Private School Participants in Programs under the No Child 

Left Behind Act and the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: 

Private School and Public School District Perspectives 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

PREPARED BY: 

Gayle S. Christensen 

Sarah Cohodes 

Devin Fernandes 

Daniel Klasik 

Daniel Loss 

Michael Segeritz 

The Urban Institute 

Washington, D.C. 

2007 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED04C0057/0001 with the 

Urban Institute. Stephanie Stullich served as the contracting officer’s representative. 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 

Doug Mesecar 

Acting Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

 August 2007 

This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the front cover, which is used with permission and 

copyright, 2007, Getty Images. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to 

reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Private School Participants in Federal 

Programs Under the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Washington, 

D.C., 2007. 

Copies of this report may be ordered in the following ways: 

• Mail. Write to: 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U. S. Department of Education 

P. O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

• Fax. Dial 301-470-1244. 

• Telephone (toll-free). Dial 877-433-7827 (877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your 

area, call 800-872-5327 (800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833. 

• E-mail. Send your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov. 

• Online. Order a copy of the report at: www.edpubs.ed.gov. This report may also be downloaded from the 

Department’s Web site at www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. 

• Alternate formats. Upon 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. 
iii 

Contents 

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

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ ix

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... xi

Background................................................................................................................................. xi 

Report findings............................................................................................................................ xi 

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ xiv 

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................1

Private School Students and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)...................1 

Title I.............................................................................................................................................4 

“Parentally Placed” Private School Students and the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA) ....................................................................................................................................5 

Research Background and Evaluation Questions .........................................................................6 

2. Methods.......................................................................................................................................9

3. Private School Participants in Federal Education Programs..............................................11

Private School Participants in ESEA Programs ..........................................................................12 

Reasons Private Schools Do Not Have Participants in ESEA Programs ....................................17 

Parentally Placed Private School Participants in IDEA..............................................................17 

4. Provision of Services................................................................................................................19

Provision of ESEA Program Services .........................................................................................20 

Provision of IDEA Services ........................................................................................................26 

IDEA “Child Find” Practices ......................................................................................................27

5. Consultation Process................................................................................................................31

ESEA Program Consultation.......................................................................................................32 

IDEA Consultation......................................................................................................................39 

Other Sources Utilized by Public School Districts and Private Schools for Assistance in 

Implementing Federal Education Programs................................................................................41 

6. Funding .....................................................................................................................................43

Public School District Expenditures for Services for Private School Students in ESEA

Programs .....................................................................................................................................43 

Determining the Number of Private School Students From Low-Income Families...................44 

IDEA Funding .............................................................................................................................45 

7. Conclusions...............................................................................................................................47
iv 

Participation in Federal Education Programs .............................................................................47 

Provision of Services and Funding .............................................................................................48 

Consultation ................................................................................................................................48 

References.....................................................................................................................................51

Appendix A—Detailed Tables ....................................................................................................53

Appendix B—Methodology.......................................................................................................101

Sample Design and Weighting..................................................................................................101 

Questionnaire Development and Data Collection.....................................................................102 

Description of Subgroups .........................................................................................................102 

Analytic Techniques .................................................................................................................103 

Appendix C—Survey Instruments ...........................................................................................105

Private School Survey...............................................................................................................107 

Public School District Survey...................................................................................................123 
v 

Exhibits 

Exhibit E-1 Total Private School Students Participating in Title I, Part A, 1979–2004 .......... xii 

Exhibit 1 Overview of ESEA Programs Eligible for Private School Student Participation ... 4 

Exhibit 2 Total Private School Students Participating in Title I, Part A, 1979–2004 ............ 5 

Exhibit 3 Private Schools With at Least One Participant in Federal Education 

Programs, 2004–05 ............................................................................................... 12 

Exhibit 4 Private Schools With at Least One Participant in ESEA Programs, 2004–05 ...... 13 

Exhibit 5 Size of Private Schools, 2004–05 ......................................................................... 13 

Exhibit 6 Percent of Private School Students Participating in ESEA Programs by School 

Religious Affiliation, 2004–05 ............................................................................. 14 

Exhibit 7 ESEA Program Participation Rate of Students at Private Schools With 

ESEA Participants by School Religious Affiliation, 2004–05.............................. 15 

Exhibit 8 Private Schools With at Least One Student, Teacher or Parent Participating in 

ESEA Programs, 2004–05..................................................................................... 16 

Exhibit 9 Reasons Private Schools Did Not Have Participants in ESEA 

Programs, 2004–05 ............................................................................................... 17 

Exhibit 10 Reasons Private Schools Did Not Have Student Participants in 

Title I, Part A, 2004–05 ........................................................................................ 18 

Exhibit 11 Private School and Public School District Reports of ESEA Program 

Service Provision, 2004–05 .................................................................................. 21

Exhibit 12 Types of ESEA Program Services, 2004–05......................................................... 23 

Exhibit 13 Title I, Part A, Parental Involvement Activities, 2004–05 ................................... 24 

Exhibit 14 Title I, Part A, Professional Development Activities, 2004–05 ........................... 24 

Exhibit 15 Reasons Public School Districts Did Not Allocate Title I, Part A, Funds for 

Services for Private School Participants, 2004–05............................................... 25 

Exhibit 16 IDEA Services, 2004–05....................................................................................... 26 

Exhibit 17 Reasons Public School Districts Provided IDEA Services to Some But 

Not All Eligible Private School Students, 2004–05.............................................. 27 

Exhibit 18 Private School Reports of the Average Number of Parentally Placed Private 

School Students Identified for Special Education Services, 2004–05.................. 28 

Exhibit 19 Child Find Procedures Used to Identify Parentally Placed Private School 

Students Eligible for IDEA Services, 2004–05..................................................... 28 

Exhibit 20 Private School Assistance in Child Find Activities, 2004–05 .............................. 29 

Exhibit 21 Timely and Meaningful Consultation for ESEA Programs, 2004–05................... 33 
vi 

Exhibit 22 Among Private Schools With Participants in a Particular ESEA Program, 

the Percent of Students Who Attended a Private School That Engaged 

in Timely and Meaningful Consultation, 2004–05............................................... 34 

Exhibit 23 Private School Officials Engaging in ESEA Consultation, 2004–05.................... 35 

Exhibit 24 Reasons ESEA Consultation Did Not Take Place, 2004–05................................. 35 

Exhibit 25 Barriers to Timely and Meaningful ESEA Consultation, 2004–05....................... 36 

Exhibit 26 ESEA Program Consultation Topics, 2004–05 ..................................................... 37 

Exhibit 27 Title I, Part A, Consultation Topics, 2004–05...................................................... 38 

Exhibit 28 IDEA Consultation, 2004–05................................................................................ 39 

Exhibit 29 Public School District IDEA Consultation Topics, 2004–05................................ 40 

Exhibit 30 Private School Reports of Useful Consultation, 2004–05 .................................... 41 

Exhibit 31 Technical Assistance for Implementation of Federal Education 

Programs, 2004–05 ............................................................................................... 42 

Exhibit 32 ESEA Program Fund Allocation, 2004–05 ........................................................... 44 

Exhibit A-1 Total Private School Students Participating in Title I, Part A, 1979–2006 ......... 55 

Exhibit A-2 Characteristics of Public School Districts Serving Private Schools, 2004–05 ..... 56 

Exhibit A-3 Private School Characteristics, 2003–04 and 2004–05......................................... 57 

Exhibit A-4 Private Schools With at Least One Participant in Federal Education 

Programs, 2004–05 ............................................................................................... 58 

Exhibit A-5 Private Schools With ESEA Program Participants, 2004–05................................ 59 

Exhibit A-6 Percent of Students Participating in ESEA Programs by Private School 

Enrollment Size..................................................................................................... 60 

Exhibit A-7 ESEA Program Participation Rate of Students at Private Schools With 

ESEA Participants by Private School Enrollment................................................. 60 

Exhibit A-8 Reasons Private Schools Did Not Have Participants in ESEA 

Programs, 2004–05 ............................................................................................... 61 

Exhibit A-9 Reasons Private Schools Did Not Have Student Participants in 

Title I, Part A, 2004–05 ........................................................................................ 62 

Exhibit A-10 Public School Districts With at Least One Private School Student, Teacher, or 

Parent Participating in ESEA Programs, 2004–05 ................................................ 63 

Exhibit A-11 Types of ESEA Program Services Provided for Private School 

Participants, 2004–05............................................................................................ 64 

Exhibit A-12 Percent of Private Schools With Participants Receiving ESEA Program 

Services, 2004–05................................................................................................. 66 

Exhibit A-13 Title I, Part A, Parental Involvement Activities, 2004–05 ................................... 67 

Exhibit A-14 Title I, Part A, Professional Development Activities, 2004–05 ........................... 68 
vii 

Exhibit A-15 Public School District Allocation of Title I, Part A, Funds, 2004–05.................. 69 

Exhibit A-16 Private School Student Participation in Title I, Part A, Services 

During Nonschool Hours, 2004–05 ...................................................................... 70 

Exhibit A-17 Location and Provider of Title I, Part A, Services, 2004–05................................ 71 

Exhibit A-18 Reasons Public School Districts Did Not Allocate Title I, Part A, Funds for 

Services for Private School Participants, 2004–05............................................... 72 

Exhibit A-19 IDEA Services, 2004–05....................................................................................... 73 

Exhibit A-20 Location of IDEA Services, 2004–05 ................................................................... 74 

Exhibit A-21 Reasons Public School Districts Did Not Provide IDEA Services for Eligible 

Private School Students, 2004–05 ........................................................................ 75 

Exhibit A-22 Reasons Public School Districts Provided IDEA Services to Some But Not All 

Eligible Private School Students, 2004–05........................................................... 76 

Exhibit A-23 Private School Notification of IDEA Services and Referral 

Procedures, 2004–05............................................................................................. 77 

Exhibit A-24 Average Number of Parentally Placed Private School Students Identified 

by Public School Districts and Referred by Private Schools for 

Special Education Services, 2004–05................................................................... 77 

Exhibit A-25 Evaluators Used to Determine Private School Student IDEA 

Eligibility, 2004–05 .............................................................................................. 78 

Exhibit A-26 Child Find Procedures Used to Locate and Identify Private School Students 

Eligible for IDEA Services, 2004–05.................................................................... 79 

Exhibit A-27 Assistance from Private Schools in Identifying Private School Students 

Eligible for IDEA Services, 2004–05.................................................................... 80 

Exhibit A-28 Timely and Meaningful ESEA Program Consultation, 2004–05.......................... 81 

Exhibit A-29 Private Schools With Participants in ESEA Programs That Reported

Public School Districts Engaged in Timely and Meaningful Consultation 

With Private School Officials, 2004–05 ............................................................... 82 

Exhibit A-30 Private School Officials Engaging in ESEA Consultation, 2004–05.................... 83 

Exhibit A-31 Reasons ESEA Consultation Did Not Take Place, 2004–05................................. 84 

Exhibit A-32 Title I, Part A, Timely and Meaningful Consultation, 2004–05........................... 85 

Exhibit A-33 Barriers to Timely and Meaningful ESEA Consultation, 2004–05....................... 86 

Exhibit A-34 ESEA Program Consultation Topics, 2004–05 ..................................................... 87 

Exhibit A-35 Title I, Part A, Consultation Topics, 2004–05...................................................... 90 

Exhibit A-36 Documentation of ESEA Consultation, 2004–05.................................................. 91 

Exhibit A-37 IDEA Consultation, 2004–05................................................................................ 92 

Exhibit A-38 Private School Report of “Usefulness” of IDEA Consultation, 2004–05............. 93 
viii 

Exhibit A-39 IDEA Consultation Topics, 2004–05 .................................................................... 94 

Exhibit A-40 Technical Assistance for Implementation of Federal Education 

Programs, 2004–05 ............................................................................................... 95 

Exhibit A-41 Public School District Provision of ESEA Program Services for Private 

School Participants as Predicted by Districtwide Working Group 

Participation .......................................................................................................... 96 

Exhibit A-42 ESEA Program Fund Allocation, 2004–05 ........................................................... 97 

Exhibit A-43 Title I, Part A, Allocations for Services for Private School 

Participants, 2004–05............................................................................................ 98 

Exhibit A-44 Public School District Methods Used to Determine the Number of 

Private School Students From Low-Income Families, 2004–05 .......................... 99 

Exhibit A-45 Private School Assistance With Identifying Private School Students 

From Low-Income Families, 2004–05 .............................................................. 100 
ix 

Acknowledgments 

The Urban Institute would like to thank all of the people who assisted in developing the survey, 

pilot-testing it, and completing it. Without their support, this report would not have been 

possible. 

We would also like to thank the following people from the U.S. Department of Education who 

assisted in developing the survey and provided comments on the report: Pamela Allen and 

Maureen Dowling from the Office of Innovation and Improvement, Office of Non-Public 

Education; and Beth Franklin and Stephanie Stullich from the Policy and Program Studies 

Service. 

Public school district administrators and private school officials took time out of their hectic days 

to answer the surveys. We are grateful to all of the public school districts and private schools that 

chose to participate in this study. We would like to thank public school district administrators 

from the following districts: Los Angeles Unified School District (Calif.), Colonial Intermediate 

Unit #20 (Pa.), Seattle Public Schools (Wash.), Milwaukee Public Schools (Wis.), Elmira City 

Schools (N.Y.), and Albuquerque Public Schools (N.M.), and the Division of Federal Programs 

and Instructional Equity (Ky.). We would also like to thank private school administrators from 

the following private schools and dioceses: Lynden Christian Schools (Wash.), St. Thomas More 

Cathedral School (Va.), St. Mary's Catholic School (Mich.), St. Mary of the Mills School (Md.), 

the Immaculate Conception School (Calif.), Diocese of Nashville (Tenn.), Archdiocese of 

Detroit (Mich.), and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (Calif.). These public school districts and 

private school administrators provided valuable feedback on early versions of the surveys. 

While we appreciate the assistance and support of all of those who helped with the report and 

surveys, any errors are, of course, our own. 
x 
xi 

Executive Summary 

Background 

Public school districts are required to provide equitable services to eligible private school 

students through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by the 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA), reauthorized in 2004. Twelve major ESEA programs require public school districts to 

provide services and benefits to private school participants on an equitable basis. IDEA requires 

that public school districts conduct a child find process to locate students with disabilities 

enrolled by their parents in private schools, and to expend a proportionate amount of funding on 

special education and related services to such eligible children enrolled in private schools. 

Both ESEA and IDEA also require that public school districts engage in timely and meaningful 

consultation with private schools about the provision of services to private school students and 

their teachers and parents. This consultation must occur before any decision is made that impacts 

the opportunities for participation of private school students, teachers, and parents and 

throughout the design, development, implementation, and assessment of those services.1

This report describes participation of private school participants in federal education programs, 

the consultation process between private schools and public school districts, and public school 

district allocation of federal funds for services for private school participants. The results 

presented in this report are based on surveys conducted in 2005–06 among a nationally 

representative sample of public school districts with at least one private school located within 

their boundaries and a nationally representative sample of private schools located within the 

geographic boundaries of the sample districts. 

Report findings 

The study resulted in four key findings: 

• Less than half of private schools reported having at least one participant (students, 

teachers, or parents) in an ESEA program, though Catholic schools were more likely than 

other private schools to have at least one participant in an ESEA program (80 percent). 

 

• Forty percent of private schools with no ESEA participants reported not participating in 

ESEA programs because they had no knowledge of these programs. 

• Public school districts and private schools with participants in a particular ESEA program 

generally reported similar levels of consultation about that ESEA program. 

 

1 ESEA, Section 9501(c)(3), Section 1120, (b)(2) and IDEA Section 612(a)(10)(A)(iii). 
xii 

• Less than half (43 percent) of private schools had at least one participant in IDEA; 38 

percent of private schools reported that the public school district engaged in timely and 

meaningful consultation with private school officials, representatives, or parents 

regarding participation in IDEA, while 86 percent of public school districts reported 

conducting such consultations with appropriate parties. IDEA does not require public 

school districts to consult with all private schools but rather with private school 

representatives and representatives of parents of parentally placed students with 

disabilities attending private schools located in the district. However, the public school 

district may consult with a representative of the private school and the private school may 

be unaware of the consultation. 

Participation 

Overall, 44 percent of private schools had at least one participant in an ESEA program. 

However, there was not a single individual ESEA program (e.g. Title I, Part A) in which 

more than 20 percent of private schools had at least one participant. The two ESEA

programs with the highest levels of participation were State Grants for Innovative Programs 

(20 percent) and Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (20 percent). Sixteen percent of 

private schools had participants in Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Education 

Agencies (Title I, Part A), the largest ESEA program. 

Exhibit E-1 

Total Private School Students Participating in Title I, Part A, 1979–2004 

220,000

180,000

140,000

100,000

60,000

20,000

 1979–1980 1985–1986 1991–92 1997–1998 2003–04

Year

Private

School

Students

Exhibit Reads: More than 180,000 private school students participated in Title I, Part A, programs in 1979–80. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. See Exhibit A-1 for more detailed data. 

Title I, Part A, is the only federal program where data are available on the participation of private 

school students over time. In the 2003–04 school year, there were more than 188,000 private 

school students nationwide participating in Title I, Part A. This represented 3 percent of the 
xiii 

entire private school population and 1 percent of all Title I, Part A, participants. The number of 

private school students participating in Title I has increased gradually over the years, although it 

remains below the high of 213,500 reached in 1980–81 (See Exhibit E-1).2

Catholic schools were more likely to report having at least one participant in ESEA

programs than were non-Catholic schools. Eighty percent of Catholic schools reported having 

a participant in at least one of the 11 ESEA programs covered in this study, compared with onequarter of non-Catholic schools. More than one-third (37 percent) of Catholic schools reported 

having participants in Title I, Part A, compared with 7 percent of other religious private schools 

and 6 percent of nonsectarian schools. 

The percentage of students participating in a particular ESEA program in a given private 

school varied substantially by the religious affiliation and size of the school. While 

nonsectarian schools were less likely than Catholic schools to have participants in ESEA

programs, those that did have participants were likely to have a majority of their students 

participating in four out of the five programs in which private schools most often reported having 

participants. Among private schools with at least one participant in ESEA programs, the smaller 

schools (those with fewer than 100 students) tended to have a higher fraction of students 

participating in most of the ESEA programs. 

The most common reason given by private schools for not having participants in ESEA programs 

was a conscious decision not to be involved in federal programs (58 percent). Forty percent of 

private schools with no ESEA participants reported having no knowledge of federal 

education programs under ESEA. However, 14 percent of the private schools that reported no 

knowledge of ESEA programs (6 percent of private schools with no ESEA participants) also 

reported that they consciously chose not to participate. 

IDEA had the highest percentage of private schools with participants of any federal 

education program. Forty-three percent of private schools had at least one participant in IDEA. 

Provision of Services 

The vast majority of public school districts containing at least one private school within 

their boundaries reported providing no services to private school students under the 

following ESEA programs; English Language Acquisition (85 percent); 21st-Century 

Community Learning Centers (93 percent); Reading First (96 percent); Even Start 

(97 percent); Mathematics and Science Partnerships (98 percent); and Migrant Education 

(98 percent). However, these figures do not take into account whether public school districts 

received federal funds for these programs or had eligible private school students within district 

boundaries. 

Private schools reported that the most common services provided through ESEA programs 

were professional development for private school teachers and the provision of equipment 

and materials. Forty-five percent of public school districts offered Title I, Part A, services to 

 

2

 The precipitous drop in participation in the 1985–86 school year was a consequence of the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Aguilar v. Felton in 1985. 
xiv 

private school participants, with the majority indicating that a public school district employee 

provided these program services at the private school site. 

For IDEA, the most common services that public school districts provided were speech and 

language therapy (92 percent) and special education instruction (78 percent). 

Consultation 

Public school districts and private schools with participants in a particular program 

generally reported similar levels of consultation about that ESEA program.

Limited communication from the public school district was the most common reason private 

schools gave for the absence of timely and meaningful consultation. Seven percent of public 

school districts identified poor coordination within the public school district office as a barrier to 

timely and meaningful consultation. 

ESEA introduced new consultation requirements for Title I, Part A. In addition to already 

existing requirements, consultation must include discussion of student assessment, professional 

development, and activities for parents. Both public school districts and private schools reported 

that, in general, these new Title I, Part A, consultation topic requirements were less likely to be 

discussed than the long-standing requirements. For example, only 52 percent of public school 

districts and 41 percent of private schools reported discussing ‘activities for parents,’ one of the 

new required consultation topics, compared to long-standing required topics such as ‘types of 

services’ (81 percent of public school districts and 83 percent of private schools) and ‘number of 

students generating funds’ (80 percent of public school districts and 73 percent of private 

schools). 

For IDEA, 38 percent of private schools reported that the public school district engaged in 

timely and meaningful consultation with private school officials, representatives, or parents 

regarding participation in IDEA, while 86 percent of public school districts reported 

conducting such consultations with appropriate parties. One possible explanation is that 

public school districts are required to consult with some, but not all, private schools located 

within their boundaries. Additionally, public school districts may consult with an organization 

like a diocese on behalf of a group of private schools. 

Conclusion 

A majority of private schools did not have participants in federal education programs and chose 

not to participate. Catholic schools, however, had much higher rates of participation among their 

students, teachers, and parents than did other types of private schools. A number of private 

schools reported lacking information about federal education programs and poor communication 

from public school districts. The lack of information and communication likely contributed to 

lower participation and reflects an opportunity to improve participation rates. Public school 

districts, in contrast, generally reported making an effort to involve private school participants. 

Regardless, it appears there may still be work to be done to achieve equitable participation in 

federal education programs for private school students, teachers, and parents, and to better 

educate the private school community on federal education benefits.
1 

1. Introduction 

More than five million students attend more than 28,000 private elementary and secondary 

schools in the United States, representing more than 10 percent of all K–12 students in the 

United States. Catholic schools make up 28 percent of those private schools; other religious 

schools represent approximately half of all private schools. However, 46 percent of private 

school students attend Catholic schools, while 36 percent of private school students attend other 

religious schools and 18 percent of private school students attend private schools with no 

religious affiliation. Three-quarters of the nation’s private schools are located in cities and 

suburbs.3

This report describes the participation patterns of private school participants in federal education 

programs. It also examines the consultation process between private schools and public school 

districts regarding program eligibility and service provisions per ESEA and IDEA requirements. 

Additionally, it explores public school district allocation of federal funds for services to private 

school participants. The results presented in this report are based on surveys conducted in the fall 

and winter of the 2005–06 school year to a nationally representative sample of public school 

districts with at least one private school located within their geographic boundaries and a 

nationally representative sample of private schools geographically located within those public 

school districts. 

