U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

29–860 PDF 2006

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: HOW CAN WE

INCREASE PARENTAL AWARENESS OF

SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

September 21, 2006

Serial No. 109–57

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ McKEON, California, Chairman

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice Chairman 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Sam Johnson, Texas 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Charlie Norwood, Georgia 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Jon C. Porter, Nevada 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thelma D. Drake, Virginia 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

[Vacancy] 

George Miller, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Major R. Owens, New York 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland 

Tim Ryan, Ohio 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

[Vacancy]

Vic Klatt, Staff Director 

Mark Zuckerman, Minority Staff Director, General Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on September 21, 2006 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ Chairman, Committee on Education 

and the Workforce ......................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

McCollum, Hon. Betty, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Minnesota: 

Article from Minnesota Women’s Press, ‘‘Behind 11 Children: A Tutor’s Experience With ‘No Child Left Behind’ ’’ ................................... 28

Table 1: Estimated Allocations to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) 

Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) for FY2004 at the Full Authorized Amount Compared 

to Actual FY2004 Grants ...................................................................... 70

Table 2: Estimated Allocations to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) 

Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) for FY2005 at the Full Authorized Amount Compared 

to Actual FY2005 Grants ...................................................................... 76

Table 3: Estimated Allocations to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) 

Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) for FY2006 at the Full Authorized Amount Compared 

to Actual FY2006 at the Level Provided .............................................. 82

Table 4: Estimated ‘New Money’ for Minnesota LEAs Under IDEA 

Part B Grants to States ........................................................................ 88

Miller, Hon. George, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Education 

and the Workforce ......................................................................................... 4

Statement of Witnesses: 

Anderson, Dr. Barbara, Vice President of Education, Knowledge Learning 

Corporation-School Partnerships ................................................................. 52

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 54

Ashby, Cornelia M., Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security 

Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office .......................................... 30

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Barr, Dr. Stephen, Associate Superintendent, Center for School Improvement, Ohio Department of Education ......................................................... 44

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 46

Brown, Morgan S., Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education ................................................. 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Dollonne, Monique, Parent of a Supplemental Education Services Student ................................................................................................................ 56

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 58

Harris, Erica L., Manager, Academic After School Programs, Office of 

After School and Community School Programs, Chicago Public Schools . 48

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 50

Additional Materials Submitted: 

Education Industry Association: 

Code of Professional Conduct and Business Ethics for Supplemental 

Educational Services Providers ............................................................ 94

Analysis of GAO SES Study ..................................................................... 96

Campaign to Support Quality Tutoring for America’s Students ........... 98

Guidelines for Accountability in Supplemental Education Services ..... 98

(1)

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: HOW CAN WE

INCREASE PARENTAL AWARENESS OF 

SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES? 

Thursday, September 21, 2006

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:33 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard McKeon (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives McKeon, Castle, Biggert, Platts, 

Osborne, Kline, Inglis, Fortuno, Foxx, Miller, Kildee, Owens, 

Payne, Scott, Woolsey, McCarthy, Tierney, Kucinich, Wu, Holt, 

Davis of California, McCollum, and Bishop. 

Staff present: James Bergeron, Counselor to the Chairman; 

Kathryn Bruns, Legislative Assistant; Joanna Glaze, Education 

Policy Counsel; Jessica Gross, Press Assistant; Taylor Hansen, Legislative Assistant; Cameron Hays, Legislative Assistant; Richard 

Hoar, Professional Staff Member; Lindsey Mask, Press Secretary; 

Chad Miller, Coalitions Director for Education Policy; Susan Ross, 

Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Deborah L. 

Emerson Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Rich 

Stombres, Assistant Director of Education and Human Resources 

Policy; Toyin Alli, Staff Assistant; Alice Cain, Legislative Associate/

Education; Denise Forte, Education Coordinator; Lauren Gibbs, 

Legislative Associate/Education; Lloyd Horwich, Legislative Associate/Education; Thomas Kiley, Communications Director; Joe 

Novotny, Legislative Assistant/Education, Clerk; Rachel Racusen, 

Press Assistant; and Daniel Weiss, Special Assistant to the Ranking Member. 

Chairman MCKEON [presiding]. A quorum being present, the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order. 

We are holding this hearing today to hear testimony on ‘‘No 

Child Left Behind: How Can We Increase Parental Awareness of 

Supplemental Educational Services?’’

Under Committee Rule 12-B, opening statements are limited to 

the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee. 

Therefore, if other members have statements, they will be included 

in the hearing record. 

With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open 14 days to allow member statements and other extraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\FC\9-21-06\29860.TXT EDUWK PsN: DICK
2

neous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in 

the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Good morning. I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me 

here today for the latest in our series of hearings on the No Child 

Left Behind Act. 

As always, I would like to express my gratitude to our committee’s senior Democrat, Mr. Miller. 

We planned that entrance. 

[Laughter.] 

I would like to thank him for our panel that we held yesterday 

and for his strong support of No Child Left Behind, as being one 

of the very strong members in writing the bill. He is a strong advocate. And I am happy to be partnering with him on this. 

I would also like to welcome Education Reform Subcommittee 

Chairman Mr. Castle, who will be here, and his ranking member, 

Ms. Woolsey, who will be here, for working closely with us during 

this process. 

These hearings have proven extremely informative and beneficial 

to me. And I am sure they are to all of the committee. I trust that 

it will be informative to all who are here today. 

Today’s hearing will focus on an aspect of the No Child Left Behind Act that is of personal concern to me and one that deserves 

greater scrutiny. We will be examining the challenges and successes of the implementation of the supplemental educational services provisions under the No Child Left Behind Act. 

Let me be clear. Access to supplemental educational services is 

vital to the success of the No Child Left Behind Act. And while the 

number of students benefiting from these services is gradually increasing, I remain concerned with the low overall rate of participation in these important services. 

Among the most important features of No Child Left Behind is 

the priority it places on expanding options for parents whose children attend underperforming public schools. Yet more and more 

evidence has emerged that the SES feature is not being utilized as 

widely as it should be. This committee has a responsibility to take 

a thorough and serious look into why and how we can change it, 

as we work to renew the law next year. 

Under the No Child Left Behind Act, students attending public 

schools that do not make adequate yearly progress for 3 consecutive years have the right to take advantage of free supplemental 

education services such as private tutoring. 

However, government and media reports have highlighted an apparent lack of parental awareness that these options exist, meaning scores of students are not taking advantage of these unique 

benefits even though they are eligible for them. 

For example, a U.S. Department of Education report released 

earlier this year found that many states do not notify those schools 

which did not achieve AYP in a timely enough manner. For the 

2003 and 2004 academic year, only 15 states provided final AYP results to schools by September of 2004. 

The report also found that, despite the fact that NCLB requires 

parents to be informed of a school’s AYP status prior to the beginning of the next school year, almost half of all school districts notified parents an average of 5 weeks after school had started. 

3

A Government Accountability Office study released even more recently raises similar concerns. It concludes that while districts 

have taken multiple actions to encourage supplemental services 

participation, about half of the districts researched did not notify 

parents of their children’s eligibility before the beginning of the 

current school year, due in part to delays in the receipt of school 

improvement results from their state. 

Today we are here to ask why this is occurring. Are some states 

slow in making test scores available for identifying schools in need 

of improvement? Are other states late in approving SES providers? 

Are some local school districts failing to set aside the required 

amount of funds to implement these options? 

I am pleased we have officials from the Education Department 

and from the GAO with us to help explain their findings so we 

might better answer these questions. 

The bottom line is this: Parent and student choices have been delayed or, in some cases, even denied. And we need to get to the bottom of why that is the case. 

Joining us today are stakeholders who will share unique perspectives on this critical matter. And I am eager to hear from each of 

you. And I thank you for joining us this morning. 

With that, I now yield to Mr. Miller for his opening statement. 

[The opening statement of Chairman McKeon follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning. I’d like to thank my colleagues for joining me here today for the 

latest in our series of hearings on the No Child Left Behind Act. As always, I’d like 

to express my gratitude to our Committee’s senior Democrat, Mr. Miller, for joining 

me in leading this important series of hearings as we head into next year’s reauthorization of NCLB. I’d also like to welcome the Education Reform Subcommittee’s 

Chairman, Mr. Castle, and Ranking Democrat, Mrs. Woolsey, for working closely 

with us during this process. These hearings have proven extremely informative and 

beneficial to me, and I trust they have been for our Committee colleagues as well. 

Today’s hearing will focus on an aspect of No Child Left Behind that is of personal 

concern to me and one that deserves greater scrutiny. We will be examining the 

challenges and successes of the implementation of the supplemental educational 

services (or SES) provisions under the No Child Left Behind Act. 

Let me be clear: Access to supplemental educational services is vital to the success 

of No Child Left Behind. And while the number of students benefiting from these 

services is gradually increasing, I remain concerned with the low overall rate of participation in these important services. 

Among the most important features of No Child Left Behind is the priority it 

places on expanding options for parents whose children attend underperforming 

public schools. Yet more and more evidence has emerged that the SES feature is 

not being utilized as widely as it should be. This Committee has a responsibility to 

take a thorough and serious look into why—and how we can change it—as we work 

to renew the law next year. 

Under No Child Left Behind, students attending public schools that do not make 

adequate yearly progress (or AYP) for three consecutive years have the right to take 

advantage of free supplemental educational services, such as private tutoring. However, government and media reports have highlighted an apparent lack of parental 

awareness that these options exist, meaning scores of students are not taking advantage of these unique benefits even though they are eligible for them. 

For example, a U.S. Department of Education report released earlier this year 

found that many states do not notify those schools which did not achieve AYP in 

a timely enough manner. For the 2003-04 academic year, only 15 states provided 

final AYP results to schools by September 2004. The report also found that despite 

the fact that NCLB requires parents to be informed of a school’s AYP status prior 

to the beginning of the next school year, almost half of all school districts notified 

parents an average of five weeks after school had started. 

4

A Government Accountability Office study released even more recently raises 

similar concerns. It concludes that while districts have taken multiple actions to encourage supplemental services participation, about half of the districts researched 

did not notify parents of their children’s eligibility before the beginning of the current school year, due—in part—to delays in the receipt of school improvement results from their state. 

Today, we’re here to ask why this is occurring. Are some states slow in making 

test scores available or identifying schools in need of improvement? Are other states 

late in approving SES providers? Are some local school districts failing to set aside 

the required amount of funds to implement these options? I’m pleased we have officials from the Education Department and from the GAO with us to help explain 

their findings so we might better answer these questions. 

The bottom line is this: parent and student choices have been delayed—or, in 

some cases, denied—and we need to get to the bottom of why that’s the case. Joining us today are stakeholders who will share unique perspectives on this critical 

matter. I’m eager to hear from each of you, and I thank you for joining us this 

morning. And with that, I now yield to my friend, Mr. Miller, for his opening statement. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am sorry that I 

was a couple moments late there. But thank you for the entrance. 

And thank you also for your participation yesterday in the forum 

on No Child Left Behind. I am always amazed the extent to which 

people are amazed or astonished when we say we want to work in 

a bipartisan fashion in this city. But I think overall people will welcome it. 

And I thank you for this hearing, one in a series of hearings on 

No Child Left Behind. It is intended to provide us information that 

we need as we consider the reauthorization. We are learning what 

works and what doesn’t with the law. And we are learning how it 

can be strengthened and improved. 

The purpose of No Child Left Behind is to ensure that every 

child can read and do math and science at grade level while closing 

the achievement gap between white and minority children, between 

low-income and their peers. 

One way the law sets out to close the achievement gap is through 

the use of free after-school tutoring of low-income children who attend schools that do not make adequate yearly progress for 3 consecutive years. 

I have heard this aspect of the law described as a sanction. But 

in my discussions with parents, they describe it as an opportunity, 

as a benefit that is afforded their children to try and improve their 

academic achievement. 

