than half of providers reported that districts met with them at least a few times 

per year to discuss implementation, while about one-third reported that states did so. Forty-nine percent 

of providers reported that districts observed supplemental educational service sessions, compared with 

24 percent of providers who reported that states did. This pattern has not changed since 2004–05. 

A few providers (10 percent) reported that they were not monitored by the state in any way, though less 

than 1 percent reported that they had received no monitoring from either their district or their state. 
Chapter IV 56 

STATE-PROVIDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR TITLE I SUPPLEMENTAL 

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

All states provided some level of technical assistance regarding Title I supplemental 

educational services. 

In 2006–07, all states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico reported that they provided some 

technical assistance to districts regarding the provision of Title I supplemental educational services, an 

increase from 40 states and the District of Columbia providing this assistance in 2004–05. Twenty-five 

states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico provided support through conferences or workshops; 

27 states provided written or Web-based materials, including sample letters or a toolkit. Officials from 

20 states and the District of Columbia reported that they were available by phone or e-mail on an “asneeded” basis, and 10 states held local meetings or conducted visits to districts with identified schools. 

Some states noted that they sought to facilitate contacts among districts: In Nevada, for example, state 

officials held meetings for districts with affected schools to “develop common contacts,” and in Indiana, 

successful districts led workshops for other districts. States also made use of regional networks. For 

example, Georgia conducted 15 regional conferences. 

State education agencies allocated an average of 1.3 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff members to these 

technical assistance-related tasks in 2006–07. Staffing ranged from 0.2 FTE staff members in West 

Virginia and Utah to nine FTE staff members in Florida. 

EXPENDITURES FOR TITLE I SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

Average per pupil expenditures for Title I supplemental educational services 

remained constant between 2003–04 and 2005–06 at about $838, but total 

expenditures for these services nearly doubled between these two years because of 

an increase in participants. 

Districts varied broadly in the amount they spent per student enrolled in Title I supplemental educational 

services. Thirty-two percent of districts spent less than $600 per student enrolled while 17 percent spent 

$1,200 or more (see Exhibit 38). Although districts’ average expenditure per student enrolled remained 

constant at $838 between 2003–04 and 2005–06, the average maximum amount that districts reported 

allocating per pupil for Title I supplemental educational services decreased by 20 percent from 2003–04 

($1,434) to 2005–06 ($1,134).29 Total spending on Title I supplemental educational services increased to 

$375 million in 2005–06 from $192 million in 2003–04 while expenditures for transportation of students 

who transferred under Title I public school choice increased from $24 million in 2003–04 to $56 million 

in 2005–06. 

 

29 The maximum amount a district may pay a provider for each child receiving services is the lesser of either (a) the 

actual cost of the services received by the child or (b) an amount equal to the district’s Title I, Part A allocation received 

from the state divided by the number of children ages 5–17 from families below the poverty level in the district (No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001, section 1116(e)(6)). This maximum per child expenditure for supplemental educational 

services varies broadly across states and districts within states. 
Chapter IV 57 

Exhibit 38 

Percentage of Districts, by Average Expenditure per Student Enrolled in Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, 2005–06 

32%

18%

32%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Less than $600 $601 - $900 $901 - $1,200 $1,200 or more

Average dollar expenditures per student enrolled in Title I Supplemental

Educational Services

Percentage of Districts

Exhibit reads: Thirty-two percent of districts spent an average of $600 or less per student enrolled in 

Title I supplemental educational services. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District survey (n = 100 districts). 

According to providers in the 16-district subsample, however, the average rate they charged to districts 

for services was $44 per student per hour, which has been estimated to average $1,584 per student in 

2005–06. This estimation is about twice the national average reported by districts. 30

Twenty-three percent of Title I supplemental service providers reported receiving payment for their 

services within one month of submitting their invoices. Another 64 percent received payment within one 

to two months of submitting their invoices, and 13 percent received payment after three months of 

submitting their invoices. 

SCHOOLS’ RELATIONSHIP WITH TITLE I SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICE 

PROVIDERS

In 2006–07, more principals of schools with students eligible for Title I supplemental 

educational services reported that these services were well aligned with school 

academic content standards than in 2003–04. 

Forty-four percent of principals reported that the Title I supplemental educational services provided to 

their students were well aligned with school academic content standards in mathematics and reading in 

2005–06, an increase from 24 percent of principals in 2003–04 and from 32 percent of principals in 

2004–05.31 Fewer principals reported in 2005–06 that they did not know how supplemental educational 

 

30 NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 31 Although schools do not generally have their own unique academic content standards, the survey question asked 

about the schools’ standards to avoid potential confusion between state standards and district standards. The phrasing 
Chapter IV 58 

services in mathematics and reading were aligned with school academic standards than they did in 2003–

04, about 25 percent in 2005–06 compared with about 40 percent in 2003–04 (see Exhibit 39). 

Teachers generally displayed less knowledge about the Title I supplemental educational services offered 

to students in their schools than principals did. In schools with students eligible for Title I supplemental 

educational services, 35 percent of teachers did not know whether students in their schools were actually 

being offered supplemental educational services. Elementary and middle school teachers were more 

likely than high school teachers to report that they knew whether their students were receiving these 

services (74 percent in elementary schools, 66 percent in middle schools, and 48 percent in high schools). 

Among teachers aware that students in their schools were participating in Title I supplemental 

educational services, the majority (91 percent) knew whether their own students were participating, and 

as discussed earlier in Chapter III, many of these teachers communicated with parents about their 

supplemental educational service options. 

In 2006–07, nearly all providers reported that they were communicating with the 

regular classroom teachers of their students at least a few times per year. 

Most providers in the 16-district subsample reported that, at least a few times per year, they 

communicated with their students’ teachers regarding student progress, student attendance and 

coordination of curriculum and instruction (see Exhibit 40). Fewer providers (58 percent) discussed their 

students’ achievement on state assessments with the students’ teachers a few times a year. Less than 50 

 was intended to allow principals to report on the content standards in use in their schools, regardless of the source of 

those standards. 

Exhibit 39 

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, 2005–06 

28%

4%

24%

44%

24%

10%

22%

44%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Don't Know

Not at All Aligned

Partially Aligned

Well Aligned

Percentage of Principals

Mathematics

Reading

Exhibit reads: In 2005–06, 44 percent of the principals at schools with students eligible for supplemental 

educational services said the services were well aligned with school academic content standards in reading. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey (n = 326 and 317 principals, respectively, for reading and mathematics). 
Chapter IV 59 

percent of providers communicated with teachers on any of these topics more often than a few times per 

year, such as monthly or weekly. 

Exhibit 40 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers and of Teachers 

Reporting That They Communicate With One Another, by Type of Communication, 

2006–07 

17%

38%

38%

38%

46%

58%

88%

81%

98%

92%

57%

66%

66%

69%

75%

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

Percentage of Providers or Teachers

As reported by

teachers (a few times

per year, semester or

month)

As reported by

providers (a few

times per year, month

or w eek)

As reported by

providers (a few

times per month or

w eek)

Exhibit reads: Seventy-five percent of teachers who knew their own students were receiving supplemental 

educational services reported that they communicated at least a few times per year with the supplemental 

educational service providers serving their students regarding student progress related to regular classroom 

instruction. 

Sources: Data from NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey and Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 71 

providers in 16 districts and 1,874 teachers). 

Among teachers who knew their own students were receiving supplemental educational services, threequarters said they had communicated at least a few times a year with supplemental educational service 

providers on student progress related to regular instruction. About two-thirds of these teachers 

communicated with providers at least a few times a year about their students’ progress on goals, 

coordination of curriculum or instruction, and students’ attendance (see Exhibit 40).

About half of providers (55 percent) in the 16-district subsample reported progress on individual 

students to their parents at least a few times a month, and 76 percent did so at least a few times per 

semester (see Exhibit 41). Compared with their communication with parents, providers were less likely 

to report to teachers, principals or district officials on individual student progress a few times per month, 

but they were more likely to report to teachers and district officials, and equally likely to report to 

principals, at least a few times per semester. Providers rarely reported to the state more than once or a 

few times per year about the progress of individual students; about 13 percent of providers reported to 
Chapter IV 60 

the state on individual student progress at least a few times per semester. About one-quarter of providers 

never reported progress on individual students to their teachers or principals. 

Exhibit 41 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting on the 

Progress of Individual Students, by Type of Recipient and Frequency, 2006–07 

Frequency of Reporting 

Recipient After Every Session or 

a Few Times a Month 

Few Times Per 

Semester 

Once Per Year or a 

Few Times Per Year Never 

Parents 55% 21% 24% 0% 

Teachers 21% 29% 23% 26%

Principals 13% 21% 36% 30% 

District officials 15% 31% 45% 11% 

The state 10% 3% 62% 25% 

Exhibit reads: Fifty-five percent of supplemental educational service providers reported that they 

reported to parents of students they served after every session or a few times per month. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 97 providers in 16 districts). 

PROVIDERS AND STUDENT ASSESSMENT 

In 2006–07, as in 2004–05, about half of providers of Title I supplemental educational 

services received certain information on the students they served before beginning 

tutoring services. 

Fifty-six percent of providers reported receiving at least one of several types of information about their 

students’ academic performance Before the initiation of services (see Exhibit 42). Forty-three percent of 

providers received student scores on state assessment, 31 percent of providers received student scores 

on other standardized tests and 21 percent received information on report cards.
Chapter IV 61 

Exhibit 42 

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

Information Received on Individual Students Before Providing Services, 2006–07 

56%

12%

21%

31%

43%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Received at least one type

of information

Examples of student w ork

Report card grades

Scores on other

standardized tests

Scores on state

assessment tests

Percentage of Providers

Exhibit reads: Forty-three percent of supplemental educational service providers reported that they 

received student scores on state assessment tests before providing supplemental educational services. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 101 providers in 16 districts). 

Although many providers did not receive information about students’ academic backgrounds, 95 percent 

of providers in the 16-district subsample reported formally assessing students before providing Title I 

supplemental educational services. Providers reported using a variety of instruments to assess the 

progress of students they were serving (see Exhibit 43). Approximately three quarters of providers 

assessed student progress at least a few times a month using assignments completed by students during 

the sessions, with nearly 80 percent of these providers doing it after every session. Approximately 

one-half of the providers used their own provider-developed tests or tests aligned with regular classroom 

instruction to evaluate student progress at least a few times per semester. About one-third of providers 

reported they used portfolios to assess progress at least a few times per semester. 

With two exceptions, the type of tests shown in Exhibit 43 that were used by providers to assess 

students’ achievement progress did not change between 2004–05 and 2006–07. In 2006–07, 14 percent 

of providers used district-developed assessments or benchmarks tests while 45 percent of providers used 

them in 2004–05. Similarly, fewer providers used assignments completed outside of their session in 

2006–07 than in 2004–05 (31 percent compared with 53 percent in 2004–05). 
Chapter IV 62 

Exhibit 43 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Assessing Students, 

by Type of Measure and Frequency, 2006–07

Frequency of Assessment

After Every Session or a 

Few Times Per Month 

Few Times Per 

Semester 

Once Per Year or a 

Few Times Per Year Never 

Tests developed by your 

organization 31% 21% 37% 11% 

Tests aligned with regular 

classroom instruction 28% 23% 21% 28% 

District-developed assessments

or benchmark tests 5% 1% 8% 86% 

Practice tests for state 

assessments 13% 4% 25% 58% 

Assignments completed by 

students during sessions with 

your organization 

78% 5% 11% 6% 

Assignments completed by 

students outside of sessions 

with your organization 

18% 1% 12% 68% 

Student portfolios 16% 20% 11% 52% 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-one percent of supplemental educational service providers reported using tests 

developed by their own organization to assess students after every session or a few times per month. 