Private School Students and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

The federal government has provided for the participation of private school students in education 

programs since 1965, when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was originally 

enacted. ESEA included provisions requiring public school districts to provide equitable services 

to eligible private school students under certain programs. Under these programs, federal funds 

were not provided directly to private schools but were to be used to provide services to eligible 

students who were enrolled in private schools, as well as to their teachers and parents (see ESEA, 

Section 1120, Section 5142, and Section 9501). 

Since the passage of ESEA, two Supreme Court decisions have substantively changed the 

landscape in which private school students receive equitable services. First, in 1985, the 

Supreme Court ruled in Aguilar v. Felton that Title I instructional services could not be provided 

to private school students in religiously affiliated private schools. Because Title I, Part A, is one 

of the largest federal education programs and most private schools are religiously affiliated, the 

Aguilar decision led to a substantial decline in the number of private school students receiving 

Title I education services. This trend began to reverse as public school districts purchased 

 

3

 Stephen P. Broughman and Nancy L. Swaim, Characteristics of Private Schools in the United States: Results 

From the 2003-2004 Private School Universe Survey (NCES 2006-319). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. 
2 

mobile vans and other forms of capital to facilitate the legal instruction of eligible private school 

students.4

 

In 1997, the Supreme Court overturned the Aguilar decision in Agostini v. Felton. This ruling 

provided increased flexibility to public school districts in the provision of federal education 

services to private school students, allowing them to deliver services on site at the students’ 

private schools. Currently, public school districts may provide services to private school 

students at a public school, at a private school regardless of religious affiliation, or at a neutral 

location. Specifically, the Agostini decision found that public school personnel could provide 

Title I services in private religious schools without violating the Establishment Clause of the 

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which prohibits the establishment of a state religion), 

provided certain safeguards are in place to prevent excessive entanglement between church and 

state. 

In 1994, the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) reauthorized ESEA and made two notable 

changes. First, Title I distributed funds based on the number of poor children and not academic 

achievement scores. Second, IASA included Uniform Provisions for the participation of private 

school students and teachers, and strengthened the language requiring consultation between 

private school and public school district officials, stating that the consultation must be timely and 

meaningful. 

In 2002, the reauthorization of ESEA through the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) left the 

private school provisions of IASA largely intact. Under Title I, the consultation requirements 

were strengthened, adding a requirement that public school districts maintain a written 

affirmation of consultation signed by an official of each participating private school. A 

requirement that services provided to private school students and teachers be made in a “timely 

manner” was added and the list of programs requiring equitable participation under the Title IX 

uniform provision was expanded. 

Provision for equitable participation of private school students is required in 12 major programs 

(See Exhibit 1). Nine of the twelve programs are governed by the Title IX Uniform Provisions, 

which require that public school districts and other grantees provide services and benefits for 

private school students and teachers that are comparable to those received by their public school 

counterparts.5

 These services must be proportionate with the number of eligible students 

attending private schools in the public school district jurisdiction. Public school districts must 

spend an equal amount of funds per eligible private school student, offer private school students 

and teachers activities equivalent to those available to public school participants, and ensure that 

the services and programs provided remain secular, neutral, and nonideological. 

 

4

 Rubenstein, Michael G., Keith S. Gayler, and Bruce M. Haslam (1998). Title I Services for Private School Students 

Under the Reauthorization of ESEA: A Snapshot of Federal Assistance in Transition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary. 

5

 State legal prohibitions limit services for students in religiously affiliated private schools in some states. NCLB 

allows for the option of a bypass in these states, or in states or public school districts that substantially fails to 

provide the required services, through the use of third-party contractors that meet the requirements of federal 

statutes. 
3 

Furthermore, public school districts receiving money under ESEA programs governed by the 

Uniform Provisions must consult with the private schools in a timely and meaningful fashion on 

the following topics: 

1. How children’s needs will be identified; 

2. What services will be offered; 

3. How, where, and by whom the services will be provided; 

4. How the services will be assessed, and how the results of those assessments will be 

used to improve the program; 

5. The size and scope of equitable services and the amount of available funds; 

6. How and when the public school district will make decisions regarding provision of 

services (including who will receive them and who will provide them); and6

7. A thorough discussion of the views of private school officials on the provision of 

contract services through potential third-party providers. 

This consultation must occur both before any decision is made that impacts the participation of 

private school students and teachers and throughout the design, development, implementation, 

and assessment of those services.7

There are three ESEA programs requiring equitable participation that are not subject to the Title 

IX Uniform Provisions: Title I, Part A; State Grants for Innovative Programs; and Javits Gifted 

and Talented Education. Each have individual provisions governing the equitable participation 

of private school students, and these requirements differ slightly from the Title IX Uniform 

Provisions. In Title I, Part A, in addition to providing equitable services and benefits to eligible 

private school students, public school districts are also required to provide equitable services to 

the parents and teachers of those students, consult in a timely and meaningful way with private 

schools on a number of specific topics, and obtain written affirmation from private schools that 

such consultation has taken place.8 Equitable participation stipulations in State Grants for 

Innovative Programs require that public school districts provide secular and neutral services to 

private school students and their teachers, in consultation with private school officials. 

Expenditures for services for private school students must be consistent with the number of 

students enrolled in private schools within the public school districts’ boundaries.9

 For Javits 

Gifted and Talented Education, the secretary of education grants funding for specific programs 

benefiting gifted and talented students. As a result, the secretary is held responsible for ensuring 

equitable participation of both students and teachers in private schools during the grant-making 

process.In the past few years, the number of grants through Javits Gifted and Talented Education 

has been quite small. For this reason, the program was not included in this report. 

 

6 ESEA, Section 9501(c). 7 ESEA, Section 9501(c) (3). 8

 For further details on these requirements, see ESEA, Section 1120. 9 ESEA, Section 5142.
4 

Exhibit 1 

Overview of ESEA Programs Eligible for Private School Student Participation 

Program Brief Description 2007 

Appropriation

(in millions) 

Improving Basic 

Programs 

Operated by LEAs 

(Title I, Part A) 

Provides funds to states and public school districts with high percentages of 

low-income students to help ensure that all students are capable of meeting 

challenging academic achievement standards. 

$12,838.1 

Reading First 

(Title I, Part B, 

Subpart 1) 

Provides funding to promote reading skills for grades K–3 by providing 

additional resources, including materials, professional development, 

diagnostics, and assessments. 

$1,029.2 

Even Start 

(Title I, Part B, 

Subpart 3) 

Promotes educational opportunities for low-income families. Priorities 

include adult literacy, parenting education, and early childhood education. 

$82.3 

Migrant 

Education 

(Title I, Part C) 

Focuses on meeting the educational needs of migrant students, including 

minimizing disruption related to moves and overcoming cultural, language, 

and social barriers. 

$386.5 

Improving 

Teacher Quality 

State Grants 

(Title II, Part A) 

Seeks to improve academic achievement by increasing the number of 

highly qualified teachers and administrators. 

$2,887.4 

Mathematics and 

Science 

Partnerships 

(Title II, Part B) 

Supports partnerships between state education agencies, local education 

agencies, institutions of higher education, and schools designed to improve 

students’ academic achievement in mathematics and science. 

$182.2 

Educational 

Technology State 

Grants 

(Title II, Part D) 

Seeks to improve academic achievement through the use of technology in 

elementary and secondary schools through a variety of means, including 

initiatives to improve access to technology, the development of technology 

infrastructure, and professional development in the area of technology. 

$272.3 

English Language 

Acquisition 

(Title III, Part A) 

Helps Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students reach English language 

proficiency to improve their overall academic performance. Can be used to 

provide language training to both students and teachers. 

$669.0 

Safe and DrugFree Schools and 

Communities 

State Grants 

(Title IV, Part A) 

Funds programs to ensure safe and drug-free school environments. 

Activities supported include professional development; conflict resolution; 

drug, violence, and suicide prevention; character education; and counseling. 

$346.5 

21st-Century 

Community 

Learning Centers 

(Title IV, Part B) 

Supports summer, before-school, and after-school services for students and 

families from low performing schools. 

$981.2 

State Grants for 

Innovative 

Programs 

(Title V, Part A) 

Promotes innovative programs in teaching and learning. Funds can be used 

for professional development, library materials, educational equipment, 

computer software, mental health services, and parent or community 

involvement programs. 

$99.0 

Title I 

This report provides a particularly in-depth examination of Title I, Part A, which is the largest 

federal education program and also has special requirements related to private school 

participants. As a consequence, the participation of private school students, teachers, and parents 
5 

receiving Title I, Part A, services and the specific requirements of the program are given special 

attention in this report. 

Title I, Part A, is the only federal program in which data are available on the participation of 

private school students over time. In the 2003–04 school year, there were over 188,000 private 

school students nationwide participating in Title I, Part A. This represented 3 percent of the 

entire private school population and 1 percent of all Title I, Part A, participants. The number of 

private school students participating in Title I has increased gradually over the years, although it 

remains below the high of 213,500 reached in 1980–81 (See Exhibit 2).10

Exhibit 2 

Total Private School Students Participating in Title I, Part A, 1979–2004 

220,000

180,000

140,000

100,000

60,000

20,000

 1979–1980 1985–1986 1991–92 1997–1998 2003–04

Year

Private

School

Students

Exhibit Reads: More than 180,000 private school students participated in Title I, Part A, programs in 1979–80. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. See Exhibit A-1 for more detailed data. 

 “Parentally Placed” Private School Students and the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA) 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires equitable provision of services 

for children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private schools. In 1975, Congress 

passed the Education For All Handicapped Children Act. It required that students with 

disabilities “receive special education and related services specially designed to meet their 

needs.”11 The goal of this act was to provide students with disabilities a free and appropriate 

public education (FAPE). In 1990, the act was reauthorized as IDEA. 

 

10 The precipitous drop in participation in the 1985–86 school year was a consequence of the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Aguilar v. Felton in 1985. 11 Sandra J. Altshuler and Sandra Kopels, “Advocating in Private Schools for Children With Disabilities: What’s 

New With IDEA?” Social Work, July 2003, Vol. 48, Issue 3, pp. 320-329. 
6 

The 2004 IDEA legislation assigned distinct responsibilities related to consultation and funding 

to public school districts. After consulting with private school officials and parent 

representatives, public school districts must conduct a child find process similar to the activities 

undertaken for the agency’s public school district children to ensure equitable participation for 

eligible students attending private schools located in the public school district’s jurisdiction, 

regardless of the child’s residence.12

In addition, the public school district must spend a proportionate amount of federal funds for 

special education and related services for children with disabilities enrolled in private schools by 

their parents.13 This amount is based on the counts of eligible children with disabilities produced 

through the child find process. 

The public school districts have a responsibility to provide equitable services for parentally 

placed private school students with disabilities as a group. No parentally placed private school 

child with a disability has an individual right to receive some or all of the special education and 

related services that the child would receive if enrolled in a public school. After timely and 

meaningful consultation has occurred, the public school districts expend a proportionate share of 

federal IDEA funds on special education and related services for such children. The 2004 

reauthorization of IDEA strengthened consultation requirements stating that public school 

districts must engage in timely and meaningful consultation with private school representatives 

and representatives of parents of parentally placed students during the design and development 

of special education programs. In addition, public school districts must obtain written 

affirmation from private school representatives that timely and meaningful consultation has 

taken place. 

Research Background and Evaluation Questions 

Both ESEA and IDEA require that public school districts provide benefits and services associated 

with federal education programs to private school students and other eligible participants (i.e., 

teachers and parents). Public school districts have some flexibility in deciding where and how 

services will be provided to students. 

The Department of Education conducted a study in 1998 focused solely on Title I, Part A, 

services. The report found that “despite generally positive assessments of the working 

relationships between Title I administrators and staff and private school representatives, there are 

significant differences in their reports about who is involved in consultation and about the topics 

that are discussed.”14 

 

12 While the 2004 IDEA legislation placed the responsibility of child find and the provision of services on the public 

school district where the private school is located, previous IDEA legislation generally required the public school 

district where the child resided to conduct child find and to provide services for parentally placed private school 

children. This change did not become effective until July 1, 2005. Because this report includes data from the 

2004-05 school year, referrals made by private schools to public school districts outside of their own public school 

district boundaries are included in this report. This report also includes services provided by school districts outside 

of the public school districts where the private schools are located. 13 IDEA, Section 612(a)(10)(A). 14 Rubenstein, et al., p. 1. 
7 

Building on this previous research, this report provides a current overview of details surrounding 

private school students’ participation in federal education programs—how much money is 

allocated, what services are provided, and in what form. This report examines private school 

student, teacher and parent participation in 11 of the 12 major ESEA programs that have such 

equity requirements, as well as IDEA. The study was guided by four major evaluation questions: 

• Participation. How many private school students, teachers, and parents participate in 

federal education programs? 

• Services. What are the services provided by federal education programs to private school 

participants? 

• Consultation. What is the nature and extent of consultation between public school 

districts and private schools regarding federal education programs? 

• Funding. What percentage of federal education program funds do public school districts 

allocate for services to private school participants? 

In addition, the study examines the location of Title I, Part A, services provided to private school 

participants and the child find practices public school districts use to seek out and identify 

children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private schools. 

Six chapters follow. Chapter 2 describes the research methods behind the study. Chapter 3 

provides a description of participation rates of private school students, teachers, and parents in 

different federal education programs as reported by private schools. Chapter 4 reports on the 

services provided to private school participants based on responses from both private schools and 

public school districts. Chapter 5 examines the consultation process, again relying on reports 

from the private schools and the public school districts. Chapter 6 looks at reports by public 

school districts on the amount of federal program funds allocated for services for private school 

participants. Chapter 7, the final chapter, presents overall conclusions. Throughout the report 

notable differences in the responses of private schools and public school districts are identified. 

The final section suggests possible reasons for these differences. 
8 
9 

2. Methods 

Surveys of a nationally representative sample of both public school districts and private schools 

provide the data for the results presented in this report (Appendix C). The data were collected 

during the fall and winter of 2005–06. The original sample included 607 public school districts 

and 1,501 private schools. The response rate was 98 percent for public school districts and 80 

percent for private schools. A basic description of the sample design is provided below and a 

more detailed description of the methods can be found in Appendix B. 

Public school districts. The sample universe was created using the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) Local Education Agency Universe 

File (2002–03) and the Private School Universe Survey (PSS) (2003–04). 

The sample of public school districts was selected prior to the sample of private schools. Public 

school districts were drawn at random from a list of public school districts with at least one 

private school located within their geographic boundaries. Public school districts were stratified 

based on size, rate of free and reduced-price lunch program participation, and number of private 

school students located within their boundaries. Public school districts with only one or two 

private schools in their boundaries were further stratified by the religious affiliation of the private 

schools. Each public school district was randomly selected with a probability proportionate to the 

number of private schools located within the public school district’s boundaries. As a result, 

public school districts with many private schools located within their boundaries had a much 

greater chance of entering the sample. In all, 607 public school districts were selected. 

This sample design allows an analysis of public school district responses in two different ways. 

First, the sample can be weighted to represent a simple average of all public school districts with 

at least one private school within their boundaries. Public school districts with one or many 

private schools in their boundaries are treated the same. This approach facilitates simple 

discussion of results by describing the average characteristics of all public school districts 

regardless of the number of private schools in their boundaries. The primary disadvantage of this 

approach is that it may give an inaccurate picture of the district where most private schools are 

located because private schools tend to be concentrated in large public school districts. For 

example, one third of private schools are located in public school districts with more than 30,000 

public school students; but these public school districts represent only 3 percent of public school 

districts with at least one private school. 

The second approach takes into account the distribution of private schools across public school 

districts by stratifying the public school districts by the number of private schools in their 

boundaries. In other words, every private school is linked with the data relevant to the public 

school district in which it is located and the average is taken across all private schools. This 

approach does not require weighting so the estimates are also more precise than the first 

approach. The primary disadvantage of this approach is that it is difficult to discuss the public 

school district results in simple terms because the district results are all implicitly weighted by 

the number of private schools located in their boundaries. 
10 

The different approaches result in differences in descriptions of the public school district context 

in which private schools operate. For example, the average public school district with at least one 

private school within district boundaries had about 6,000 public school students. But the average 

private school was located in a public school district that served nearly 90,000 public school 

students and that had, on average, 75 private schools within their boundaries (See Exhibit A-2).

While the body of the report provides responses of public school districts in terms of the average 

public school district with at least one private school in its boundaries, the appendix has two sets 

of statistics for public school district responses to the survey. The first set is in terms of the 

average for public school districts with one private school in their boundaries; the second can be 

interpreted as the percent of private schools operating under certain public school district 

conditions. Large differences in these estimates are noted in the body of the report. 

Private schools. Private schools were randomly selected from those located in the sampled 

public school districts in inverse proportion to the number of private schools in the public school 

district.15 This was done to adjust for the fact that public school districts with larger numbers of 

private schools had a higher probability of being selected for the district sample. The resulting 

sample of private schools, therefore, was nationally representative. The private schools were 

identified using the Private School Universe Survey matched to public school districts by ZIP 

Code using the Common Core of Data. In order to ensure representative data, private schools 

were stratified according to the enrollment of the public school district in which they are located, 

religious affiliation, rate of free and reduced-priced lunch program participation in the public 

school district in which the private school is located and number of students in the private 

school. A sample of 1,501 private schools was selected. Catholic schools responded at higher 

rates than private schools with other religious affiliations. As a result, the data were weighted to 

adjust for the differential response rate among private schools with different religious affiliations 

in order to ensure a nationally representative sample of private schools. 

One limitation of this data is that data was not collected from organizations like archdioceses, 

which may have participated in the IDEA consultation process on behalf of Catholic schools 

under its jurisdiction. The questions posed to private schools related to IDEA consultation were 

designed to include consultation that occurred with archdioceses. Nevertheless, the findings on 

the degree to which consultation took place should be interpreted with caution. 

 

15 Private schools were excluded from the sample if they had fewer than 10 students, were located in a private home, 

or had a major role supporting private home schooling. 
11 

3. Private School Participants in Federal Education Programs 

ESEA requires that public school districts provide equitable services to eligible private school 

students, teachers, and parents in certain federal education programs. Public school districts are 

also required to provide special education and related services to some eligible students under 

IDEA. This section explores private school student, teacher and parent participation in federal 

education programs. It also examines why private school participants might not take part in 

these programs. 

Key Findings About Private School Participants in Federal Education Programs Under ESEA and 

IDEA

ESEA

• Forty-four percent of private schools had at least one participant in an ESEA program. 

However, there was not a single individual ESEA program (e.g. Title I, Part A) in which 

more than 20 percent of private schools had at least one participant. 

• Catholic schools were more likely than other private schools to have at least one 

participant in an ESEA program. 

• Private schools with ESEA program participants tended to be larger than private schools 

on average (239 students vs. 198 students). This is largely because Catholic schools were 

significantly more likely to have participants in ESEA programs and these private schools 

tended to be larger than other religious or nonsectarian private schools. 

 

• The percentage of students participating in a particular ESEA program in a given private 

school varied substantially by the religious affiliation and size of the school. For 

example, while nonsectarian schools were less likely than Catholic schools to have 

participants in ESEA programs, those that did have participants were likely to have a 

majority of their students participating in four out of the five programs that private 

schools most often reported having participants. 

• The most common reason given by private schools with no ESEA participants for not 

having participants in ESEA programs was a conscious decision not to be involved in 

federal programs (58 percent). However, 40 percent of private schools with no ESEA

participants reported having no knowledge of federal education programs under ESEA. 

IDEA

• IDEA had the highest percentage of private schools with participants of any federal 

education program (43 percent). 
12 

Private School Participants in ESEA Programs 

There was not a single individual ESEA program in which more than 20 percent of private 

schools had at least one participant. The two ESEA programs with the highest levels of 

participation were State Grants for Innovative Programs (20 percent) and Improving Teacher 

Quality State Grants (20 percent). The participation rate was over 15 percent in three other 

programs: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants (19 percent), 

Title I, Part A (16 percent), and Educational Technology State Grants (16 percent) 

(See Exhibit 3). 

For six other ESEA programs, 6 percent or fewer private schools had at least one participant: 

Even Start, Reading First, 21st-Century Learning Communities, Mathematics and Science 

Partnerships, English Language Acquisition, and Migrant Education. These programs generally 

have lower rates of public school district participation, and therefore, fewer private school 

students receiving equitable services. As a result of the low levels of participation and the 

resulting small sample size for these programs, the majority of the report focuses on the five 

programs where at least 15 percent of private schools had at least one participant. 

 

Exhibit 3 

Private Schools With at Least One Participant in 

Federal Education Programs, 2004–05 

Percent of Private 

Schools With at Least 

One Participant

IDEA 43

State Grants for Innovative Programs 20

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 20

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants 19

Educational Technology State Grants 16

Title I, Part A 16

Reading First 6

Mathematics and Science Partnership 5

English Language Acquisition 3

21st-Century Community Learning Centers 2

Even Start 1

Migrant Education 0

Exhibit Reads: Forty-three percent of private schools had at least one participant receiving IDEA 

services.

Source: Private School Survey (n=1,121). See Exhibit A-4 for more detailed data.

Overall, 44 percent of private schools had at least one participant in an ESEA program. 

But participation varied widely by religious affiliation. Eighty percent of Catholic schools 

had ESEA program participants, while 28 percent of other religious schools and 25 percent of 
13 

nonsectarian schools had reported participants. A similar pattern of participation was evident for 

the largest ESEA program, Title I, Part A. Sixteen percent of private schools overall had 

participants in Title I, Part A, as compared to more than twice that rate (37 percent) among 

Catholic schools (See Exhibit 4). 

Exhibit 4 

Private Schools With at Least One Participant in ESEA Programs, 2004–05 

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

All private schools

Catholic schools

Other religious schools

Exhibit Reads: Forty-four percent of private schools had at least one participant in an ESEA program.

Source: Private School Survey (n=1,121). See Exhibits A-4 and A-5 for more detailed data.

Nonsectarian schools

28

43

19

21

ESEA Programs Overall Title I, Part A No ESEA Program

44

56

80

20

28

72

75

25

6

16

37

7

Exhibit 5 

Size of Private Schools, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other 

Religious Nonsectarian

Mean number of students in private 

schools 201 283 165 161

Mean number of students in private 

schools with no ESEA participants 172 245 161 166

Mean number of students in private 

schools with ESEA participants 237 292 170 138

Percent of students in private schools 

with ESEA program participants 51 83 30 17

As Reported by Private Schools: 

Exhibit Reads: The average private school had 201 students enrolled.

Source: Private School Survey #23 (n=1,121).
14 

Private schools with ESEA program participants tended to be larger than private schools on 

average (237 students vs. 172 students). This is largely because Catholic schools were 

significantly more likely to have participants in ESEA programs and these private schools tended 

to be larger than other religious or nonsectarian private schools (See Exhibit 5). However, it 

could also be because larger private schools are more likely to find it worthwhile to have 

participants. As a result, a much larger fraction of all Catholic school students were in a private 

school with at least one ESEA program participant (83 percent as compared to 30 percent of 

other religious private school students and 17 percent of nonsectarian private school students). 