And I am delighted that we have with us today a parent who is 

eager to—and I am eager to hear her testimony about her child’s 

experience. 

I am also looking forward to hearing the testimony from the 

GAO about the most recent NCLB report. A number of my colleagues and I requested this investigation back in April of 2005 

after hearing various reports on what was occurring in our districts 

and across the country. 

The GAO apparently found that, more than 4 years after the enactment of No Child Left Behind, only one out of five children eligible for the extra academic help under law is actually receiving it. 

This is very disappointing. 

5

I hope this hearing will help us get to the bottom of this problem 

and begin to think about the possible solutions that we can incorporate into law during reauthorization next year. 

The GAO also found that organizations that provide extra academic help to students are not being monitored closely enough, 

leading to questions about the quality of the tutoring services in 

some cases. 

The No Child Left Behind law gives parents the ability to choose 

from among a range of approved tutoring providers for their children. I am concerned, however, that too often parents are being offered providers that are not necessarily effective or appropriate because the states have not lived up to their monitoring and oversight responsibilities. 

I am concerned that the Department of Education is encouraging 

states to err on the side of offering many choices at the expense 

of ensuring high-quality choices. It is imperative that our precious 

Federal education dollars be used for the most effective ways possible. This means we must do more to ensure that the organizations that are providing tutoring services are the highest quality 

possible. 

I am also interested to hear from the Department of Education. 

I have some very specific questions for the department. The GAO 

reported that 85 percent of the states said they needed more help 

from the Department of Education in evaluating companies and 

nonprofit organizations that provide tutoring services. My question 

is, what has the Department of Education done so far and what 

more does it plan to do to address this concern? 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, on a separate topic that I have been 

asked to raise by several of my colleagues, and that is a broader 

concern with NCLB, concern that has just been brought to our attention. And that is our understanding that the department is considering some changes related to the collection and maintenance of 

data on students’ race and ethnicity. There is concern that these 

changes could undermine efforts to measure academic process longitudinally by racial sub-groups. 

I hope the committee will hear more about this before any steps 

are taken. This aggregated data is one of the cornerstones of No 

Child Left Behind. And I urge the Department of Education not to 

do anything that would undermine it in any way and certainly to 

consult with this committee before they take those steps. 

I know that is not the subject of this morning’s hearing, but my 

colleagues asked that it be placed on the public record. 

And I would finally say, Mr. Chairman, that I truly believe that 

if supplemental services are going to provide the benefit that they 

promise, that we are going to have to have additional funding. 

These are schools that are in need of improvement. They are in 

need of improvement. They have not made adequate progress for 

3 years. And there is a lot of effort in these schools to try to improve the quality of that education. And clearly, supplemental service is a part of that. And I think that clearly we go back to the 

issue of funding. 

This is the time when additional funding was supposed to be 

available to these schools as they enter into the process of trying 

to reconstitute themselves, to improve themselves, to make the 

6

kinds of changes necessary, including the access to supplemental 

services and to choice. And I worry that funding is going to constrain the availability of these services to young people. 

But I look forward to the witnesses that we have assembled 

today. And thank you for having this hearing. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

We have two distinguished panels of witnesses today. 

And I would like to begin by welcoming our first witness, the 

Honorable Morgan Brown, who is the assistant deputy secretary 

for the Office of Innovation and Improvement at the U.S. Department of Education, where he coordinates the implementation of the 

public school choice and supplemental educational service provisions within the No Child Left Behind Act. 

I would like to remind members that we will be asking questions 

of the witness after testimony. 

In addition, Committee Rule 2 imposes a 5-minute limit on all 

questions. And we know how that light works. When it’s red, you 

are finished. Thank you very much. 

You may begin, Mr. Brown. 

STATEMENT OF MORGAN BROWN, ASSISTANT DEPUTY SECRETARY, OFFICE OF INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 

truly appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today on this 

crucial issue. 

By including the supplemental educational services, or SES, provisions in the current version of Title I, the Congress recognized 

that parent options and information are essential to meeting No 

Child Left Behind’s goal of all students achieving academic proficiency by 2013, 2014. 

The Department of Education is working hard to inform families 

about SES and ensure that all parents of eligible students are empowered to take advantage of this option and obtain tutoring services that will best meet their children’s learning needs in reading 

and math. 

I have recently come to the Department of Education from Minnesota, where I headed an office in the state education agency that 

was responsible for overseeing SES there and was actually modeled 

after the department’s own office of innovation and improvement. 

The department’s interim report on the national assessment of 

Title I estimated more than a fivefold increase in the number of 

students receiving SES from the 2002-2003 year to the 2003-2004 

year. 

In addition, a recent GAO report, which you are going to hear 

more about today, estimates that 19 percent of eligible students received services in the 2004-2005 school year, an increase from the 

estimated 12 percent of students the year before. This translates 

to about 430,000 of the 2.25 million eligible students receiving tutoring. 

However, in spite of this evidence that student participation in 

SES is increasing, we all know that current participation rates are 

unacceptably low. Secretary Spellings and I believe strongly that 

7

these numbers can and should be higher and that more can be 

done to get students these tutoring services. 

As the secretary explained in a May 15th letter to the chief state 

school officers, the department is taking a two-pronged approach 

toward improving SES implementation across the country. 

On the one hand, we are continuing and enhancing our efforts 

to provide high-quality technical assistance to states and local 

school districts and to also grant states and districts reasonable 

flexibility in implementing the requirements of No Child Left Behind in exchange for meaningful results. 

On the other hand, we are prepared to take significant enforcement action where poor implementation of SES by states and districts require it. Over the past 2 years, the department has provided resources to help states and districts implement SES successfully, issued extensive nonregulatory guidance and identified exemplary practices and remedies for problems where they exist. 

However, we recognize that some states and districts still need 

information on how to best communicate with parents. The department has assigned to our comprehensive Center on Innovation and 

Improvement the task of developing a technical assistance initiative to respond to the needs of states, districts and communitybased organizations to conduct effective parent outreach. 

The department will also continue to collect and disseminate examples of districts that are effectively reaching out to parents and 

working well with providers to increase SES participation rates. 

And particularly, we hope there are lessons that can be learned 

from the states and districts to which the department has granted 

additional flexibility through its two SES pilot programs. 

The first program is what we call the flip pilot. And this pilot of 

select number of districts in a state may reverse, or flip, the ordering of offering public school choice and SES, meaning that SES is 

offered in schools in their first year of improvement status, and 

public school choice follows for students in schools in their second 

year of that status. 

The second pilot allows districts identified as in need of improvement to offer supplemental services, which is currently prohibited 

under the department’s regulation. 

In both cases, districts participating in the pilot programs will 

report to the department on their parent notification materials, activities and results as part of the terms of their pilot agreement. 

Finally, the department recognizes that, in some cases, ensuring 

compliance means taking enforcement actions. Through our monitoring and evaluation efforts we know that in the 2003-2004 year 

several states did not ensure that districts included all required information in their notices to parents, and some districts failed to 

offer eligible parents the option to participate in SES at all. 

We are preparing to strengthen our monitoring efforts on these 

provisions to determine the extent to which these problems are 

prevalent across states and districts and how best to address them. 

However, for those states and districts that persistently fail to 

meet the requirements of the law, we are ready to take serious enforcement action such as placing conditions on grants, withholding 

funds and entering into compliance agreements. 

8

We know parents want these services for their kids and are receptive to SES when they know it is there. Across the country, 

hundreds of thousands of families are taking advantage of this free 

tutoring. And it is clear that parents value SES as a tool to help 

their children find academic success in school. 

I will conclude by reiterating that the department is committed 

to making widespread access to SES a reality and to ensuring that 

students and families who most dearly need it can get it. 

Thank you again for the attention and scrutiny you are bringing 

to this important educational choice issue. And I will be happy to 

take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

Prepared Statement of Morgan S. Brown, Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, thank you for convening this hearing on increasing parental awareness of Supplemental Educational Services. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today on this important issue. 

By including the Supplemental Educational Services (or SES) provisions in the 

current version of Title I, the Congress recognized that parent options and information are essential to meeting No Child Left Behind’s goal of all students achieving 

academic proficiency by 2013-2014. The Department of Education is working hard 

to inform parents about SES and ensure that all parents of eligible students are 

empowered to take advantage of this option and obtain the services their child 

needs to achieve success in school. 

I have recently come to the Department of Education from the state of Minnesota, 

where I headed an office in the state’s education agency modeled after the Office 

of Innovation and Improvement, which I now oversee. In Minnesota, we concentrated on ensuring parents had the information and choices necessary to give 

their children the best education possible. In my new position here in Washington, 

the needs of families have, for me, acquired even greater focus. 

As we all know, SES participation rates are low. There is evidence, however, that 

student participation in SES is increasing. The Department’s interim report on the 

National Assessment of Title I estimates more than a five-fold increase in the number of students receiving SES from the 2002-03 year to the 2003-04 year. A recent 

GAO report estimates that 19 percent of eligible students received services in the 

2004-2005 school year, which is an increase over an estimated 12 percent of students receiving services in 2003-2004, and which translates to about 430,000 of two 

and a quarter million eligible students. Secretary Spellings and I believe strongly 

that these numbers can be higher, and that more can be done to get more students 

these services. 

As the Secretary explained in a May 15 letter to the Chief State School Officers, 

the Department is taking a two-pronged approach toward improving SES implementation across the country. On the one hand, we are continuing and enhancing our 

efforts to provide high-quality technical assistance and resources to States and local 

school districts, and to grant States and districts flexibility in implementing the requirements of No Child Left Behind in exchange for meaningful results. On the 

other, we are prepared to take significant enforcement action where poor implementation of SES by States and districts requires it. In both these areas, parental 

awareness is a crucial ingredient. 

Over the past few years, the Department has provided States and districts with 

technical assistance and resources needed to implement SES successfully. We have 

issued extensive non-regulatory guidance on SES. We also have issued documents 

identifying exemplary practices and remedies for problems where they exist. For example, as part of our series of ‘‘innovation guides,’’ we produced a publication discussing promising practices that States and districts can use to develop strong SES 

programs. The Department has also provided support and assistance in the area of 

SES through national conferences and ongoing discussions with States. 

As part of our technical assistance efforts, and in direct response to the need we 

saw in the field for more informative and higher-quality parent notification letters 

about SES, the Department drafted and included in the SES guidance a sample parent letter, which is intended not only to contain all required information, but also 

to be as ‘‘parent-friendly’’ and easy to use as possible. However, we recognize that 

States and districts need more information on parent outreach and communication. 

9

The Department has recently assigned to our Comprehensive Center on Innovation 

and Improvement the task of developing a technical assistance effort to help respond to the needs of States, districts, and community-based organizations to conduct effective parent outreach on SES issues. The Center will be developing this effort this fall and will implement it in sites around the country during the 2006-07 

school year. The Center’s effort will include technical assistance in the areas of planning and implementing outreach, as well as providing sample tools for educators to 

use to reach parents effectively. The Department is also sponsoring a meeting of 

State SES administrators in October, in conjunction with the Council of Chief State 

School Officers (CCSSO) and the C.S. Mott Foundation, to provide additional technical assistance and guidance to States. Through this forum, we will facilitate further discussion of the issues confronting States and districts and the types of technical assistance that would be most useful in improving parent outreach and communication. 

The Department will also continue to collect and disseminate examples of districts 

that are effectively reaching out to parents and working well with providers to increase SES participation rates. In particular, we believe there are lessons to be 

learned from the States and districts to which we have granted additional flexibility 

through our two SES pilot programs. 