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 101 providers in 16 districts).

DISCUSSION

Per pupil expenditures for Title I supplemental educational services in 2005–06 were similar to those in 

2003–04, averaging about $838, but overall expenditures nearly doubled to $375 million from $192 

million, mostly because of increased participation. The average maximum amount allocated per student 

for supplemental educational services decreased from $1,434 in 2004–05 to $1,134 in 2005–06. 

By 2006–07, 42 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, twice as many states as in 2004–05, had 

documented standards to monitor providers of Title I supplemental educational services and evaluate 

their effectiveness. Also, 32 states and Puerto Rico had begun to conduct evaluations of the effectiveness 

of their supplemental educational service providers, with about half of states using or planning to use 

external consultants to conduct this evaluation. 

Fifty-nine percent of providers reported that they had to renew their state approval for the 2006–07 

school year. Most providers rated the renewal process more demanding than the initial application. Only 

one change was made between 2004–05 and 2005–06 in the type and frequency of provisions included in 

provider contracts with districts; in 2005–06, twice as many districts than in 2004–05 required that their 

providers use the same standardized reporting form to establish student learning goals and evaluate 

student progress. 

According to providers, in 2006–07, as in 2004–05, districts were about twice as likely as states to 

observe supplemental educational service sessions and monitor supplemental educational service 

providers for student attendance, although NCLB only requires that states do so. When either states or 
Chapter IV 63 

districts did monitor providers, they most often reviewed student attendance records or observed service 

sessions. Less frequently, states and districts reviewed student grades and scores on state tests. 

Communications between providers and schools continued to be uneven. More principals knew whether 

the supplemental educational services provided to their students were well aligned with their school 

academic content standards in reading or math in 2005–06 than in 2003–04, but nearly a quarter of 

principals did not know how their standards aligned with those of providers serving their students. At 

the same time, almost half of providers continued to receive no information on individual student 

academic performance before providing services. Providers continued to rely primarily on tests 

developed by their organization and on completion of assignments during tutoring sessions to assess 

student performance and progress. 

As typically required by their contracts with districts, providers reported that they regularly 

communicated with teachers and parents. About three-quarters of providers reported on the progress of 

individual students “at least a few times per semester” to parents and one-half of providers did so with 

teachers. Many providers also reported discussing coordination of their curriculum and instruction with 

teachers, although less frequently than they discussed individual student progress. 

Chapter IV 65 

CONCLUSIONS 

The number of students eligible for Title I public school choice and supplemental educational services 

has steadily increased since 2002–03 to reach 6.9 million students eligible for public school choice and 

3.3 million eligible for supplemental educational services in 2006–07. The participation rates for these 

two programs, however, has remained steady at about 1 percent of students eligible for school choice 

and about 17 percent of those eligible for supplemental educational services. Although progress has been 

made, several notable issues may continue to contribute to these relatively low participation rates: 

1. Absence of available options. Although most districts that were required to offer Title I public 

school choice did so at the elementary level, fewer districts did so at the middle school level 

(41 percent) and at the high school level (22 percent). About half the districts that did not 

offer school choice at the middle school and high school levels did not offer it because 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). With respect to supplemental 

educational services, providers were far less likely to offer services to high school students 

than to elementary and middle school students. 

2. Timing of notification. Even though many more states were able to provide districts with 

preliminary notification of the identification status of their schools before August in 

2006–07 than in 2004–05 (24 compared with seven), a majority of districts continued not 

to notify parents of students eligible for Title I public school choice before the beginning 

of the school year or in time for parents to make an informed decision. In 2006–07, 57 

percent of districts did not notify parents before the first day of school. Districts that 

notified parents of students eligible for school choice before the beginning of the school 

year continued to have higher participation rates than did those that notified parents after 

school had started. 

3. Poor communication with parents. Although almost all of the districts offering Title I public 

school choice and supplemental educational services reported that they notified parents of 

the options available to their children, many parents of eligible students continued to report 

that they were not aware of these options. In eight large, urban districts subsampled for 

additional study, only 20 percent of parents of elementary students who were eligible for 

public school choice indicated they had been notified of the availability of the option to 

move their child to another school in 2006–07, the same percentage as in 2004–05. About 

60 percent of parents reported they were notified about the availability of supplemental 

educational services. When parents reported that they had been notified (most frequently by 

written notification), they also reported that, although the information they received was 

understandable, it often did not contain information on how to apply or whom to contact 

with questions. 

4. Parental Preferences. In a sample of eight large, urban districts, more than nine in ten parents 

who were notified that their child was eligible for Title I public school choice did not apply 

to transfer to another school. The most common reasons given for the decision not to 

transfer were satisfaction with the quality of their child’s school, convenience of their child’s 

school, and the fact that their child did not want to move. More parents in the eight large, 

urban district sample chose to enroll eligible children in supplemental educational services. 

However, 43 percent of parents who were notified of their child’s eligibility for these 

services did not enroll their child for such services. About half of these parents said they had 
Chapter IV 66 

declined to participate because their child did not need the help. Another frequently given 

reason was that the services were provided at a time that was inconvenient for the family. 

Although few parents availed themselves of the Title I public school choice option, when they did, they 

rated the school to which their child transferred much higher (an average of B) than the school their 

child had left (an average of C-). 

Parents of students eligible for the Title I parental choice options were offered an increasing number of 

transfer schools and supplemental educational service providers from which they could choose during 

the time period covered by this study. For instance, 90 percent of districts that offered public school 

choice offered two or more choices of transfer elementary schools in 2006–07, up from 78 percent in 

2004–05. Similarly, 69 percent of districts offered five or more providers of supplemental educational 

services in 2005–06, up from 38 percent in 2003–04. 

Increased parental choices of Title I supplemental educational service providers resulted from the rapid 

growth in the number of providers, which more than tripled between May 2003 and May 2007, leveling 

off at about 3,050 in 2008. This growth in number of providers has come with a change in type and 

characteristics of providers. Between May 2003 and May 2008, the share of private supplemental 

educational service providers increased from 60 percent to 88 percent while the share of district and 

school providers decreased from 32 percent to 10 percent. The average size of supplemental educational 

service providers doubled between 2004–05 and 2006–07 to an average of 79 staff members per 

provider. At the same time, the experience of their staff members decreased. The average tutoring 

experience of staff members declined from an average of 10 years in 2004–05 to an average of seven 

years in 2006–07. Providers also became less likely to rely on full-time teachers tutoring in their school’s 

district and also less likely to employ teachers whose classroom students they also tutored. The number 

of hours of services to participating students averaged 45. 

By 2006–07, states made further progress developing documented standards to monitor providers of 

Title I supplemental educational services and evaluate their effectiveness. Forty-two states, the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico had documented monitoring standards in 2006–07 compared with 16 states 

in 2004–05. Thirty-two of these states and Puerto Rico had begun to conduct evaluations of the 

effectiveness of their Title I supplemental educational service providers, although most did not yet have 

the capacity to evaluate providers on the basis of progress in student achievement. Providers reported 

that they had to renew their state approvals for the 2006–07 school year, and they rated the renewal 

process as being more demanding than the initial application. 

Although all providers reported that they generally communicated with the parents of their students with 

some frequency, communications among providers, teachers and principals continued to be uneven. 

Twenty-six percent of providers reported that they never reported on the progress of individual students 

to any of their teachers, almost half of providers did not receive information on the academic 

performance of the students they served before beginning services, and about a quarter of principals did 

not know how the services provided to their students were aligned with their schools’ standards in 

reading or math. 
References 67 

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.: The Center on Education Policy. http://www.cepdc.org/docWindow.cfm?fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=194&documentF

ormatid=1183 (accessed September 8, 2006). 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. 20 U.S.C. §§2701 et seq. 

Government Accountability Office. 2006. Education actions needed to improve local implementation and state 

evaluation of supplemental services. GAO-06-758. Washington, D.C.: Government Accountability 

Office. 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. 

Ohlsson, E. 1995. Coordination of samples using permanent random numbers. In Business survey methods, 

ed. B. Cox, D. Binder, B. Chinnappa, A. Christianson, M. Colledge, and P. Kott, 153–69. New 

York: John Wiley.

U.S. Department of Education. 2005b. Non-regulatory guidance on supplemental educational services. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsvcsguid.pdf (accessed May 30, 2008). 

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

Program Studies Service. 2005a. Case studies of supplemental services under the No Child Left Behind

Act: Findings from 2003–04. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. 

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/supplementalyear2/final-year2.pdf (accessed August 

25, 2006).

———. 2006. Title I accountability and school improvement from 2001 to 2004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education. 

———. 2007. State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume I—Title I school choice, 

supplemental educational services, and student achievement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education. http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/implementation/achievementanalysis.pdf 

(accessed January 30, 2008). 

———. Forthcoming. Title I implementation: Update on recent evaluation findings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education.

Appendix A 69 

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, school choice and supplemental 

educational services, and targeting and resource allocation. 

The development of data collection instruments for the NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB was coordinated to 

ensure coverage of the same set of policy issues through an integrated set of questions pertinent to each 

type of respondent at the state, district and school levels. Taken together, the two studies provide a 

linked dataset based on surveys of states, districts, schools, teachers, paraprofessionals, parents and 

providers of supplemental educational services as well as extant data on resource allocation and student 

achievement, that provides a unique resource for understanding the implementation of the key 

provisions of No Child Left Behind in both Title I and non–Title I schools. Two waves of data were 

collected: the first in the 2004–05 school year and the second in the 2006–07 school year. 

SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES 

The nationally representative sample selected for NLS-NCLB included 300 districts plus three 

replacement districts. The sampling frame included all districts with at least one public and regular school 

in the 2001 National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data school database. The sample 

was selected using a probability proportional to size scheme in which the measure of size was district 

enrollment; 36 very large districts were selected with certainty. To ensure sufficient sample sizes of 

schools identified for improvement under Title I, the study oversampled 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 

school-age children who were poor and then dividing these districts into quartiles that each contains 

25 percent of the school-age children. The same 300 districts were surveyed in 2004–05 and 2006–07. 

The 2004–05 school sample included 1,502 schools randomly sampled from strata within sampled 

districts. Title I schools, high-poverty schools, and elementary schools with Comprehensive School 

Reform (CSR) programs were oversampled. Title I status and the percentage of students eligible for free 

or reduced-price lunches in schools were taken from the Common Core of Data maintained by the 

National Center for Education Statistics. The eligibility threshold for the subsidized lunch program is 

lower than the official poverty definition. Elementary CSR schools were identified through the 

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory database on CSR schools. The sample of schools was 

designed so, on average, two non-CSR schools, one CSR school, one middle school, and one high school 

were selected from each district. The same schools were surveyed in both waves. The Wave 2 school 

sample (1,487) that was surveyed was slightly larger than the Wave 1 sample (1,483) because (a) some 

schools changed status between waves, resulting in splits and mergers, and (b) our sampling rules called 

for maintaining in the Wave 2 sample the Wave 1 schools and their immediate successors. 