Overall, about half (51 percent) of private school students were in a private school with at least 

one ESEA participant. 

Overall, less than 10 percent of private school students participated in any one of the five federal 

programs where private schools most often indicated having participants (See Exhibit 6). A 

higher fraction of students in Catholic schools participated, ranging from 3 percent in Reading 

First to 23 percent in Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants. In other 

religious and nonsectarian schools, less than 5 percent of students participated in any one of the 

five programs. 

Exhibit 6 

Percent of Private School Students Participating in ESEA Programs 

by School Religious Affiliation, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other 

Religious Nonsectarian

Title I, Part A 3 64 1

Reading First 1 31 0

Educational Technology State 

Grants 4 10 2 2

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities State Grants 9 23 2 3

State Grants for Innovative 

Programs 7 16 3 4

Exhibit Reads: On average, 3 percent of students at a private school participate in Title I, Part A.

Source: Private School Survey #11 (n=1,121). 

Percent of Private School Students Participating

As Reported by Private Schools: 

The percentage of private school students participating in ESEA programs in each school varied 

based on the particular program (See Exhibit 7). Of the five ESEA programs with the largest 

number of private schools with participants, the average participation rate of private school 

students within a private school were lowest in Title I, Part A, and Reading First (22 and 

25 percent of students in the average private school, respectively). The other three programs—

Educational Technology State Grants, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State 
15 

Grants, and State Grants for Innovative Programs—had a higher percent of students participating 

(34 percent, 65 percent, and 50 percent of students in the average private school, respectively). 

The reason for this might be that not all students qualify as eligible for Reading First and 

Title I, Part A, services. However, it is not possible to know the number of eligible private school 

students for each program from the available data. 

Exhibit 7 

ESEA Program Participation Rate of Students at Private Schools 

With ESEA Participants by School Religious Affiliation, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other 

Religious Nonsectarian

Title I, Part A 22 14 22 72

Reading First 25 23 46 20

Educational Technology State 

Grants 34 34 28 60

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities State Grants 65 66 54 85

State Grants for Innovative 

Programs 50 49 43 74

Exhibit Reads: Twenty-two percent of students in the average private school with any Title I, Part A, 

participants participated in Title I, Part A.

Source: Private School Survey #11 (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants). 

Percent of Private School Students Participating

As Reported by Private Schools: 

The percentage of students participating in a particular ESEA program in a given private school 

varied substantially by the religious affiliation and enrollment of the school. For example, while 

nonsectarian schools were less likely than Catholic schools to have participants in ESEA

programs, those that did have participants were likely to have a majority of their students 

participating in four out of the five programs that private schools most often reported having 

participants. By comparison, only 14 percent of Catholic school students participated in 

Title I, Part A, when schools had at least one ESEA participant, while the average at nonsectarian 

schools with ESEA participants was 72 percent. This finding also helps explain why, among 

private schools with at least one participant in ESEA programs, the smaller schools (those with 

fewer than 100 students) tended to have a higher fraction of students participating in most of the 

five ESEA programs (See Exhibit A-7). Nonsectarian private schools with ESEA participants 

have the smallest average number of students (138 compared to the average of 237) (See 

Exhibit 5). 

The Reading First program seemed to follow different patterns related to the density of private 

school student participation, the religious affiliation of the private school, and private school 

size. A larger percentage of students in private schools with a religious affiliation other than 

Catholic participated in Reading First (46 percent compared with 23 percent in Catholic schools 
16 

and 20 percent in nonsectarian). Additionally, unlike the other four ESEA programs discussed 

here, the percentage of private school students participating in Reading First was higher in 

private schools with less than 300 students (20 to 33 percent) than in larger schools (9 to 

11 percent). 

Exhibit 8 

Private Schools With at Least One Student, Teacher or Parent 

Participating in ESEA Programs, 2004–05 

Students Teachers Parents

Title I, Part A 14.0 9.7 0.5

Reading First 4.5 2.9

Even Start 0.3 0.1

Migrant Education 0.2

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 15.9

Mathematics and Science Partnership 1.2 4.4

Educational Technology State Grants 5.4 10.9

English Language Acquisition 1.9 1.1

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State 

Grants 11.4 10.9

21st-Century Community Learning Centers 0.7

State Grants for Innovative Programs 9.4 12.1

Schools With Participants by Group

Exhibit Reads: Fourteen percent of private schools had students receiving Title I, Part A, services. 

Note: Blank cells indicate that categories were not applicable for these subgroups.

Source: Private School Survey #11 (n=1,121).

According to reports from private schools with at least one ESEA participant, participation in 

various ESEA programs among private school students and teachers was similar. Eleven percent 

of private schools reported that at least one of their teachers participated in Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools and another eleven percent reported having at least one student who participated. 

Reports from private schools regarding the participation of their students and teachers in Title I, 

Part A, State Grants for Innovative Programs, and Reading First reflected similar trends. The 

largest differences in participation levels between students and teachers were seen in Education 

Technology State Grants and Improving Teacher Quality State Grants with a larger percentage of 

teachers participating in these programs, which is not surprising given the focus of these 

programs. Only Title I, Part A, and Even Start provide services directly to parents. Less than 

one percent of private schools reported having at least one parent who participated in one of 

these programs (See Exhibit 8). 
17 

Reasons Private Schools Do Not Have Participants in ESEA Programs 

Of the 56 percent of private schools with no ESEA participants, the majority (58 percent) 

reported that they made a conscious decision not to participate. Forty percent of private 

schools with no ESEA participants reported having no knowledge of federal education 

programs under ESEA (See Exhibit 9). However, 14 percent of the private schools that 

reported having no knowledge of ESEA programs also reported making a conscious decision not 

to participate. Nonsectarian private schools were significantly less likely than other religious 

schools to report they made a conscious choice not to participate (See Exhibit A-8). Additionally, 

8 percent of private school officials reported that they contacted the public school district to 

inquire about ESEA programs but did not receive a response. 

Exhibit 9 

Reasons Private Schools Did Not Have Participants in ESEA Programs, 2004–05 

Conscious decision not to participate

No knowledge of any federal education 

programs under ESEA

Contacted public school districts to inquire 

about these programs but received no 

response

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

Exhibit Reads: Fifty-eight percent of private schools with no ESEA participants consciously decided not to participate 

in ESEA programs.

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses.

Source: Private School Survey (n=644 private schools with no ESEA program participants). See Exhibit A-8 for more 

detailed data.

8

40

58

At private schools where students did not receive Title I, Part A, benefits, the most common 

reason (50 percent) for lack of student participation was that the private school did not have 

educationally needy students residing in a Title I, Part A, attendance area. The second most 

common reason (44 percent) for student nonparticipation was that the private school chose not to 

participate (See Exhibit 10). 

Parentally Placed Private School Participants in IDEA

IDEA had the highest percentage of private schools with participants of any federal 

education program (43 percent). The rate of participation among Catholic schools with at least 

one student receiving IDEA services (62 percent) was significantly higher than in nonsectarian 

(39 percent), and other religious private schools (30 percent) (See Exhibit A-4). 
18 

Exhibit 10 

Reasons Private Schools Did Not Have Student Participants in Title I, Part A, 2004–05 

No students residing in a Title I attendance area 

were educationally needy

School chose not to participate

No students residing in a Title I attendance area 

generated funds

No students resided in a participating public 

school Title I attendance area

Parents preferred that their children not 

participate

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

Exhibit Reads: Fifty percent of private schools with ESEA program participants but no students participating in Title I, Part A, 

reported that this was because no students residing in a Title I attendance area were educationally needy.

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses.

Source: Private School Survey (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants). See Exhibit A-9 for more detailed data.

50

32

27

15

44
19 

4. Provision of Services 

Under certain programs, public school districts are required by ESEA to provide services and 

benefits to private school students and teachers that are equitable to the services and benefits that 

public school students and teachers receive. New ESEA requirements for equitable participation 

of private school participants in Title I, Part A, include parental involvement for parents of Title I 

participants and professional development for teachers of Title I participants. 

In addition, the IDEA requires that public school districts carry out timely and meaningful 

consultation with private school and parent representatives on issues that may affect the 

equitable provision of services to parentally placed private school students with disabilities in 

federally funded special education and related services. IDEA also requires public school 

districts to conduct child find activities to locate, identify, and evaluate parentally placed private 

school students with disabilities attending private schools located in the geographic area served 

by the district. 

This section examines the provision of ESEA services to private school participants by public 

school districts with a special focus on the new requirements for parents and teachers of students 

participating in Title I, Part A, and the provision of IDEA services for private school students 

with disabilities. It also describes the IDEA child find process public school districts use in 

identifying private school students with disabilities. 

Key Findings in the Provision of Services for Federal Education Programs Under ESEA and 

IDEA

ESEA

• The vast majority of public school districts containing at least one private school within 

their boundaries reported providing no services under Reading First; English Language 

Acquisition; 21st-Century Community Learning Centers; Even Start; Migrant Education; 

and Mathematics and Science Partnerships. However, this does not take into account 

whether public school districts received federal funds for these programs or had eligible 

private school students within district boundaries. 

• Private schools reported that the most common services provided through ESEA

programs were professional development for private school teachers and the provision of 

equipment and materials. 

• The majority of public school districts expended Title I, Part A, funds for services based 

on the number of eligible students in a specific private school. The majority of 

Title I, Part A, services were provided at the private school site by a public school district 

employee. 
20 

Key Findings in the Provision of Services for Federal Education Programs Under ESEA and 

IDEA (continued)

IDEA

• The majority of public school districts reported providing IDEA services to parentally 

placed private school students with disabilities while 11 percent of public school districts 

reported providing no services to eligible private school students. 

• The most common services public school districts provided were speech and language 

therapy and special education instruction. 

• Less than half (45 percent) of private schools indicated that they received information 

about the referral of students with potential disabilities. 

• Public school districts reported identifying twice as many eligible students for IDEA

services than private schools reported referring to the public school districts. 

Provision of ESEA Program Services 

The vast majority of public school districts containing at least one private school within 

their boundaries reported providing no services under Reading First; English Language 

Acquisition; 21st-Century Community Learning Centers; Even Start; Migrant Education; 

and Mathematics and Science Partnerships. Low rates of service provision partially reflect 

the relatively small number of public school districts that received funds for these programs 

rather than a failure on the district’s part.16 About half of private schools with ESEA participants 

had participants who received services from State Grants for Innovative Programs (48 percent) 

and Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (48 percent), the same programs that public school 

districts (with at least one private school in their boundaries) most frequently reported providing 

for private school participants (50 percent) (See Exhibit 11). 

Also, as noted earlier, responses from private schools with ESEA participants and from public 

school districts with at least one private school in their boundaries do not necessarily make for 

accurate cross-comparisons. Private schools tend to be located in very large public school 

districts that have many private schools within their boundaries. When public school districts 

responses were weighted to account for the number of private schools in their boundaries, the 

percent of private schools in public school districts that provide services under State Grants for 

 

16 Question 11 of the public school district survey asked how much funding public school districts received for 

each NCLB program but did not ask explicitly about participation in a particular program. This means that if a 

district left an answer blank, it is unclear whether they received no funding for that program (and therefore were a 

nonparticipant) or whether they simply didn't know how much funding they received (but may actually be 

participating). As a result, this data can’t be reported only for districts that participated. Private schools were not 

asked about the number of eligible students for federal programs, because they would not necessarily know about a 

student’s eligibility. 
21 

Innovative Programs and Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (and other programs) is higher 

(65 percent and 68 percent, respectively) (See Exhibit A-11).17 This suggested that public school 

districts serving a larger fraction of private schools are more likely to provide ESEA program 

services than is otherwise indicated by the simple district percentage. 

Exhibit 11 

Private School and Public School District Reports 

of ESEA Program Service Provision, 2004–05 

State Grants for Innovative Programs

Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants

Title I, Part A

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities State Grants

Educational Technology State Grants

English Language Acquisition

21st-Century Community Learning 

Centers

Reading First

Even Start

Mathematics and Science Partnership

Migrant Education

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

Exhibit Reads: Fifty percent of public school districts reported offering services under State Grants for Innovative 

Programs for private school participants. 

Source: Private School Survey (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants) and Public School District 

Survey (n=587). See Exhibits A-11 and A-12 for more detailed data.

50

50

45

42

38

15

7

48

48

39

46

39

6

14

1

13

1

2

2

3

4

4

As Reported by Public School Districts

As Reported by Private Schools

These weighted public school district findings raise the question: Why are service provision rates 

reported by private schools lower than the rates reported by public school districts—and by 20 

percentage points? One reason may be that public school districts provide services to private 

school participants in some, but not all, private schools located within their boundaries. Other 

explanations for these discrepancies are discussed in detail later in this report. 

 

17 A similar pattern holds across programs. The percent of private schools in districts that provide services under the 

following programs is as follows: State Grants for Innovative Programs (65 percent), Improving Teacher Quality 

State Grants (68 percent), Title I, Part A (62 percent), Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities (60 percent), 

Educational Technology State Grants (51 percent) (See Exhibit A-11). 
22 

Private schools reported that the most common services provided through ESEA programs 

were professional development for private school teachers and the provision of equipment 

and materials. Not surprisingly, nearly all private schools with participants in ESEA programs 

identified Improving Teacher Quality State Grants as a source of support for professional 

development for private school teachers (93 percent), though other programs were also 

frequently identified. More than half of private schools with participants in the respective 

programs identified Title I, Part A (54 percent), Safe and Drug-Free Schools (53 percent), 

Educational Technology State Grants (62 percent), and State Grants for Innovative Programs 

(74 percent) as sources for equipment or materials. Similarly, among private schools with 

participants, Title I, Part A, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools were most often reported as sources 

of instructional services for students (79 and 53 percent, respectively) (See Exhibit 12). 

Public school districts reported a similar pattern of service by program with two exceptions. 

Public school districts were much more likely to report providing professional development 

through Title I, Part A (63 percent), than private schools reported teachers receiving such 

services (33 percent). Public school districts were also more likely to report providing 

Title I, Part A, parental involvement services (60 percent) than private schools reported parents 

of eligible students receiving such services (27 percent). 

More detailed findings suggested that private schools may have underreported professional 

development and parent involvement services their participants received when asked about these 

two areas in broad terms. When private schools and public school districts were asked about 

specific Title I, Part A, parental involvement activities, a much higher percentage reported 

service provision. Ninety-two percent of public school districts reported providing at least one 

parental involvement activity to private school parents, and 84 percent of private schools 

reported that parents received such services (See Exhibit 13). Still, private school–public school 

district differences remained. 

A similar pattern emerged for professional development. As with parental involvement activities, 

ESEA requires equitable participation of private school teachers of Title I, Part A, participants in 

professional development. When asked about specific Title I professional development activities, 

a much higher percentage of public school districts and private schools indicated such activities 

took place than when asked about professional development services generally. Eighty-eight 

percent of public school districts reported providing at least one professional development 

activity in the past year, and 83 percent of private schools with at least one participant in 

Title I, Part A, reported the involvement of their staff in a professional development activity in 

the past year (See Exhibit 14). Interestingly, a much larger percentage of private schools 

reported teachers receiving payment for graduate courses and services at the school site than 

public school districts reported providing. 
23 

Exhibit 12 

Types of ESEA Program Services, 2004–05 

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

Instructional services 

to students

Equipment or 

materials

Professional 

development

Parental involvement

Other

0% 0%

Instructional services 

to students

Equipment or 

materials

Professional 

development

Parental involvement

Other

0% 0%

20% 100%

Other

40%

Instructional services 

to students

Equipment or 

materials

Professional 

development

Parental involvement

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities State Grants

State Grants for Innovative 

Programs

Exhibit Reads: Eighty-seven percent of public school districts that provided Title I, Part A, services provided instructional 

services to private school students.

Note: Exhibit presents the five ESEA programs with highest participation, as reported by private schools. 

Source: Private School Survey (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants) and Public School District Survey 

(n=587). See Exhibits A-11 and A-12 for more detailed data.

80%

60% 80%

60% 40%

Improving Teacher Quality 

State Grants

Educational Technology State 

Grants

20% 40% 60%

60%

Title I, Part A

100%

100% 20% 40%

80% 20%

80% 100%

26

89

20

1

5

39

6

3

4

93

27

75

15

62

57

3

6

4

69

4

58

61

58

29

53

53

41

18

15

8

41

51

11

23

32

68

8

5

6

74

87

65

63

60

9

79

54

33

27

3

As Reported by Public School Districts As Reported by Private Schools
24 

Exhibit 13 

Title I, Part A, Parental Involvement Activities, 2004–05 

Parent-teacher conferences

Parent meetings

Take home materials or books

Parent newsletter

Parenting classes and workshops

Summer activity kits

Any of the above

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

Exhibit Reads: Seventy-two percent of public school districts that provided Title I, Part A, services reported providing 

parent-teacher conferences as part of Title I, Part A.

Source: Private School Survey (n=188 private schools with Title I, Part A, participants) and Public School District 

Survey (n=320 public school districts that allocated Title I, Part A, funds for private school participants). See

Exhibit A-13 for more detailed data.

72

71

66

52

43

24

92

51

52

49

49

54

50

84

As Reported by Public School Districts

As Reported by Private Schools

Exhibit 14 

Title I, Part A, Professional Development Activities, 2004–05 

Professional development at public school

Payment for workshops and conferences

Professional development through a third-party 

provider

Professional development at private school 

Payment for graduate courses

Any of the above

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

Exhibit Reads: Sixty-one percent public school districts that provided Title I, Part A, services reported offering professional

development to private school teachers.

Source: Private School Survey (n=188 private schools with Title I, Part A, participants) and Public School District Survey (n=320 

public school districts that allocated Title I, Part A, funds for private school participants). See Exhibit A-14 for more detailed data.

61

55

50

27

9

88

53

50

49

49

42

83

As Reported by Public School Districts

As Reported by Private Schools
25 

Public school districts were also asked additional questions about Title I, Part A, including how 

funds were allocated, what services were offered during nonschool hours, and where services 

were provided. Seventy-eight percent of public school districts providing Title I, Part A, 

services expended funds for services on a private school by private school basis, based on 

the number of students in that private school who were from low-income families.

Twenty-eight percent of private schools were located in public school districts that expended 

funds by combining or pooling the funds and providing services to the students most at risk. (See 

Exhibit A-15). 

 

Among public school districts that provided Title I, Part A, services to private school students, 

37 percent provided these services to private school students during nonschool hours (See 

Exhibit A-16). Sixty-three percent of public school districts reported that private school students 

did not participate in Title I, Part A, activities during nonschool hours. Of these districts, 

44 percent did not offer extended time services under Title I, Part A, to either public or private 

school students while 30 percent offered extended time services in which private school students 

did not participate. Public school districts that provided Title I, Part A, services to private school 

students reported that services were typically provided by a public school teacher at a private 

school site (49 percent) (See Exhibit A-17). 

Fifty-six percent of public school districts that received Title I, Part A, funds did not provide 

funds for Title I services to private school participants (See Exhibit A-18). These public school 

districts reported several reasons for not allocating funds for services to private school students 

(See Exhibit 15). Notably, public school districts most commonly cited private school refusal as 

the reason for not providing services. As noted earlier, the majority (58 percent) of private 

schools, where participants did not receive federal services, made a conscious decision not to 

participate. However, a significant number of private schools (40 percent) reported no 

knowledge of federal education programs (See Exhibit 9). 

Exhibit 15 

Reasons Public School Districts Did Not Allocate Title I, Part A, Funds 

for Services for Private School Participants, 2004–05 

Private school officials declined the offer of Title I 

services

Private school officials did not respond to request for 

information to identify students needing services

No private school students in district generated funds

No private school students in district failing or at risk 

of failing to meet educational standards

Other

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

Exhibit Reads: Seventy-one percent of public school districts cited private school refusal of Title I, Part A, services as a reason for not 

allocating Title I, funds for services for private school participants.

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. 

Source: Public School District Survey (n=161 public school districts that did not allocate Title I, Part A, funds for private school 

participants. See Exhibit A-18 for more detailed data.

71

34

32

20

19
26 

Provision of IDEA Services 

The majority of public school districts reported providing IDEA services to parentally 

placed private school students, while 11 percent of public school districts reported 

providing no services to eligible private school students. The most common reason given by 

public school districts for not providing any services was parents declining services (61 percent) 

(See Exhibit A-21). Forty-three percent of private schools reported that they had students 

receiving IDEA services (See Exhibit A-4). The discrepancy between public school district and 

private school reporting is at least partially attributable to the fact that while many private 

schools do not have students receiving IDEA services, many public school districts have several 

private schools inside their boundaries with at least one student receiving such services. 

The most common services public school districts provided were speech and language therapy 

(92 percent) and special education instruction (78 percent) (See Exhibit 16). The top three types 

of services that private schools reported at least one of their students received were: speechlanguage (45 percent), special education instruction (34 percent), and transportation (19 percent). 

The provision of services tended to be direct rather than consultative. For example, 63 percent of 

public school districts reported that special education instructional services were direct while 15 

percent reported that they were consultative (See Exhibit A-19). Both public school districts and 

private schools reported that these services were somewhat more likely to happen at public 

school sites than private school sites (See Exhibit A-20). 

Exhibit 16 

IDEA Services, 2004–05 

As Reported by Public School Districts

As Reported by Private Schools

Speech-language

Special education instruction

Transportation

Occupational therapy

Audiology

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

Exhibit Reads: Ninety-two percent of public school districts that provided IDEA services for private school 

participants provided speech-language services.

Source: Private School Survey (n=1,121) and Public School District Survey (n=436 public school districts 

providing IDEA services for private school participants). See Exhibit A-19 for more detailed data.

92

78

47

47

29

45

34

19

17

17

Thirty-eight percent of public school districts reported providing IDEA services to some but not 

all eligible private school students (See Exhibit A-22). Eighty-one percent of public school 

districts reported that the reason not all eligible private school students received services was 

parental refusal of services. Twenty-nine percent reported inadequate IDEA funds as a reason 
27 

that not all eligible children received services (See Exhibit 17). It is important to note that IDEA

does not require that all eligible students receive services or that public school districts spend 

more than the proportionate share of IDEA funds to provide services to eligible private school 

students. 

Exhibit 17 

Reasons Public School Districts Provided IDEA Services 

to Some But Not All Eligible Private School Students, 2004–05 

Parents declined services

IDEA funds were inadequate to serve all 

children identified in the 

child find process

Other

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

Exhibit Reads: Eighty-one percent of public school districts that did not provide IDEA services for all eligible private 

school students reported that it was because parents declined the services.

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. 

Source: Public School District Survey (n=436 public school districts providing IDEA services for private school 

participants). See Exhibit A-22 for more detailed data.