The first program is what we call the ‘‘flip pilot.’’ In this pilot, a select number 

of districts in a state may reverse—or flip—the order of offering public school choice 

and SES, meaning that SES is offered in schools in year 1 of improvement, and public school choice follows for students in schools in year 2. In 2005-06—the first year 

for this pilot—four districts in the State of Virginia participated, and each district 

enrolled more students in SES programs than they had in the previous year and 

had higher participation rates than the national average. In the May 15 letter to 

Chief State School Officers, Secretary Spellings invited other states to apply to participate in this pilot on the basis of these positive results. We are excited to see that 

there are five States and sixteen districts participating in this pilot for the 2006-

2007 school year. This year, we will be looking closely at SES implementation in 

the pilot districts, and are requiring them to report on their parent notification materials and activities as part of the terms of the pilot agreement. 

The second pilot allows districts identified as ‘‘in need of improvement’’ to offer 

supplemental educational services, which is currently prohibited under the Department’s regulations. In 2005-06—the first year for this pilot also—Boston Public 

Schools and Chicago Public Schools participated and, again, both districts enrolled 

more students in SES programs than they had in the previous year. I want to thank 

Mr. Miller, Mr. Davis and others for their December 2004 letter and for their continued support of Chicago’s participation in this pilot project. For the 2006-2007 year, 

Anchorage School District in Alaska and Hillsborough County Public Schools in 

Florida have joined Boston and Chicago in the pilot. As with the flip pilot, districts 

participating in this pilot program will report to the Department on their parent notification materials and activities as part of the terms of their agreement. 

While we are working to provide enhanced technical assistance and are learning 

valuable lessons from the States and districts participating in our pilot programs, 

we recognize that, in some cases, ensuring compliance means taking enforcement actions. Through our monitoring and evaluation of the public school choice and SES 

provisions, we know that, in the 2003-2004 year, several States did not ensure that 

LEAs included all required information in their notices to parents. Further, the Department’s Office of Inspector General conducted a series of six audits over the past 

few years that revealed significant findings on State and LEA implementation of 

these provisions. The audits found that each of the six States failed to monitor adequately their LEAs for compliance. As a result, nearly all of the parent notification 

letters reviewed failed to include the required elements of the law, and multiple 

LEAs did not offer eligible parents the option to participate in SES at all. We are 

preparing to enhance our monitoring efforts on these provisions to determine the extent to which these problems are prevalent across States and districts, and we look 

forward to continuing to work together to expedite the implementation of improvements. However, for those States and districts that persistently fail to meet the requirements of the law, we are ready to take enforcement action such as placing conditions on grants, withholding funds, and entering into compliance agreements. 

We know parents want these services for their kids, and are receptive to SES 

when they know it’s there. Across the country, hundreds of thousands of families 

are taking advantage of these free services, and we know that, in some school districts, demand for SES exceeds the funds the district is required to spend for SES 

and public school choice. It is clear that parents value SES as a way to help their 

children find academic success in school. I conclude by reiterating that the DepartVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\FC\9-21-06\29860.TXT EDUWK PsN: DICK
10

ment is committed to making SES a reality, and to ensuring that the students and 

families who most dearly need it can get it. I’ll be happy to take questions. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you very much. And thank you for 

your testimony. 

Can you explain how the department is preparing to enhance the 

monitoring efforts of the SES provisions with respect to parental 

notification and awareness so that these prevalent problems across 

the states and districts can be eliminated? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First, I should point out that, 

in terms of the current Title I monitoring that is done by our office 

in elementary and secondary education, monitoring on these issues 

is fully integrated into that monitoring that is done in the individual states. And I can talk more about that process if you care 

to have me do so. 

In addition, I should also point out that the Office of the Inspector General has conducted audits in six states related to these 

issues. And those findings are presented to the states, and those 

states have responded. And those reports will be coming forth 

shortly. So there has been corrective actions asked for in those 

cases, as there would be in the Title I monitoring case. 

Furthermore, we have a pretty involved and intense discussion 

going on in the department currently about how we can enhance 

efforts to do monitoring that specifically focuses on choice at SES. 

Obviously with the Title I monitoring, it is part of a larger picture 

of monitoring that goes on for Title I under No Child Left Behind. 

But this would be something that would specifically focus on choice 

in SES and identify particular states and districts that perhaps 

need that monitoring to the greatest degree. 

And I hope that we will be able to share some additional details 

about that with you shortly. 

Chairman MCKEON. Do you get the feeling that some states or 

local districts are just resisting this? Or is it just taking them a 

while to get up to speed? 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I think we have seen a variety of responses. There certainly are some states that have proceeded with 

good intent and are very serious about trying to as a state, as an 

SCA, make this information available to parents and then partner 

well with their school districts to assist them in going forward. 

Having said that, I think there are certainly some cases that 

have been raised by some of the reviews that have been done 

where there is questions that have been raised about whether the 

district, the local school district, is a willing partner in working 

with the state even if the state has good intent on getting information out, increasing parent awareness about supplemental education services. 

And I think one of the things the GAO report points out, which 

I think is quite accurate, is the importance of the individual schools 

and the leaders of those schools being involved in doing outreach 

to families on both school choice and supplemental services. 

But I think it is also fair to point out that those principles are 

going to take some direction, some guidance from the leadership of 

the school district. And so, that message from the leadership of the 

school district—not only should they provide some training to prinVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\FC\9-21-06\29860.TXT EDUWK PsN: DICK
11

cipals and teachers so that they can be outreach messengers to parents and ask questions of parents, but that there is a strong interest in making sure that parents know about these choices and can 

avail themselves of them. 

Chairman MCKEON. You know, I have heard stories of the Federal Government doing certain things when they find people are 

not carrying out their responsibilities. 

For instance, it was brought to my attention years ago a university was violating the law in recruiting students. They had caught 

the practice themselves, corrected it themselves. And by the time 

it was brought to the attention of the department, they had already 

put it behind them. But the department was going to fine them 

something like $9 million. 

I think this is crazy because I think the purpose of government 

should be to help. And where you find somebody that is not doing 

what they are supposed to do, you should inform them, educate 

them. Then if they persist, then you should go in and fine them. 

But it shouldn’t be a ‘‘game of gotcha’’ type thing. 

But where people don’t understand at all or they are having 

problems implementing, we should be helping them do that. When 

we find that the resistance is intentional, then we should take 

strong enforcement action, I believe. 

So I thank you for what you are doing there. 

My time is up, and I yield now for 5 minutes to Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would want to associate myself with the concerns raised 

by the chairman on the questions of timing and notice to parents 

about these services and the concern that it raises in terms of the 

real availability of these services to those students. 

Let me go to the other question on the other side of this, on the 

question of quality. What plans do you have or may be under way 

that I am not aware of to start to monitor the effectiveness of these 

services? 

Some services are offered sort of region-wide. Some are very 

local. Some are part of a national effort, you know, outfit to provide 

these services. 

We are now spending billions of dollars in this effort. I just wonder, where we are going on the question of whether or not this is—

you know, has this been efficient? Is it helpful? Is it worth the 

money? And is it the right way to proceed? 

Mr. BROWN. Right. 

Mr. MILLER. I mean, I am a supporter of this. 

Mr. BROWN. Right. 

Mr. MILLER. And I always worry that you can collapse, you 

know, you can implode on quality if you don’t pay attention. And 

I just wonder where the department is going on this. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Miller, I totally agree, particularly as a former 

state official who was having to build and develop that kind of 

evaluation as well at the state level. The evaluation issue is incredibly important. 

And I think, as the GAO report pointed out, that is probably 

maybe where there is the greatest demand right now from states, 

for additional technical assistance and guidance. 

12

Let me say a couple things about what the department is hoping 

to do. 

First of all, with the pilot projects that I mentioned in my opening statement, built into the condition of that pilot project is an 

evaluation and a yearly evaluation for each year they are in the 

pilot project. And as we get that information back, that will be an 

important test case on looking at evaluation, looking at the effectiveness of providers in serving students and what kind of progress 

those students make. And we may even, out of that, find some effective practices that then we can appropriately disseminate. 

In addition, there is something we have charged our comprehensive Center for Innovation and Improvement with, as you are 

aware, the department is identifying giving grants to five comprehensive centers nationally that focus on specific areas of No 

Child Left Behind. And for the one that is focusing on innovation 

and improvement, they have been tasked with really honing in on 

this evaluation issue and how we can disseminate good practices 

and have backed up on their Web site. 

Now they have a copy of New Mexico’s plan. New Mexico is a little bit ahead of some of the other states. And they have looked at 

that and feel that that is an appropriate one to share with other 

states, that they perhaps could model some things on. 

The department also gave a grant to the American Institutes for 

Research to put together an issue brief. This was even a year or 

2 ago. And that is available online at the TutorsForKids site. And 

that provides some guidance to states on this. 

In addition, we have several conferences coming up, one next 

month, with directors of state education agencies from around the 

country that we are doing in partnership with the council for chief 

state school officers and the C.S. Mott Foundation. And a good portion of that is going to focus on evaluation guidance and also hearing from the states about what specific kind of guidance and assistance they are looking for. 

And then also we have the national Title I meeting in January. 

This will also be a major portion of that. 

And then, finally, with the national longitudinal study of No 

Child Left Behind that a third party is conducting, this is also a 

crucial part of that study as well. And they will be giving some 

feedback particularly in some districts that they have selected. 

Mr. MILLER. In terms of our timetable, you really won’t have any 

in-depth evaluation of these services during next year. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Miller, we will, perhaps on a state-by-state 

basis, depending on where the states are—and the states are in a 

variety of different places for a variety of reasons—we will have reports by the end of the calendar year from the first year of the pilot 

projects for Boston and Chicago. And that is being done by a thirdparty evaluator. That should be available by the end of this calendar year. 

Mr. MILLER. I raise this issue because, obviously, given what certainly I believe are the funding problems with this legislation over 

the last 5 years and the manner in which this money is set up, and 

certainly a belief in some people’s mind that somehow this money 

can only stay in the school district, it shouldn’t be used—there is 

going to be attention around this money. 

13

And I have given this same speech to the providers of these services, that there is not some demonstration of the effectiveness of 

these programs and the cost-benefits, so to speak, that attention is 

going to be very lively here. 

And I think that, you know, some effort really has to be put on 

the evaluation of what is taking place with these services. It is not 

just whether the parents are happy they have access to them. Are 

they happy because they are helping their child achieve the goals 

that they want? And I think that is a critical question. 

I have run out of time. But if I can come back to you on the question of—I am really concerned about participation of IDA students 

and English learners in these services. But I don’t know if there 

will be time in another round, or you can submit that to me. We 

can talk about that and get it in writing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

Was that this calendar year that you would have that? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, it is expected by the end of this calendar year, 

2006. 

Chairman MCKEON. So that will help us. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Kline for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Brown, for being here. And I would like 

to identify myself with the remarks of both the chairman and the 

ranking member, in terms of making sure that we are getting out 

of these supplemental services what we want, not just that they 

are available. 

I think that Mr. Miller puts his finger right on it. If the students 

are not better able to achieve their goals, it doesn’t make any difference if there is access to it, if it is not working. So I would encourage you to make sure that you are looking at that. 

And in the interest of being able to eventually get to the second 

panel, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Chairman MCKEON. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you for your appearance here this morning. 

Congress very thoughtfully and carefully provided the provision 

for supplemental educational services. And we are concerned that 

these dollars are not being used, in many instances, for these services in a certain school district or they are not being used effectively where the programs are quality programs. 

What can the department do, first of all, to ensure that these dollars are used for the purpose for which they were authorized and 

then appropriated? 

And what can the department do to make sure these programs 

are effective? Because some of them are much more effective than 

others; some are maybe not effective at all. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Congressman Kildee. 