The teacher samples 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 
Appendix A 70 

selected per school. One Title I paraprofessional was selected from each Title I school. A different 

sample of teachers was drawn in 2004–05 and in 2006–07, with an effort not to select the same teachers 

in both waves. The resulting 2004–05 sample included a total of 8,791 classroom teachers (4,772 

elementary teachers, 2,081 secondary English teachers and 1,938 secondary mathematics teachers), 1,408 

special education teachers and 950 paraprofessionals. The 2006–07 sample included a total of 8,919 

classroom teachers (4,783 elementary teachers, 2,116 English teachers and 2,020 mathematics teachers), 

1,416 special education teachers and 820 paraprofessionals. Both waves of the study used a system of 

Permanent Random Numbers for purposes of selecting teachers within grade and subject specific 

teacher strata (Ohlsson 1995). The method minimized the overlap between the sets of teachers selected 

in 2004–05 and 2006–07, thus controlling response burden and potential conditioning effects. 

Of the 303 districts initially selected as the 2004–05 sample, 300 districts agreed to participate. The 

project achieved a cooperation rate of 99 percent in 2004–05. Of the 300 Title I coordinators that 

received a district official survey within the cooperating districts, 289 responded by returning completed 

surveys in 2004–05, yielding a completion rate of 96 percent. In 2006–07, continued participation was 

agreed on by all 300 districts; two Title I coordinators did not return completed surveys in 2006–2007 

for a completion rate of 99 percent. The completion rate for principal surveys in sampled schools in 

2004–05 was 89 percent and in 2006–07, 94 percent. Among teachers, completion rates were highest for 

elementary teachers at 86 percent (2004–05) and 87 percent (2006–07) while English and mathematics 

teachers responded at rates of 82 percent to 85 percent in both waves (see Exhibit A.1). 

Exhibit A.1 

Sample Sizes and Survey Completion Rates for National Longitudinal Study of 

NCLB Surveys, 2004–05 and 2006–07 

Sample Size Completed Surveys Survey Completion 

Rate 

2004–05 2006–07 2004–05 2006–07 2004–05 2006–07 

Districts 300 300 289 298 96% 99% 

School principals 1,483 1,487 1,315 1,392 89% 94% 

Elementary teachers 4,772 4,783 4,089 4,162 86% 87% 

English teachers 2,081 2,116 1,707 1,777 82% 84% 

Mathematics teachers 1,938 2,020 1,598 1,706 82% 85% 

Special education teachers 1,408 1,416 1,191 1,194 85% 84% 

Paraprofessionals 950 820 828 746 87% 91% 

 

Exhibit A.2 presents characteristics of the 2004–05 district and school samples compared with the 

universe of districts and schools based on the Common Core of Data files. As intended, the sample 

contains higher proportions of high-poverty districts and schools compared with the universe. 
Appendix A 71 

Exhibit A.2 

Characteristics of National Longitudinal Study of NCLB District and School Sample 

Compared with the Universe of Districts and Schools, 2004–05 

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% 

 Data 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% 

 Data 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% 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source: Sample and universe based on 2001–02 National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data. 

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 (a) availability of the necessary longitudinal individual student achievement data 

and (b) sufficient numbers of students participating in the Title I public school choice and supplemental 

educational services options to enable sampling of about 100 parents in each district who had children 

participating in the Title I public school choice option and an additional 100 parents with children 

receiving Title I supplemental educational services. Because these districts were all large, urban districts, 

they do not reflect the diversity of Title I districts. In 2004–05, only eight districts could provide the 

necessary information to sample parents (one of the original nine districts selected in Wave 1 did not 

provide the data needed to select a parent sample). In 2006–07, separate sets of parents were sampled in 

these same eight districts. 

A stratified simple random sample of about 400 parents was selected in each of the eight districts in 

2004–05 and 2006–07. In each district, four strata were created for use in sampling parents. Three of the 

strata included parents of children in elementary schools identified for improvement. Depending on 

what action was taken by the parents of these children who were all eligible to transfer, receive 
Appendix A 72 

supplemental educational services or both, the parents fell into one of three strata: Stratum 1— parents 

of children who transferred under NCLB; Stratum 2— parents of children who did not transfer, but 

who received supplemental educational services; or Stratum 3— parents of children who did not transfer 

or receive supplemental educational services. Stratum 4 included parents of children who were in 

elementary schools not identified for improvement. 

Sample sizes of 100 students were randomly selected with equal probabilities from each stratum within 

each district. Districts generally fell short of the 100 sample size within the transfer stratum, and thus the 

total sample size in some districts was fewer than 400. One district did not distinguish transfers under 

NCLB from other transfers in their district and thus had a sample equally distributed within strata 1, 2, 

and 3. In 2004–05, a total of 3,094 parents were sampled of whom 1,866 completed surveys for a 

response rate of 60 percent, and in 2006–07, 3,051 parents were sampled of whom 1,876 completed 

surveys for a response rate of 61 percent. 

Exhibit A.3 

Sample Sizes and Response Rates 

for National Longitudinal Study of NCLB Parent Surveys 

Sample Size Completed 

Surveys 

Survey 

Completion 

Rate 

2004–05 2006–07 2004–05 2006–07 2004–05 2006–07 

Parents of children who transferred under NCLB 602 538 403 337 67% 63% 

Parents of children in identified schools 

participating in supplemental educational services 

under NCLB

839 833 493 512 59% 61% 

Parents of children in identified schools who did not

transfer or participate in supplemental educational 

services under NCLB 

798 842 439 458 55% 54% 

Parents of children who were in schools not 

identified for improvement 855 838 531 569 62% 68% 

All parents 3,094 3,051 1,866 1,876 60% 61% 

 

Supplemental educational service providers were also surveyed in these eight districts and in an 

additional eight districts where supplemental educational services were being offered in both 2004–05 

and 2006–07. The additional eight districts were randomly selected in 2004–05 from high-poverty 

districts distributed across regions and across mid-sized cities and suburban and rural areas. Ten 

supplemental educational service providers were randomly chosen in each of the 16 districts, except in 

districts with fewer than 10 providers, where all providers were surveyed. In districts where the district 

itself was providing supplemental educational services, the district was surveyed in addition to the 10 

other providers. In 2004–05, a total of 125 providers were surveyed and 103 surveys were completed for 

a response rate of 82 percent. In 2006–07, a total of 130 providers were surveyed (drawn separately from 

the 2004-05 sample) and 107 surveys were completed 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 in 2004–05 only, 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. 
Appendix A 73 

Across all survey items, nonresponse was generally very 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. 

Item-level imputations for missing data were made in only one instance in 2004–05. Missing data were 

imputed for principal survey data on the total number of elementary classroom teachers and secondary 

classes, which were used as denominators for calculating the percentage of elementary teachers who were 

considered highly qualified under NCLB and the percentage of secondary classes that were taught by 

highly qualified teachers, respectively. Out of 930 elementary school principals, 18 did not answer the 

survey item asking about the total number of classroom teachers at their schools, and 36 out of 385 

secondary school principals did not answer the survey item about the total number of class sections. 

Data for elementary classroom teachers were imputed by taking the student-to-teacher ratios for the 

principals who answered the item and then fitting a regression model onto this ratio using the total 

number of students enrolled and the school poverty level as the predictors. Using the regression 

coefficients, the predicted student-teacher ratio was computed for each of the 18 schools and then 

converted to the estimated number of classroom teachers in the school. Data on the total number of 

secondary class sections were imputed in a similar manner. There were two elementary school principals 

and five secondary school principals whose values could not be imputed because of missing values in the 

predictor variables. 

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, 

parents and supplemental educational service providers. In some instances, parents were surveyed by 

telephone. Survey administration for Wave 1 began in October 2004 and was completed in March 2005, 

except for the parent and supplemental educational service provider surveys that began in early 2005 and 

extended into October 2005. Survey administration of the second wave began in October 2006 and was 

completed in April 2007, except for the parent and supplemental educational service providers that 

extended into May 2007. 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 public school choice and supplemental educational services, 

teacher quality, and professional development. In addition, in 2004–05, NLS-NCLB gathered pertinent 

documents, including district and school improvement plans and school report cards, 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 was 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, 
Appendix A 74 

monitoring of 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) and 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 policies, assessment systems and technical assistance. 

A national database of the AYP and improvement statuses of all schools in the country was created from 

data provided by state education officials, located on state education agency Web sites, reported on the 

CSPRs and (for approximately half of the states in 2005–06) provided by state education officials 

through the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN). The database contains AYP results from 

2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 and identification for improvement statuses for 2004–05, 2005–06 and 

2006–07. The resulting database contains more than 89,000 schools (including both Title I and non–Title 

I schools) in 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. It does not include approximately 

3,500 schools for which states reported AYP as “not determined” as well as about 4,000 schools that 

were not included in state-provided data files. 

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 the samples and the defined 

survey population, and the weights were controlled to the population counts of districts and schools.

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. B-weights also were calculated for teachers. 

In addition to the weights mentioned above, several sets of longitudinal weights were calculated. 

Although all 300 Wave 1 districts also cooperated in Wave 2, there was differential nonresponse with 

respect to the number of Title I coordinators who returned completed questionnaires. For 11 districts, 

the Title I coordinator responded in Wave 2 but not in Wave 1, and in one district, the Title I 

coordinator did not respond in either wave, leaving 288 longitudinal district weights. 

There were 1,363 schools that continued from Wave 1 to Wave 2 without any major status changes and 

that had a principal respondent, teacher respondent or both in both waves. Three sets of school level 

weights were used as base weights for calculating principal and teacher weights for respective 

respondents in these 1,363 longitudinal schools. There were 1,165 longitudinal schools that had survey 

responses from principals in both waves (not necessarily the same individuals) and 1,326 longitudinal 

schools that had responses from teachers or paraprofessionals in both waves. School-level base weights 
Appendix A 75 

for 1,315 responding Wave 1 principals, already adjusted for nonresponse and forced to add up to the 

Wave 1 control total of 83,298 schools (principals), were used as input to calculate the 1,165 longitudinal 

principal weights. Base weights used for calculating weights for the 8,488 (Wave 1) and 8,623 (Wave 2) 

teachers in these schools were already adjusted for school-level nonresponse related to the appropriate 

wave before multiplying by their respective conditional teacher weights. The calculation methods for the 

sets of Wave 2 cross-sectional and all longitudinal weights for districts, schools and teachers are 

described below. 

District Weights—2004–05 

Step 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 National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data school database, 

stratified by region (NE, MW, S, W) crossed with poverty status (high, low). The sample was 

selected using a probability proportional to size scheme, where the measure of size was district 

enrollment; however, 36 very large districts were selected with certainty. 

Step 2. After substitution for three noncooperating districts, revised base weights corresponding to the 

expanded sample of 303 districts were computed. 

Step 3. Noncooperation-adjusted weights were computed. Because there were only three noncooperating 

districts, response rates approached 100 percent. The noncooperation adjustment cells were 

defined by crossing district certainty status (certainty, noncertainty) by stratum. Because all 

certainty districts responded, no nonresponse adjustment was made to them. 

Step 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 noncooperation adjustment in 

Step 3, response rates approached 100 percent. The nonresponse cells were defined by crossing 

district certainty status (certainty, noncertainty) by region (NE, MW, S, W) and poverty status 

(high, low). Because all certainty districts responded, no nonresponse adjustment was made to 

them. 