81

29

18

IDEA “Child Find” Practices 

In addition to spending a proportionate amount of federal funds for special education and related 

services for children with disabilities enrolled in private schools by their parents, public school 

districts are also required to conduct “child find” activities similar to the activities used for 

locating, identifying, and evaluating students with disabilities in public schools. 

Ninety-two percent of public school districts with at least one private school in their boundaries 

reported conducting a child find process to identify IDEA eligible students in private schools. 

In contrast, less than half (45 percent) of private schools indicated that they received 

information about the referral of students with possible disabilities (See Exhibit A-23). 

Fifty-three percent of private schools reported receiving information from the local public school 

district regarding services for private school students with disabilities. 

Public school districts reported that their own staff most frequently determined IDEA eligibility 

for private school students (86 percent). Thirty-three percent of public school districts reported 

using a contracted third party (See Exhibit A-25). Public school districts reported identifying 

twice as many students eligible for services than private schools reported referring for services 

(See Exhibit 18). 
28 

Exhibit 18 

Private School Reports of the Average Number of Parentally Placed 

Private School Students Identified for Special Education Services, 2004–05 

In private schools with IDEA 

participants

In private schools without IDEA 

participants

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Average Number of Students

Students Identified by Public School Districts

Students Referred by Private Schools

Exhibit Reads: In private schools with IDEA participants, an average of 13 students were identified for 

special education services by the public school district.

Source: Private School Survey (n=1,121). See Exhibit A-24 for more detailed data.

13

4

5

1

In order to fulfill their IDEA obligations to conduct a thorough child find process, public school 

districts engaged in a variety of child find activities, including outreach to private schools, 

distribution of informational brochures, and providing information on Web sites (See 

Exhibit 19). Seventy-two percent of public school districts with at least one private school 

located within their boundaries provided outreach to private schools, which was the most 

common child find activity for identifying students with disabilities. 

Exhibit 19 

Child Find Procedures Used to Identify Parentally Placed Private 

School Students Eligible for IDEA Services, 2004–05 

Outreach to private schools

Distribution of informational 

brochures

Information on school website

Outreach at community events

Mass mailing to all households in 

public school attendance area

Presentation at private schools

Radio or TV public service 

announcements

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

Exhibit Reads: Seventy-two percent of public school districts used outreach to private schools in their child find 

procedure for IDEA.

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses.

Source: Public School District Survey (n=587). See Exhibit A-26 for more detailed data.

72

56

54

39

31

29

26
29 

Private schools can assist public school districts with child find activities but are not required to 

do so. Forty-three percent of private schools provided public school districts with contact 

information of parents of students with suspected disabilities (See Exhibit 20). In addition, 

37 percent of private schools reported referring students or parents to the public school district’s 

IDEA representative. A smaller percentage of private schools also engaged in other assistance 

activities, including organizing parent information sessions (18 percent) and providing the public 

school district with a mailing list of all parents (11 percent). Forty-two percent of private 

schools reported that the public school district did not ask for the private school’s assistance with 

child find activities. 

Exhibit 20 

Private School Assistance in Child Find Activities, 2004–05 

Provided district contact info for parents of

students with suspected disabilities

The district did not ask for assistance with 

child find activities

Referred parents and/or students to the 

district's IDEA representative

Organized parent information session

Provided mailing list of all parents

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

Exhibit Reads: Forty-three percent of private schools provided contact information for parents of students with suspected 

disabilities to the public school district.

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses.

Source: Private School Survey (n=1,121). See Exhibit A-27 for more detailed data.

43

42

37

18

11
30 
31 

5. Consultation Process 

Consultation between public school districts and private schools is required by both ESEA and 

IDEA before any decision is made that affects the opportunities of eligible private school 

students and teachers to participate. For both ESEA and IDEA the consultation must be timely 

and meaningful. Public school districts and private schools engage in consultation for ESEA

programs regarding identifying students’ and teachers’ needs, types of services, provision of 

services, program assessment, size, scope and funding of services, third-party providers, and 

public school districts’ decision-making processes about the services. Title I, Part A, requires 

consultation to include additional topics and written confirmation of consultation. New 

requirements of ESEA have expanded Title I, Part A, consultation topics to include parental 

involvement and professional development. 

IDEA also includes a consultation provision that requires public school districts to consult with 

private school representatives and representatives of parents of children with disabilities during 

the design and development of special education and related services regarding: a) child find; b) 

proportionate share of funds; c) consultation process; d) provision of special education and 

related services; and e) written explanation by the public school district regarding services. 

Public school districts may consult with individual private schools or organizations that represent 

a group of schools, like an archdiocese. Public school districts are required to expend a 

proportionate share of IDEA funds for services to private school students with disabilities. 

Key Findings in Consultation Process for Federal Education Programs under ESEA and IDEA

ESEA

• Public school districts and private schools with participants in a particular ESEA program 

generally reported similar levels of consultation about that ESEA program. 

• Limited communication from the public school district was the most common reason 

private schools gave for the absence of timely and meaningful consultation. Seven 

percent of public school districts identified poor coordination within the public school 

district office as a barrier to timely and meaningful consultation. 

• The most common topics discussed in consultations included the needs and numbers of 

eligible students, the amount of funding available, the types of services to be provided, 

and the location of services. Newly required topics for Title I, Part A (professional 

development and parent involvement), were discussed less frequently than long-standing 

requirements. 
32 

Key Findings in Consultation Process for Federal Education Programs under ESEA and IDEA 

(continued) 

IDEA 

• Thirty-eight percent of private schools reported that the public school district engaged in 

timely and meaningful consultation with private school officials, representatives, or 

parents regarding participation in IDEA, while 86 percent of public school districts 

reported conducting such consultations with appropriate parties. IDEA does not require 

public school districts to consult with all private schools but rather with private school 

representatives and representatives of parents of parentally placed students with 

disabilities attending private schools located in the district. However, the public school 

district may consult with a representative of the private school and the private school may 

be unaware of the consultation. 

ESEA Program Consultation 

For ESEA, 28 percent of private schools with at least one ESEA participant reported that the 

relevant public school district did not consult with them about ESEA program participation (See 

Exhibit A-31). However, within many of the individual ESEA programs, a vast majority of both 

public school districts and private schools with participants in a particular program reported 

taking part in timely and meaningful consultation as required. Moreover, public school districts 

and private schools with participants in a particular program generally reported similar 

levels of consultation about that ESEA program. For example, consultation about Title I, 

Part A, was particularly high with 97 percent of public school districts and 92 percent of private 

schools reporting that timely and meaningful consultation about this program had taken place. 

There were only three programs in which fewer than 80 percent of private schools with 

participants reported engaging in required consultation with the public school district. Among 

the programs in which fewer private schools reported having participants, including Mathematics 

and Science Partnership and Migrant Education, a higher percentage of private schools with 

participants in a particular program reported consultation than public school districts (See 

Exhibit 21). 

Exhibit 21 helps illustrate that among private schools with participants in a particular program, a 

large majority engages in consultation related to that program. However, it does not examine 

whether there are high rates of participation when considering all private schools that engaged in 

consultation. One might expect that private schools engaging in consultation about a program 

would be more likely to have participants in that program. This appears to be the case for most of 

the larger programs. For example, 59 percent of private schools with at least one ESEA program 

participant consulted about State Grants for Innovative Programs and 81 percent of those private 

schools had participants in the program (See Exhibit A-29). Similar results were found for 

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State 

Grants, and Educational Technology State Grants. For Title I, Part A, 71 percent of private 

schools with one ESEA program participant consulted about the program, but 51 percent of those 
33 

private schools had participants in the program. This may be because of the eligibility 

requirements of Title I, Part A. In the smaller programs, such as Even Start and 21st-Century 

Community Learning Centers, a lower fraction of private schools that engaged in consultation 

about the program have participants in those programs. For example, 12 percent of private 

schools consulted about 21st-Century Community Learning Centers and 27 percent of those 

private schools participated in that program. This may be because this is a discretionary grant, 

targeted to serving a more limited number of public school students within the district and, thus, 

a more limited number of private school students. 

Exhibit 21 

Timely and Meaningful Consultation for ESEA Programs, 2004–05 

Title I, Part A

Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities State Grants

State Grants for Innovative 

Programs

Educational Technology State 

Grants

Reading First

English Language Acquisition

Mathematics and Science 

Partnership

Migrant Education

21st-Century Community Learning 

Centers

Even Start

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

Exhibit Reads: Ninety-seven percent of public school districts that reported offering Title I, Part A, services to 

private school participants offered timely and meaningful consultations with private schools about Title I, Part A.

Source: Private School Survey (n=477 private schools with participants in the given program) and Public School 

District Survey (n=587 public school districts providing given program services for private school participants). See 

Exhibit A-28 for more detailed data.

97

91

89

86

84

78

70

64

61

48

42

92

87

90

86

80

80

72

90

74

66

100

As Reported by Public School Districts

As Reported by Private Schools

Among students at private schools with participants in a given ESEA program, large majorities 

were found to be attending a private school that had engaged in consultation regarding the 

particular program (See Exhibit 22). For example, more than 90 percent of students who 

attended private schools in which participants received services under Title I, Part A, Math and 
34 

Science Partnerships, or Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants attended a 

private school that engaged in consultation with the public school district regarding these 

programs. Among students at private schools with other participants receiving services under 

Even Start, fully 100 percent attended a private school that reported engaging in consultation 

with the public school district. With regard to other programs, the percentage remained near 

80 percent, not including the 21st-Century Community Learning Centers program in which only 

59 percent of students attending a school with program participants attended a school that also 

engaged in consultation. For the most part, these numbers are consistent with the numbers 

reported in Exhibit 21, which show the number of private schools with ESEA program 

participants that also reported engaging in consultation. The only noticeable disparity is with the 

Migrant Education program. Although 74 percent of private schools with participants in the 

program reported engaging in consultation, 97 percent of students that attended a private school 

with Migrant Education participants were attending a school that had engaged in consultation. 

Exhibit 22 

Among Private Schools With Participants in a Particular ESEA Program, the 

Percent of Students Who Attended a Private School That Engaged in Timely 

and Meaningful Consultation, 2004–05 

Title I, Part A

Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities State Grants

State Grants for Innovative 

Programs

Educational Technology State 

Grants

Reading First

English Language Acquisition

Mathematics and Science 

Partnership

Migrant Education

21st-Century Community Learning 

Centers

Even Start

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

Exhibit Reads: Among private schools that have Title I, Part A, participants, 92 percent of students attended a private 

school that engaged in timely and meaningful consultation with the local public school district regarding the 

program.

Source: Private School Survey #18 and #19 (n=1,121).

97

84

90

84

84

79

80

91

97

59

100
35 

Eighty-nine percent of private schools with ESEA program participants reported that the official 

who engaged in consultation was a school level administrator from the private school, though 

nearly half reported that officials at the diocesan or association level were involved (See 

Exhibit 23). 

Exhibit 23 

Private School Officials Engaging in ESEA Consultation, 2004–05 

Administrators at the school level

Administrators at the diocesan or 

association level

Other

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

Exhibit Reads: Eighty-nine percent of private schools reported that administrators at the school level engaged in 

consultation with the public school district.

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. 

Source: Private School Survey (n=358 private schools where consultation occurred). See Exhibit A-30 for more 

detailed data.

89

49

17

Private schools that reported that they did not engage in timely or meaningful consultation with 

the relevant public school district most commonly also reported the reason was that the public 

school district did not contact them (64 percent). Over one quarter (28 percent) reported that 

they chose not to participate in consultation (See Exhibit 24). 

Exhibit 24 

Reasons ESEA Consultation Did Not Take Place, 2004–05 

School district did not contact private 

school officals

Chose not to participate

Association or diocesan administrators 

decided not to participate

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

Exhibit Reads: Sixty-four percent of private schools with ESEA program participants, but where consultation did not 

occur, reported that the school district did not contact the private school officials.

Source: Private School Survey (n=133 private schools with ESEA program participants where ESEA consultation did 

not occur). See Exhibit A-31 for more detailed data.

64

28

4

Barriers to Timely and Meaningful ESEA Consultation 

Private schools and public school districts were also surveyed about the barriers that affected 

timely and meaningful consultation. Limited communication from the public school district 

was the most common reason private schools gave for the absence of timely and meaningful 

consultation (34 percent). More than one-quarter of private schools also reported that limited 
36 

understanding of the equitable participation requirements by public school districts was a barrier 

to effective consultation (See Exhibit 25). 

For public school districts, the most commonly cited barrier to timely and meaningful 

consultation was lack of assistance from private schools in identifying the needs of their students 

and teachers (23 percent). The next most common barrier reported by public school districts was 

their own limited understanding or experience with the equitable participation requirements of 

ESEA programs (13 percent). Seven percent of public school districts identified poor 

coordination within the public school district office as a barrier to timely and meaningful 

consultation. 

Exhibit 25 

Barriers to Timely and Meaningful ESEA Consultation, 2004–05 

As Reported by Public School Districts

As Reported by Private Schools

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

Inadequate information about with whom to consult in 

private schools

Difficulty coordinating internally in the district

Limited communication from the public school district

Exhibit Reads: Thirteen percent of public school districts reported that the public school district’s limited understanding of equitable 

participation requirements as a barrier to consultation.

Note: Percentages reported in this exhibit include responses of “somewhat of a barrier” or “major barrier.” 

Source: Private School Survey (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants) and Public School District Survey (n=587 

public school districts providing given program services for private school participants). See Exhibit A-33 for more detailed data. 

As Reported by Public School Districts and 

Private Schools

As Reported by Public School Districts

Absence of district procedures and policies relating to 

the equitable participation requirement

Lack of timely and meaningful consultation with the 

district

As Reported by Private Schools

Lack of assistance from private schools in identifying 

needs of their students and teachers

District's limited understanding of or experience with 

equitable participation requirements of ESEA

13

28

28

23

7

30

5

34

7
37 

Topics Covered in Consultation

The most common topics discussed in consultations included the needs and numbers of 

eligible students, the amount of funding available, the types of services to be provided, and 

the location of services. These reports come from private schools that had participants in ESEA

programs. Special topics of consultation associated with Title I, Part A, are discussed after the 

more general ESEA consultation topics. 

While there was some variation in consultation topics across ESEA programs, the amount of 

funding available tended to be the most frequently discussed topic and the location of services to 

be least frequently discussed topic (See Exhibit 26). 

Exhibit 26 

ESEA Program Consultation Topics, 2004–05 

As Reported by Public School Districts

As Reported by Private Schools

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

Needs of students

Professional development

Amount of funding available

Types of services

Service location

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Educational Technology State Grants

90

80

77

54

50

90

83

74

56

50

79

81

77

51

66

78

87

75

54

67

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

Exhibit Reads: Ninety percent of public school districts providing Improving Teacher Quality State Grants services reported 

consulting with private schools about professional development.

Note: Exhibit presents the four ESEA programs with highest participation, as reported by private schools.

Source: Private School Survey (n=477 private schools with participants in the given program) and Public School District Survey 

(n=587 public school districts providing given program services for private school participants). See Exhibit A-34 for more 

detailed data.

Needs of students

Service location

State Grants for Innovative Programs

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities

Professional development

Amount of funding available

Types of services

65

83

78

48

75

66

84

77

53

79

68

84

75

48

71

64

92

78

50

69
38 

The No Child Left Behind Act introduced new consultation requirements for Title I, Part A. In 

addition to already existing requirements, consultation must include discussion of how services 

will be academically assessed, professional development, and activities for parents. Both public 

school districts and private schools reported that, in general, newly required topics for 

Title I, Part A, were discussed less frequently than long-standing requirements. For 

example, the topics most frequently reported as a focus of consultation were two long-standing 

required topics: ‘types of services’ (81 percent of public school districts and 83 percent of private 

schools) and ‘number of students generating funds’ (80 percent of public school districts and 

73 percent of private schools). The topic that was least often identified as a subject of 

consultation was among the new required topics: ‘activities for parents’ (52 percent of public 

school districts and 41 percent of private schools) (See Exhibit 27). 

Catholic schools were more likely to report that consultations occurred than either other religious 

or nonsectarian private schools, and larger public school districts were more likely to report 

consultation had occurred than smaller public school districts (See Exhibit A-35). 

Exhibit 27 

Title I, Part A, Consultation Topics, 2004–05 

As Reported by Public School Districts

As Reported by Private Schools

Type of services to be provided

Number of private school students generating 

Title I funds

Per-pupil allocation

Assessment of student learning needs

Professional development of private school 

teachers of Title I participants

Assessment methods of students' progress in 

meeting standards

Assignment of staff who will provide services 

to private-school students

Activities for private school parents of

Title I participants

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

Exhibit Reads: Eighty-one percent of public school districts reported that Title I, Part A, consultation included discussion of

the types of services to be provided.

Source: Private School Survey (n=188 private schools with Title I, Part A, participants) and Public School District Survey 

(n=488 public school districts that received Title I, Part A, funds). See Exhibit A-35 for more detailed data.

81

80

70

65

60

55

54

52

83

73

61

66

48

48

67

41

Records of Consultation

Title I, Part A, requires that public school districts maintain a written affirmation of consultation 

signed by officials of each participating private school. Some districts maintain additional 
39 

written records of consultation regarding Title I, Part A, and the other programs requiring 

equitable participation. Consultation documentation can take several forms, including letters of 

intent to participate in programs, written records of meetings and other types of consultations 

themselves, and sign-off forms used to ensure that adequate consultation has taken place. 

Eighty-one percent of public school districts maintained written records of Title I, Part A, 

consultation and 72 percent reported using a sign-off form for Title I. The vast majority of public 

school districts also reported keeping written records of consultation about other ESEA programs 

(See Exhibit A-36). 

IDEA Consultation 

There was a contrast in consultation rates for IDEA between private schools and public school 

districts. Thirty-eight percent of private schools reported that the public school district engaged 

in timely and meaningful consultation with private school officials, representatives, or parents 

regarding participation in IDEA, while 86 percent of public school districts reported conducting 

such consultations with appropriate parties (See Exhibit 28).18 IDEA does not require public 

school districts to consult with all private schools but rather with private school representatives 

and representatives of parents of parentally placed students with disabilities attending private 

schools located in the district. However, the public school district may consult with a 

representative of the private school and the private school may be unaware of the consultation. 

Exhibit 28 

IDEA Consultation, 2004–05 

Administrators

Parents

Organization

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

Exhibit Reads: Eighty-six percent of public school districts reported offering timely and meaningful consultation 

regarding participation in IDEA.

Note: A private school organization could be an archdiocese or other organization that provides support to private 

schools. Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. 

Source: Private School Survey (n=1,121) and Public School District Survey (n=587). See Exhibit A-37 for more 

detailed data.

Consultation Occurred

Private School 

Representatives 

Engaging in 

Consultation

86

96

53

28

38

49

40

35

As Reported by Public School Districts

As Reported by Private Schools

The survey asked who represented private schools in the consultations and just under half 

(49 percent) of private schools participating in consultations reported that school level 

administrators engaged in IDEA consultations. Yet almost all (96 percent) of the public school 

districts reported that they consulted with private school administrators at the school level. 

About one-third of private schools reported that representatives from an intermediary 

 

18 For private schools with students receiving IDEA benefits, 67 percent reported participating in consultations. 
40 

organization participated in consultations. Such organizations would include associations that 

represent a number of private schools as well as diocesan organizations. Parents were reportedly 

also involved in consultation. Forty percent of private schools reported that parents participated 

in IDEA consultations while just over 50 percent of public school districts reported consultation 

with parents. Almost 60 percent of public school districts and private schools reported that there 

was written documentation of IDEA consultations (See Exhibit A-37). 

Topics Covered in IDEA Consultations

IDEA requires that public school districts engage in consultation about a number of topics that 

impact the design, development, and provision of equitable special education services for eligible 

private school students with private school representatives and representatives of parents of 

parentally placed students with disabilities attending private schools located in the district. 

According to public school districts, the most common IDEA topics covered in consultation were 

the identification of eligible children, the location of services, and the types of special education 

services to be provided. Between 89 and 94 percent of public school districts reported that their 

consultations covered these topics (See Exhibit 29). 

Exhibit 29 

Public School District IDEA Consultation Topics, 2004–05 

Percent of Public 

School Districts

86

Location of services 94

Types of special education and related services and 

alternative service delivery mechanisms 92

The identification of eligible students through the child 

find process 89

Informing private school representatives about the 

child find process 88

How and when decisions on the delivery of special 

education services are provided will be made 88

How the consultation process will operate throughout 

the school year 87

How the share of federal IDEA funds available for 

private school students was calculated 67

How district will explain reasons for not providing 

services when disagreeing with private school officials 65

How to distribute funds if insufficient to serve all 

children 50

Topics of 

IDEA 

consultation

Exhibit Reads: Eighty-six percent of public school districts reported IDEA consultation 

occurred.

Source: Public School District Survey (n=587). See Exhibit A-39 for more detailed data.

Consultation occurred

Of districts indicating that consultation occurred
41 

More than half of private schools reported that these same issues, as well as others, were 

handled in a useful manner in consultation. Consultation on topics related to the amount of 

funds available for private school students, handling disagreements about services, and 

distribution of funds if insufficient were less likely to be considered useful, according to private 

school reports (See Exhibit 30). For a number of topics, Catholic schools were significantly more 

likely to consider consultations useful (See Exhibit A-38). 

Exhibit 30 

Private School Reports of Useful Consultation, 2004–05 

Percent of Private 

Schools

38

Location of services 66

Types of special education and related services and 

alternative service delivery mechanisms 61

The identification of eligible students through the child 

find process 61

Informing private school representatives about the 

child find process 56

How and when decisions on the delivery of special 

education services are provided will be made 56

How the consultation process will operate throughout 

the school year 62

How the share of federal IDEA funds available for 

private school students was calculated 41

How district will explain reasons for not providing 

services when disagreeing with private school officials 44

How to distribute funds if insufficient to serve all 

children 33

Consultation occurred

Of private schools indicating that consultation occurred

Topics of 

IDEA 

consultation 

reported 

useful

Exhibit Reads: Thirty-eight percent of private schools reported IDEA consultation.

Note: Useful is defined to be a response of 3 or higher on a 4 point scale ranging from 

1="not useful" to 4="very useful." 

Source: Private School Survey (n=1,121). See Exhibit A-38 for more detailed data.