On the first issue of just making sure that the funding is used, 

this is an issue—and again, discussing the GAO report about the 

need for more and better data, including about the financial expenditures, as you are aware, there is a 20 percent set-aside out 

of the Title I, Part A funds for school choice and supplemental servVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\FC\9-21-06\29860.TXT EDUWK PsN: DICK
14

ices that districts are expected to allot to this area based on demand. 

And we have not had the kind of data, to date, we would like to 

have at the school district level regarding the district expenditure 

of that 20 percent set-aside. 

However, through our EDFacts, our new EDFacts network, 

which is going to be gathering additional data from the states, they 

will be requested to report on a variety of different data at the 

school district level to relate to supplemental services, including 

the expenditure of that 20 percent set-aside. 

And that is going to happen during this school year. So we will 

know more about whether those funds were expended fully as intended. 

On the effectiveness side, one additional thing I should mention 

that I didn’t necessarily cover in my response to Congressman Miller is that there really is a responsibility here for the state education department on the front end of this whole process to have 

the kind of rigorous review process for providers that are seeking 

approval, which is, of course, the states’ responsibility and authority under this law, that they are setting up the kind of rigorous 

process that is looking at, for established providers, what is their 

record of effectiveness, what is their record of success. 

And for new providers, which is sometimes the case with a community-based provider, for instance, a smaller provider, is, what is 

the model that they are using, what is the demonstrated record of 

effectiveness. 

So there should be some things on the front end to deal with 

that. And then obviously, as I indicated in my remarks to Congressman Miller, on the back end, with the evaluation process, is 

the need to look at actual results for students in a variety of ways. 

Mr. KILDEE. Well, if they don’t spend the dollars for the supplemental education services—of course, they can retain the dollars. 

And I really don’t want to take those dollars away from them, since 

we are underfunding No Child Left Behind anyway. But is there 

a stronger administrative role that the United States Department 

of Education can play here? 

I know we would like to have the 50 states’ departments of education doing a better job in this. But isn’t there a role you can play? 

Or also, should there be a legislative change here to make sure 

that, first of all, the dollars are spent for that purpose and that 

they are spent for effective programs? 

Mr. BROWN. Congressman, that is a very good question. I think 

there is two parts of this. 

And the focus of this hearing being parent awareness, some of 

the difficulty now when we see a school district that hasn’t spent 

the 20 percent set-aside is, is it because there is not demand, which 

is what some districts say, or is it because there hasn’t been 

enough outreach or enough for parent awareness to create that demand? 

So that is one side of why it is so important to have the kind of 

outreach that we have certainly advised districts and states 

through our guidance. 

On the issue, as you mentioned, obviously now if there are remaining dollars in that set-aside amount, they, districts, can roll 

15

them back in to other kinds of Title I expenditures currently under 

the law. And I know there has been some discussion about whether 

those funds should be, in the Congress and elsewhere, whether 

those funds should be preserved and there should be a rollover to 

a following year so that they are preserved for school choice and 

supplemental service expenditures. 

Mr. KILDEE. Do you think that, as we reauthorize or starting at 

least in the next Congress, that we could tighten up in the law 

itself, rather than waiting for the department, either on the Federal level or state level, to do a better job on monitoring this? 

Mr. BROWN. I think there certainly are chances to make improvements in the statute. And I know the secretary would be very willing to work with you and the other members of the committee to 

discuss those and decide what those should be. 

Mr. KILDEE. We look forward to that. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Congressman. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Castle. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Brown, let me just focus on the subject of who is providing 

these services. And you may not be able to give a brief answer. But 

if you can’t, then don’t try to go on too long. 

But who gives those services now? Is it mostly national-type operations with local affiliates who are doing it? Or have corporations 

or services been formed at the local level? 

And how many of these entities are there out there, roughly? I 

know that is a very broad question, but can you give me a short 

answer on that? 

Mr. BROWN. Congressman, we would be happy to get you a detailed breakdown of that, because we do have some data on that. 

Again, there is quite a mix. But it does vary from state to state 

in terms of the mix between national for-profit providers, local community-based providers, and then, of course, school districts and 

schools themselves that are making adequate yearly progress. 

Mr. CASTLE. Right. Well, I want to talk to you about the local 

school districts. I read in these notes and I had heard otherwise 

that you have a pilot program. And it says here the department instituted a pilot program allowing certain districts to serve as their 

own SES providers. And that is certain big cities and Alaska, et 

cetera. It is on page 5 of our notes here. 

I am very curious about that, because, you know, it seems to me 

that just because a school is under review doesn’t mean there are 

not teachers or other people in that school who could perhaps provide these services. 

And I am playing devil’s advocate here, because I am not sure 

what the right answer is. But if that is the case, should they be 

able to submit and go under review and whatever? 

And would there be greater interest because there is already a 

connection with the teachers and the parents and the kids, et 

cetera, and we up that level from the 19 percent, I think is the last 

number we have here, you know, to a higher percentage who are 

participating and not necessarily exclusively, but perhaps in competition with the outside interests or whatever. 

16

I have never quite understood why we didn’t provide for that 

more when we did the bill originally. And I am glad the department is at least looking at it as a pilot. 

Do you have any conclusions with respect to that, as to where 

that particular pilot project is going? Or is that just too premature 

to determine anything? 

Mr. BROWN. Congressman, I think the whole purpose of the pilot 

is to test some of the issues that you are raising. Now, both of the 

pilots, both the one that allowed the flip as well as the one that 

allowed school districts in need of improvement to provide their 

own supplemental services, both only began last school year. So it 

is a fairly recent—and then they were both expanded this school 

year. 

There are four districts participating in the pilot that were school 

districts in need of improvement, which are Boston, Chicago, Anchorage, and the Hillsborough County in Florida. And then there 

are another five states with a variety of districts participating in 

the flip pilot. 

But there were some very specific conditions built into that pilot 

about, well, first of all, the goals of those pilots are, first and foremost, increase participation rates——

Mr. CASTLE. Right. 

Mr. BROWN [continuing]. And second, to have better data, both 

better data about participation and all those pieces on the input 

side, but also better data on the output side in terms of evaluation. 

And so, under the conditions of those pilots, those districts are 

required to do a number of things in terms of extended parent outreach, larger windows of time for parents to enroll in the services, 

committing to expending their 20 percent set-aside, working with 

providers fairly to make sure that not just they as their own provider, but other providers have access to school facilities. 

And so, there is a number of pieces we are going to be looking 

at in these test cases to see did this work, was it effective and, 

therefore, should it be continued or expanded. 

Mr. CASTLE. Well, I think you have answered my question. I 

mean, you are really monitoring that pilot program to see how it 

works versus outside providers and making a determination at that 

point. It is a small pilot, I understand, but you are doing that. 

Mr. BROWN. Absolutely. In fact, we just sent out questions earlier 

this week. 

Mr. CASTLE. You are not just providing the services, but you are 

monitoring very carefully. 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, yes, absolutely. 

Mr. CASTLE. On the money aspect of it, I can’t remember the 

whole formula for this, but isn’t this a formula, a takeoff of Title 

I money or something of that nature, in terms of the money that 

is used for the supplemental services? 

Mr. BROWN. For both, yes, as we were discussing in response to 

Congressman Kildee’s answer. Right, there is a 20 percent setaside, equal to a 20 percent set-aside of the Title I part a funds. 

Mr. CASTLE. Well, if that is the case—and I am taking up Mr. 

Miller’s question ere. But I don’t know if I agree with him yet or 

not. But if that is the case, is there a lack of funding, as far as this 

aspect of the program is concerned? I know that, in some cases, 

17

there has been a lack of funding. Is that something that we need 

to be paying a lot more attention to? 

And we hear about lack of funding for No Child Left Behind in 

general. But in this specific program, is there a funding issue? I 

thought that formula would have taken care of that. 

Mr. BROWN. Congressman, there are some instances, and Chicago happens to be one of them, where the district has entirely expended its 20 percent set-aside and not met the demand of all the 

eligible students who are eligible for choice or supplemental services. 

So, in that case, those districts have had to decide whether they 

want to take resources from other areas in addition to the 20 percent set-aside or they want to somehow prioritize which students 

should get it, such as to the students who have the most need to 

increase performance on state assessments. 

Mr. CASTLE. Right. 

Mr. BROWN. But in other cases, as we are talking about a lot 

today, because of the inadequacies in terms of outreach and making supplemental services truly accessible to parents, many districts have not gotten to that 20 percent set-aside level. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCKEON. Well, in the instance of Chicago, where they 

used the whole 20 percent, do we have data on how effective it has 

been? 

Mr. BROWN. We have data on the increase in the participation 

rates. And there was an increase, I believe, from about——

Chairman MCKEON. No, I mean——

Mr. BROWN. There was an increase from 41,000 to a little over 

55,000, the participation rate. But the evaluation on the academic 

side of it is the one that is scheduled to come by the end of the 

calendar year. 

Chairman MCKEON. OK. That is what I was asking for. OK. 

The chair recognizes Ms. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Is the department trying to take a look at those school districts 

that have expended their percentage allotments from Title I and 

see what is not being accomplished? It is really along with Mr. Castle’s question. 

Mr. BROWN. For those that have not met the 20 percent setaside? 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Well, I guess for those who have met 

it and have many more students who still could use those services. 

They obviously, then, are cutting into their Title I programs in the 

school districts. What is not getting done as a result of that? 

Mr. BROWN. I think that that would be a question you would 

have to direct to the school districts themselves. I mean, the position of the department is that Title I funding is intended to be Federal assistance for additional help for school districts in servicing 

economically disadvantaged students. And in the case of the setaside for supplemental services, it still is doing that. 

And, in fact, I mean, for parents that have had the outreach and 

the awareness and get the concept, they very much understand this 

per-pupil amount is the Federal dollars that is intended to serve 

18

my student. And now I have some say in how that happens 

through the choice of a supplemental service provider. So, in some 

ways, it is really very directed on the individual student. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Right. But I guess it seems like there 

would be a comparison between those districts that are able to fold 

in the SES requirements into an ongoing program for a student 

versus those that are essentially adding it on. 

Mr. BROWN. Congresswoman, if I understand the question right, 

I mean, there are a variety of ways to do supplemental services. 

And for some districts that are providers, they have folded that in 

into a broader array of after-school programming. 

And one thing that the departments focus on, and the upcoming 

conference will, is how you can create partnerships, for instance, 

between the 21st-Century Learning Centers program and supplemental services so those are fully integrated. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. How, then, is the department really 

monitoring that? 

Mr. BROWN. I think that is pretty much in the form of reports 

that come back to us from the states on that issue, because it is 

more of a qualitative issue about how are they integrating it into 

their broader after-school programming. 

We have heard a fair amount anecdotally, not only from districts, 

but from community-based providers that often offer wrap-around 

services in terms of after-school programming and the effectiveness 

of that, both in terms of their outreach to families, the 

attractiveness of that to families and in terms of the quality of 

what they are providing as a whole for the students. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Is that, then, going into some of 

these pilots? Are you looking at that issue, as well? Or is that separate? 

Mr. BROWN. This will be an important issue in the pilots, because in the pilots the districts will be getting a special waiver to 

continue providing supplemental services. And so, how those services are provided, the quality of those services, will be a crucial 

part of our monitoring and the independent evaluation. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Is there any way that you could have 

started these pilots earlier? 

Mr. BROWN. Congresswoman, as a recent arrival at the Federal 

department, I am not sure how to answer that. The secretary saw 

this need pretty early on once we started getting reliable data, and 

stated that this was something we needed to do, to test out in individual areas in a variety of different circumstances whether we 

could have a substantial impact, first and foremost, on increasing 

participation rates and parental awareness. 

So they were planned and were under way last school year. And 

then we will have 2 years of data at the end of this school year. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Yes. But I think, like the ranking 

chair had said, I mean, that doesn’t really help us out in the reauthorization as much as we would like. 

I think the other question is whether the districts that you have 

looked at or the states that are having some difficulty serving the 

students who need that assistance were already having difficulty 

serving students under Title I. 