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

Step 6. The weights were raked to control totals for number of districts in the universe 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 noncertainty districts. The certainty districts maintained their original 

weights of 1.0. 

Step 7. Three noncertainty districts had a raked weight of less than 1.00. The raked weight was reset to 

1.00 for these three districts to produce the final raked B-weights for districts. 

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

Step 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 that represent the population of 
Appendix A 76 

students. One may use these weights to estimate the number or proportion of students who are 

in districts with a certain attribute. 

District Weights—2006–07 

Step 1. All 300 Wave 1 cooperating districts also cooperated in Wave 2. So beginning with the 

noncooperation-adjusted weights discussed under district weights for 2004–05, a second 

adjustment was made, accounting for 2 cooperating districts whose Title I coordinators did not 

complete and return their questionnaires (recall that there were 11 such districts in Wave 1). 

Similar to the noncooperation adjustment, response rates approached 100 percent. The 

nonresponse cells were defined by crossing district certainty status (certainty, noncertainty) by 

region (NE, MW, S, W) and poverty status (high, low). Because all certainty districts responded, 

no nonresponse adjustment was made to them. 

Step 2. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to three district outlier weights for the Wave 2 

cross-sectional weights. 

Step 3. Raking to district totals was based 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 0.0001, convergence was satisfied after eight iterations. Note that raking 

applied only to the noncertainty districts. 

Step 4. Five noncertainty Wave 2 districts had a raked weight of less than 1.00. The raked weights were 

reset to 1.00 for these five districts to produce final district B-weights. These weights are to be 

used for the cross-sectional Title I coordinator analyses. 

Step 5. The final district level raked cross-sectional B-weights were then multiplied by district enrollment 

(obtained from the district level 2001–02 Common Core of Data file). 

Step 6. 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 0.0001, convergence was satisfied after 10 iterations (for 

each set). These raked weights are the final district level A-weights that represent the population 

of students. One may use these weights to estimate the number or proportion of students who 

are in districts with a certain attribute. 

Title I Coordinator Survey Longitudinal Weights—2006–07 

Step 1. Longitudinal district weights for the NCLB Title I Coordinator Longitudinal Survey began with 

the noncooperation-adjusted district weights calculated for 2004–05. 

Step 2. One of the 2 districts whose Title I coordinator did not complete and return the questionnaire 

for Wave 2 was also among the 11 nonresponding districts in Wave 1. Thus, 12 of 300 districts 

did not respond in either Wave 1 or Wave 2, leaving 288 districts whose Title I coordinators 

responded in both waves. Similar to the noncooperation adjustment, response rates approached 

100 percent. The nonresponse cells were defined by crossing district certainty status (certainty, 

noncertainty) by stratum. Because all certainty districts responded, no nonresponse adjustment 

was made to them. 
Appendix A 77 

Step 3. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to three district outlier weights for the longitudinal 

weights. 

Step 4. Raking to district totals was based 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 0.0001, convergence was satisfied after eight iterations. Note that raking 

applied only to the noncertainty districts. 

Step 5. Four noncertainty longitudinal districts had a raked weight of less than 1.00. The raked weights 

were reset to 1.00 for these four districts to produce the final district level B-weights for 

longitudinal Title I coordinator analyses. 

Step 6. The final district-level raked longitudinal A-weights were then multiplied by the corresponding 

district enrollment (obtained from the district level 2001–02 Common Core of Data file). 

Step 7. 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 0.0001, convergence was satisfied after 10 iterations. 

These raked weights are the final district-level A-weights that represent the population of 

students. One may use these weights to estimate the number or proportion of students who are 

in districts with a certain attribute. 

School Weights—2004–05 

Step 1. Principal (school level) weights began with the 2004–05 noncooperation adjusted district weights. 

Step 2. The conditional school (principal) base weight was computed as the reciprocal of the school 

inclusion probability after allowing for replacement schools, mergers, splits and any other status 

changes. 

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

school conditional weights. 

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

Step 5. Schools that were closed were given a weight of zero. 

Step 6. An adjustment was made to the weights for the remaining (open) schools, accounting for 

noncooperating schools. 

Step 7. Using the noncooperation-adjusted school weight from Step 6, a second nonresponse adjustment 

was made for responding principals, accounting for 168 missing principal questionnaires. 

Step 8. A Winsorization adjustment was made for seven extreme principal weights, resulting in 

preliminary principal B-weights. 

Step 9. These weights were raked to school (principal) 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 principal B-weight. 
Appendix A 78 

Step 10. Two cases had weights Winsorized. The result is called the outlier adjusted raked principal 

B-weight. 

Step 11. Ten principals had a raked weight of less than 1.00. They were reset to 1.00 while the rest of the 

principal sample maintained its weights from Step 11. The result is the final raked principal 

B-weights. 

Step 12. These raked B-weights were multiplied by school enrollment (obtained from the school-level 

Common Core of Data file). 

Step 13. A Winsorization adjustment was made for seven extreme weights. The result is called the 

preliminary A-weights. 

Step 14. 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 principal A-weights that 

represent the population of students. One may use these weights to estimate the number or 

proportion of students who are in schools with a certain attribute. 

School Weights—2006–07 

Step 1. Principal (school level) cross-sectional weights for Wave 2 began with the 2006–07 

noncooperation-adjusted district weights. 

Step 2. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to four district outliers. 

Step 3. The conditional school (principal) base weight was computed as the reciprocal of the final 1,483 

Wave 1 school inclusion probabilities after allowing for Wave 2 splits, merges, redistricting and any other 

status changes that resulted in the 1,488 schools eligible to participate in Wave 2. Only one of these 

1,488 Wave 2 schools failed to cooperate. 

Step 4. The school base weight was computed by multiplying the Step 2 district level weights by the Step 

3 school conditional weights. 

Step 5. Schools determined to be closed since Wave 1 were given a weight of zero if one or more 

successors had been identified; that is, the probabilities of selection were updated for the successor 

schools. Schools determined to be out-of-scope in Wave 1 or since Wave 1 were given missing weights. 

Step 6. An adjustment distributing the weights of the closed schools that did not have successors 

identified and of the weight of the one noncooperating school was made to the weights for the 

remaining (open) schools. 

Step 7. Using the adjusted school weight from Step 6, a second nonresponse adjustment was made, 

accounting for 95 missing Wave 2 principal questionnaires from the 1,487 Wave 2 schools that had 

agreed to cooperate (recall that there were 168 principals with missing questionnaires—1,315 principal 

respondents—in Wave 1). 

Step 8. A Winsorization adjustment was made for four extreme principal weights resulting in preliminary 

principal B weights. 
Appendix A 79 

Step 9. Step 8 weights were raked to school (principal) totals on four dimensions: school size (four 

categories, imputed for nonlongitudinal Wave 2 schools using the previous record’s school size value 

after sorting the dataset by imputed school level—elementary, middle and high school—region and 

poverty level, district size, metropolitan status, district, low and high grade and school unidentifiable 

identification code), region by poverty strata (eight categories), Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three 

categories) and school type (four categories based on imputed school level and CSR/Title I status). With 

a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after six iterations. 

Step 10. Four extreme principal weights were Winsorized. 

Step 11. Finally, 15 principals had a raked weight of less than 1.00. They were reset to 1.00 while the rest 

of the principal sample maintained its weights from Step 10. The result is the final Wave 2 principal 

B-weight. Note that the sum of the Wave 1 and Wave 2 B-weights differ little (83,298 in Wave 1 versus 

83,301.38 in Wave 2). 

Step 12. These principal B-weights were then multiplied by school enrollment (obtained from the school 

level 2001–02 Common Core of Data file). 

Step 13. A Winsorization adjustment was made for one extreme weight. 

Step 14. Finally, these weights were raked to school enrollment on four dimensions: imputed school size 

(four categories), region by poverty strata (eight categories), Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three 

categories) and imputed school type (four categories as described above). With a tolerance level set at 

0.001, convergence was satisfied after seven iterations. The resulting weights are the final principal 

A-weights that represent the population of students. One may use these weights to estimate the number 

or proportion of students who are in schools with a certain attribute. 

Principal Survey Longitudinal Weights—2006–07 

Step 1. Longitudinal principal survey weights began with 1,315 final Wave 1 weights already adjusted for 

nonresponse and forced to add up to the Wave 1 control total of 83,298 schools(principals). 

Step 2. Using the nonresponse-adjusted principal weight from Step 1, a second nonresponse adjustment 

was made, accounting for 150 of the 1,315 Wave 1 principals that either were missing a 

questionnaire from Wave 2 or were not in one of the 1,363 longitudinal schools (of which 1,287 

had principals who responded in either Wave 1 or Wave 2). 

Step 3. A Winsorization adjustment was made for four extreme principal weights. 

Step 4. Step 3 weights were raked to school (principal) totals on four dimensions: school size (four 

categories, imputed for nonlongitudinal Wave 2 schools using the previous record’s school size 

value after sorting the dataset by imputed school level—elementary, middle and high school—

region and poverty level, district size, metropolitan status, district, low and high grade, and 

school unidentifiable identification code), region by poverty strata (eight categories), 

Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three categories) and school type (four categories based on 

imputed school level and CSR/Title I Status). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence 

was satisfied after six iterations. 

Step 5. Four cases had weights Winsorized. 
Appendix A 80 

Step 6. Fifteen principals had a raked weight of less than 1.00. They were reset to 1.00 while the rest of 

the principal sample maintained its weights from Step 5. The result is the final longitudinal 

principal B-weight. Note that both Wave 1 and Wave 2 B-weights totaled 83,298. 

Step 7. These principal B-weights were then multiplied by school enrollment (obtained from the school 

level 2001–02 Common Core of Data file). 

Step 8. A Winsorization adjustment was made for one extreme weight. 

Step 9. Finally, these weights were raked to school enrollment on four dimensions: imputed school size 

(four categories), region by poverty strata (eight categories), Metropolitan Status Code 2001 

(three categories) and imputed school type (four categories as described above). With a tolerance 

level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after seven iterations. The resulting weights are the 

final A-weights that represent the population of students. One may use these weights to estimate 

the number or proportion of students who are in schools with a certain attribute. 

Teacher Weights—2004–05 

Step 1. Teacher weights began with the noncooperation-adjusted school weight from Step 6 of the 

2004–05 principal (school) B-weights. 

Step 2. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to seven extreme school weights. 

Step 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. 

Step 4. Two cases had weights Winsorized. 

Step 5. Fifteen schools had a raked weight of less than 1.00. These weights were reset to 1.00, while the 

rest of the school sample maintained the weight from Step 4. 

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

selection. 

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

weight. 

Step 8. Teachers determined to be ineligible or out of scope (assuming no permanent replacement 

teacher was available) were given a weight of zero. 

Step 9. A nonresponse adjustment was made for teachers who refused to complete the questionnaire and 

for a proportion of the teachers with unknown eligibility (this weight adjustment was 

implemented in two steps, first, adjusting for nonresolution of eligibility status and, second, 

adjusting for nonresponse). Nonresponse adjustment cells were defined by crossing region by 

poverty strata (eight categories) by teacher strata (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 seventhand eighth-grade English language arts teachers. 
Appendix A 81 

Step 10. The nonresponse adjusted weights were then adjusted for outliers. Outliers were defined to be 

any weights that were at or above the 99.5 percentile within a nonresponse adjustment cell. 

Fifty-one outliers were flagged and Winsorized. 