Other Sources Utilized by Public School Districts and Private Schools for Assistance in 

Implementing Federal Education Programs 

Public school districts often utilized various sources for guidance in implementing ESEA and 

IDEA requirements. The three most common sources of assistance included: the state 

(75 percent), the U.S. Department of Education Web site (56 percent), and U.S. Department of 

Education publications (55 percent) (See Exhibit 31). The most common source of assistance 

private schools relied on was U.S. Department of Education publications (28 percent). 
42 

Only a small fraction of public school districts (10 percent) and private schools (13 percent) used 

district-wide working groups for technical assistance. Interestingly, public school districts 

appeared to have a higher level of service provision for private school participants where this 

was the case.19 More specifically, public school districts with these working groups had 

higher odds of providing services to private school participants in some ESEA programs.20 

Similarly, private schools that took part in such groups were more likely to have participants in 

ESEA programs (See Exhibit A-40).21 

Exhibit 31 

Technical Assistance for Implementation of Federal Education Programs, 2004–05 

Technical assistance from the state

U.S. Department of Education Web site

U.S. Department of Education publications

U.S. Department of Education sponsored 

workshops and conferences 

Technical assistance from U.S. Department of

Education

District-wide private school working group

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

Exhibit Reads: Seventy-five percent of public school districts received technical assistance from their state for assistance in

implementing federal education programs.

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. 

Source: Private School Survey (n=1,121) and Public School District Survey (n=587). See Exhibit A-40 for more detailed 

data.

75

56

55

33

14

10

12

26

28

14

13

4 

As Reported by Public School Districts

As Reported by Private Schools

 

19 Analysis limited to the five ESEA programs with the highest percentage of private school participants. 20 Specifically, Improving Teacher Quality Grants and Safe and Drug-Free Schools & Communities, controlling for 

public school district size, poverty, and location. 

21 The ESEA programs include specifically, Title I, Part A, Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational 

Technology State Grants, Safe and Drug-Free Schools & Communities, and State Grants for Innovative Programs, 

controlling for urban setting and religious affiliation. 
43 

6. Funding 

For ESEA programs, public school districts are required to spend an equal per-pupil amount of 

funds to serve public and private school students, teachers, and parents, taking into account the 

number and educational needs of those participants. IDEA requires that public school districts 

spend a proportionate amount of funding on special education and related services to such 

eligible children enrolled in private schools. 

Key Findings on Funding for Private School Participants in Federal Education Programs 

ESEA

• The average public school district allocated between 2 and 6 percent of ESEA program 

funding for services for private school students depending on the program. 

• Thirty-eight percent of private schools were aware of the amount of Title I, Part A, funds 

their students from low-income families generated. 

• The majority of public school districts utilized the same method for identifying lowincome private school students and for identifying public school students. 

IDEA

• Twenty-nine percent of public school districts reported inadequate IDEA funds as the 

reason for serving some but not all parentally placed students with disabilities. 

Public School District Expenditures for Services for Private School Students in ESEA

Programs 

Public school districts were surveyed about the funds they received for various ESEA programs 

and the percentage of those funds allocated for services for private school participants. The two 

largest ESEA programs by funding level were Title I, Part A, and Improving Teacher Quality 

State Grants. The average public school district with at least one private school located in its 

boundaries was allocated $1.47 million and $349,962 for these two programs, respectively (See 

Exhibit 32). However, because private schools are concentrated in large public school districts 

the average private school is in a district with considerably more federal program funds (See 

Exhibit A-42). 

Public school districts typically allocated between 2 percent and 6 percent of total ESEA

program funding for serving private school participants. The ESEA program with the 

highest average percentage allocated for services to private school students was State Grants for 

Innovative Programs; the average public school district reported that 6 percent of its State Grants 

for Innovative Programs funds were allocated for services to private school participants. The 

lowest was Title I, Part A, in which 2 percent of funds were allocated for services for private 
44 

school participants. This may partially be attributable to low rates of low-income private school 

students and the low rate of private school participation overall in Title I, Part A (14 percent). 

Exhibit 32 

ESEA Program Fund Allocation, 2004–05 

Title I, Part A

Improving 

Teacher 

Quality State 

Grants

Educational 

Technology 

State Grants

Safe and DrugFree Schools 

and 

Communities

State Grants 

for Innovative 

Programs

Average total district 

allocation (dollars) $1,474,999 $349,962 $39,428 $40,289 $32,256 

Average percent of total set 

aside for services for 

private school participants

2% 3% 4% 5% 6%

Exhibit Reads: The average public school district was allocated a total of $1.47 million for Title I, Part A, 2 percent of which was 

allocated for services for private school participants. 

Note: Exhibit presents the five ESEA programs with highest participation, as reported by private schools.

Source: Public School District Survey (n=587). See Exhibit A-42 for more detailed data.

Average 

Funding for 

Public School 

District

Private schools were asked about the Title I, Part A, funds that were used for services for private 

school students. Thirty-eight percent of private schools surveyed knew the amount of Title I, Part 

A, funds generated by their students from low-income families and residing in Title I attendance 

areas. Of these private schools, the average amount expended for Title I, Part A, services was 

$953 per private school student (See Exhibit A-43). 

Determining the Number of Private School Students From Low-Income Families 

The ESEA legislation allows four methods for determining the number of private school students 

eligible for Title I, Part A, funds within a public school district’s boundaries. These include 

using the same method of counting that is used for public school children, confidentially 

surveying families of private school students, applying the percentage of low-income public 

school students in the participating public school attendance area to the number of private school 

students in that attendance area, or using a low-income measure that correlates with the measure 

used to determine low-income public school students.22 Seventy-three percent of public school 

districts participating in Title I, Part A, reported using the same method of determining 

poverty in both public and private schools (See Exhibit A-44).

Fifty-two percent of private schools that had participants in ESEA programs provided some type 

of assistance to aid public school districts in identifying eligible students. Seventy-two percent 

of private schools that assisted public school districts in identifying students eligible for 

 

22 ESEA, Section 1120(c)(1). 
45 

Title I, Part A, provided the names and addresses of students to the public school district.23 This 

was the most common form of assistance (See Exhibit A-45). 

IDEA Funding 

Twenty-nine percent of public school districts that reported providing IDEA services to 

some but not all parentally placed private school students with disabilities indicated that 

they had inadequate IDEA funds to serve all eligible private school students within their 

boundaries. Public school districts are required to expend a proportionate share of federal IDEA

funds, which is calculated based on a formula in the regulations, to provide services to parentally 

placed private school children with disabilities. Among districts that did not provide any IDEA

services to any parentally placed private school students with disabilities, 3 percent reported 

having inadequate funds. In both cases, large majorities of public school districts reported that 

parental refusal of services was the reason they served some or none of the IDEA eligible private 

school students within their boundaries (See Exhibit A-22).

 

23 In order to protect the identity of low-income families, the Department has issued guidance that public school 

districts should not require private schools to give them the names of low-income families. 
46 
47 

7. Conclusions 

This study examined the extent to which private school students, teachers, and parents, 

participate in federal education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA) and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It also 

examined the consultation process between private schools and public school districts regarding 

a number of topics related to the provision of services and eligibility requirements for these 

programs. Last, it looked at how public school districts allocated federal funds to support the 

equitable participation of private school participants in these programs. A national sample of 

607 public school districts and 1,501 private schools were surveyed for the analysis. 

The picture presented is not a simple one. Discrepancies existed between the reports of private 

schools and public school districts in a number of places but not in all of them. These differences 

involved timely and meaningful consultations between public school districts and private schools 

and public school district provision of services for private school participants. In general, public 

school districts consistently reported higher levels of consultation and service provision than 

private schools. There are some plausible reasons for the discrepancies. For one, public school 

districts may only have consulted with some rather than all relevant private schools. Under 

IDEA public school districts are not required to consult with all private schools but rather with 

private school representatives and representatives of parents of parentally placed students with 

disabilities attending private schools located in the district or to provide services to all eligible 

private school students. In addition, private schools may not have perceived certain activities 

carried out by public school districts as services. For example, private schools with 

Title I, Part A, participants often reported that public school districts did not provide parental 

involvement activities or professional development. But when explicit examples were given, the 

vast majority of these private schools indicated that their participants had received services. 

However, it is also clear that some public school districts are not consulting with private schools 

and not providing services to private school participants. 

Highlights of the results are below. 

Participation in Federal Education Programs 

Over 40 percent of private schools had participants in IDEA; however, there was not a single 

ESEA program in which more than 20 percent of private schools had participants. A much higher 

fraction of Catholic schools had participants in ESEA programs, especially Title I, Part A. 

In the majority of cases where a private school did not have participants in any ESEA program, 

the private school had made a conscious decision not to participate. However, 40 percent of 

private schools without participants in such programs reported having no knowledge of their 

availability. 
48 

Provision of Services and Funding 

Among private schools that had participants in ESEA programs, private schools most frequently 

reported that participants received services related to professional development and equipment 

and materials. Generally, public school districts reported a somewhat higher level of service 

provision than private schools. These differences between private schools and the public school 

districts may partially be a result of different perceptions of what constitutes certain services. As 

noted earlier, when private schools were asked generally about Title I, Part A, parental 

involvement services and professional development, a minority of private schools reported 

receiving services. However, when specific examples of these services were given, a large 

majority of private schools with Title I, Part A, participants indicated that parents or teachers had 

received services. 

Public school districts allocated between 2 and 6 percent of their federal education funds for 

services for private school students, teachers, and parents. 

Consultation 

The majority of private schools with participants in ESEA programs reported participating in 

consultation with public school districts regarding ESEA program participation. 

Title I, Part A, was the most commonly discussed program in consultations between public 

school districts and private schools. Title I, Part A, requires written affirmation that consultation 

has occurred. Other programs for which a large percentage of private schools reported engaging 

in consultation were Teacher and Principal Recruiting and Training, Enhancing Education 

Through Technology, Safe and Drug-Free Private Schools and Communities; and State Grants 

for Innovative Programs. 

The topics most frequently discussed in these consultations included the needs and numbers of 

eligible students, the amount of funding available, and the types of services to be provided. In 

Title I, Part A, consultations, the most common topics discussed were the number of students 

generating funds, decisions regarding which students would receive services, and the types of 

services to be provided. Less than half of private schools that participated in Title I, Part A, 

consultations reported that these consultations covered parental activities, assessment methods, 

and professional development in a timely and meaningful way, even though they are required. 

Less than half of all private schools reported consultation regarding IDEA services. However, 

IDEA does not require public school districts to consult with all private schools but rather private 

school representatives and representatives of parents of parentally placed students with 

disabilities attending private schools located in the district. The most frequently reported topics 

of IDEA consultations were the identification of eligible children, the location of services, and 

the types of special education services to be provided. Almost two-thirds of the private schools 

reported receiving no information from their public school district about referring students for 

IDEA eligibility. Just over half of private schools reported the public school district contacted 
49 

them about IDEA services. More than half of private schools assisted public school districts in 

identifying IDEA eligible students. The vast majority of private schools were located in public 

school districts that reported conducting a child find process to identify IDEA eligible students at 

private schools. Public school district staff overwhelmingly determined IDEA eligibility for 

private school students and, indeed, tended to identify more eligible students than private schools 

reported referring. 
50 
51 

References 

Altshuler, Sandra J., and Sandra Kopels (2003). “Advocating in Private Schools for Children 

With Disabilities: What’s New With IDEA?” in Social Work, Vol. 48, Issue 3: 320-329. 

Broughman, Stephen P., and Nancy L. Swaim (2006). Characteristics of Private Schools in the 

United States: Results From the 2003-2004 Private School Universe Survey (NCES 2006-319). 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. 

Rubenstein, Michael G., Keith S. Gayler, and Bruce M. Haslam (1998). Title I Services for 

Private School Students Under the Reauthorization of ESEA: A Snapshot of Federal Assistance 

in Transition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept of Education, Office of the Under Secretary. 

U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report for State Formula Grant 

Programs Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by the No Child Left 

Behind Act of 2001, OMB number:1810-0614, Section III, School Choice and Supplemental 

Educational Services. Washington, D.C., 2004. 

Stullich, Stephanie, Brenda Donly, Simeon Stolzberg (1999). Targeting Schools: Study of Title I 

Allocations Within School Districts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service. 
52 
53 

Appendix A—Detailed Tables 
54 
55 

Exhibit A-1 

Total Private School Students 

Participating in Title I, Part A, 

1979–2006 

Number of Students

1979–80 189,100

1980–81 213,500

1981–82 184,000

1982–83 177,200

1983–84 190,700

1984–85 184,500

1985–86 127,900

1986–87 137,900

1987–88 136,600

1988–89 137,700

1989–90 151,900

1990–91 157,400

1991–92 163,300

1992–93 171,200

1993–94 177,200

1994–95 173,000

1995–96 170,500

1996–97 167,600

1997–98 188,200

1998–99 197,400

1999–2000 183,900

2000–01 201,600

2001–02 195,600

2002–03 188,000

2003–04 188,600

2004–05 164,400

2005–06 191,100

Year

Source: U.S. Department of Education, 

Consolidated State Performance Report for State 

Grant Programs under the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (2004).
56 

Exhibit A-2 

Characteristics of Public School Districts Serving Private Schools, 2004–05 

Students Living 

in Povertya Central City Urban Fringe/ Large Town Rural/ Small Town Average Daily Attendance Total Revenue per Student 

Public school district with private schools 13 8 46 45 6,676 $9,635 Public school district context of average private school 15 32 46 22 88,248 $9,768 Public school district nationally 15 9 27 64 3,131 $8,041

Descriptive Characteristic

Note: a Percent of children age 5-17 living below poverty level. "Public school district context of the average private school" 

interpreted to mean that on average, private schools were located in a district where 15 percent of students lived in poverty. Bindicates that the category was not applicable.Source: CCD 2003-04; PSS 2003-04; Public School District Survey #1 (n=587).
57 

Exhibit A-3 

Private School Characteristics, 2003–04 and 2004–05 

Private Schools Private School 

Students Private Schools Private School Students

Religious affiliation

Catholic 29 48 32 45

Other Religious 44 35 40 32

Nonsectarian 27 18 29 23

Urban setting

Central City 42 34 41 34

Urban Fringe/Large Town 45 44 46 46

Rural/Small Town 13 21 13 17

Grades served

Elementary 70 57 68 60

Secondary 9 16 9 13

Combined 22 27 23 28

Coeducational

Female only 2 4 1 2

Male only 2 4 2 4

Coeducational 96 92 97 94

Racial/Ethnic background (majority of students 

attending)

Hispanic 4 5 5 5

White, not Hispanic 85 87 86 87

Black, not Hispanic 9 6 7 5

American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 1 1

Asian or Pacific Islander 1 2 2 2

Note: For all of the tables disaggregated by religion, enrollment, and urban location, this identifying information comes 

from private school survey questions 21 and 23 and from CCD or PSS data. Survey sample drawn from 2001/02 NCES 

Private Schools Data. 

Source: PSS, 2003– 04; CCD 2003–04; Private School Survey #21.

Survey Data NCES Private School Universe 

Survey Data

(Percent of Total) (Percent of Total)
58

Exhibit A-4 

Private Schools With at Least One Participant in Federal Education Programs, 2004–0

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Nonsectarian Central City Urban Fringe/ Large Town^ R

Sm

IDEA 43 62* 30 39* 40 44 Title I, Part A 16 37* 7 6 20* 12 Reading First 6 12* 3 2 6 5 Even Start 1 10010Migrant Education 0 10100Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 20 42* 13 4* 21 17 Mathematics and Science Partnership 5 13* 2 2 6 6 Educational Technology State Grants 16 37* 9 4* 19 15 English Language Acquisition 3 6* 1 1 2 3 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants 19 45* 9 5* 20 19 21st-Century Community Learning Centers 2 5* 0 0 3 1 State Grants for Innovative Programs 20 43* 12 6* 22 17 

As Reported by Private Schools: 

Percent of Private Schools

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). Tlargest subgroup is indicated with a ^. Source: Private School Survey #2, #11 (n=1,121).
59

Exhibit A-5 

Private Schools With ESEA Program Participants, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Nonsectarian Central City Urban Fringe/ Large Town^ Rural/ Small Town A

En

ESEA program participants 44 80* 28 25 49* 41 41 

Percent of Private Schools

As Reported by Private Schools: 

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). Tlargest subgroup is indicated with a ^. Source: Private School Survey #1, #23 (n=1,121).
60

Exhibit A-6 

Percent of Students Participating in ESEA Programs by Private School Enrollment Size 

0-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 400+

Title I, Part A 4 4 3 1 1

Reading First 2 2 1 1 0

Educational Technology State Grants 2 6 8 5 4

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State 

Grants 4 15 12 9 10

State Grants for Innovative Programs 4 10 13 10 6

Private School Student Enrollment Size

Source: Private School Survey #11 (n=1,121).

Exhibit A-7 

ESEA Program Participation Rate of Students at Private Schools With ESEA

Participants by Private School Enrollment 

0-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 400+

Title I, Part A 36 19 15 10 11

Reading First 33 20 33 9 11

Educational Technology State Grants 42 39 31 34 25

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State 

Grants 63 69 69 61 62

State Grants for Innovative Programs 50 49 57 48 46

Private School Student Enrollment

Source: Private School Survey #11 (n=477 private schools with ESEA participants).
61

Exhibit A-8 

Reasons Private Schools Did Not Have Participants in ESEA Programs, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Nonsectarian Central City Urban Fring

Large Town

Private schools did not participate 56 20 72 75 51 59 Reasons for not participating

Conscious decision not to participate 58 54 63 51* 54 56 

No knowledge of any federal education programs under ESEA 40 29 39 45 41 40 

Contacted public school districts to inquire about these programs, but got no response 8 15 5 9 7 10 

As Reported by Private Schools: 

Percent of Private Schools

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The laris indicated with a ^. Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. Source: Private School Survey #1 (n=1,121).
62

Exhibit A-9 

Reasons Private Schools Did Not Have Student Participants in Title I, Part A, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Nonsectarian Central City Urban Fringe/ Large Town^ 

Sm

Students did not participate 58 47 72 74 54 65 Reasons students did not participate

No students resided in a participating public schoolTitle I attendance area

27 28 27 26 23 30 

No students residing in aTitle I attendance area generated funds

32 43* 22 23 27 41 

No students residing in a Title I attendance area were educationally needy

50 58 45 42 42 54 

School chose not to participate 44 45 49 34 41 44 Parents preferred that their children not participate 15 11 17 19 15 12 Other 29

As Reported by Private Schools: 

Percent of Private Schools

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). Tlargest subgroup is indicated with a ^. Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multipresponses. Blank cells indicate that categories were not applicable for these subgroups.Source: Private School Survey #13 (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants).
63

Exhibit A-10 

Public School Districts With at Least One Private School Student, Teacher, or Parent Particip

ESEA Programs, 2004–05 

Students Teachers Parents Students Teachers Parents

Title I, Part A 35 20 14 24 57 53 34 27 Reading First 1 1 72 53 9 11 Even Start 0 0 75 52 1 2 Migrant Education 0 72 55 0 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 31 23 64 45 Mathematics and Science Partnership 1 74 52 0 4 Educational Technology State Grants 15 19 28 71 27 29 English Language Acquisition 5 4 49 72 19 12 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants 22 20 25 70 33 32 21st-Century Community Learning Centers 3 67 58 4 State Grants for Innovative Programs 27 22 24 63 43 33 

Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private Schools Locat

Districts

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Note: a Where districts provided participation information. "Percent of private schools located in public school districts" should b

mean that 53 percent of private schools were located in a district where at least one private school student received Title I, Part A cells indicate that categories were not applicable for these subgroups.Source: Public School District Survey #12 (n=587).

Participation Rate by Groupa District Received 

No 

Funding 

Don't 

Know

Participation Rate by Groupa 

R

F
64

Exhibit A-11 

Types of ESEA Program Services Provided for Private School Participants, 2004–05 

Professional 

Development

Parental 

Involvement

Instructional 

Services to 

Students

Equipment or 

Materials Ot

Title I, Part A 45 63 60 87 65 Reading First 4 99 29 60 55 Even Start 3 63 98 89 66 1Migrant Education 2 55 68 70 55 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 50 89 5 26 39 Mathematics and Science Partnership 2 73 0 1 26 Educational Technology State Grants 38 75 6 27 69 English Language Acquisition 15 51 30 63 49 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants 42 58 29 58 61 121st-Century Community Learning Centers 7 20 34 75 50 2State Grants for Innovative Programs 50 51 11 41 68 

Type of Services Where District Provided Services

Provided 

Services

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses.Source: Public School District Survey #11 (n=587).

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Percent of Public School Districts

continued...
65

Exhibit A-11 

ESEA Program Services for Private School Participants, 2004–05 (Cont.) 

Professional 

Development

Parental 

Involvement

Instructional 

Services to 

Students

Equipment or 

Materials Oth

Title I, Part A 62 76 75 91 79 10Reading First 17 96 32 53 60 9Even Start 4 61 84 75 62 31Migrant Education 6 32 83 75 31 23Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 68 95 5 21 47 4Mathematics and Science Partnership 6 75 0 37 53 10Educational Technology State Grants 51 82 8 32 76 3English Language Acquisition 32 59 24 54 53 14Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants 60 65 42 53 63 1421st-Century Community Learning Centers 10 20 59 84 30 20State Grants for Innovative Programs 65 45 14 36 77 6

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. "Percent of private 

schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that 62 percent of private schools were locatedistrict that reported providing Title I, Part A, services.Source: Public School District Survey #11 (n=587).

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Provided 

Services

Type of Services Where District Provided Services

Percent of Private Schools Located in Public School Districts
66

Exhibit A-12 

Percent of Private Schools With Participants Receiving ESEA Program Services, 2004–

Professional 

Development

Parental 

Involvement

Instructional 

Services to 

Students

Equipment or 

Materials Ot

Title I, Part A 39 33 27 79 54 Reading First 14 32 16 71 47 Even Start 1Migrant Education 1Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 48 93 3 4 20 Mathematics and Science Partnership 13 85 8 19 49 Educational Technology State Grants 39 57 4 15 62 English Language Acquisition 6 32 22 60 46 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants 46 40 18 53 53 21st-Century Community Learning Centers 4 50 11 39 44 1State Grants for Innovative Programs 48 32 6 23 74 

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. Blank cells indicinsufficient receipt of services (n<20). Source: Private School Survey #11 (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants).