19

Is there some consistency to that? Or have we brought a whole 

new area into the equation essentially? 

Mr. BROWN. Congressman, that is a good question. And I think 

that would be something that we could go back and get some information from you from the Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education, because under their Title I monitoring they are looking 

at both general Title I efforts as well as the supplemental services 

and choice provisions. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Yes, because I would certainly be interested in that interplay. It worries me that by virtue of the setaside that some school districts, even if they are not at the 20 percent, something is not perhaps being accomplished. But it may be 

that it wasn’t accomplished prior to that either. And that would be 

of concern. Thank you. 

Do you need additional help in monitoring? 

Mr. BROWN. The monitoring piece, there is a part that can be 

handled by the department. But a good portion of the monitoring 

here, we need to emphasize, needs to happen by the states themselves, the state educational agencies. And so, where I think we 

can be helpful is in providing guidance to the state educational 

agencies how to do that, both from the department itself and the 

comprehensive centers. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. You are welcome. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Brown, I wanted to ask, I guess, a more fundamental question about SES, because it occurs to me if you have identified a 

school as failing, it might be the school’s fault and not the students’ 

fault. 

And it also seems more appropriate to me that if a student is behind and needs services, it doesn’t matter whether the student is 

at a good school or a failing school, if we are going to leave no child 

behind, then we need to address all of the students. 

So, you know, I have always been curious about the actions we 

take when we identify a school as failing. We give the students 

help, and then we have this choice thing where I guess a few handful of people can sneak out the backdoor and take care of themselves and leave the other 95 percent stuck in the failing school. 

Would it make as much sense if we have identified a school as 

failing to come in with professional development for teachers or 

bring in new specialized expert teachers or professional development for the principal? Or a principal that has failed 3 years in a 

row—maybe you want to get rid of the principal or maybe smaller 

class sizes? 

Would that make as much sense, if we have extra money, to 

come in with those kinds of services for the failing school, rather 

than try to help the students get through the bad education that 

they have been afflicted with? 

Mr. BROWN. Congressman, I think a couple points to be made 

here is when we are looking at—first, I want to point out that this 

is available to students at schools that are just in their second year 

20

in needing improvement, as well as at the later stages of corrective 

action and restructuring. 

A lot of the things that you suggest, I think, the departments are 

saying. That is what Title I funding is supposed to be doing, in 

terms of that additional help for economically disadvantaged students. 

But in cases where schools, as Congresswoman Davis was discussing, are having difficulty meeting those needs for several years 

in a row, the belief was and the philosophy behind this was that 

then that money should be given more directly to the students and 

their parents to have some choice in how they were going to get 

additional educational services in that kind of situation. 

And that is not to say that there shouldn’t be additional assistance. And many states do provide this once you get to the area of 

corrective action, restructuring, et cetera. 

But I think the philosophy behind it was that the school had already received additional funding under Title I. And that had not, 

for whatever reason, proven successful to date. And therefore, now 

there needed to be more direct access for the parents and the families to that funding to improve educational success. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I mean, if the school hasn’t improved, why don’t 

we do more to try to improve the school? Because if it is failing, 

that means a whole lot of people aren’t getting it. And it may be 

still the school’s fault. 

Mr. BROWN. Again, not every school that has students eligible for 

supplemental services is something that the department would necessarily tag as ‘‘failing.’’ They may be in some kind of state-of-improvement status. And there are other things that they need to do 

when they are in improvement status, such as coming together 

with a school improvement plan. 

I mean, it does need to be addressed in a wholistic way beyond 

just supplemental services. But I think the feeling was, again, that 

Title I funding was already provided to help the school improve in 

its services to economically disadvantaged students. And where 

that does not appear to be happening, some portion of that should 

be set aside for the families themselves to seek educational improvement for their children. 

Mr. SCOTT. In following up with the questions from the subcommittee chairman, I know some teachers get extra money if they 

coach extracurricular sports and other things. Are there examples 

where teachers have actually come in to provide these services? 

Mr. BROWN. Congressman, the answer to that is yes, both in 

terms of school districts that can be providers, hiring their own 

teachers sometimes under the collective bargaining contract to provide supplemental services. And also there have been cases where 

other providers, including community-based providers, hire local 

teachers on an after-school, weekend, summer-school basis to provide services to students. 

Chairman MCKEON. The chair recognizes Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Let me sort of continue that line of questioning. In Leave No 

Child Behind, it seems like they dealt with most things but left out 

principles. 

21

And it appears to me that probably most important—I am a 

former teacher a long time ago. But when I taught at a school 

where we had a principal that was effective, on the ball, really a 

lot of energy, creative, you know, didn’t leave before the teachers 

and the students, you know, it really set a pretty good tone. 

Is there any thought of trying to, as we reauthorize it, thinking 

in terms of dealing with the principals? Because principals are totally left out. 

And second, superintendents in urban states tend to simply 

bounce from one school district to the other. I guess you have to 

have certain qualifications. But someone that fails in one district, 

after 3 years, a new board comes in. They terminate that person 

because people are failing, and they end up in another failing 

school district and stay there. 

And I know it is local control, and people have a right to hire 

whomever they want to hire. But it just seems that failing superintendents just go from one place to another. I would imagine the 

average term is maybe 2.5, 3, 3.5 years in tough urban districts. 

Is there any way that we could look at that? 

And, I guess, finally, if you went from 12 percent in 2003-2004 

to 19 percent for 2005 and if your goal is to increase, then how are 

you going to be able to provide the funding if you are only at 19 

percent? I mean, it seems like there is a lot lacking. 

Mr. BROWN. Congressman, let me address the first questions you 

mentioned initially. 

The point about principals is very well-taken. And I think you 

will find in the GAO report, one of the things they emphasize is 

the importance of partnerships for this to be effective, partnerships 

not just between providers and the school district administration, 

but between individual principals, individual leaders at the schools 

where supplemental services may be taking place, where parents 

are likely to get their information and become aware of supplemental services. 

And so, that, to me, is very important. And a lot of the outreach 

and guidance we have done have emphasized how to engage at the 

principal level. 

This also relates, as I referenced earlier, to the issue of the superintendent level, because the tone that the superintendent sets 

about parent awareness on choice and supplemental services is 

very much going to probably impact how principals react. And 

when you have that variation in superintendents, that can be an 

issue. 

It is potentially resolved if there are strong district staff who are 

actually overseeing the supplemental services program who continue. But probably the best way to deal with it is for the state 

education agency to have very strong consistent guidance and monitoring of the districts. So even if the leadership may fluctuate, as 

new leadership comes in, it is clear that there is certain expectations in terms of outreach on choice and supplemental services. 

If I understood your other question correctly, maybe I just need 

to clarify that there is some confusion. The 20 percent set-aside 

that I was referring to earlier, the funding set-aside, the 19 percent 

amount is just about the number of students participating. So 

22

there is a lot of room for increase in the number of students participating. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, that is clear. You were saying that there was 

12 percent participation. You worked at it. You moved it up to 19 

percent of eligible students participating. Is that correct? 

Mr. BROWN. That is. 

Mr. PAYNE. If you moved up then the other 80 percent that 

might be eligible to participate, how would it be funded? I mean, 

do you have enough? That is my question. 

Mr. BROWN. I am sorry. Again, as we were discussing, it really 

would depend on the district. Many districts still have room under 

that 20 percent set-aside to serve additional students. There are 

some districts that have completely expended the 20 percent setaside. And then they have to go through that prioritization process. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

We have been called to the floor for votes. There will be three 

votes. So we will recess during those votes and return. And if you 

can, if you can remain with us. 

And members that aren’t able to return, if they wish, could submit questions to you in writing, and you could get them. Thank 

you. 

The committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman MCKEON. The committee will come to order. 

The chair recognizes Ms. McCarthy. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

having this hearing. 

And thank you, Mr. Brown, for your testimony. 

Mr. Brown, in the second panel we are going to have Ms. Harris 

from Chicago. And she tells us in her testimony that not only have 

the Chicago Public Schools engaged students in their SES programs, but they have had to wait-list students for services, which 

you had brought up in your testimony. 

Ms. Harris lists several strategies which have been successful: an 

initial notification letter distributed in April to inform them about 

the tutoring; registering parents at local level rather than a remote 

location; providing a handbook for parents holding open house; 

doing advertising, distributing flyers; and creating a multiple-lingual hotline to answer questions. 

These all sound like terrific ideas, and obviously they have got 

it right. Can the department get other districts to do what Chicago 

is doing, as far as a model goes? 

And following up on that, hopefully at this time, I mean, how is 

New York doing? And if you don’t know that, you know, if you 

could get me that information when you have it, I would appreciate 

it. Because I have several schools, failing schools that have made 

some good strides but are still struggling, one school being taken 

over by the state. 

And I guess I agree with Mr. Payne. The state put the superintendent in there. We had many good programs in there: GEAR 

UP, Project GRAD. And this particular superintendent came, 

kicked everybody out, and now we find out that he is $5 million 

in deficit. And this is controlled by the state. 

23

So I have a concern on that, like who is actually watching over 

these schools that need the most help. 

Mr. BROWN. Congresswoman, thank you for your question. 

First, let me just take a moment, since you referenced the fact 

that Chicago did expend its full 20 percent set-aside. 

One of my colleagues shared with me that in the GAO report you 

just have a picture of this nationally that nationally about 5 percent of the 20 percent set-aside among all districts has been expended or was expended in the most recent year we have data for. 

So I just wanted to put that in, because some people have been trying to get a sense of what is the level of available funding on a 

broader basis. 

Certainly, many of the outreach practices that you referenced for 

the Chicago public schools are the kinds of things that we would 

like to replicate. And I think once we do our monitoring and our 

site visits at the pilot sites, plus get the third-party evaluation, 

then we will look at participation, cooperation with providers and 

academic results. 

That will give us even more solid data perhaps to share that information through the comprehensive center and through the department itself in some of those conferences to get those kind of 

practices that have been effective out to other districts and make 

sure states know about them as well. 

With regard to the New York City public school system, rather 

than just kind of comment on things I have heard anecdotally, if 

we can get back to you with something more comprehensive on 

whatever data we have about New York and other information we 

have heard about how their outreach and public awareness program is going. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. I am going to be curious also—and I know with 

the second panel that is coming up, being that they have done such 

an outreach program, obviously that took funding. And then to 

have children on the wait-listing because they have run out of their 

money, I wonder if that is something that we should be looking at. 

If a school is doing everything right, reaching everything, making 

the program which we intended to do to really facilitate for those 

schools that, you know, do as well as Chicago, should they be getting extra funding? I think that is food for thought there. 

Mr. BROWN. And, Congresswoman, I believe, although you will 

hear this from the witness in the next panel, that Chicago, actually, since they were going beyond their 20 percent set-aside and 

still wanted to serve more students, may have even set aside some 

additional funding from other resources so they could serve more 

students, because they had such a wait-list, even though they had 

expended the 20 percent. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. The one thing I didn’t understand with, you 

know, your testimony—and I am sure I am going to hear from the 

second testimony—why wouldn’t schools do this? You know, with 

Leave No Child Behind, the assessing involved, they would certainly want their students to perform better, to have the test 

scores, so they are not a school that needs extra help. And I am 

actually flabbergasted when I saw the reports on how many schools 

aren’t doing it. 

24

Mr. BROWN. Congresswoman, I think the great point—and I 

think you have heard the department and the secretary very much 

appreciate the bipartisan support for supplemental services, because I think the department’s position is, if it works well, everyone wins. The child does better. Things work out better for the 

school in terms of performance and assessments. It is hard to see, 

even in the long run, though, even in the short run, how there is 

any losers when supplemental services is done well. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Brown, I notice you referenced the state of Minnesota in 

your statement. And I just want to make sure we keep the record 

clear. Can you tell me when the state of Minnesota this year gave 

the list of providers to the school districts? 