Longitudinal Teacher Survey Weights—2004–05 

Step 1. Longitudinal teacher survey weights began with the raked Winsorized noncooperation-adjusted 

school weight from Step 5 of the 2004–05 teacher B-weights. 

Step 2. Selecting only the weights from the 1,326 longitudinal schools that had a teacher, 

paraprofessional or both who responded in both waves, these weights were renormalized so they 

total 82838.65, the sum of the raked school weights in Wave 1. 

Step 3. The conditional teacher base weight was computed as the reciprocal of the teacher probability of 

selection. 

Step 4. The teacher base weights were calculated by multiplying the Step 2 weights by the Step 3 

conditional weights. 

Step 5. Teachers determined to be ineligible or out of scope (assuming no permanent replacement 

teacher was available) were given a weight of zero. 

Step 6. A nonresponse adjustment was made for teachers who refused to complete the questionnaire and 

for a proportion of the teachers with unknown eligibility (this weight adjustment was 

implemented in two steps, first, adjusting for nonresolution of eligibility status and, second, 

adjusting for nonresponse). Nonresponse adjustment cells were defined by crossing region by 

poverty strata (eight categories) by teacher strata (14 categories), with the collapsing of a few 

small cells (those with fewer than 30 cases). Collapsing of small cells involved cells for seventhand eighth-grade mathematics teachers, and seventh- and eighth-grade English language arts 

teachers. 

Step 7. The nonresponse adjusted weights were then adjusted for outliers. Outliers were defined to be 

any weights that were at or above the 99.5 percentile within a nonresponse adjustment cell. 

Forty-six outliers were flagged and Winsorized. 

Step 8. Finally, the above weights are renormalized so they add to the sum of the final Wave 1 weights 

within each teacher stratum. 

Teacher Weights—2006–07 

Step 1. Teacher weights began with the noncooperation-adjusted school weight from Step 6 of the 

2006–07 principal (school) B-weights. 

Step 2. Using the noncooperation-adjusted school weight from Step 1, a second adjustment was made, 

accounting for five rostered Wave 2 schools that had agreed to cooperate, but in the end did not 

complete and return any type of questionnaire for the principal or any teacher (or 

paraprofessional). 

Step 3. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to four extreme school weights. 
Appendix A 82 

Step 4. Those weights were then raked to school totals on four dimensions: school size (four categories, 

imputed for nonlongitudinal Wave 2 schools using the previous record’s school size value after 

sorting the dataset by imputed school level—elementary, middle and high school—region and 

poverty level, district size, metropolitan status, district, low and high grade, and school 

unidentifiable identification code), region by poverty strata (eight categories), Metropolitan 

Status Code 2001 (three categories) and school type (four categories based on imputed school 

level and CSR/Title I Status). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after 

six iterations. 

Step 5. Four cases had weights Winsorized. 

Step 6. Fifteen schools had a raked weight of less than 1.00. These weights were reset to 1.00 while the 

rest of the school sample maintained the weight from Step 4. Note that the sums of the Wave 1 

and Wave 2 B-weights differ very little (83,298 in Wave 1 versus 83,301.28 in Wave 2). 

Step 7. The conditional teacher base weight was computed as the reciprocal of the teacher probability of 

selection. 

Step 8. The teacher base weight was calculated by multiplying the Step 5 weight by the Step 6 conditional 

weight. 

Step 9. Teachers determined to be ineligible or out of scope (assuming no permanent replacement 

teacher was available) were given a weight of zero. 

Step 10. A nonresponse adjustment was made for teachers who refused to complete the questionnaire 

and for a proportion of the teachers with unknown eligibility (this weight adjustment was 

implemented in two steps, first, adjusting for nonresolution of eligibility status and, second, 

adjusting for nonresponse). Nonresponse adjustment cells were defined by crossing region by 

poverty strata (eight categories) by teacher strata (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 seventhand eighth-grade English language arts teachers. 

Step 11. The nonresponse adjusted weights were then adjusted for outliers. Outliers were defined to be 

any weights that were at or above the 99.5 percentile within nonresponse adjustment cell. Fifty 

outliers were flagged and Winsorized. 

Step 12. Finally, the above weights are renormalized so they add to the sum of the final Wave 1 teacher 

weights within each teacher stratum. 

Longitudinal Teacher Survey Weights—2006–07 

Step 1. Longitudinal teacher survey weights began with the raked Winsorized noncooperation-adjusted 

school weight from Step 5 of the 2006–07 teacher B-weights. 

Step 2. Selecting only the weights from the 1,326 longitudinal schools that had a teacher, 

paraprofessional or both who responded in both waves, these weights were renormalized so they 

total 82838.65, the sum of the raked school weights in Wave 1. 
Appendix A 83 

Step 3. The conditional teacher base weight was computed as the reciprocal of the teacher probability of 

selection. 

Step 4. The teacher base weights were calculated by multiplying the Step 2 weights by the Step 3 

conditional weights. 

Step 5. Teachers determined to be ineligible or out of scope (assuming no permanent replacement 

teacher was available) were given a weight of zero. 

Step 6. A nonresponse adjustment was made for teachers who refused to complete the questionnaire and 

for a proportion of the teachers with unknown eligibility (this weight adjustment was 

implemented in two steps, first, adjusting for nonresolution of eligibility status and, second, 

adjusting for nonresponse). Nonresponse adjustment cells were defined by crossing region by 

poverty strata (eight categories) by teacher strata (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 seventhand eighth-grade English language arts teachers. 

Step 7. The nonresponse adjusted weights were then adjusted for outliers. Outliers were defined to be 

any weights that were at or above the 99.5 percentile within a nonresponse adjustment cell. 

Forty-eight outliers were flagged and Winsorized. 

Step 8. Finally, the above weights are renormalized so they add to the sum of the final Wave 1 weights 

within each teacher stratum. 

STANDARD ERRORS

Design-appropriate standard errors were estimated using SAS statistical software that makes use of the 

Taylor expansion method. The standard errors provide an indicator of the reliability of each estimate. 

For example, if all possible samples of the same size were surveyed under identical conditions, an 

interval calculated by adding and subtracting 1.96 times the standard error from a particular estimate 

would include the population value in approximately 95 percent of the samples. 

STATISTICAL TESTS

All comparisons between groups discussed in the text and all comparisons over time have been tested 

for statistical significance, using a significance level of 0.05. The significance level, or alpha, reflects the 

probability that a difference between groups as large as the one observed could arise simply because of 

sampling variation, if there were no true difference between groups in the population. 

The approach to significance testing differed for cross-sectional comparisons (e.g., comparisons among 

subgroups within either the 2004–05 or 2006–07 of the survey) and longitudinal comparisons (e.g., 

comparisons between results in 2004–05 and 2006–07). Cross-sectional differences between subgroup 

means or ratios were tested by calculating a t-statistic based on the following formula: 

2

2

2

1

1 2

SE SE

x x

t

+

 =
Appendix A 84 

where 1 x and 2 x are the estimated means or ratios being compared and 1 SE and 1 SE are their 

corresponding standard errors. The t value was then compared with the critical value for an alpha level 

of 0.05, which was set conservatively at 2.0. Differences between proportions were tested using a designadjusted chi-square statistic. 

When more than two groups were compared (for example, high-, medium- and low-poverty districts), 

comparisons were conducted separately for each pair of groups (for example, high- versus mediumpoverty districts, medium- versus low-poverty districts, and high- versus low-poverty districts). 

We used several approaches to test differences in responses between Wave 1 and Wave 2. For the 

district survey data, we restricted the sample to the 288 districts that responded in both waves. All 

differences discussed in the text change in percentage for dichotomous outcomes, so we used a designadjusted McNemar test for these analyses.32

For comparisons of outcomes in Wave 1 and Wave 2 relying on principal survey data, we used the full 

sample of respondents at each wave, and we conducted statistical tests assuming independence between 

waves, using either a design-adjusted t-test or chi-square. These tests are likely to be slightly conservative 

if responses across the two waves are positively correlated. We explored restricting the analyses to data 

from schools that provided responses in both waves and taking the dependence between waves into 

account, but the reduction in sample size resulted in standard errors that were approximately the same as 

those we obtained using the full sample. 

For comparisons of teacher outcomes in Wave 1 and Wave 2, we also used the full sample of 

respondents at both waves, and we conducted statistical tests assuming independence between waves, 

using either a design-adjusted t-test or chi-square. Like the tests for principles, these tests are likely to be 

slightly conservative because they ignore the dependence resulting from the fact that teachers were 

sampled from the same schools at Wave 1 and Wave 2. (As described above, the sampling design did not 

involve following teachers longitudinally; instead, schools were followed over time, and a separate 

random sample of teachers was drawn at each time point, minimizing the number of teachers sampled in 

Wave 1 that would be drawn in Wave 2.) 

NATIONAL AYP AND IDENTIFICATION DATABASES

The Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality under NCLB National AYP 

and Identification Database contains more than 89,000 schools (Title I and non–Title I) with valid 

improvement status and AYP status located in approximately 15,000 districts across 50 states, the 

District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The Common Core of Data indicated that there were 

approximately 97,000 public schools in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. When 

merged with the SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database, there were 3,500 of these 97,000 

schools for which states reported AYP as “not determined,” or “not relevant,” or for which there were 

“no data.” Another 4,000 of these 97,000 schools were not reported in state-provided AYP files because 

some states were not explicit about schools for which AYP was not determined or were not reported in 

identification files; that is, none of these schools appeared on state identified-for-improvement lists 

provided as a part of their respective state’s Consolidated State Performance Report. These 4,000 

schools do not have uniform characteristics, but many are coded as “Other/Alternative” type schools or 

they reported zero students enrolled. 

 

32 We implemented the McNemar test using SAS Proc SurveyFreq. 
Appendix B 85 

APPENDIX B 

STANDARD ERROR EXHIBITS33

Exhibit B.1 

Notification, Application and Participation in Title I Public School Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Services, 2003–04 to 2006–07 (as Reported by Districts)

Public School Choice Supplemental Educational 

Services 

2003–04 

(n = 109)

2004–05 

(n = 121)

2005–06 

(n = 131)

2006–07 

(n = 135)

2003–04 

(n = 80)

2005–06 

(n = 127)

Estimated 

Number of 

Students 

Percentage 

of Eligible 

Students 

Estimated 

Number of 

Students 

Percentage 

of Eligible 

Students 

Estimated 

Number of 

Students 

Percentage 

of Eligible 

Students 

Estimated 

Number of 

Students 

Percentage 

of Eligible 

Students 

Estimated 

Number of 

Students 

Percentage 

of Eligible 

Students 

Estimated 

Number of 

Students 

Percentage

of Eligible 

Students 

Eligible 3,850,000 

(269,713) N/A 6,526,000 (373,560) N/A 6,064,000 

(342,781) N/A 5,981,000 (377,802) N/A 1,380,000 (101,885) N/A 2,662,000 (128,076) N/A 

Notified 3,269,00 

(274,279) 84.9% 4,175,000 (303,227) 64.0% 4,826,000 

(333,196) 79.6% 4,616,000 (298,247) 72.2% 1,714,000(89,237) 124.3% 3,555,000 (205,056) 133.5% 

Applied 68,00 

(6,624) 1.8% 82,000 (12,936) 1.3% 111,000 

(12,036) 1.8% 97,000 (10,295) 1.6% 265,000

(15,650) 19.2% 493,000 

(29,383) 18.5% 

Participated 38,000 

(6,248) 1.0% 45,000 (8,870) 0.7% 58,000 

(8,244) 1.0% 45,000 (6,188) 0.8% 233,000(15,515) 16.9% 449,000 (50,384) 16.9% 

Note: N/A =not available. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey; SSI-NCLB National AYP and Identification Database.