Type of Service Received by Private School Recipients

Private 

Schools 

Where 

Participants 

Received 

Services
67

Exhibit A-13 

Title I, Part A, Parental Involvement Activities, 2004–05 

As Reported by Private 

Schools:

Percent of Private Schools Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private Schools Located in Public School Districts

Parent newsletter 49 52 50Parent meetings 52 71 81Parenting classes and workshops 54 43 64Parent-teacher conferences 51 72 79Take home materials or books 49 66 76Summer activity kits 50 24 32Any of the above 84 92 94

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Note: "Percent of private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that 50 percent of private schools located in districts that allocated funds for Title I, Part A, services for private school participants, were in a district that provided parent newsletters.Source: Public School District Survey #17 (n=320 public school districts that allocated funds forTitle I, Part A, services for private school participants); Private School Survey #15 (n=188 private schools with participants receiving Title I, Part A, services).
68

Exhibit A-14 

Title I, Part A, Professional Development Activities, 2004–05 

As Reported by Private 

Schools:

Percent of Private 

Schools

Percent of Public School 

Districts

Percent of Private 

Schools Located in 

Public School Districts

Professional development at private school 49 27 40Professional development at public school 53 61 60Professional development - third-party provider 49 50 57Payment for graduate courses 42 9 11Payment for workshops and conferences 50 55 55Any of the above 83 88 93

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Note: "Percent of private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that 40 percent of private schools located in a district that allocated funds for Title I, Part A, services for private school participants, were in a district that provided professional development at a private school site.Source: Public School District Survey #18 (n=320 public school districts that allocated funds forTitle I, Part A, services for private school participants); Private School Survey #15 (n=188 private schools with participants receiving Title I, Part A, services).
69

Exhibit A-15 

Public School District Allocation of Title I, Part A, Funds, 2004–05 

Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ Large District Small District^ Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ 

District provides services to private school participants 44 40 45 54* 41 64 79* 56 

How funds were allocated

Distributed on a school-by-school basis based on the number of students generating funds

78 80 78 84 76 73 67 78 

Funds combined and services provided to students most at risk 28 41 24 26 29 45 67* 28 

Other 65

Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private Schools Located 

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest subgroup is insum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. "Other" subgroup analysis not appropriate due to the diversof private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that 64 percent of private schools were located in a district tservices. Source: Public School District Survey #14 (n=587).
70

Exhibit A-16 

Private School Student Participation in Title I, Part A, Services During Nonschool Hours, 20

Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ Large District Small District^ Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ 

Private school students participated in Title I services during nonschool hours

37 39 36 41 35 56 73* 44 

Private school students did not participate in Title I services during nonschool hours 

63 61 64 59 65 44 27* 56 

Reasons students did not participate

Extended time services were offered, but private school students did not participate

30 37 28 44* 25 36 45 33 

Extended time services were not offered to private school students 42 47 41 56* 36 46 52 44 Extended time services were not offered to public or private school students

44 15* 51 12* 56 32 10* 40 

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private Schools Located 

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest subgroup is Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. "Percent of private schools located in public scinterpreted to mean that 56 percent of private schools located in districts that allocated funds for Title I, Part A, services for private school pdistrict where private school students participated in Title I services during nonschool hours.Source: Public School District Survey #16 (n=320 public school districts that allocated funds for Title I, Part A, services for private school p
71

Exhibit A-17 

Location and Provider of Title I, Part A, Services, 2004–05 

Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ Large District Small District^ Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ 

At private school with a district teacher 49 58 46 47 50 58 74* 48 

At private school with a thirdparty provider 28 29 28 37 24 40 41 39 

At private school in a computerassisted lab 16 28* 13 31* 9 33 53* 20 

At private school in a mobile van unit 10 18 7 12 8 14 21 8 

At public school with a district teacher 14 8 15 5* 17 6 3 7 

Other 16 15

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private Schools Located i

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest subgroNumbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. "Other" subgroup analysis not appropriate 

responses. "Percent of private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that 58 percent of private schooprovided Title I, Part A, services for private school participants, were in a district that provided these services at a private school site w

Source: Public School District Survey #15 (n=320 public school districts that allocated funds for Title I, Part A, services for private sch
72

Exhibit A-18 

Reasons Public School Districts Did Not Allocate Title I, Part A, Funds for Services for Private School Pa

Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ Large District Small District^ Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ 

District did not provide funds for services to private school participants 56 60 55 46* 59 36 21* 44 Reason no funds were allocated

No private school students in district generated funds 32 23 34 22 35 29 19 31 

No private school students in district failing or at risk of failing to meet educational standards

20 15 21 15 21 20 15 22 

Private school officials did not respond to request for information to identify students needing services

34 38 33 45 31 39 42 38 

Private school officials declined the offer of Title I services 71 76 70 86* 67 77 85 75 

Other 19 11

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private Schools Located 

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest subgroup is indsum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. "Other" subgroup analysis not appropriate due to the diversiof private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that 36 percent of private schools located in districts that recwere in a district that did not allocate Title I funds for services for private school participants. Source: Public School District Survey #14 (n=481 public school districts that received Title I, Part A, funds).
73

Exhibit A-19 

IDEA Services, 2004–05 

Direct Service Consultative Service Direct Service Consultative Service Direc

Special education instructional services 34 26 8 78 63 15 81 Audiology services 17 14 4 29 21 8 39 Counseling, including rehabilitation 

counseling 9 7 3 13 10 3 20 Medical services 5 4 1 10 7 4 14 Occupational therapy 17 14 3 47 40 7 45 Orientation and mobility services 3 3 1 14 11 3 20 Physical therapy 8 6 2 32 27 5 42 Recreation, including therapeutic recreation 3213304School nurse services 15 13 2 20 17 4 23 Social work services 8 5 3 16 10 6 20 Speech-language 45 41 4 92 86 6 91 Equipment 14 28 37Transportation 19 47 44Assistive technology 11 30 41

IDEA 

Services 

Provided

Percent of Private Schools

As Reported by Private Schools:

Note: "Percent of private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that 81 percent of private schools located in 

provided IDEA services for private school participants, were in a district that reported providing special education instructional services throu

school participants. Blank cells indicate that the service categories were not applicable.Source: Private School Survey #9 (n=1,121); Public School District Survey #7 (n=436 public school districts providing IDEA services for priparticipants).

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private 

Public Sch

IDEA 

Services 

Provided

Typ

IDEA 

Services 

Provided

Type of Services Provided Type of Services Provided
74

Exhibit A-20 

Location of IDEA Services, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Nonsectarian Overall Large District Small District^ Overall L

Di

At private school 43 51* 32 48* 62 62 62 61 At a public school or district site 47 53 46 41 74 82* 69 82 

Other 10 6 18

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest swith a ^. "Other" subgroup analysis not appropriate due to the diversity of responses. "Percent of private schools located in public 

should be interpreted to mean that 61 percent of private schools located in districts that provided IDEA services for private schoo

in a district that provided IDEA services at a private school site. 

Source: Private School Survey #10 (n=455 private schools with participants receiving IDEA services); Public School District Sur

public school districts that provided IDEA services for private school participants).

As Reported by Public School District

Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Priva

Public Sc

As Reported by Private Schools: 

Percent of Private Schools
75

Exhibit A-21 

Reasons Public School Districts Did Not Provide IDEA Services 

for Eligible Private School Students, 2004–05 

Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ Large District Small District^ Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ 

Districts with IDEA eligible students 79 78 79 96* 73 89 90 88 

Districts with IDEA eligible students that did not provide IDEA services

11 11 11 6* 18 8 4 8 

Reason districts did not provide services

Lack of transportation 0 0IDEA funds were inadequate 3 3362 10 16 9 

Parents declined services 61 68 60 29 65 59 47 62 

Other+ 53 56

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private Schools Located in P

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest subg

^. Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. "Percent of private schools located in should be interpreted to mean that 89 percent of private schools were located in a district with IDEA eligible private school students.+ Common reasons given by public school districts for not providing services include private schools declined services, no requests fintermediate unit provides these services, and not required per IEP. "Other" subgroup analysis not appropriate due to the diversity of in the "Lack of Transportation" row indicate that subgroups did not report lack of transportation as a reason for not providing IDEA s

Source: Public School District Survey #7 (n=587).
76

Exhibit A-22 

Reasons Public School Districts Provided IDEA Services 

to Some But Not All Eligible Private School Students, 2004–05 

Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ Large District Small District^ Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ 

Districts provided IDEA services to some but not all eligible private school students

38 46 35 62* 25 61 71 55 

Reasons not all IDEA eligible 

students received services

Parents declined services 81 85 80 85 76 88 95 83 

IDEA funds were inadequate to serve all children identified in the child find process

29 19 34 34 23 34 34 34 

Other 18 14

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private Schools Located i

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest subgrouNumbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. "Other" subgroup analysis not appropriate dresponses. "Percent of private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that 61 percent of private schools that provided IDEA services to some but not all eligible private school students. 

Source: Public School District Survey #9 (n=587).
77

Exhibit A-23 

Private School Notification of IDEA Services 

and Referral Procedures, 2004–05 

As Reported by Private 

Schools: 

Percent of Private 

Schools

Received information from public school district regarding IDEA services 53

Received information about the referral of IDEA 

eligible students 45

Source: Private School Survey #3, #7 (n=1,121).

Exhibit A-24 

Average Number of Parentally Placed Private School Students Identified by Public Scho

Districts and Referred by Private Schools for Special Education Services, 2004–05 

In Schools In Which 

Students Do Not Receive 

IDEA Services

In Schools In W

Students Receive I

Services

Identified by public school district 4 13Referred to public school district by private school 1 5

Source: Private School Survey #4, #5 (n=1,121).
78

Exhibit A-25 

Evaluators Used to Determine Private School Student IDEA Eligibility, 2004–05 

Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ Large District Small District^ Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ Lar

Dist

Public school staff 86 85 86 97* 82 91 93 91 97Contracted third-party 33 29 34 23* 82 30 36 28 26 Other 12 16

Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private Schools Located in Public 

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest indicated with a ^. Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. "Other" subgrouappropriate due to the diversity of responses. "Percent of private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted percent of private schools were located in a district that used public school staff to determine private school student IDEA eligibSource: Public School District Survey #5 (n=587).
79

Exhibit A-26 

Child Find Procedures Used to Locate and Identify Private School Students Eligible 

for IDEA Services, 2004–05 

Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ Large District Small District^ Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ 

Mass mailing to all households in public school attendance area 31 19* 34 24 33 24 15 29 

Radio or TV public service announcements

26 28 26 36* 23 31 35 29 

Information on district website 54 40* 59 59 53 66 67 66 

Distribution of informational brochures 56 57 56 72* 50 68 74 65 

Presentation at private schools 29 28 29 38* 26 42 51 38 

Outreach at community events 39 41 38 48* 36 48 58 43 

Outreach to private schools 72 72 72 86* 67 81 87 78 

Other 47 48

Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private Schools Located in 

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest subgro

Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. "Other" subgroup analysis not appropriate responses. "Percent of private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that 24 percent of private schoodistrict that used mass mailing to all households as a child find procedure. Source: Public School District Survey #4 (n=587).
80

Exhibit A-27 

Assistance from Private Schools in Identifying Private School Students Eligible 

for IDEA Services, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Nonsectarian Central City Urban Fringe/ Large Town^ Rur

Small 

Provided mailing list of all parents

11 15* 10 8 9 9 17

Provided district contact info for parents of students with suspected disabilities

43 62* 36 32 44 43 42

Organized parent information session 18 23* 14 17 19 17 1

Referred parents and/or students to the district's IDEA representative

37 52* 32 26 35 36 42

The district did not ask for assistance with child find activities

42 37 42 47 42 43 3

Other 8Overall assistance rate 51 69* 42 43 50 50 53

Percent of Private Schools

As Reported by Private Schools: 

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05The largest subgroup is indicated with a ^. Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. "Other" subgroup analysis not appropriate due to the diversity of responses. Source: Private School Survey #6 (n=1,121).
81

Exhibit A-28 

Timely and Meaningful ESEA Program Consultation, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Nonsectarian Overall Large District Small District^ Overall 

Title I, Part A 92 94 90 84 97 98* 97 99 

Reading First 80 78 88Even Start 100 42 68Migrant Education 74 61 70Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 87 85 88 92 91 93* 90 93 

Mathematics and Science Partnership 90 64 85Educational Technology State Grants 80 80 76 86 84 91* 81 92 

English Language Acquisition 72 70 89Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants 90 89 92 93 89 89* 89 94 

21st-Century Community Learning Centers 66 48 78State Grants for Innovative Programs 86 85 84 100* 86 87* 86 93 

Note: Statistically significant differences are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest subgroup is indicated with a ^. Blank cells indicate in

services or participation to provide subgroup analysis (n<50). "Percent of private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted 

private schools located in districts providing Title I, Part A, program services for private school participants, were in a district that reported cond

meaningful consultation regarding the program.Source: Private School Survey #18, #19 (n=477 private schools with participants in the given program); Public School District Survey #19, #20 

districts providing given program services for private school participants).

As Reported by Private Schools: As Reported by Public School 

Percent of Private Schools Percent of Public School Districts Percent o

P
82

Exhibit A-29 

Private Schools With Participants in ESEA Programs That Reported 

Public School Districts Engaged in Timely and Meaningful 

Consultation With Private School Officials, 2004–05 

Program Consultation Took 

Place

Private Schools Where 

Consultation Took Place That 

Had Participants in Program

Title I, Part A 71 51Reading First 28 45Even Start 8 16Migrant Education 6 13Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 56 83Mathematics and Science Partnership 25 53Educational Technology State Grants 47 77English Language Acquisition 14 33Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants 59 7921st-Century Community Learning Centers 12 27State Grants for Innovative Programs 59 81

Source: Private School Survey #18, #19 (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants).

Percent of Private Schools
83

Exhibit A-30

Private School Officials Engaging in ESEA Consultation, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Nonsectarian Central City Urban Fringe/ Large Town^ Ru

Smal

Consultation took place 72 84* 71 42* 69 72 Private school officals engaging in consultation

Administrators at the diocesan or association level 49 58* 34 30 62* 41 Administrators at the school level 89 89 89 91 84* 92 Other 17

As Reported by Private Schools: 

Percent of Private Schools

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). largest subgroup is indicated with a ^. Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multresponses. "Other" subgroup analysis not appropriate due to the diversity of responses. Source: Private School Survey #17 (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants).
84

Exhibit A-31 

Reasons ESEA Consultation Did Not Take Place, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Nonsectarian Central City Urban Fringe/ Large Town^ Rura

Small T

Consultation did not take 

place 28 16 29 58 31 28 20Reason consultation did not take place

Chose not to participate 28 21* 48 13* 14 24 62

Association or diocesan administrators decided not to participate

4 4 11 0 4 6 0

School district did not contact private school officals

64 61 52 73 84* 57 43

Other 13

As Reported by Private Schools: 

Percent of Private Schools

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05The largest subgroup is indicated with a ^. Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could marmultiple responses. "Other" subgroup analysis not appropriate due to the diversity of responses. Source: Private School Survey #17 (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants).
85

Exhibit A-32 

Title I, Part A, Timely and Meaningful Consultation, 2004–05 

As Reported by Private 

Schools: 

Percent of Private 

Schools

Percent of Public School 

Districts

Percent of Private 

Schools Located in Public 

School Districts

Consultation took place 92 84 91Private school officials engaging in consultation

Private school organization 44 26 47Private school administrators 94 97 97

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. "Percent of private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that 91 percent of private schools located in districts that received Title I, Part A, funds, were in a district that reported conducting timely and meaningful consultation about the program.Source: Private School Survey #18 (n=188 private schools with participants that received Title I, Part A, services); Public School District Survey #19 (n=481 public school districts that received Title I, Part A, funds).
86

Exhibit A-33 

Barriers to Timely and Meaningful ESEA Consultation, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Non- sectarian Overall Large District Small District^ Over

Major Barrier 9 10 6 9 4 3 4 3 

Somewhat of a Barrier 19 19 15 21 9 7 10 8 Major Barrier 2 1 2 2 

Somewhat of a Barrier 5 4 6 6 

Major Barrier 2 1 3 2 

Somewhat of a Barrier 5 4 5 4 

Major Barrier 13 16 12 10 

Somewhat of a Barrier 9 9 9 12 Major Barrier 12 12 11 14 2 1 2 1 Somewhat of a Barrier 17 18 16 16 3 1 4 4 Major Barrier 15 14 12 22

Somewhat of a Barrier 20 20 18 20

Major Barrier 14 15 8 21

Somewhat of a Barrier 16 16 12 22

Absence of district procedures and policies relating to the equitable participation requirement

As Reported by Private Schools: 

Lack of assistance from private schools in identifying needs of their students and teachers

As Reported by Public Sch

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). Blank cells indicate that 

applicable for either private schools or public school districts. "Percent of private schools located in public school districts" should be interpre

of private schools were located in a district that reported its limited understanding of or experience with the equitable participation requiremen

barrier" to conducting consultation.Source: Private School Survey #20 (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants); Public School District Survey #21 (n=587).

Percent of Private Schools Percent of Public School Districts P

Locat

District's limited understanding of or experience with equitable participation requirements of ESEALimited communication from the public school districtLack of timely and meaningful consultation with the districtDifficulty coordinating internally in the districtInadequate information about with whom to consult in private schools
87

Exhibit A-34 

ESEA Program Consultation Topics, 2004–05 

Needs of 

Students

Professional 

Development

Amount of 

Funding 

Available

Types of 

Services

Service 

Provider

A

Reading First 80 87 64 80 88 67 Even Start 100 79 54 71 75 48 Migrant Education 74 68 44 70 80 47 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 87 50 90 83 74 53 Mathematics and Science Partnership 90 69 87 81 75 54 Educational Technology State Grants 80 67 78 87 75 56 English Language Acquisition 72 86 59 72 80 68 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants 90 79 66 84 77 61 21st-Century Community Learning Centers 66 65 62 82 66 44 State Grants for Innovative Programs 86 69 64 92 78 54 

Consultation 

Occurred

Topics Covered During Consultation

As Reported by Private Schools: 

Percent of Private Schools

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses.Source: Private School Survey #19 (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants).

continued... 
88

Exhibit A-34 

ESEA Program Consultation Topics, 2004–05 (Cont.) 

Needs of 

Students

Professional 

Development

Amount of 

Funding 

Available

Types of 

Services

Service 

Provider

A

Reading First 78 85 63 67 78 53 Even Start 42 81 27 36 64 54 Migrant Education 61 87 54 65 83 60 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 91 50 90 80 77 47 Mathematics and Science Partnership 64 57 75 75 64 33 Educational Technology State Grants 84 66 79 81 77 46 English Language Acquisition 70 81 61 65 73 49 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants 89 75 65 83 78 50 21st-Century Community Learning Centers 48 73 32 70 82 67 State Grants for Innovative Programs 86 71 68 84 75 46 

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Percent of Public School Districts

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. Source: Public School District Survey #20 (n=587 public school districts providing given program services for private school participants)

Consultation 

Occurred

Topics Covered During Consultation

continued... 
89

Exhibit A–34 

ESEA Program Consultation Topics, 2004–05 (Cont.) 

Needs of 

Students

Professional 

Development

Amount of 

Funding 

Available

Types of 

Services

Service 

Provider

As

Reading First 88 83 84 79 89 70 Even Start 68 67 37 49 86 56 Migrant Education 70 83 58 65 87 62 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 93 59 95 87 85 60 Mathematics and Science Partnership 85 75 77 80 83 62 Educational Technology State Grants 92 70 89 84 86 59 English Language Acquisition 89 88 76 75 83 64 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants 94 83 79 85 88 64 21st-Century Community Learning Centers 78 86 43 62 84 73 State Grants for Innovative Programs 93 81 68 90 83 59 

Note: Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple responses. "Private schools located in public school interpreted to mean that 88 percent of private schools located in districts with private school participants in Reading First, were in a district ttimely and meaningful consultation regarding the program.Source: Public School District Survey #20 (n=587 public school districts providing given program services for private school participants).

Consultation 

Occurred

Topics Covered During Consultation

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Percent of Private Schools Located in Public School Districts
90

Exhibit A-35 

Title I, Part A, Consultation Topics, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Nonsectarian Overall Large District Small District^ Overall Lar

Dist

Consultation occurred 92 94 90 84 97 98 97 99 99 

Of districts and private schools reporting consultation

Number of private school students generating Title I funds 73 78 68 61 80 91* 76 89 9

Administrative costs 37 40 37 21 36 48* 31 50 59 

Per-pupil allocation 61 64 60 49 70 82* 66 83 9

Determination to "pool" resources 45 46 48 30 33 41* 30 49 59 

Determination of which eligible students will receive services 76 80 76 57 78 86* 75 86 94 

Assessment of student learning needs 66 71* 58 56 65 78* 60 79 89 

Assignment of staff who will provide services to private-school students 67 74* 55 51 54 63* 50 68 7

Type of services to be provided 83 87 77 76 81 87 79 88 94 

Location of services 76 81* 68 67 75 82* 72 83 9

Challenging student performance standards 41 46* 32 36 48 63* 42 64 77 

Assessment methods of students' progress in meeting standards 48 52 40 41 55 70* 49 71 82 

Professional development of private school teachers of Title I, Part A, participants 48 47 49 50 60 76* 54 73 84 

Activities for private school parents ofTitle I, Part A, participants 41 41 41 36 52 66* 47 66 7

Note: Statistically significant differences between general private school response and general public school district response indicated w

(p<.05). The largest subgroup is indicated with a ^. Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple reof private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that 99 percent of private schools located in districts Title I, Part A, funds, were in a district that reported conducting timely and meaningful consultation regarding the program.Source: Private School Survey #18 (n=188 private schools with Title I, Part A, participants); Public School District Survey #19 (n=481 pdistricts that received Title I, Part A, funds).