Mr. BROWN. I am sorry, Congressman. Are you talking about in 

previous years or for this year? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA. This year. 

Mr. BROWN. I left the Minnesota Department of Education a couple of months ago, and my understanding is that the school districts do have the current list of approved providers for this school 

year. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA. Yes, and it came out on August 

31st. So I just want to—it needs improvement in Minnesota. And 

I didn’t want people to read the testimony and think that we have 

arrived there. 

According to the 2004 state auditors report on the Minnesota Department of Education, it needs to do more to carefully monitor the 

results of the supplemental services, because we don’t have any 

record, according to our state auditor, whether or not they are effective and a way to hold them accountable. 

Would you agree with the 2004 report of the Minnesota state 

auditor on that? 

Mr. BROWN. Congresswoman, I would agree with the report at 

that time, which was looking at the first year that Minnesota had 

implemented a supplemental education services. Since that time, a 

number of steps have been taken, both for ongoing monitoring of 

providers and to put in place an evaluation system for providers. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA. Well, that is not totally correct. 

The state of Minnesota has provided supplemental services for parents provided on a tax credit on their tax forms since the mid1990’s. So the department has had the ability to put certain things 

in place. 

I would like to go back to the funding for a second. I just held 

some hearings in my district, in which many of our school districts 

right now are having to hold referendum hearings. And all the testimony that I received basically was that, if the Federal Government fully funded IDEA, that the levies mostly in my district—and 

I think we could extrapolate that out to the state—would disappear. In other words, taxpayers wouldn’t have to be picking up 

to make up for the shortfall just in IDEA from the failure of the 

Federal Government to fund that program. 

25

And, as you mentioned, I believe, in your testimony, the Federal 

Government still has failed to fund No Child Left Behind. Could 

you tell me if the Federal Government is fully funding all the Title 

I dollars that districts have coming to them? 

Mr. BROWN. Congresswoman, if I can just clarify a couple of 

things. First of all, I don’t recollect in my testimony saying that No 

Child Left Behind had not been fully funded. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA. Well, then has it been fully funded? 

Mr. BROWN. I think, as probably has been discussed by the department a number of times——

Ms. MCCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA. I think that is a yes or no. Has 

No Child Left Behind been fully funded by this Congress? And has 

the administration asked for all the dollars that was originally 

promised when the bipartisan bill moved forward? 

Mr. BROWN. The administration’s position is that funding for 

Title I and for education funding in general has substantially increased since No Child Left Behind. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA. It is not fully funded. So Title I 

is not fully funded either right now? 

Mr. BROWN. Actually, my understanding is that Title I funding has gone up $4 billion, or 45 percent, under No Child Left Behind. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA. But it is not fully funded? 

Mr. BROWN. Congresswoman, can you clarify your definition of 

‘‘fully funded’’ for me? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA. I will get you the numbers of 

what fully funded would be. 

So if we are not fully funding Leave No Child Behind, if we are 

not fully funding IDEA, if we are not fully funding Title I, and then 

we take 20 percent out of Title I, I don’t know how we get ahead 

in giving the service that the children need, as other people have 

pointed out, that the students really need to be successful. But the 

schools need to have all the tools that are available to them. 

So, you know, when we are passing levy referendums to make up 

for the shortage in special education and we don’t have all the dollars for Title I, when we have a waiting list for Head Start, when 

Leave No Child Behind is not fully funded, I think the supplemental services is a noble goal. But if we don’t do the basics first, 

if we don’t have a good foundation, then putting a fancy layer on 

top of it, I don’t see how it moves our children ahead. 

And so, I want to know what the Education Department is going 

to do to make sure that we go back to basics, just like we are asking our schools to do, to implement all the funding that has been 

promised the state education departments. 

Mr. BROWN. Congresswoman, I may have some differences of 

opinion with some of the assumptions. But I think the important 

thing in terms of understanding the set-aside is that funding is not 

being taken away from the families and children that need it. In 

fact, it is being allocated to them so they actually have a say in 

how the educational services are going to be provided that that student needs. So that is very much being directed to economically 

disadvantaged families. 

In addition, I think when we look at this more broadly, one of 

the things I should at least note is that in the president’s fiscal 

26

year 2007 budget request, there is an additional $200 million requested for schools in need of improvement. So on top of the Title 

I funding they already get, they would have additional funds for 

schools in improvement status where students are eligible for supplemental services to focus on curriculum, teacher professional development, et cetera. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA. Mr. Chair pointed out—parliamentary inquiry—that the record is going to be open to submit. 

I wouldn’t begin to tell other school districts around the country, 

but I will submit the numbers for my school district for the record 

of the Federal shortfall if the record is going to be open. 

Could you tell me how many days, sir? 

Chairman MCKEON. Fourteen days. 

This hearing is not on IDEA. But just for the record, I will clarify 

that when I first came here I was in the minority when the IDEA 

was originally passed in the 1970’s. The Federal Government, at 

that time, said we would put in 40 percent of the funding. They 

never have done that. 

I think when I first came here, it was running about 6 or 7 percent. When it was originally passed, $2 billion would have been 

enough to fully fund it. But the way it has grown, we have not really kept up with that. 

However, with the additional funding that we have put in since 

we have become the majority, we are up now to almost 20 percent. 

Twelve billion dollars is what we put in in 2006. 

So is there enough money? You know, we could always say we 

could probably find more ways to spend more money. But just so 

that we know for the record, it has gone from 6 percent when I first 

came here to where we are now funding about almost 20 percent. 

Mr. MILLER. Since we are creating a record, Mr. Chairman, I 

hate to——

Chairman MCKEON. Go right ahead. 

Mr. MILLER. I would just say that the promise that was made 

and the authorization that was agreed to at the White House was 

in recognition that these were the most substantial reforms to the 

system in 30 years. And to quote the president, he said, ‘‘You get 

me the reforms. I will get you the resources.’’ He did for 2 years, 

and then we have stagnated. And that is the problem that we are 

having, is we have this mounting deficit of obligation to No Child 

Left Behind. 

Chairman MCKEON. I understand that. What I was clarifying for 

the record was, even though the hearing is not on IDEA, I was trying to clarify the record on that. 

The chair recognizes Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I think it is important that we know how the department is ensuring that these supplemental service providers 

meet the same standards as the educators are required to meet, as 

far as, you know, their level of education, knowledge of subjects, 

their state certification. 

Are we ensuring to the parents that these supplemental services 

have to live up to the same standards? And how do we ensure that? 

Mr. BROWN. There is a couple of pieces to that, Congresswoman. 

One is that when states approve supplemental providers on the 

27

front end, they absolutely can ask and build into those requirements information about how tutors are selected, what kind of 

training tutors receive, what kind of ongoing professional development tutors receive. And those all can be taken into account as 

part of the approval process. 

In addition, I think one thing that is clear about the intent of the 

law is that there is an intent that—but I want to make clear that 

there is just supplemental services—you can’t have any provider, 

any tutor just walk in off the street and do supplemental services. 

But also a clear intent of the——

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, could I just, could I just——

Mr. BROWN. Yes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY [continuing]. Go a little further with that then? 

Mr. BROWN. Sure. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. But we aren’t ensuring that those supplemental 

providers and tutors have to have as good or better education than 

the teachers that they are supplementing? 

Mr. BROWN. The supplemental service providers have to have tutors that are effective for their program and have to demonstrate 

effectiveness and success when they are applying and when they 

are being renewed. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, OK. I am going to interrupt again, because 

we are not allowing schools to have teachers that are good and 

have proven themselves over and over again and over the years. 

They have to live up to an education standard. They have to live 

up to certification. They have to know their subject material. 

Why would we take funds away from the school and give it to 

a supplemental service that doesn’t insist on the same standard? 

Mr. BROWN. Congresswoman, the department, I think, would 

have a difference of opinion that the funds are being taken away 

from the children, which is where they are being expended on. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No, I said the school. 

Mr. BROWN. But I think the point here is many providers do hire 

teachers. And that is absolutely appropriate. But many providers 

have other means by which they determine what tutors work best 

for their program. And I think the department recognizes that 

there perhaps are some different qualifications for a tutor involved 

in a one-on-one reading tutoring process than for a classroom 

teacher standing before the classroom for the full school day. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. So let me ask you then, with No Child Left Behind, can a school choose to have a program that meets the needs 

of that child within the school, in the classroom, or do they have 

to have those providers—in the classroom, teachers have to have 

a different set of standards. 

Mr. BROWN. Congresswoman, I think you are comparing two 

pretty different situations here. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No, I am not. 

Mr. BROWN. But the other point that I really feel obligated to 

mention is the intent of the statute is that there be a wide range 

of providers available in a wide range of areas for families to 

choose from. And if you are going to implement the kinds of restrictions I think you are implying, the providers that will likely be 

shut out initially and most quickly will be the community-based 

providers, which have had some real interesting successes, both in 

28

terms of their doing some of the best work in terms of outreach to 

parents because they are trusted organizations within the community. They also provide wrap-around services to those families and 

students. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. OK. Well, I understand that. But——

Mr. BROWN. And they are available in rural areas. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. But then why can’t we trust the educators, the 

teachers that are providing great services also? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA. Would the gentlewoman yield? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. And I would like to yield to Betty McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA. Thank you. This is from an article Wednesday, May 5, 2004—I will submit the whole article—and 

a tutor’s experience with Leave No Child Behind. This individual 

had taught in the Minneapolis school district. 

And I quote: ‘‘Before I began tutoring, I received 15 hours of 

training, most which revolved around abstract teaching theories 

rather than the information about the curriculum being taught in 

the public schools. I received a book to teach phonics but no guide 

to teach math. At no time did I receive ESL as the second language 

training, although all of my students were immigrants or children 

of immigrants and English was their second language.’’

I will submit the rest of this into the record. 

But we do have to do something about making sure that we have 

highly qualified tutors. 

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. 

[The article follows:]

[From the Minnesota Women’s Press, May 5, 2004]

Behind 11 Children: A Tutor’s Experience With ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’

By ABIGAIL CERRA

Reports and political debates have sprung up around the Bush administration’s 

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. A quick search on the net or in newspaper archives will return an abundance of facts and figures regarding the economic costs 

and benefits of the program. It seems that in public discussions of the act, the best 

interest of the left-behind children is a distant second to the economics of helping 

them. 

I was hired under NCLB to tutor 11 students in inner city Minneapolis. This is 

a description of my experience. 

Building a bridge with an eraser 

Under a provision of the NCLB, some elementary school students qualify to receive one-on-one sessions with a private tutor. The federal government grants participating states one lump sum to finance the NCLB program. Individual school districts then apply to the state for a piece of the pie. 

Although I taught in the Minneapolis district, I was not an employee of the state, 

the city or the school district. In December 2003 I was hired by A+ Tutoring Services in Edina, a private company contracted to supply tutors for the NCLB program 

in Minneapolis. Though promised 30-35 hours a week, I was only assigned 22 hours. 

A+ paid me $16/hour with no benefits; I don’t know how much the government paid 

A+. 

Before I began tutoring, I received 15 hours of training, most of which revolved 

around abstract teaching theories rather than information about the curriculums 

being taught in public schools. I received a book to teach phonics but no guide to 

teach math. At no time did I receive ESL (English as a Second Language) training, 

though all of my students were immigrants or children of immigrants and English 

was their second language. I was given some cheap supplies: an eraser, some pencils 

and one pair of child scissors. 

I dove in. Between 3 and 8 p.m. weekdays and 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. Saturdays, I 

went to the families’ homes (most families had multiple children in the program) 

and tutored the kids one by one. I was to teach either math or reading to each child 

for the entirety of the program. This limitation was problematic. Since many of the 

29

children could barely form a sentence in English, they had problems in all of their 

classes. 