Exhibit B.2 

Percentage of Schools Designated to Receive Transferring Students Under Title I Public 

School Choice, by Percentage of Schools’ Populations Who Were Transferred, 2006–07 

Percentage of Schools’ Students Who Were 

Transferred Percentage of Receiving Schools 

0 62.1 (5.9) 

0.1 to 1 18.0 (4.5) 

1.1 to 2 3.7 (1.0) 

2.1 to 5 12.1 (5.1) 

5.1 or more 4.1 (1.6) 

Source: NCL-NCLB, Principal Survey (n = 404 principals, or schools). 

 

33 In the following exhibits, standard errors are provided in parenthesis after each estimate. 
Appendix B 86 

Exhibit B.4 

Percentage of Districts Offering Title I Public School Choice That Offered Parents of 

Eligible Students Two or More Alternate Schools, by School Level, 2006–07 

Elementary 

Schools 

(n = 109) 

Middle 

Schools 

(n = 110) 

High 

Schools 

(n = 71) 

Districts offering two or more alternate schools 90.2 (5.5) 54.8 (11.1) 30.0 (10.7) 

Students in districts offered two or more alternate 

schools 90.8 (4.5) 75.7 (5.1) 66.4 (5.9) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 

Exhibit B.3 

Percentage of Districts Required to Offer Title I Public School Choice That Offered This 

Option and Percentage of Students in These Districts, by School Level, 2006–07 

Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools 

Percentage 

of Districts 

(n = 108) 

Percentage 

of Students 

Percentage 

of Districts 

(n = 114)

Percentage 

of Students 

Percentage 

of Districts 

(n = 54)

Percentage 

of Students 

District offers Title I public 

school choice at this grade 

level 

67.3 (10.8) 94.5 (1.7) 41.3 (9.8)a

 73.3 (4.1) 21.9 (9.1) 69.3 (3.3)a

Title I public school choice 

not available because all 

schools at this grade level 

are identified for 

improvement 

26.0 (11.1) 3.8 (1.5) 48.2 (9.8) 17.3 (2.5) 58.3 (13.9) 13.8 (3.8) 

District is not offering Title I 

public school choice for other 

reasons 

6.3 (4.4) 1.7 (1.0) 10.6 (4.0) 9.4 (4.0) 19.8 (11.5) 16.9 (3.0)a

a Significantly different from 2004–05. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey; SSI-NCLB National Database of School AYP and Identification. 
Appendix B 87 

Exhibit B.5 

Percentage of Parents, by Rating of the Schools From Which and To Which 

Their Child Transferred, 2006–07 

School From Which Child 

Transferred 

(n = 316) 

School To Which Child 

Transferred 

(n = 309) 

A—Excellent 7.5 (1.5) 31.1 (2.8) 

B—Good 17.9 (2.2) 40.1 (2.9) 

C—Fair 29.8 (2.6) 19.6 (2.3) 

D—Unsatisfactory 22.7 (2.5) 5.9 (1.4) 

F—Failing 22.1 (2.4) 3.0 (0.8)

Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 percent because of rounding. 

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

Exhibit B.6 

Percentage of Districts That Offered Required Title I Supplemental Educational 

Services, by Characteristics of Students to Whom These Services Were Offered, 

2006–07 

Percentage of Districts 

(n = 129) 

All students 46.8 (9.6) 

Only students from low-income families 31.8 (6.8) 

Students that are both low achieving and from low-income families 10.4 (4.3) 

No students were offered supplemental educational services 8.7 (5.4) 

Other 2.2 (1.5)

Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 percent because of rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Appendix B 88 

Exhibit B.8 

Distribution of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by Staff Size, 2004–05 and 2006–07 

Number of Instructional Staff Members 2004–05 

(n = 99) 

2006–07 

(n = 98) 

10 or fewer 46.6 (6.3) 31.3 (6.1) 

11–20 17.9 (4.1) 15.1 (4.7) 

21–50 20.8 (4.5) 19.2 (4.5) 

51 or more 14.7 (4.0) 34.4 (6.9) 

Mean 36.2 (7.2) 78.7 (16.1) 

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

 

Exhibit B.9 

Percentage of Provider Staff Members, by Type of Instructional Staff, 

2004–05 and 2006–07

Type of Instructional Staff Members 2004–05 

(n = 100) 

2006–07 

(n = 103) 

Certified teachers 63.5 (4.6) 58.9 (4.7) 

Teachers in district where provider operates 57.8 (4.8) 38.0 (4.6) 

Teacher in school with students eligible for supplemental educational 

services 44.4 (5.8) 36.0 (5.0) 

Teacher who also teaches in classroom of the students they tutor 19.1 (4.3) 10.4 (2.5) 

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

Exhibit B.7 

Distribution of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers and of 

Participants, by Type of Provider, 2005–06 

Provider Type Percentage of 

Approved Providers 

Percentage of 

Participating Students 

All private providers 82.5 (7.4) 76.0 (4.7) 

Faith-based providers 0.4 (0.3) 0.6 (0.2) 

Districts and public schools 9.3 (4.6) 12.9 (2.6) 

Colleges and universities 8.1 (4.9) 11.2 (4.2)

Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 percent because of rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n = 76 districts). 
Appendix B 89 

Exhibit B.10 

Percentage of Districts, by Number of Title I Supplemental Educational 

Service Providers Available to Students, 2003–04 and 2005–06 

Number of Providers Percentage of Districts 

(n = 106) 

One or two providers 21.8 (12.9) 

Three or four providers 9.7 (5.2) 

Five or more providers 68.5 (12.5) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 

Exhibit B.11 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by Academic Subject and Grades Served, 2006–07 

Academic Subject Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9–12 

Reading 91.4 (3.6) 81.8 (4.7) 38.2 (6.1) 

Mathematics 83.5 (4.2) 77.5 (4.8) 38.1 (6.1) 

Writing 13.7 (3.3) 12.1 (3.2) 8.5 (3.1) 

Social studies or history 0.0 1.1 (0.8) 0.6 (0.6) 

Science 0.0 1.1 (0.8) 0.6 (0.6) 

Other 0.8 (0.8) 0.6 (0.6) 0.6 (0.6) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 100 providers in 16 districts). 

Exhibit B.12 

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

Educational Services Students Were Provided per Week, 2005–06 

Number of Hours Percentage of Districts 

(n = 109) 

One or two hours 47.7 (10.4) 

Three hours 25.1 (6.9) 

Four hours 7.8 (3.4) 

Five hours or more 19.4 (13.8) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Appendix B 90 

Exhibit B.13 

Percentage of Providers of Title I Supplemental Educational Services, 

by Duration and Frequency of Service, 2006–07 

Minutes per Session (n = 100)

60 44.9 (6.6) 

90 28.0 (6.6) 

120 12.9 (3.6)

Other 14.2 (3.8) 

Sessions per Week (n = 105)

1 8.2 (3.0) 

2 58.5 (6.2) 

3 24.3 (5.4) 

4 or more 9.0 (2.7) 

Mean 2.4 (0.1) 

Sessions per Year (n = 100)

< 20 22.5 (5.5) 

21–30 30.9 (6.8) 

31–40 23.4 (5.4) 

41 or more 23.4 (4.9) 

Mean 35.5 (2.2) 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 percent because of rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (in 16 districts). 
Appendix B 91 

Exhibit B.15 

Percentage of Districts That Notified Parents of Elementary Students of Their 

Title I Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Service Options and 

Percentage of These Parents Who Reported They Were Notified, 2006–07 

(in Eight Urban Districts) 

Parents of Students Eligible for 

Public School Choice 

(n = 961)

Parents of Students Eligible for 

Supplemental Educational Services 

(n = 959)

Yes 20.4 (2.2) 58.7 (2.8) 

No 68.2 (2.6) 31.2 (2.6) 

Not sure 11.4 (1.8) 10.1 (1.8) 

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

Exhibit B.14 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by Location of and Grouping of Students for Delivery of Services, 2006–07 

Location and Student Grouping Never Sometimes Often Always 

Location where supplemental educational services 

are provided 

At the schools of served students (n = 103) 46.1 (6.6) 6.8 (2.5) 9.8 (3.4) 37.3 (6.5) 

At other schools or administrative buildings in the 

district (n = 98) 87.3 (3.7) 6.3 (2.7) 5.2 (2.4) 1.2 (0.9) 

At a public building, or community center (n = 100) 55.9 (6.6) 22.2 (5.9) 17.5 (4.9) 4.3 (1.7) 

At the local office of the provider (n = 97) 70.5 (5.7) 5.1 (1.9) 8.7 (3.8) 15.6 (4.4) 

At the student’s home (n = 99) 65.2 (6.4) 5.0 (2.9) 20.8 (6.0) 9.0 (2.9) 

On the Internet (n = 100) 79.2 (5.4) 3.9 (2.6) 2.8 (2.3) 14.6 (4.5) 

Student grouping for delivery of supplemental 

educational services 

In large groups (n = 92) 56.5 (7.0) 17.2 (6.0) 14.8 (4.0) 11.4 (5.0) 

In small groups (n = 99) 32.4 (6.5) 30.3 (6.9) 16.9 (4.0) 20.4 (4.5) 

One-on-one (n = 100) 20.1 (5.4) 26.8 (6.0) 20.2 (4.8) 32.9 (6.4) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (in 16 districts). 
Appendix B 92 

Exhibit B.16 

Percentage of Parents of Elementary Students Who Reported They Were Notified of 

Their Child’s Eligibility for Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by 

Choice Decision, 2006–07 (in Eight Urban Districts) 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible 

Students (Including Participating 

and Nonparticipating Students) 

(n = 959)

Percentage of Parents of 

Eligible Nonparticipating 

Students 

(n = 454)

Percentage of Parents of 

Participating Students 

(n = 505)

Yes 58.7 (2.8) 53.5 (3.3) 81.4 (3.4) 

No 31.2 (2.6) 34.9 (3.1) 15.1 (3.2) 

Not sure 10.1 (1.8) 11.6 (2.2) 3.5 (1.6) 

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

Exhibit B.17 

Timing of Parent Notification About Title I Public School Choice as 

Reported by Districts, 2003–04 to 2006–07 

Parent Notified 2003–04 

(n = 104) 

2004–05 

(n = 181) 

2006–07 

(n = 132) 

Before the first day of school 23.1 (9.9) 29.5 (8.9) 43.1 (8.5) 

On or about the first day of school 38.7 (19.4) 21.2 (14.8) 14.7 (5.5) 

After the first day of school 38.2 (12.4) 49.4 (12.1) 42.2 (9.4) 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 percent because of rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 

Exhibit B.18 

Percentage of Eligible Students Transferring Schools, by When District First Notified 

Parents About Their Title I Public School Choice, 2003–04 to 2006–07

Timing of Parent 

Notification 

Percentage of 

Students Transferring 

Schools in 2003–04 

(n = 118) 

Percentage of 

Students Transferring 

Schools in 2004–05 

(n = 159)

Percentage of 

Students Transferring 

Schools in 2005–06 

(n = 135)

Percentage of 

Students Transferring

Schools in 2006–07 

(n = 127) 

Before the first day of the 

2004–05 school year 3.2 (0.008) 2.9 (0.004) 1.7 (0.005) 1.4 (0.003) 

On or about the first day of 

the 2004–05 school year 1.6 (0.0002) 1.8 (0.009) 0.5 (0.004) 0.6 (0.004) 

After the first day of the 

2004–05 school year 0.4 (0.002) 0.2 (.0002) 0.2 (0.001) 0.1 (0.001) 

Notified anytime 1.0 (0.003) 0.9 (0.003) 0.9 (0.002) 0.8 (0.002) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey.
Appendix B 93 

Exhibit B.19 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Notified of Title I Public School Choice, by 

When First Notified and Choice Decision, 2006–07 

Parent Notified 

Percentage of 

Parents of 

Nonparticipating 

Students 

(n = 237) 

Percentage of 

Parents of 

Participating 

Students 

(n = 305) 

Percentage of 

Parents of All 

Eligible 

Students 

(n = 542) 

Before the first day of the 2004–05 school year 26.1 (4.9) 62.4 (3.0) 46.3 (4.0) 

On or about the first day of the 2004–05 school year 6.9 (2.9) 3.5 (0.9) 5.3 (2.0) 

After the first day of the 2004–05 school year 45.0 (6.1) 13.8 (2.1) 27.6 (3.8) 

Not sure 22.0 (4.7) 20.3 (2.5) 20.9 (3.5)

Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 percent because of rounding. 