As Reported by Private Schools: As Reported by Public School Districts

Percent of Private Schools Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private 

Public Sch
91

Exhibit A-36

Documentation of ESEA Consultation, 2004–05 

As Reported by Private 

Schools That Have 

Participants in ESEA 

Programs

Percent of Private Schools Percent of Public School Districts Percent of P

Located in 

Di

Letter of intent to participate in ESEA programs sent by districts; received by private schools 72 78 

Maintenance of Written Records of Consultation

 Title I 81  Other ESEA programs 73 

Use of sign-off form

 Title I 72  Other ESEA programs 65 

As Reported by Public School Dis

Note: Blank cells indicate that categories were not applicable for these subgroups. "Percent of private schools located in publdistricts" should be interpreted to mean that 87 percent of private schools were located in a district that sent a letter of intent t

ESEA programs.Source: Private School Survey #16 (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants); Public School District Survey #

(n=587).
92

Exhibit A-37 

IDEA Consultation, 2004–05 

As Reported by Private 

Schools:

Percent of Private Schools Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private Sch

Located in Public Sch

Districts

Consultation occurred 38 86 92Private school representatives engaging in consultation

Organization 35 28 46Administrators 49 96 97Parents 40 53 59

Written affirmation documenting consultation 59 57 60

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Note: "Percent of private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that 92 percent of private schools were located in a district that reported conducting timely and meaningful consultation regarding IDESource: Private School Survey #8 (n=1,121); Public School District Survey #6 (n=587).
93

Exhibit A-38 

Private School Report of “Usefulness” of IDEA Consultation, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Nonsectarian Central City Urban Fringe/ Large Town^ 

The identification of eligible students through the child find process 61 66* 53 63 62 60 Informing private school representatives about the child find process 56 63* 45 54 57 57 How the share of federal IDEA funds available for private school students was calculated

41 41 41 42 40 42 

How the consultation process will operate throughout the school year 62 71* 53 53 65 57 Types of special education and related services and alternative service delivery mechanisms

61 67 58 47 66 57 

How to distribute funds if insufficient to serve all children 33 37* 26 32 33 35 How and when decisions on the delivery of special education services are provided will be made

56 61* 48 56 54 55 

Location of services 66 69 62 61 59 66 How district will explain reasons for not providing services when disagreeing with private school officials

44 49 37 44 47 44 

Percent of Private Schools

As Reported by Private Schools: 

Note: “Useful” is defined to be a response of 3 or higher on a 4 point scale ranging from 1="not useful" to 4="very usefulStatistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest indicated with a ^. Source: Private School Survey #8 (n=1,121).
94

Exhibit A-39 

IDEA Consultation Topics, 2004–05 

Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ Large District Small District^ Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ 

The identification of eligible students through the child find process 89 92 88 93 87 94 96 93 

Informing private school representatives about the child find process

88 91 87 94* 85 89 83 92 

How the share of federal IDEA funds available for private school students was calculated

67 74 65 71 66 69 66 70 

How the consultation process will operate throughout the school year 87 92 86 88 87 83 78 85 

Types of special education and related services and alternative service delivery mechanisms

92 89 92 95 90 94 95 94 

How to distribute funds if insufficient to serve all children 50 55 49 57 48 54 52 56 

How and when decisions on the delivery of special education services are provided will be made

88 86 88 91 86 87 81 90 

Location of services 94 93 94 95 94 94 94 95 

How district will explain reasons for not providing services when disagreeing with private school officials

65 68 64 73* 62 69 66 70 

Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private Schools Located in 

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest subgroup is 

"Percent of private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that 94 percent of private schools were located in consulting about the identification of eligible students through the child find process.Source: Public School District Survey #6 (n=587).
95

Exhibit A-40 

Technical Assistance for Implementation of Federal Education Programs, 2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Nonsectarian Overall Large District Small District^ Overall 

Technical assistance from the state

12 17* 7 12 75 82* 72 81 

Districtwide private school working group 13 22* 9 8 10 20* 6 25 

Technical assistance from U.S. Department of Education 4 8* 2 3 14 18 12 31 

U.S. Department of Education publications 28 37* 23 24 55 77* 47 71 

U.S. Department of Education sponsored workshops and conferences 

14 17* 10 14 33 43* 30 46 

U.S. Department of Education Web site 26 34* 19 25 56 71* 50 69 

Other 11 20 21

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest subgr

"Other" subgroup analysis not appropriate due to the diversity of responses. "Percent of private schools located in public school distric

to mean that 81 percent of private schools were located in a district that reported receiving technical assistance from the state regarding 

federal education programs.Source: Private School Survey #25 (n=1,121); Public School District Survey #25 (n=587).

As Reported by Private Schools: As Reported by Public School Di

Percent of Private Schools Percent of Public School Districts Percent of P

Pub
96

Exhibit A-41 

Public School District Provision of ESEA Program Services for 

Private School Participants as Predicted by Districtwide 

Working Group Participation 

As Reported by 

Private Schools: 

Private Schools Public School Districts Private Schools Located in Public School Districts

Odds Ratios Odds Ratios Odds Ratios

Title I, Part A 1.80* 2.00 2.51*

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 3.40* 3.29 3.76*Educational Technology State Grants 2.28* 1.87 2.54*Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants 2.69* 2.23* 2.69*State Grants for Innovative Programs 1.93* 1.49 2.30*

As Reported by Public School 

Districts:

Note: Private school model controls for location and religious affiliation. Public school district models control for location, poverty, and enrollment. Statistically significant differences in odds for private schools having ESEA program participants and public 

school districts providing services to private school participants given participation in a districtwide working group are indicated with an asterisk (Chi-squared<.05). "Private schools located in public school districts" should be interpreted to mean that private schools, on average, were located in public school districts where the odds ratio of providing Title I, Part A, progam services, given districtwide working group participation, was 2.51.
97

Exhibit A-42 

ESEA Program Fund Allocation, 2004–05 

Large 

Districts

Small 

Districts^

Average Percent of 

Total Set Aside for 

Private School 

Participants

Large 

Districts

Sm

Distri

Title I, Part A $ 1,474,999 $ 4,837,926 * $ 362,865 2.0 $ 48,181,719 $ 76,814,245 * $ 46

Reading First $ 87,143 $ 317,002 * $ 11,127 0.5 $ 3,033,671 $ 4,846,104 * $ 13

Even Start $ 10,693 $ 32,517 * $ 3,476 0.0 $ 56,151 $ 87,241 * $ 

Migrant Education $ 19,509 $ 57,977 * $ 6,788 0.0 $ 73,519 $ 114,295 * $ 

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants $ 349,962 $ 1,057,424 * $ 116,001 2.8 $ 7,760,288 $ 12,330,559 * $ 14

Mathematics and Science Partnership $ 3,692 $ 13,933 * $ 305 0.1 $ 44,839 $ 71,385 * 

Educational Technology State Grants $ 39,428 $ 126,222 * $ 10,725 4.0 $ 1,042,574 $ 1,660,553 * $ 

English Language Acquisition $ 65,723 $ 236,766 * $ 9,158 1.2 $ 2,308,802 $ 3,685,927 * $ 

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants $ 40,289 $ 125,136 * $ 12,230 4.8 $ 767,463 $ 1,219,219 * $ 

21st-Century Community Learning Centers $ 52,894 $ 149,065 * $ 21,089 1.0 $ 247,087 $ 382,961 * $ 2

State Grants for Innovative Programs $ 32,256 $ 99,874 * $ 9,894 6.0 $ 411,120 $ 651,221 * $ 

Notes: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest subgroup iSource: Public School District Survey #11 (n=587).

As Reported by Public School District:

Average Funding for Public School District Public School District Funding for Av

Average Total Public 

School District 

Allocation

Average Total Public 

School District 

Allocation
98

Exhibit A-43 

Title I, Part A, Allocations for Services for 

Private School Participants, 2004–05 

Average amount of Title I funds per private school student participant 953Percent of private schools that know the amount of Title I funds allocated for services 38

Source: Private School Survey #11, #14 (n=188 private schools with Title I, Part A, participants).
99

Exhibit A-44 

Public School District Methods Used to Determine the Number of Private School Students From Low-

2004–05 

Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ Large District Small District^ Overall High Poverty Low Poverty^ 

Used the same poverty data to identify and count low-income students in public and private schools

73 73 73 77 71 78 85 74 

Extrapolated from a representative survey sample 

5 6565 6 85

Correlated data from two different data sources 8 11 7 9 8 9 9 9 

Used proportionalitya 16 13 17 20 15 21 20 22 

Other 21 18

Percent of Public School Districts Percent of Private Schools Located in P

As Reported by Public School Districts:

Note: a Proportionality means that a public school district applied the low-income percentage of each participating public school atten

number of private school children who reside in that private school attendance area. Statistically significant differences relative to larare indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). The largest subgroup is indicated with a ^. Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because resmultiple responses. "Other" subgroup analysis not appropriate due to the diversity of responses. "Percent of private schools located in should be interpreted to mean that 78 percent of private schools located in districts that received Title I, Part A, funds, were in a distrpoverty data to identify and count low-income students in both public and private schools.Source: Public School District Survey #13 (n=481 public school districts that received Title I, Part A, funds).
100

Exhibit A-45 

Private School Assistance With Identifying Private School Students From Low-Income Fam

2004–05 

Overall Catholic Other Religious^ Nonsectarian Central City Urban Fringe/ Large Town^ 

S

Overall assistance rate 52 65* 40 32 52 47 Type of assistance provided by private schools

Provided names and addresses of students 72 72 76 66 73 71 

Provided family income information 49 48 51 50 44 53 

Surveyed school's parents 56 57 52 54 47* 66 Provided tuition scholarship information 26 28 20 25 27 29 

Other 27

As Reported by Private Schools: 

Percent of Private Schools

Note: Statistically significant differences relative to largest category subgroup are indicated with an asterisk (p<.05). Th

subgroup is indicated with a ^. Numbers sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could mark multiple respon"Other" subgroup analysis not appropriate due to the diversity of responses.Source: Private School Survey #6 (n=477 private schools with ESEA program participants).
101

Appendix B—Methodology 

Sample Design and Weighting 

The sample universe was created using the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

Common Core of Data (CCD) Local Education Agency Universe File (2002–03) and the Private 

School Universe Survey (PSS) (2003–04). ZIP Codes were used to match private schools to 

public school districts. The sample of public school districts was selected prior to the sample of 

private schools. Public school districts were drawn at random from a list of public school 

districts with at least one private school. Each district was drawn with probability proportionate 

to the number of private schools located within district boundaries. As a result, districts with 

many private schools had a much greater chance of entering the sample. For the sampling, 

public school districts were stratified based on enrollment, free and reduced-priced lunch 

program participation, and number of private school students. Public school districts with only 

one or two private schools were further stratified by the religious affiliation of the private 

schools located within their boundaries. In all, 607 public school districts were selected. 

This sample design allows for the description of public school districts in two different ways. 

The first approach is to weight the sample so that it represents a simple average of all districts 

with at least one private school. The original sample, with weights for large and small districts, 

gives any district weight proportional to the number of private schools located in the district. To 

construct “equal-probability” weights, the “size-based” weights were divided by the number of 

private schools in the sampled district. The resulting “equal-probability” weights lead to a 

weighted sample that equally emphasizes large and small districts with at least one private 

school. 

The second approach takes direct advantage of having sampled districts with probability 

proportionate to the number of private schools in the public school district. The sampling and 

weighting approach depends on the number of private schools. Public school districts with 44 

schools or more were included in the sample with certainty and assigned a weight that reflects 

their desired sampling probability (the number of private schools in their jurisdiction divided by 

44). Public school districts with between three and 44 private schools were sampled with 

probability proportionate to the number of private schools in them, and are given a weight of 1. 

This group accounts for the largest share of sampled districts. Public school districts with one or 

two private schools were oversampled to obtain proportional representation of private schools 

from these public school districts in the private school sample, and were given a weight of .4 and 

.8, respectively. As a result of this design, only minimal weighting to the sample is needed and 

the public school district mean represents the average public school district context for private 

schools. 

For ease of discussion, the results were presented using the first approach throughout the report. 

The results from the second method are reported in Appendix A with policy relevant differences 

noted throughout the report. 
102

Private schools were randomly selected from those located in the sampled public school districts 

in inverse proportion to the number of private schools in the public school district. Private 

schools were excluded from the sample if they had fewer than 10 students, were located in a 

private home, or had a major role of supporting home private schooling. The resulting sample 

was intended to be nationally representative of private schools. In order to ensure representative 

data, private schools were stratified on public school district enrollment, religious affiliation, free 

and reduced-priced lunch program participation, and number of students. A sample of 1,501 

private schools was selected. While the sample itself was nationally representative, the data 

were weighted to adjust for nonresponse, especially as there was a differential response rate 

among private schools with different religious affiliations (see below). 

Questionnaire Development and Data Collection 

The surveys of private schools and public school districts were developed to gather information 

on the range of federal education programs where public school districts are required to provide 

services for private school participants. A pretest of the two surveys was conducted during the 

summer of 2005. Nine private schools and nine public school districts participated in the pretest. 

After completing the survey, the private schools and public school districts participated in a oneon-one comprehensive discussion of each survey question. The results of the pretest were used 

to revise the questionnaires for the data collection. The questionnaire was also reviewed and 

approved by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Data collection took place in the fall and winter of 2005–06. A series of follow-up efforts were 

undertaken to ensure a high level of response by public school districts and private schools. The 

response rate for public school districts was 98 percent. The response rate for public school 

districts was out of 598 eligible public school districts. Public school districts were considered 

ineligible if they had consolidated or had no private schools. 

The response rate for private schools was 80 percent. The response rate for private schools was 

out of 1,409 eligible private schools. Private schools were considered ineligible if they were 

closed, had no K–12 students, or had no parentally placed students. For private schools, the 

response rate by religious affiliation was as follows: 82 percent for Catholic schools, 74 percent 

for other religious schools, and 75 percent for nonsectarian private schools. Appropriate 

weighting was used to account for the differential response rate among private schools by 

religious affiliation. 

Description of Subgroups 

Public School Districts 

Urban Setting 

Urban setting classifications were determined using CCD locale codes for the given district, 

which are assigned by the Census based on district addresses. The three urban setting 

classifications in this report were defined as follows: 
103

Central City—Locale codes of (1) large city or (2) mid-size city. 

Urban Fringe or Large Town – Locale codes of (3) fringe of large city, (4) fringe of mid-size 

city, or (5) large town. 

Rural or Small Town—Locale codes of (6) small town, (7) rural outside Core Based Statistical 

Area or Metropolitan Statistical Area (CBSA and MSA), or (8) rural, inside CBSA or MSA. 

Poverty 

A district was considered “high poverty” if it fell in the top quartile of the sample universe of 

districts that were home to at least one private school based on the percent of children age 5-17 

living below the poverty line according to Census data (above 18.1%). All other districts were 

considered “low poverty.” 

Enrollment 

A district was considered “large” if it fell in the top quartile of the sample universe of districts 

that were home to at least one private school based on the district’s total enrollment (above 5,830 

students). All other districts were considered “small.” 

Private Schools 

Urban Setting 

Private schools were assigned the same urban setting as the public school district to which they 

were matched. See above for public school district urban setting classification definitions. 

Religion 

Religious affiliation was assigned based on private school survey responses. In cases where the 

respondent failed to answer this survey item, religious affiliation information from the Private 

School Survey Universe was used to classify the school. “Catholic” schools included parochial, 

inter-parochial, diocesan, and private schools. “Other religious” schools were those that had 

religious affiliations other than Catholic, while “non-sectarian” schools claimed no religious 

affiliation. 

Analytic Techniques 

Data were cleaned to reconcile contradictory answers and outlying responses before analysis 

began. Weights, as described above, were used in all analysis of public school district data to 

account for the method of sampling allowing accurate conclusions to be drawn about the overall 

population of public school districts that are home to private schools. Additionally, robust 

standard errors were used to account for clustering of results on account of the likelihood of 

multiple private schools being sampled from each public school district. 
104

In the appendix tables, public school district data are differentiated by poverty, size, and metro 

setting. Similarly, in the appendix tables, private school results are broken down by private 

school religious affiliation (Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian) and metro setting. 

Means difference tests were calculated to compare responses within each subcategory. In cases 

where there were multiple classifications in a particular category (e.g. urban setting), means were 

compared to the largest subgroup of that category. Specifically, in the urban location category, 

more private schools and public school districts were categorized as “urban fringe or large town” 

than any other urban classification, so all other urban setting groups were compared to the results 

for the “urban, fringe, or large town” group. Likewise, in the religious affiliation group for 

private schools, other religious schools were the comparison group. 

A series of logistic regressions were used to examine the likelihood of public school district 

provision of federal program services and private school participant utilization of these services. 

One set focused strictly on private school data and looked at the effect school type had on the 

participation of private school participants in federal education programs. Specifically, these 

regressions looked at differences between elementary schools, secondary schools, and combined 

schools.24 The second set of logistic regressions used both private school and public school 

district data and looked at the effect of participation in a districtwide working group. All 

regressions that used public school district data controlled for public school district location, 

size, and poverty. Similarly, all regressions that used private school data controlled for school 

location and religious affiliation.

 

24 School type was defined based on the convention of the most recent NCES Private School Universe Report. That 

is, an elementary school may contain any grade K-6 but no grade higher than grade 8. A secondary school was any 

school that housed any grade 7-12 and no grade lower than 7. A combined school was one that contained any grade 

K-6 and any grade 9-12. 
105

Appendix C—Survey Instruments 
106
 107 

STUDY OF PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENT PARTICIPATION 

IN FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE 

THE URBAN INSTITUTE

WASHINGTON, DC 

Survey of Private Schools 

To complete this survey online go to: 

www.privateschsurvey.schools.urban.org 

Username: «Username» 

Password: «Password» 
 108 

Responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports 

prepared for this study will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate 

responses with a specific district or individual. We will not provide information that 

identifies you or your district to anyone outside the study team, except as required by 

law. 

We recommend you briefly reviewing the entire survey before trying to complete it. You may 

need to collaborate with individuals with specific information about federal programs, including 

IDEA, to obtain all of the information necessary to complete the questionnaire. 

Please return your completed questionnaire to: 

Ary Amerikaner 

Education Policy Center 

The Urban Institute 

2100 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

If you have questions, please contact Ary Amerikaner at 

PrivateSCHSurvey@ui.urban.org or 1-866-859-0635. 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a valid OMB number. The valid OMB control number of this information collection is 1875-0236. The 

time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per survey, including the time to 

review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information 

collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimates(s) or suggestion for improving this 

form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, 20202-4651. If you have comments or concerns 

regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, US Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20202. 

O.M.B. NO. 1875-0236 ▪ Approval Expires 08/31/2008
 109 

PART 1. PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

1. Does your school participate in any federal education programs under No 

Child Left Behind (NCLB), (e.g., Title IA, Title VA). 

 

(Circle one)

YES....................................................................................... ......... 1 

NO.................................................................................................. 2 

1a. If NO, why not? Circle one on each line 

a. We have made a conscious decision not to 

participate. YES NO 

b. We have no knowledge of any federal education 

programs under NCLB. YES NO 

c. We have contacted our public school district to 

inquire about these programs, but the district has 

not responded. 

YES NO 

2. Does your school have students receiving special education benefits under 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), (e.g., evaluations and/or 

services?) 

 (Circle one)

YES....................................................................................... ..........1 

NO........................................................................................ ..........2 
 110 

PART 2. IDEA (INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT) 

Parentally placed private school students refers to students with 

disabilities who are placed in a private school by their parents 

when a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is not at issue. 

3. Did the public school district where your school is located contact you 

regarding benefits and services for students with disabilities for the 2004-05 

school year? 

 (Circle one)

YES....................................................................................... ..........1 

NO........................................................................................ ..........2 

 

4. During the 2004-05 school year, how many students did you refer to the public 

school districts for special education services? (Be sure to include referrals 

made to school districts that are outside of the one in which you are located.) 

........................................................................_____________ students 

5. Do you know how many students in your school were identified by a public 

school district as children with disabilities? 

 

(Circle one)

YES.....................................................1 

NO.......................................................2 
 111 

6. Did your school assist the public school district in which your school is 

located by providing information about children suspected of having 

disabilities in any of the following ways? 

Circle one on each line 

a. Provided mailing list of all parents YES NO 

b. Provided district contact information for parents of 

students with suspected disabilities YES NO 

c. Organized parent information session YES NO 

d. Referred parents and/or students to the district’s IDEA 

representative YES NO 

e. The district did not ask us to assist with child find 

activities YES NO 

f. Other. Please specify. YES NO 

7. Has the district provided you with information about how to make a referral 

for children with suspected disabilities? 

 (Circle one)

YES................................................................................................. 1 

NO.................................................................................................. 2 
 112 

8. Did the public school district in which your school is located consult with 

representatives of parentally placed private school students with disabilities 

about IDEA in a timely and meaningful manner? 

 (Circle one)

YES....................................................................................... ..........1 

NO................................................................................................... 2 

8a. If YES, with whom? Circle one on each line 

a. Private school organization (e.g. 

diocesan office) YES NO Don’t Know 

b. Private school administrators YES NO Don’t Know 

c. Private school parents YES NO Don’t Know 

d. Other. Please specify: YES NO Don’t Know 

(Circle one on each line) 

8b. If YES, please indicate the extent to which 

district consultations about IDEA were useful 

for the topics listed in the table below. Please 

use a scale from 1 (Not Useful) to 4 (Very Useful).

Not Very 

Useful 

a. The identification of eligible students through the 

child find process 1 2 3 4 

b. Informing private school representatives about the 

child find process 1 2 3 4 

c. How the share of federal IDEA funds available for 

services for private school students was 

calculated 

1 2 3 4 

d. How the consultation process between the district 

and private school participants will operate 

throughout the school year 

1 2 3 4 

e. Types of special education and related services 

and alternative service delivery mechanisms 1 2 3 4 

f. How to distribute funds if insufficient to serve all 

children 1 2 3 4 

g. How and when decisions on the delivery of special 

education services are provided will be made 1 2 3 4 

h. Location of services 1 2 3 4 

i. How the LEA will explain the reasons for not 

providing services when in disagreement with 

private school officials 

1 2 3 4 

8c. If YES, were you asked to provide a written affirmation documenting 

participation? (Circle one)

YES............................................................................. ..........1 

NO......................................................................................... 2 

IF NO,

PLEASE SKIP 

TO 

QUESTION 9. 
 113 

9. Did any of your students receive the following services from a public 

school district under IDEA in the 2004–05 school year? (Be sure to include 

students who are receiving services from school districts outside the one in which 

you are located.) 

NO 

Service 

IF “YES,” select one or both types 

of services as appropriate 

a. Special education instructional 

 services NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative 

b. Equipment NO YES 

c. Assistive technology NO YES 

d. Related services, including 

 audiology services NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative 

 counseling, including 

 rehabilitation counseling NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative 

 medical services NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative 

 occupational therapy NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative 

orientation and mobility services NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative 

 physical therapy NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative 

 recreation, including 

 therapeutic recreation NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative 

 school nurse services NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative 

 social work services NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative 

 speech-language NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative 

 transportation NO YES 

e. Other. Please specify. NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative 

 

10. Where are IDEA services provided for the children attending your school? 

Circle one on each line 

a. At your private school YES NO 

b. At a public school or district site YES NO 

c. Other. Please specify: YES NO 

IF YOUR SCHOOL DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY FEDERAL EDUCATION 

PROGRAMS UNDER NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB), PLEASE NOW 

SKIP TO QUESTION 21.
 114 

PART 3. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB)

11. For school year 2004–05, please indicate, by program, how many private school 

students and teachers/personnel participated or received services, checking N/A if your 

school did not participate. Please also check the services provided to your school’s 

students or teachers/personnel under each program. 

Numbers Participating Services Received 

N/A 

Students Teachers/ 

Personnel

Parents None Professional 

Development

Parental 

Involvement 

Instructional 

Services to 

Students 

Equipment / 

Materials Other

a. Title I (A) Improving 

Basic Programs 

Operated by LEAs25 

b. Title I (B, Sub 1)

Reading First 

c. Title I (B, Sub 3)

Even Start Family 

Literacy 

d. Title I (C) Migrant 

Education

e. Title II (A) Teacher & 

Principal Training and 

Recruiting 

f. Title II (B)

Math/Science 

Partnerships

g. Title II (D) Enhancing 

Educ through Tech 

h. Title III (A) Language 

Instruction for LEP 

Students 

i. Title IV (A) Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools/ 

Communities 

j. Title IV (B) 21stCentury CLC 

k. Title V (A) Innovative 

Programs 

 

25An LEA is a Local Educational Agency (e.g., local public school district) 
 115 

PART 4. Title I (A)

12. In school year 2004–05, did your school provide school district or 

intermediate district administrators with the number of students from lowincome families enrolled in your school living in a participating Title I (A) 

attendance area? 