One of my students was 13 and, unlike her younger siblings, entered the American system too late to make up for the years in Mexico where she says she only 

sporadically attended school. While playing a math game with the entire family, I 

discovered that she could not add or subtract. Her parents had chosen reading for 

her, but I could not ignore her blatant math deficiency. I decided to divide the two 

hours she had per week between math and reading. After 23 sessions, it was evident my tutoring alone was not enough to bring her up to par with her classmates. 

She had made significant advances, but she’d started out far, far behind. She illustrates how ill-conceived parts of NCLB are; the tutoring facet of the program, at 

least, overlooks the fact that a child with problems in one academic area will likely 

have trouble in others as well. 

Well-funded schools and open libraries 

Some of my students were more successful academically. One family in particular 

did quite well: the Xiong/Lee family. Their mother came as a refugee from a camp 

in Thailand, and the children were all born in the U.S. Though they grew up speaking only Hmong, all five of them attended American schools from the beginning and 

learned English quickly. In addition to having teachers they adored at Powderhorn 

Elementary School, the kids attended after-school programs and church activities. 

They had homework from class nearly every time I had a session with them. More 

than tutoring, these kids simply needed some individual attention. It seems their 

teacher and school activities did much more for them academically than the tutoring 

sessions, though they enjoyed being in the spotlight for at least two hours each 

week. 

After 23 sessions each with 11 students, I must say that, as an employee of 

NCLB, the good I did for their education was minimal. Simply by working for an 

Edina company rather than one of the many organizations in their neighborhoods 

(which are equipped to educate at-risk kids), I diverted government funds from Minneapolis to the suburbs. 

Though tutoring is good, schooling is better. If the money that paid my salary was 

invested in after-school programs or classroom supplies or lowering class size, I estimate the return would have been 10 times greater. The children who benefited the 

most from tutoring regularly attended school activities and used resources such as 

the city library to provide what schools or parents could not. 

Libraries are cutting their hours of service, nine schools in Minneapolis will close 

next fall, and many teachers have been laid off. Tutors and the remaining teachers 

are still expected to bring every child up to national educational standards. We are 

required to administer more and more standardized tests (I gave each student two, 

on top of the ones they received at school), but we are given fewer and fewer resources to prepare the children for these tests. 

I cannot say the mission of NCLB is wrong, but the program provisions are ineffective in light of the budget cuts education has suffered. The children with learning 

disabilities or poor educational backgrounds certainly need tutoring, but much more 

than two hours a week. Scrapping the program altogether would hurt many students, but they need more than what NCLB is offering them before they can be expected to move forward. 

The ABCs of No Child Left Behind 

President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 into law Jan. 8, 

2002, reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which 

encompasses Title I. 

Primary objective: Impel progress in student achievement; hold states and schools 

accountable for such progress. 

Testing: Annual testing of students in grades 3-8 in math and reading by 2005-

6 school year; testing in science at least once in elementary, middle and high school 

by 2007-8; National Assessment of Educational Progress testing in reading and 

math for a sample of 4th and 8th graders every other year. 

Academic progress: States must raise every student to ‘‘proficient’’ level on state 

tests by 2013-14; each school must meet state ‘‘adequate yearly progress’’ targets toward this goal for both the student populations as a whole and specific demographic 

subgroups; students in schools that do not meet these standards for three consecutive years must also be offered supplemental education services, including private 

tutoring. 

Nearly 30,000 schools nationwide did not make adequate yearly progress in 2002-

2003.

Source: Education Week 

30

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

Mr. Brown, I think everyone has had a chance to answer your 

questions. I appreciate your patience in sitting through our recess. 

I appreciate your testimony here. 

And if other members that weren’t able to be here had further 

questions, we will hopefully ask you, if they give you questions in 

writing if you can respond to those, we would certainly appreciate 

it. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you very much. 

We will ask the second panel now to take their seats. As soon 

as they are ready, I will introduce them. 

Well, thank you for being here with us today. 

I will introduce our panel. 

First we will hear from Ms. Cornelia Ashby, director of Education Workforce and Income Securities at the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, where she directs studies involving education, child welfare and child support enforcement issues. 

And then Dr. Stephen Barr, the associate superintendent for the 

Center for School Improvement at the Ohio Department of Education, where he provides leadership for the offices of education reform, Federal programs, field relations and quality assurance. 

Then from Ms. Erica Harris, who currently serves as manager of 

Academic After-School Programs for the Chicago Public Schools, 

where she has been primarily responsible for the implementation 

of the supplemental education services. 

And Dr. Barbara Anderson, vice president of the Knowledge 

Learning Corporation. Dr. Anderson is responsible for the development and implementation of research-based educational programs 

and recommending best practices in the development of school programs. 

And our last panelist is Ms. Monique Dollonne, the mother of an 

11-year-old recipient of supplemental educational services in Ventura, California. Ms. Dollonne is also the founder of the Coalition 

for Accountability in Education, for which her work emphasizes 

meaningful parental involvement strategies to help underperforming children receive the maximum benefits offered to them by 

their school districts. 

I would again remind you how the lights work. The green comes 

on. When you have 4 minutes, the yellow. When the 5th minute 

comes up and the red, we would ask you to conclude. 

Ms. Ashby? 

STATEMENT OF CORNELIA ASHBY, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. ASHBY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am 

pleased to be here today to present information from our August 

2006 report on implementation of supplemental education services. 

And I must say it has been gratifying to listen this morning to 

all the references to our report. Some of what I will say you have 

heard, but I think it is worth repeating. 

31

Our full written testimony statement discusses the eligible student participation rate, service delivery, state and district monitoring and evaluation efforts and Federal oversight and support. 

This morning I will focus on an important cross-cutting issue: communicating with parents. 

While school districts have provided written information notifying parents of supplemental educational services and taken other 

actions to encourage participation, challenges remain, such as notifying parents in a timely and effective manner. 

We estimate that over 90 percent of districts, sometimes in collaboration with service providers, send parents written information 

in English, hold individual meeting and/or phone conversations 

with parents, and encourage school staff to talk with parents about 

supplemental educational services. 

We also estimate that over 70 percent of districts held informational events for parents to learn about providers and gave written 

information to parents in languages other than English. 

In addition, an estimated 40 percent of districts worked with 

community organizations to inform students and parents of these 

services. 

Despite some districts’ promising approaches to notifying parents, as the chairman alluded to earlier, before the beginning of the 

2005-2006 school year, an estimated 58 percent of the districts had 

not notified parents that their children may have been eligible to 

receive supplemental educational services, which may have been 

due in part to delays in states reporting which schools were identified for improvement. 

Further, officials in all four districts we visited reported difficulties contacting parents to inform them about supplemental educational services in part because some families frequently move 

and do not always update their mailing lists with districts. 

In addition, some providers we interviewed indicated that parental notification letters do not always effectively encourage participation. For example, some of the providers we interviewed said 

some districts use confusing and poorly written letters to inform 

parents of these services or send letters to parents of eligible children but conduct no further outreach to encourage participation. 

As I indicated previously, providers also play a role in communicating with parents. They reported mailing information to parents as well as talking with parents over the phone and meeting 

with them in person to communicate information on student needs 

and progress. 

However, the frequency of communication with parents varied. 

We estimate that some providers did not contact parents in about 

30 percent of districts in school year 2004-2005. 

In monitoring supplemental educational services providers, 

states and districts consider the perspectives of parents. We estimate that 70 percent or more of districts were collecting or planning to collect information from parents, school staff, onsite reviews 

and students to monitor providers in school year 2005-2006. 

In addition, in school year 2005-2006, 90 percent or more of 

states and districts monitored or planned to monitor parent and 

student satisfaction with providers and provider communication 

with teachers and parents. 

32

Finally, the Department of Education, in its oversight and support role, influences the quality of communication with parents. In 

May 2006, Education issued a policy letter announcing the department’s plans to take significant enforcement action. In the letter, 

the department noted that its monitoring activities have identified 

several areas of noncompliance with requirements such as parental 

notification letters lacking key required components. 

However, during three of our site visits, officials expressed some 

concern about the lack of clarity in the department’s guidance on 

how to craft a parental notification letter that is both complete and 

easy for parents to understand. 

In addition, Education’s guidance provides a sample that does 

not clearly specify all the key required elements. Further, a few 

state and district officials commented that following department’s 

regulations would yield a letter that is unreasonably long and complex. 

Our August report included a recommendation that Education 

clarify guidance and provide additional assistance to states and districts to help them comply with the Federal requirements for parental notification letters. In response, the department indicated 

that it would provide more parental notification assistance to 

states. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you or members of the committee may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashby follows:]

Prepared Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director, Education, Workforce, 

and Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to be here today to 

present information from our August 2006 report on early implementation of the 

supplemental educational services (SES) provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act 

(NCLBA).1 In school year 2005-2006, Title I of NCLBA—the most recent reauthor- ization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—provided $12.7 billion in federal funds to nearly all school districts and approximately half of the public schools nationwide in order to improve the education of low-income students. 

When a school receiving Title I funds does not meet state performance goals designated under NCLBA for 2 years, the district must offer students the choice of 

transferring to another school in the district that is not in improvement status. 

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

for 3 or more years, the district must offer SES to all of the low-income students 

enrolled in the school. SES includes tutoring and remediation that are provided outside of the regular school day by a state-approved provider, such as a for-profit company or a community-based organization. Districts with schools required to offer 

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

I funds to provide choice-related transportation and SES for eligible students in 

these schools. 

While states set NCLBA performance goals and schools are judged on the performance of their students, responsibility for SES implementation is primarily 

shared by states and school districts under the law. Specifically, states are responsible for reviewing provider applications to assess each provider’s record of effectiveness and program design, approving providers to serve students in their states, and 

monitoring and evaluating SES providers and their services. Districts are responsible for notifying parents of their child’s eligibility for SES and contracting with 

the state-approved providers that parents select for services. At the federal level, 

the U.S. Department of Education (Education) oversees SES implementation nationwide and provides guidance and technical assistance. 

Although some districts were first required to offer SES in school year 2002-2003, 

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

districts are at different stages of implementing the SES provisions. My testimony 

today will focus on early implementation of SES. Specifically, I will discuss (1) how 

33

the proportion of eligible students receiving services has changed in recent years, 

and actions that have been taken to increase participation; (2) how providers are 

working with districts and schools to provide services that increase student achievement; (3) to what extent states are monitoring and evaluating SES; and (4) how 

Education monitors state SES implementation and assists state and district efforts. 

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

students between school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. While districts have provided written information notifying parents of SES and taken other actions to encourage participation, challenges remain, such as notifying parents in a timely and 

effective manner. Regarding service delivery, providers aligned their curriculum 

with district instruction primarily by hiring district teachers and communicating 

with the teachers of participating students in order to promote improved student 

academic achievement. However, both providers and districts experienced contracting and coordination difficulties. In part because SES is often delivered in 

school facilities, providers as well as district and school officials reported that involvement of school administrators and teachers can improve SES delivery and coordination. At the state level, while monitoring of SES had been limited—at the 

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

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

monitoring continues to be a challenge, and states also continue to struggle to develop meaningful evaluations of SES providers. At the time of our review, no state 

had yet to produce a report providing a conclusive assessment of SES providers’ effect on student academic achievement. Regarding federal oversight of SES implementation, although several Education offices monitor various aspects of SES activity across the country and provide support, states and districts reported needing additional assistance and flexibility with program implementation. 