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

Exhibit B.20 

Percentage of Districts Communicating With Parents About Title I Public School Choice 

and Supplemental Educational Services and of Eligible Students in These Districts, 

by Method of Communication, 2006–07

Public School Choice 

(n = 146 ) 

Supplemental Educational 

Services 

Method of Communication (n = 129)

Percentage 

of Districts 

Percentage 

of Students 

Percentage 

of Districts 

Percentage 

of Students 

Written notification in English 98.7 (1.3) 92.2 (0.8) 91.3 (5.4) 97.7 (1.1) 

Written notification in language(s) other than English 59.4 (8.3) 73.7 (4.8) 6.9 (8.4) 82.6 (4.0) 

Enrollment fairs or open houses 22.5 (5.4) 46.5 (5.0) 62.9 (9.2) 81.8 (2.7) 

Individual meetings with interested parents 60.5 (8.6) 73.0 (4.6) 62.8 (9.4) 82.6 (3.7) 

Notices in district or school newsletters 53.3 (8.6) 66.9 (4.9) 49.5 (9.4) 63.1 (4.3) 

Public service announcements 14.9 (4.6) 26.1 (4.0) 30.8 (9.8) 42.1 (4.9) 

Notices made in collaboration with a local 

community partner 16.8 (5.4) 31.0 (4.4) 33.0 (9.6) 40.4 (4.9) 

Notices in public newspapers 25.6 (6.5) 35.0 (4.6) 12.7 (4.6) 37.0 (4.8) 

Notices on school district’s Web site 24.4 (6.2) 53.4 (5.2) 30.8 (7.0) 63.0 (4.9) 

Instructions to principals to inform parents of 

availability of services N/A N/A 79.1 (7.0) 91.4 (3.1) 

Information provided during regularly scheduled 

parent-teacher conferences N/A N/A 60.7 (9.4) 71.9 (5.1) 

Other 43.0 (11.1) 55.7 (6.5) 34.6 (7.1) 58.6 (4.6) 

Note: N/A = not available.

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey.
Appendix B 94 

Exhibit B.21 

Percentage of Parents Reporting They Received Notice of Their Child’s Eligibility for 

Title I Public School Choice or Supplemental Educational Services, by How They 

Learned Their Child Was Eligible, 2006–07

Percentage of Parents 

How Parents Learned of Their Child’s Eligibility Public School Choice

(n = 249) 

Supplemental 

Educational Services

(n = 676) 

Received a letter 76.2 (5.7) 75.9 (3.1) 

Read information in district or school newsletter 18.7 (5.0) 9.7 (2.2) 

Went to a general meeting for parents 10.7 (2.9) 18.4 (2.6) 

Heard from other parents of other students 8.3 (2.8) 7.4 (1.9) 

Was notified by the school or district 4.3 (1.9) 12.8 (2.3) 

Went to an enrollment fair or open house 4.2 (2.5) 11.8 (2.3) 

Other 10.3 (3.8) 7.0 (1.4) 

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

Exhibit B.22 

Percentage of Parents Notified of Their Child’s Eligibility for Title I Parental Choice, 

by How Understandable the Information Was, 2006–07

Information Received was School Choice 

(n = 239) 

Supplemental 

Educational Services 

(n = 652) 

Very easy to understand 52.4 (5.9) 67.9 (3.4) 

Somewhat easy to understand 37.9 (5.5) 27.2 (3.2) 

Somewhat difficult to understand 6.1 (2.7) 3.6 (1.2) 

Very difficult to understand 3.6 (2.5) 1.3 (0.9) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts).
Appendix B 95 

Exhibit B.24 

Percentage of Teachers Communicating With Parents About Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Type of Communication and Grade Level, 2006–07 

(Among Teachers Who Knew Their Students Were Eligible for These Services) 

Type of Communication 

All 

Grades 

(n = 1,018) 

Elementary 

School 

(n = 531) 

Middle 

School 

(n = 316) 

High 

School 

(n = 150) 

I encouraged parents to apply 54.0 (3.7) 58.3 (5.5) 52.7 (5.1) 43.6 (10.2) 

I advised parents on providers 28.9 (3.2) 33.4 (4.7) 25.1 (3.4) 17.4 (3.1) 

Parents contacted me 23.2 (2.3) 27.4 (2.9) 21.8 (5.0) 8.8 (2.4) 

Other 23.0 (2.2) 21.4 (2.5) 27.6 (5.0) 21.0 (3.7) 

I have not communicated with parents 24.3 (3.0) 20.9 (4.0) 25.0 (3.9) 35.1 (6.6) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey. 

Exhibit B.23 

Percentage of Parents Notified of Their Child’s Eligibility for Title I Public School 

Choice, by Type of Information They Received About Their Options, 2006–07

Received Information About Percentage of Parents 

(n = 230) 

The optional schools’ academic performance 60.1 (3.5) 

How to apply to move their child to another school 35.7 (5.4) 

Whom to contact with questions about moving their child 33.6 (5.4) 

Transportation available 26.7 (5.2) 

Services at their child’s current school not available at schools offered for choice 18.9 (4.6) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts).
Appendix B 96 

Exhibit B.25 

Percentage of Providers Communicating With the Parents of Students Participating in 

Title I Supplemental Educational Services, by Topic and Frequency, 2006–07 

Topic Never Sometimes Often or Always 

Student attendance at supplemental educational service 

centers 0.0 (0.0) 33.2 (6.2) 66.8 (6.6) 

Student progress related to regular classroom instruction 11.2 (5.2) 29.7 (5.7) 59.2 (6.5) 

Student progress related to supplemental educational 

service activities or goals 0.0 (0.0) 26.4 (6.4) 73.8 (6.4) 

Student achievement on state achievement tests 22.2 (5.7) 46.5 (6.9) 31.5 (6.1) 

Student behavior or motivation during sessions 0.5 (0.5) 45.2 (6.7) 54.6 (6.7) 

Specific learning needs of the child 0.8 (0.8) 33.9 (7.1) 65.4 (7.0) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 101 providers in 16 districts).

Exhibit B.26 

Percentage of Parents of Students Participating In Title I Public School Choice, 

by Reason for Participating, 2006–07 

Reason 

Percentage of Parents of 

Students Participating in 

Public School Choice 

(n = 282)

The quality of teaching at the new school was better 62.4 (3.1) 

My child’s old school was not meeting his or her needs 62.0 (3.1) 

There is good discipline, safety and order at the new school 46.9 (3.2) 

My child got transportation to the new school 34.6 (3.0) 

The new school is located in a place that is easy to get to 30.3 (2.9) 

There are different academic programs at the new school 30.0 (3.0) 

My child wanted to change schools 28.0 (2.8) 

There are activities after school and sports teams at the new school 24.0 (2.7) 

There is free tutoring or other extra help with schoolwork at the new school 20.2 (2.6) 

My child had been getting bad grades 19.3 (2.5) 

There are services for children with disabilities at the new school 11.8 (2.0) 

My child’s old teacher thought he or she should move 10.9 (1.9) 

There are services at the school for children whose first language is not English 4.8 (1.4) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts). 
Appendix B 97 

Exhibit B.27 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in 

Title I Public School Choice, by Reason for Not Participating, 2006–07 

Reason 

Percentage of Parents 

of Eligible Students Not 

Participating in Public 

School Choice 

(n = 220)

I was satisfied with the quality of teaching at my child’s school 63.0 (5.8) 

My child’s school is located in a place that is easy to get to 60.3 (6.1) 

My child wanted to stay 44.8 (6.1) 

My child was getting good grades at the current school 42.4 (6.1) 

I didn’t want to disrupt my child 41.5 (6.1) 

There is free tutoring or other extra help with schoolwork at my child’s school 33.8 (5.7) 

There are activities after school and sports teams at my child’s school 33.3 (5.9) 

There is good discipline, safety and order at my child’s school 28.1 (5.2) 

There are services at my child’s school for children whose first language is not English 25.4 (5.8) 

There are different academic programs at my child’s school 25.1 (5.3) 

There are services at my child’s school for children with disabilities 21.2 (5.3) 

I didn’t have enough information about the schools I could choose from 12.5 (4.2) 

There was no space for my child at the school I wanted 4.8 (2.7) 

The district did not have transportation to any of the new schools I could choose from 4.4 (1.5) 

I was not given enough time to make the decision to move my child to another school 2.0 (1.0) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts).
Appendix B 98 

Exhibit B.28 

Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational 

Services, by Reason for Participating, 2006–07 

Reason 

Percentage of Parents of Students 

Participating in Supplemental 

Educational Services 

(n = 452) 

Tutoring is free 52.8 (4.5) 

There is tutoring in the subject area (or areas) in which my child needs 

extra help 50.8 (4.5) 

My child’s teacher thought he or she should get this extra help 48.1 (4.5) 

My child wanted to get this extra help 34.7 (4.1) 

Tutoring is given at a place that is easy to get to 30.2 (4.0) 

My child got a low score on a yearly achievement test 29.0 (4.0) 

My child had been getting bad grades 26.9 (4.0) 

There is tutoring for children with disabilities 13.5 (2.9) 

There is tutoring for children whose first language is not English 8.9 (2.8) 

I needed after-school care 8.1 (2.2) 

My child’s school is not meeting his or her needs 7.8 (2.2) 

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

Exhibit B.29 

Percentage of Parents of Eligible Students Not Participating in Title I Supplemental 

Educational Services, by Reason for Not Participating, 2006–07 

Reason 

Parents of Eligible Students Not 

Participating in Supplemental 

Educational Services 

(n = 125) 

My child doesn’t need help 45.6 (7.4) 

Tutoring is given at times that are not good for my family 34.6 (6.9) 

Tutoring is given at a place that is not easy to get to 15.2 (4.9) 

My child did not want to get this extra help 13.3 (5.5) 

There is no tutoring in the subject areas where my child needs extra 

help 10.5 (5.0) 

Tutoring does not meet the needs of children whose first language is 

not English 3.4 (3.3) 