(Circle one)

YES................................................................................. 1 

NO.................................................................................. 2 

12a. IF YES, what assistance was offered? Circle one on each line 

a. We provided names and addresses of students. YES NO 

b. We provided family income information. YES NO 

c. We surveyed our school’s parents. YES NO 

d. We provided tuition scholarship information. YES NO 

e. Other. Please specify. YES NO 

13. In 2004–05, did any students at your school receive Title I (A) services?

 (Circle one)

YES.............................................................. 1 

NO................................................................ 2 

13a. IF NO, why not? Circle one on each line 

a. No students resided in a participating public 

school Title I (A) attendance area. YES NO 

b. No students residing in a Title I (A) attendance 

area generated funds. YES NO 

c. No students residing in a Title I (A) attendance 

area were educationally needy. YES NO 

d. My school chose not to participate. YES NO 

e. Parents preferred that their children not 

participate. YES NO 

f. Other. Please specify. 

YES NO 

14. Do you know the total amount of Title I (A) funds allocated for services for 

students at your school in 2004–05? 

(Circle one)

YES.............................................................. 1 

NO................................................................ 2 

If YES, how many? 

____________

If YES, how much? 

____________
 116 

15. Which of the following parental involvement and professional development 

activities did your district provide for parents and teachers of students 

receiving Title I (A) services at your school in 2004–05? 

Circle one on each line 

Parental Involvement Activities 

a. Parent Newsletter YES NO Don’t 

Know 

b. Parent-teacher conferences YES NO Don’t 

Know 

c. Parent meetings YES NO Don’t 

Know 

c. Classes or workshops for parents YES NO Don’t 

Know 

e. Take-home books and materials YES NO Don’t 

Know 

f. Summer activity kits YES NO Don’t 

Know 

g. None. YES NO Don’t 

Know 

h. Other. Please specify. YES NO Don’t 

Know 

Professional Development Activities

i. Professional development on-site of private school for 

private school teachers YES NO Don’t 

Know 

j. Professional development at public school site YES NO Don’t 

Know 

k. Professional development through a third-party 

provider YES NO Don’t 

Know 

l. Payment for graduate courses YES NO Don’t 

Know 

m. Payment for workshops and conferences YES NO Don’t 

Know 

n. Other. Please specify: YES NO Don’t 

Know 
 117 

PART 5. CONSULTATIONS WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIALS 

16. Did you receive a “letter of intent” from the district regarding your intention 

to participate in federal education programs under NCLB? 

 (Circle one)

YES................................................................................................. 1 

NO.................................................................................................. 2 

17. Did consultation about private school participation in NCLB programs 

occur with the district? 

 (Circle one)

YES........................................................................................... 1 

NO............................................................................................ 2 

17a. If YES, with whom? Circle one on each line 

a. Administrators at the diocesan or association 

level YES NO 

b. Administrators at the school-level YES NO 

c. Other. Please specify: YES NO 

17b. If NO, why not? Circle one on each line 

a. We chose not to participate YES NO 

b. Association or diocesan level administrators 

made decision not to participate YES NO 

c. School district did not contact us YES NO 

d. Other. Please specify: YES NO 
 118 

18. Did the school district or intermediate district consult in a meaningful and 

timely fashion with private school officials regarding participation in Title I (A)? 

 (Circle one)

YES................................................................................................. 1 

NO.................................................................................................. 2 

18a. IF YES, with whom? Circle one on each line 

a. Private school organization (e.g. diocesan office) YES NO 

b. Private school administrators YES NO 

18b. IF YES, on which topics? Circle one on each line 

a. Number of private school students who generate 

funds for Title I (A) services YES NO 

b. Administrative costs YES NO 

c. Per-pupil allocation YES NO 

d. Determination to "pool" resources YES NO 

e. Determination of which eligible students will 

receive services (including criteria for determining 

eligibility) 

YES NO 

f. Assessment of student learning needs YES NO 

g. Assignment of staff who will provide services to 

private-school students YES NO 

h. Type of services to be provided YES NO 

i. Location of services YES NO 

j. Challenging student performance standards YES NO 

k. Assessment methods of students' progress in 

meeting challenging performance standards YES NO 

l. Professional development of private school 

teachers of Title I (A) participants YES NO 

m. Activities for private school parents of Title I (A) 

participants YES NO 
 119 

19. Did the district consult in a meaningful and timely fashion with private 

school officials regarding participation in any other NCLB programs? 

Yes, on the following topics... 

No 

or 

N/A

Needs of 

students

Teacher 

Prof 

Develop

ment 

Needs 

Amt of 

Funding 

Available 

Types of 

Services

Service 

Provider

Assessment 

of Services 

Service 

Location

a. Title I (B, Sub 

1) Reading First

b. Title I (B, Sub 

3) Even Start 

Family Literacy

c. Title I (C)

Migrant Education

d. Title II (A)

Teacher & 

Principal Training 

and Recruiting

e. Title II (B)

Math/Science 

Partnerships

f. Title II (D)

Enhancing Educ 

through Tech

g. Title III (A)

Language 

Instruction for 

LEP Students 

h. Title IV (A) Safe 

and Drug-Free 

Schools/ 

Communities

i. Title IV (B) 21stCentury CLC 

j. Title V (A)

Innovative 

Programs 
 120 

20. In working with your public school district in the 2004-05 school year, to what 

extent did the following barriers impact timely and meaningful consultation? 

(Circle one on each line) 

Not A 

Barrier 

Minor 

Barrier 

Somewhat 

A Barrier 

Major 

Barrier 

a. Limited understanding of or 

experience by the district with 

equitable participation 

requirements of NCLB 

b. Limited communication from 

the public school district 

c. Lack of timely and meaningful 

consultation with the district 

d. Absence of district 

procedures and policies to 

facilitate consultation 

e. Other. Please specify. 
 121 

PART 6. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

21. Which best describes your school’s orientation or affiliation? 

Circle one on each line 

a. Catholic (including Parochial or Inter-parochial, 

Diocesan, or Private) YES NO 

b. Other religious YES NO 

c. Non-sectarian YES NO 

 

22. Which best describes your position(s)? 

Circle one on each line 

a. Principal/administrator in a private school YES NO 

b. Administrator/staff in private school organization (e.g. 

system level or diocesan office) YES NO 

c. Other staff in a private school YES NO 

d. Other. Please specify. YES NO 

23. What is your school enrollment?................................___________ 

students

24. How would you best describe the grade level of your school? 

Circle one on each line 

a. Elementary YES NO 

b. Middle School YES NO 

c. High School YES NO 

d. Other. Please specify. YES NO 
 122 

25. Have you received help from any of the following sources in working with 

the district in implementing federal education programs for your students and 

teachers?

Circle one on each line 

a. Technical assistance from the state YES NO 

b. District-wide private school working group YES NO 

c. Technical assistance from U.S. Department of 

Education YES NO 

d. U.S. Department of Education publications YES NO 

e. U. S. Department of Education sponsored workshops 

and conferences on federal education programs YES NO 

f. U.S. Department of Education Web site. YES NO 

g. Other. Please specify. 

YES NO 

THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING US WITH THIS 

IMPORTANT SURVEY. YOUR TIME AND 

EFFORT ARE GREATLY APPRECIATED. 

Please return completed survey to: 

Ary Amerikaner 

Education Policy Center 

The Urban Institute 

2100 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037
 123 

STUDY OF PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENT PARTICIPATION 

IN FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE

THE URBAN INSTITUTE

WASHINGTON, DC 

Survey of District Administrators 

To complete this survey online go to: 

www.privateschsurvey.districts.urban.org

Username: «Username» 

Password: «Password» 
 124 

Responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports prepared 

for this study will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a 

specific district or individual. We will not provide information that identifies you or your district 

to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law. 

We recommend you briefly reviewing the entire survey before trying to complete it. You may 

need to collaborate with individuals with specific information about federal programs, including 

IDEA, to obtain all of the information necessary to complete the questionnaire. 

Please return your completed questionnaire to: 

Ary Amerikaner 

Education Policy Center 

The Urban Institute 

2100 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

If you have questions, please contact Ary Amerikaner at 

PrivateSCHSurvey@ui.urban.org or 1-866-859-0635. 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a valid OMB number. The valid OMB control number of this information collection is 1875-0236. The 

time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per survey, including the time to 

review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information 

collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimates(s) or suggestion for improving this 

form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, 20202-4651. If you have comments or concerns 

regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, US Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20202. 

 

O.M.B. NO. 1875-0236▪ Approval Expires 08/31/2008 
 125 

PART 1. PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENTS COUNTS26

1. How many non-profit, K–12 private schools, including religious schools, 

are located within your district boundary? ............ __________ private schools 

2. How many of those private schools, including religious schools, participated 

in any federal education programs under No Child Left Behind-NCLB in school 

year 2004–05?

 ......................................................................___________private schools 

3. How many private schools had students with disabilities receiving benefits 

from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in school year 2004–

05?......................................................___________private schools 

 

 

26 Questions asked in this survey regarding private school students should not include home schooled 

students. 
 126 

PART 2. IDEA (INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT)

Parentally placed private school students refers to students with 

disabilities who are placed in a private school by their parents when a 

free appropriate public education (FAPE) is not at issue. 

4. Please indicate which of these child find procedures your district uses to 

identify parentally placed private school students with disabilities. 

Circle one on each line 

a. Mass mailing to all households in public school 

 attendance area YES NO 

b. Radio or TV public service announcements YES NO 

c. Information on school district website YES NO 

d. Distribution of informational brochures YES NO 

e. Presentation at private schools YES NO 

f. Outreach at community events YES NO 

g. Outreach to private schools YES NO 

h. Other. Please specify. YES NO 

5. Who evaluates parentally placed private school students in your district to 

determine eligibility for services under IDEA? 

Circle one on each line 

a. Public school staff YES NO 

b. Contracted third-party YES NO 

c. Other. Please specify. YES NO 
 127 

6. Did your district consult in a meaningful and timely fashion with private 

school officials or parents regarding participation in IDEA? 

 (Circle one)

YES................................................................................. 1 

NO.................................................................................. 2 (Skip to Q7) 

6a. IF YES, with whom? Circle one on each line 

a. Private school organization (e.g. diocesan office) YES NO 

b. Private school administrators YES NO 

c. Private school parents YES NO 

6b. IF YES, on which topics? Circle one on each line 

a. The identification of eligible students through the 

child find process YES NO 

b. Informing private school representatives about 

the child find process YES NO 

c. How the share of federal IDEA funds available for 

services for private school students was 

calculated 

YES NO 

d. How the consultation process between the district 

and private school participants will operate 

throughout the school year 

YES NO 

e. Types of special education and related services 

and alternative service delivery mechanisms YES NO 

f. How to distribute funds if insufficient to serve all 

children YES NO 

g. How and when decisions on the delivery of 

special education services provided will be made YES NO 

h. Location of services YES NO 

i. How the LEA will explain the reasons for not 

providing services when in disagreement with 

private school officials 

YES NO 

 6c. If YES, did you obtain a written affirmation? (Circle one)

YES.................................................................................. 1 

NO....................................................................................2 
 128 

7. Did your district provide services to parentally placed private-school students 

with disabilities during school year 2004–05? (Circle one)

YES.................................................................................. 1 

NO....................................................................................2 

NOT APPLICABLE (No parentally placed private school students 

in my district were eligible)......................................................3

7a. IF YES, which services? NO 

Service 

IF “YES,” select one or both 

types of services as appropriate 

a. Special education instructional 

 services NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative

b. Equipment NO YES 

c. Assistive technology NO YES 

d. Related services, including 

 audiology services NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative

 counseling, including 

 rehabilitation counseling NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative

 medical services NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative

 occupational therapy NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative

 orientation and mobility 

services NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative

 physical therapy NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative

 recreation, including 

 therapeutic recreation NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative

 school nurse services NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative

 social work services NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative

 speech-language NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative

 transportation NO YES 

e. Other. Please specify. NO YES, Direct 

Services 

YES, 

Consultative

7b. IF NO, why not? Circle one on each line 

a. Lack of transportation YES NO 

b. Funds were inadequate YES NO 

c. Parents declined services YES NO 

d. Other. Please specify. YES NO 

PLEASE NOW SKIP TO QUESTION 10.
 129 

8. Where are the IDEA services provided for parentally placed students with 

disabilities? 

Circle one on each line 

a. On-site at private schools YES NO 

b. At a public school or district site YES NO 

c. Other. Please specify: YES NO 

9. Did ALL eligible private school students with disabilities receive services 

under IDEA? (Circle one)

YES..................................................................................1 

NO....................................................................................2 

9a. IF NO, why not? Circle one on each line 

a. Parents declined services YES NO 

b. IDEA funds were inadequate to serve all children 

identified in the child find process YES NO 

c. Other. Please specify. YES NO 

10. In addition to federal IDEA funds, what state and local funds, if any, are 

used to provide services to parentally placed private school students with 

disabilities in your district in SY 2004–05? 

 $_____________ in local funds Check here if you do not know 

$_____________ in state funds Check here if you do not know 
 130 

 PART 3. FEDERAL PROGRAMS UNDER NCLB/ SERVICES TO PRIVATE SCHOOL 

STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

11. For school year 2004–05, please indicate, by NCLB program, the total 

allocation that your district received and the amount allocated for services for private 

school participants. (If you do not receive funds for a particular Title write ‘0’ under 

Total District Allocation. If you do not know allocations, write DK under Total District 

Allocation.) Please also check the types of services provided to private school 

participants, marking “None” if no services were provided to private school 

participants. 

Services Provided

Total 

District 

Allocation 

(2004-05) 

Funds 

Allocated 

for Services 

for Private 

School 

Participants

(2004-05) 

None Professional 

Development

Parental 

Involvement

Instructional 

Services to 

Students 

Equipment 

/Materials Other

a. Title I (A)

Improving Basic 

Programs 

Operated by 

LEAs27 $ $ 

b. Title I (B, Sub 1)

Reading First $ $ 

c. Title I (B, Sub 3)

Even Start Family 

Literacy $ $ 

d. Title I (C) Migrant 

Education $ $ 

e. Title II (A)

Teacher & Principal 

Training and 

Recruiting $ $ 

f. Title II (B)

Math/Science 

Partnerships $ $ 

g. Title II (D)

Enhancing Educ 

through Tech $ $ 

h. Title III (A)

Language 

Instruction for LEP 

Students $ $ 

i. Title IV (A) Safe 

and Drug-Free 

Schools/ 

Communities $ $ 

j. Title IV (B) 21stCentury CLC $ $ 

k. Title V (A)

Innovative 

Programs $ $ 

 

27 An LEA is Local Educational Agency (e.g., local public school district)
 131 

 

12. For school year 2004–05, please indicate the total number of private school 

students, teachers, and parents where appropriate who received services by 

program, marking “0” if no services were provided to the private school 

participants. If your district received no funding or you do not know, please 

check the appropriate box to the right. 

Number of 

Private School Participants 

Students Teachers Parents 

District 

Received 

No 

Funding 

Don’t 

Know 

a. Title I (A)

Improving Basic 

Programs 

Operated by LEAs 

 

b. Title I (B, Sub 1) 

Reading First

c. Title I (B, Sub 3)

Even Start Family 

Literacy

d. Title I (C) Migrant 

Education

e. Title II (A)

Teacher & Principal 

Training and 

Recruiting

f. Title II (B)

Math/Science 

Partnerships

g. Title II (D)

Enhancing Educ 

through Tech

h. Title III (A)

Language 

Instruction for LEP 

Students 

i. Title IV (A) Safe 

and Drug-Free 

Schools/ 

Communities

j. Title IV (B) 21stCentury CLC 

k. Title V (A)

Innovative Programs 
 132 

PART 4. TITLE I (A) 

13. In planning for the 2004–05 school year, what method did your district use 

to determine the number of private school children from low-income families? 

Circle one on each line 

a. We used the same poverty data to identify and count 

low-income students in both public and private 

schools 

YES NO 

b. We extrapolated from a representative survey sample 

to determine the number of low-income children who 

attend private schools 

YES NO 

c. We correlated data from two different data sources to 

determine the number of low-income children who 

attend private schools 

YES NO 

d. We use proportionality: applying the low-income 

percentage of each participating public school 

attendance area to the number of private school 

children who reside in that school attendance area. 

YES NO 

e. Other. Please specify: 

YES NO 

IF YOUR DISTRICT RECEIVED NO TITLE I (A) FUNDS, PLEASE SKIP 

TO QUESTION 19.
 133 

14. In school year 2004–05, did any private school participants (students, 

teachers, or parents) in your district receive Title I (A) services? 

 (Circle one)

YES.................................................................................. 1 

NO....................................................................................2 

 

14a. If NO, why not? Circle one on each line 

a. My district did not receive Title I (A) funds YES NO 

b. No private school students residing in my district 

generated funds YES NO 

c. No private school children residing in my district 

were failing or at risk of failing to meet educational 

standards 

YES NO 

d. Private school officials in my district did not 

respond to a request for information to identify 

students needing services 

YES NO 

e. Private school officials in my district declined the 

offer of Title I services. YES NO 

f. Other. Please specify. YES NO 

PLEASE NOW SKIP TO QUESTION 19. 

14b. If YES, these funds were... Circle one on each line 

a. Distributed on a school-by-school basis based on 

the number of students generating funds. YES NO 

b. Pooled. Funds were combined and services 

provided to students most at risk. YES NO 

c. Other. Please specify. YES NO 

15. Where and how do private school students receive Title I (A) services? 

Circle one on each line 

a. At private school with a district teacher YES NO 

b. At private school with a third-party provider YES NO 

c. At private school in a computer-assisted lab YES NO 

d. At private school in a mobile van unit YES NO 

e. At public school with a district teacher YES NO 

f. Other. Please specify. YES NO 
 134 

16. Do private school students participate in Title I (A) services or activities 

during non-school hours (i.e. summer programs or before and after-school 

programs)? (Circle one)

YES.................................................................................. 1 

NO....................................................................................2 

16a. If NO, why not? Circle one on each line 

a. Extended time services are offered but private 

school students do not participate YES NO 

b. Extended time services are not offered to private 

school students YES NO 

c. Extended time services are not offered to public or 

private school students YES NO 

17. Please identify parental involvement activities for parents of private school 

Title I (A) participants. 

Circle one on each line 

a. Parent newsletter YES NO 

b. Parent meetings YES NO 

c. Parenting classes and workshops YES NO 

d. Parent-teacher conferences YES NO 

e. Take home materials and books YES NO 

f. Summer activity kits YES NO 

g. Other. Please specify. YES NO 
 135 

18. Please identify professional development activities for private school 

teachers who have Title I (A) participants in their classes. 

Circle one on each line 

a. Provide professional development on-site of private 

school for private school teachers YES NO 

b. Provide professional development at public school site YES NO 

c. Provide professional development through a third-party 

provider YES NO 

d. Provide payment for graduate courses YES NO 

e. Provide payment for workshops and conferences YES NO 

f. Other. Please specify. YES NO 
 136 

PART 5. CONSULTATION WITH PRIVATE SCHOOL OFFICIALS

19. Did your district consult in a meaningful and timely fashion with private 

school officials regarding participation in Title I (A)? (Circle one)

YES................................................................................. 1 

NO.................................................................................. 2 

19a. IF YES, with whom? Circle one on each line 

a. Private school organization (e.g. diocesan office) YES NO 

b. Private school administrators YES NO 

19b. IF YES, on which topics? Circle one on each line 

a. Number of private school students who generate 

funds for Title I (A) services YES NO 

b. Administrative costs YES NO 

c. Per-pupil allocation YES NO 

d. Determination to "pool" resources YES NO 

e. Determination of which eligible students will 

receive services (including criteria for determining 

eligibility) 

YES NO 

f. Assessment of student learning needs YES NO 

g. Assignment of staff who will provide services to 

private-school students YES NO 

h. Type of services to be provided YES NO 

i. Location of services YES NO 

j. Challenging student performance standards YES NO 

k. Assessment methods of students' progress in 

meeting challenging performance standards YES NO 

l. Professional development of private school 

teachers of Title I (A) participants YES NO 

m. Activities for private school parents of Title I (A) 

participants YES NO 
 137 

20. Did your district consult in a meaningful and timely fashion with private 

school officials regarding participation in any of the following NCLB 

programs? 

Yes, on the following topics...Check all that apply. 

No 

or 

N/A

Needs of 

students 

Teacher 

Prof 

Devpmnt 

Needs 

Amt of 

Funding 

Available 

Types of 

Services

Service 

Provider

Assessment 

of Services 

Service 

Location

a. Title I (B, Sub 

1) Reading First

b. Title I (B, Sub 

3) Even Start 

Family Literacy

c. Title I (C) Migrant 

Education

d. Title II (A)

Teacher & 

Principal Training 

and Recruiting

e. Title II (B)

Math/Science 

Partnerships

f. Title II (D)

Enhancing Educ 

through Tech

g. Title III (A)

Language 

Instruction for LEP 

Students 

h. Title IV (A) Safe 

and Drug-Free 

Schools/ 

Communities

i. Title IV (B) 21stCentury CLC 

j. Title V (A)

Innovative 

Programs 
 138 

21. In planning the 2004–05 school year, to what extent did the following 

barriers affect timely and meaningful consultation with private school 

representatives? 

 

(Mark one on each line) 

Not A 

Barrier 

Minor 

Barrier 

Somewhat 

A Barrier 

Major 

Barrier 

a. Limited understanding of or 

experience with the equitable 

participation requirements of 

NCLB 

b. Difficulty coordinating 

internally in the district 

c. Inadequate information about 

with whom to consult in 

private schools 

d. Lack of assistance from 

private schools in identifying 

needs of their students and 

teachers 

e. Absence of district procedures 

and policies relating to the 

equitable participation 

requirement 

f. Other. Please specify. 

22. Does your district maintain written records of consultations with private 

school officials? 

Circle one on each line 

a. For Title I (A) YES NO 

b. For other NCLB programs YES NO 

23. Does your district have a sign-off form to ensure that consultations with 

private school officials have occurred and encompass all appropriate topics?

Circle one on each line 

a. For Title I (A) YES NO 

b. For other NCLB programs YES NO 

24. Is each private school in your district sent a letter of “intent to participate” in 

federal education programs each year? (Circle one)

YES.........................................................................................1 

NO..........................................................................................2 
 139 

25. Have you received help from any of the following sources in implementing 

federal education programs for your students and teachers? 

Circle one on each line 

a. Technical assistance from the state YES NO 

b. District-wide private school working group YES NO 

c. Technical assistance from U.S. Department of 

Education YES NO 

d. U.S. Department of Education publications YES NO 

e. U. S. Department of Education sponsored workshops 

and conferences on federal education programs YES NO 

f. U.S. Department of Education Web site YES NO 

g. Other. Please specify. YES NO 

Please return completed survey to: 

Ary Amerikaner 

Education Policy Center 

The Urban Institute 

2100 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037