Tutoring does not meet the needs of children with disabilities 2.3 (1.3) 

There is no tutoring at my child’s grade level 0.8 (0.4) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Parent Survey (in eight districts). 
Appendix B 99 

Exhibit B.30 

Percentage of Districts, by Type of Provision Included in Contracts With 

Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 2005–06 

Provision Included in Contract 

Percentage of 

Districts 

(n = 113) 

Providers send progress reports to parents and teachers on a regular basis 92.5 (3.7) 

Providers receive payment based on the number of sessions students received 75.9 (11.4) 

Providers can use district facilities free of charge 47.2 (10.7) 

Providers can use district facilities for a fee 21.8 (6.9) 

Services provided must be supervised by a certified teacher 43.5 (11.3) 

All providers use the same standardized reporting form to establish student learning 

goals and evaluate progress 46.7 (10.2) 

Cap on number of students a provider can serve 9.1 (4.8) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey. 
Appendix B 100 

Exhibit B.31 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by Type of Provision Included in Contracts With Districts, 2006–07 

Provision Included in Contract Percentage of Providers 

Agreement that your organization can use district facilities for a fee 40.2 (6.7) 

Requirement that your organization send progress reports to parents on a regular 

basis 93.3 (3.5) 

Requirement that your organization send progress reports to teachers on a regular 

basis 55.5 (6.7) 

Requirement that services provided to students be supervised or attended by 

certified teacher 22.0 (5.6) 

Requirement that your organization set academic goals for each individual student 

in collaboration with the district, school, and/or parents 95.2 (2.3) 

Requirement that your organization use a standardized reporting form to establish 

student learning goals and evaluate progress 87.5 (3.3) 

Restrictions on how you may market your services to parents or school staff 85.5 (3.4) 

Agreement that your organization can use district facilities free of charge 14.4 (3.4) 

Cap on the number of students your organization can serve 35.4 (6.5) 

Provision that your organization will receive payment based on the number of 

sessions of tutoring that students attend 94.5 (2.4) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 100 providers in 16 districts).
Appendix B 101 

Exhibit B.32 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting State 

Monitoring of Their Services, by Monitoring Mechanism and Frequency, 2006–07 

State Monitoring Mechanism 

Monthly 

A Few 

Times Per 

Year 

Once Per 

Year 

Every 

Two 

Years Never 

Reviewed reports of student attendance 

rates at supplemental educational service 

sessions 

15.7 (4.5) 20.5 (4.6) 33.3 (7.0) 0.0 (0.0) 30.7 (6.4) 

Observed supplemental educational 

service sessions 1.3 (0.9) 22.5 (4.8) 27.7 (6.2) 0.8 (0.8) 47.7 (6.9) 

Met with provider organizations to discuss 

implementation 4.7 (1.9) 27.4 (5.4) 41.3 (7.1) 7.0 (3.5) 19.5 (5.0) 

Tracked the state achievement test scores 

of participating students 3.0 (2.5) 13.1 (4.1) 61.6 (6.7) 1.1 (0.8) 21.1 (5.9) 

Tracked the academic success of 

participating students in terms of grades, 

promotion, and/or graduation 

4.3 (2.7) 17.0 (4.6) 35.1 (7.2) 0.0 (0.0) 43.7 (6.8) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 95 providers in 16 districts).

 

Exhibit B.33 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting District 

Monitoring of Their Services, by Monitoring Mechanism and Frequency, 2006–07 

District Monitoring Mechanism 

Monthly 

A Few 

Times Per 

Year 

Once Per 

Year 

Every 

Two 

Years Never 

Reviewed reports of student attendance 

rates at supplemental educational service 

sessions 

44.6 (6.8) 23.4 (5.9) 21.2 (6.3) 0.6 (0.6) 10.2 (3.1) 

Observed supplemental educational 

service sessions 15.7 (6.5) 33.0 (5.8) 30.3 (6.3) 2.8 (1.4) 18.1 (5.0) 

Tracked the academic success of 

participating students in terms of grades, 

promotion or graduation 

2.5 (1.5) 24.0 (6.3) 43.8 (7.3) 0.0 (0.0) 29.7 (5.7) 

Tracked the state achievement test scores 

of participating students 8.5 (5.5) 12.7 (3.9) 60.9 (6.9) 5.4 (3.5) 12.4 (3.5) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 97 providers in 16 districts).
Appendix B 102 

Exhibit B.34 

Percentage of Districts, by Average Expenditure per Student Enrolled in Title I 

Supplemental Educational Services, 2006–07

Average Expenditure Per Pupil Percentage of Districts 

0–300 22.9 (13.3) 

301–600 9.0 (3.6) 

601–900 18.0 (6.8 

901–1,200 32.8 (8.7 

1,200 or more 17.3 (6.4) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, District Survey (n = 100 districts). 

Exhibit B.35 

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, 2005–06 

Aligned With Content Standards Reading 

(n = 326)

Mathematics 

(n = 317) 

Not at all aligned 10.1 (6.3) 4.3 (1.4) 

Partially aligned 21.8 (3.7) 24.2 (4.2) 

Well aligned 44.4 (6.1) 43.9 (4.9) 

Don’t know 23.6 (4.3) 27.6 (4.6) 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 percent because of rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Principal Survey.
Appendix B 103 

Exhibit B.36 

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, 2006–07 

 Percentage of Providers 

Type of Communication A few times per 

month or week 

A few times per year, 

month or week 

Student progress related to regular classroom instruction 45.7 (7.3) 91.6 (3.4) 

Student progress related to supplemental educational service 

activities or goals 37.5 (6.8) 98.3 (1.3) 

Coordination of curriculum and/or instruction 38.1 (7.1) 80.8 (5.3) 

Student attendance at supplemental educational service sessions 37.6 (7.1) 88.4 (4.0) 

Student achievement on state assessments 16.6 (5.7) 58.4 (8.3) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 71 providers in 16 districts).] 

Exhibit B.37 

Percentage of Teachers Communicating With Title I Supplemental Educational 

Service Providers, by Type of Communication, 2006–07 

 Percentage of Teachers 

Type of Communication A few times per 

semester or month 

A few times per year,

semester or month 

Student attendance at supplemental educational service sessions 46.4 (2.2) 65.6 (2.0) 

Student progress related to regular instruction 57.5 (2.2) 75.0 (1.8) 

Student progress related to supplemental educational service 

activities and/or goals 50.9 (2.2) 69.3 (1.8) 

Student achievement on state assessments 35.1 (2.3) 56.5 (2.5) 

Coordination of curriculum and/or instruction 49.0 (2.1) 66.1 (2.1) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Teacher Survey (n = 1,886 teachers).
Appendix B 104 

Exhibit B.38 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Reporting on the 

Progress of Individual Students, by Type of Recipient and Frequency, 2006–07 

After Every 

Session 

A Few 

Times Per 

Month 

A Few 

Times Per 

Semester 

A Few 

Times Per 

Year 

Once Per 

Year Never 

Parents 30.0 (6.4) 25.3 (6.2) 20.5 (4.6) 24.2 (5.9) 0.0 0.0 

Teachers 0.6 (0.6) 20.6 (6.0) 29.1 (6.2) 13.3 (3.8) 10.1 (4.9) 26.2 (5.8) 

Principals 0.6 (0.6) 11.8 (5.4) 21.4 (5.7) 23.4 (5.1) 13.3 (5.3) 29.5 (6.0) 

District officials 0.6 (0.6) 13.6 (5.8) 30.7 (6.3) 28.8 (6.3) 15.7 (3.9) 10.6 (4.3) 

The state 1.4 (1.1) 8.7 (5.5) 2.5 (1.3) 14.4 (5.4) 48.1 (6.8) 24.8 (5.4) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 97 providers in 16 districts).

 

Exhibit B.39 

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

Information Received on Individual Students Before Providing Services, 2006–07 

Type of Information Received on Students 

Percentage of Providers Receiving 

Information Before Providing 

Services 

Scores on state assessment tests 43.4 (6.7) 

Scores on other standardized tests 31.2 (6.4) 

Report card grades 20.6 (4.8) 

Examples of student work 11.9 (3.4) 

Individualized Education Programs 31.6 (6.4) 

At least one of the above types of information 55.9 (6.6) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 101 providers in 16 districts).
Appendix B 105 

Exhibit B.40 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers Assessing Students, 

by Type of Measure and Frequency, 2006–07 

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 8.5 (3.3) 22.3 (6.1) 20.7 (5.8) 37.1 (6.6) 0.0 11.4 (3.9) 

Tests aligned with regular 

classroom instruction 4.9 (2.5) 22.9 (6.4) 23.2 (7.1) 20.0 (4.7) 1.1 (1.11) 27.9 (5.3) 

District-developed 

assessments or benchmark 

tests 

3.7 (2.2) 1.1 (1.1) 1.0 (0.7) 5.4 (1.9) 2.7 (1.4) 86.2 (3.5) 

Practice tests for state 

assessments 2.8 ( 1.6) 10.0 (3.5) 4.1 (1.7) 20.8 (6.3) 4.4 (2.3) 57.9 (6.6) 

Assignments completed by 

students during sessions with 

your organization 

63.9 (5.8) 14.3 (3.8) 4.5 (1.8) 10.4 (3.7) 0.7 (0.7) 6.2 (2.2) 

Assignments completed by 

students outside of sessions 

with your organization 

7.3 (3.4) 11.4 (3.6) 1.1 (0.8) 6.3 (2.8) 5.7 (3.1) 68.3 (5.9) 

Student portfolios 8.4 (2.9) 7.4 (3.6) 19.8 (6.7) 8.4 (3.2) 3.4 (1.6) 52.0 (6.9) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, Supplemental Educational Service Provider Survey (n = 101 providers in 16 districts).
Appendix C 106 

APPENDIX C 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS34

Exhibit C.1 

Percentage of Title I Supplemental Educational Service Providers, 

by Major Barriers Limiting the Number of Students They Can Serve, 2006–07 

Barriers Percentage of Providers 

(n = 49) 

Competition with the school districts that also provide supplemental educational 

services 39.9 (8.7) 

Access to school facilities 33.7 (8.2) 

Contractual requirement 32.4 (8.5) 

Confusing, deceptive or discouraging notification to parents by district 28.8 (9.4) 

District restrictions on marketing to parents 26.2 (7.2) 

Competition with student’s nonacademic activities 24.6 (9.7) 

Late notice to parents to enroll children 21.9 (6.2) 

District restrictions on marketing to teachers 20.4 (6.7) 

Ability to hire qualified tutors 10.5 (5.1) 

Information required on the enrollment for supplemental educational services 6.1 (4.5) 

Exhibit reads: Forty percent of supplemental educational service providers reported that competition 

with school districts that also provide these services was a major barrier preventing them from serving 

more eligible students. 

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

 

34 In the following exhibits, standard errors are provided in parenthesis after each estimate. 
Appendix C 107 

Exhibit C.2 

Percentage of Parents of Students Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational 

Services, by Location at Which Their Child Gets These Services, 2006–07 

Location Percentage of Parents 

(n = 385) 

At my child’s school 83.4 (3.9) 

At another school in the district 2.3 (1.8) 

At another public location 6.2 (2.1) 

At a tutoring company 2.3 (1.0) 

At home 20.3 (3.8) 

Other 3.5 (1.3) 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-three percent of parents of students participating in supplemental educational 

services reported their child received these services at their child’s school. 

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