To help states and districts implement SES more effectively, our recent report recommended that Education collect and disseminate information on promising practices used by states and districts to attract more providers for certain areas and 

groups and involve school officials in SES implementation, and examples of sample 

parental notification letters that meet federal requirements and are easy for parents 

to understand. Further, to improve states’ and districts’ ability to provide services 

to the maximum number of students, we recommended that Education consider expanding its current SES pilot program allowing selected districts in need of improvement to serve as providers and clarify state authority to set parameters 

around service design and costs. To improve federal and state monitoring of SES, 

we recommended that Education require states to collect and submit information on 

the amount and percent of Title I funds spent on SES by districts and provide states 

with technical assistance and additional guidance on how to evaluate the effect of 

SES on student academic achievement. In its comments on the report, Education 

expressed appreciation for the report’s recommendations and cited actions the department had already initiated or planned to take in addressing them. 

Our review was based on a Web-based survey of SES coordinators in all 50 states, 

the District of Columbia (D.C.), and Puerto Rico, and a mail survey of SES coordinators in a nationally representative sample of districts with schools required to offer 

SES. Our district survey sample included all 21 districts required to offer SES with 

100,000 or more total enrolled students. In addition, we conducted site visits to one 

school district in each of four states (Woodburn, Ore.; Newark, N.J.; Chicago, Ill.; 

and Hamilton County, Tenn.) during which we interviewed state, district, and 

school officials. We also conducted interviews with 22 SES providers in our site visit 

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

oversight and implementation and reviewed Education’s data on SES. In our surveys and other data collection efforts, we asked questions about SES implementation during specific school years; therefore, all years cited refer to school years. 

Background 

Enactment of NCLBA strengthened accountability by requiring states and schools 

to improve the academic performance of their students so that all students are proficient in reading and math by 2014. Under NCLBA, each state creates its own content standards, academic achievement tests, and proficiency levels, and establishes 

and implements adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals for districts and schools. Students in specified grades are tested annually to determine whether districts and 

schools are making AYP. 

Title I 2 authorizes federal funds to help elementary and secondary schools establish and maintain programs that will improve the educational opportunities of economically disadvantaged children. Under NCLBA, schools receiving federal Title I 

funds are required to implement specific interventions when they do not meet state 

AYP goals (see table 1). Students from low-income families who attend schools reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\FC\9-21-06\29860.TXT EDUWK PsN: DICK
34

ceiving Title I funds that have missed AYP goals for 3 consecutive years are eligible 

for SES. Because some schools had not met state goals set under ESEA before the 

enactment of NCLBA, some schools receiving Title I funds were first required to 

offer SES in 2002-2003, the first year of NCLBA implementation.

TABLE 1.—NCLBA INTERVENTIONS FOR SCHOOLS NOT MEETING YEARLY PERFORMANCE GOALS 

OVER TIME 

Number of years school misses 

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

First year missed .......................... N/A None 

Second year missed ...................... Needs Improvement—First Year Required to offer school choice 

Third year missed ......................... Needs Improvement—Second Year Required to offer school choice and SES a

Fourth year missed ....................... Corrective Action b Required to offer school choice and SES a

Fifth year missed .......................... Planning for Restructuring c Required to offer school choice and SES a

Sixth year missed ......................... Implementation of Restructuring Required to offer school choice and SES 

Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA.

Note: N/A = not applicable.

a Students that opt to transfer to another school in the district that is not in improvement status are not eligible to receive SES, as they 

are no longer in a school required to offer these services to its students. b Corrective action is a significant intervention in a school that is designed to remedy the school’s persistent inability to make adequate 

progress toward all students becoming proficient in reading and mathematics. c Restructuring is a major reorganization of a school, involving fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school’s staffing 

and governance. For example, some schools may be converted to charter schools during restructuring. 

Under NCLBA, SES primarily include tutoring provided outside of the regular 

school day that is designed to increase the academic achievement of economically 

disadvantaged students in low-performing Title I schools. These services must consist of high-quality, research-based instruction that aligns with state educational 

standards and district curriculum. SES providers may include nonprofit entities, forprofit entities, school districts, public schools, public charter schools, private schools, 

public or private institutions of higher education, educational service agencies, and 

faith-based organizations. However, a district classified as needing improvement or 

in corrective action because it failed to meet state AYP goals for several years may 

not be an SES provider, though its schools that are not identified as needing improvement may provide services. In addition, individual teachers who work in a 

school or district identified as in need of improvement may be hired by any stateapproved provider to serve as a tutor in its program. 

A district must set aside an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I allocation 

to fund both SES and transportation for students who elect to attend other schools 

under school choice. After ensuring all eligible students have had adequate time to 

opt to transfer to another school or apply for SES, the district may reallocate any 

unused set-aside funds to other Title I activities. For each student receiving SES, 

a district must spend an amount equal to its Title I per-pupil allocation or the actual cost of provider services, whichever is less.3

Education oversees SES implementation by monitoring states and providing technical assistance and support. NCLBA, the Title I regulations, and SES guidance 

outline the roles and responsibilities states, school districts, service providers, and 

parents have in ensuring that eligible students receive additional academic assistance through SES (see table 2).

TABLE 2.—SES STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

Stakeholder Roles and responsibilities 

State ..................... Set criteria and standards for approving providers 

Identify, approve, and maintain public list of providers 

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

disabilities and limited English proficiency 

Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of provider services 

Monitor district SES implementation 

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

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

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

35

TABLE 2.—SES STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES—Continued

Stakeholder Roles and responsibilities 

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

process and timeline; describe the services, qualifications, and demonstrated effectiveness of each 

provider; and be easily understandable 

Help parents choose a provider, if requested 

Protect the privacy of students eligible for and receiving services 

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

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

with available funds 

Enter into contracts with providers 

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

participate in SES 

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

Providers .............. Provide services in accordance with district agreements 

Enable students to attain their individual achievement goals 

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

Ensure non-disclosure of student data to the public 

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

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

Parents ................. Choose a provider from the state-approved list 

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

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

Guidance, June 2005. 

SES Participation Has Increased As Districts Have Taken Steps to Improve Access, but Challenges Remain 

SES participation increased between 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, as districts have 

taken multiple actions to encourage participation, such as offering services on or 

near the school campus or at various times. Most students receiving services were 

among the lower achieving students in school. Despite districts’ efforts, challenges 

to increasing participation remain, such as notifying parents in a timely and effective manner and ensuring there are providers to serve certain areas and students. 

The SES Participation Rate Increased from 12 to 19 Percent between 2003-2004 and 

2004-2005, and Most Participants Were Low Achieving 

Nationally, the SES participation rate increased substantially from 12 percent of 

eligible students receiving SES in 2003-2004 to 19 percent in 2004-2005. In addition, the number of students receiving services almost quadrupled between 2002-

2003 and 2004-2005 from approximately 117,000 to 430,000 students nationwide, 

based on the best available national data (see fig. 1).4 This increase may be due in 

part to the increase in the number of schools required to offer SES over that time 

period.

36

While approximately 1,000 of the over 14,000 districts nationwide were required 

to offer SES in 2004-2005, SES recipients were concentrated in a small group of 

large districts—56 percent of recipients attended school in the 21 districts required 

to offer SES with more than 100,000 total enrolled students (see fig. 2). Further, 

some districts required to offer SES have no students receiving services. Specifically, 

we estimate that no students received services in about 20 percent of the approximately 1,000 districts required to offer SES in 2004-2005. A majority of these districts were rural or had a total enrollment of fewer than 2,500 students.


gao926a.eps gao926b.eps
37

Nationwide, we estimate that districts required to offer SES spent the equivalent 

of 5 percent of their total Title I funds for SES in 2004-2005. Districts set aside an 

amount equal to 20 percent of their Title I funds for SES and choice-related transportation at the beginning of the school year, and the proportion of the set-aside 

spent on SES varied by district. While 38 percent of districts spent no more than 

one-fifth of their set-aside to provide SES in 2004-2005,5 others reported that the 

full set-aside amount was not sufficient to fund SES for all eligible students whose 

parents requested services in 2004-2005. Similarly, according to Chicago, Ill., district officials, the district budgeted the entire 20 percent Title I set-aside to fund 

SES in 2005-2006, and because parents’ demand for services significantly exceeded 

the amount of funding available, the district also allocated $5 million in local funds 

to provide SES. 

Many students receiving SES in 2004-2005 shared certain characteristics. For example, districts reported that most students receiving services were among the 

lower achieving students in school. Specifically, an estimated 91 percent of the districts that reviewed the academic records of students receiving SES classified most 

or all of the students receiving SES as academically low achieving.6 Further, over 

half of SES recipients were elementary school students in the majority of districts, 

and about 60 percent of schools required to offer SES in 2004-2005 were elementary 

schools.7 In some districts, the majority of SES recipients were African-American or 

Hispanic. In about 40 percent of districts, over half of SES recipients were AfricanAmerican, and in about 30 percent of districts, over half of SES recipients were Hispanic. However, districts varied in the percentage of students with limited English 

proficiency receiving services, and students with disabilities made up less than 20 

percent of students receiving services in about two-thirds of districts. 

We estimate that about 2,800 providers delivered services to students nationwide 

in 2004-2005, and more providers were available to deliver services in the districts 

with the largest student enrollments.8 The number of providers delivering services 

in the 21 districts with more than 100,000 total enrolled students ranged from 4 

to 45, and averaged 15 providers per district in 2004-2005. 

Districts Used Several Methods to Notify Parents and Offered Services on School 

Campuses and at Various Times to Increase Participation 

Districts have taken multiple actions to encourage participation, as shown in table 

3. In line with the federal statutory requirement that districts notify parents in an 

understandable format of the availability of SES, over 90 percent of districts provided written information in English, held individual meetings with parents, and 

encouraged school staff to talk with parents about SES. Some districts collaborated 

with providers to notify parents. For example, during our site visit, Illinois state officials described a provider and district sharing administrative resources to increase 

participation, which involved the provider printing promotional materials and the 

district addressing and mailing the materials to parents. In addition, we estimate 

that over 70 percent of districts lengthened the period of time for parents to turn 

in SES applications, held informational events for parents to learn about providers, 

and provided written information to parents in languages other than English. For 

example, during our site visit to Woodburn, Ore., district officials reported extending 

the time parents had to sign up their children for SES and hosting an event where 

providers presented their programs to parents in English and Spanish. Further, 

Newark, N.J., district officials told us during our site visit that the district provided 

transportation for parents to attend informational events and worked with a local 

community organization to increase awareness of SES, a method we estimate was 

also used by about 40 percent of all districts. Specifically, Newark district officials 

collaborated with a local organization to inform parents and students living in public housing and homeless shelters about SES. Also to encourage participation, an estimated 90 percent of districts offered services at locations easily accessible to students, such as on or near the school campus, and almost 80 percent of districts offered services at a variety of times, such as before and after school or on weekends.

TABLE 3.—DISTRICT ACTIONS TAKEN TO ENCOURAGE SES PARTICIPATION (2005-2006) 

Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year 

Estimated 

percentage of 

districts 

Provided written information in English to parents99.

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

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

Offered supplemental services in locations that are easily accessible to students after school (e.g., on or 

near the school campus) ..................................................................................................................................... 90

38

TABLE 3.—DISTRICT ACTIONS TAKEN TO ENCOURAGE SES PARTICIPATION (2005-2006)—

Continued

Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year 

Estimated 

percentage of 

districts 

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

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

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

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

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

Worked with a local community partner to raise awareness of SES (e.g., Parent Information Resource Center) 39

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

Source: GAO analysis of district survey results. 

Notifying Parents in a Timely and Effective Manner and Attracting More Providers 

for Certain Areas and Students Remain Challenges 

Despite some districts’ promising approaches to encourage participation, notifying 

parents in a timely manner remains a challenge for some districts. An estimated 

58 percent of districts did not notify parents that their children may be eligible to 

receive SES before the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year, which may be due 

in part to delays in states reporting which schools were identified for improvement.9

Specifically, about half of districts that did not notify parents before the beginning 

of the 2005-2006 school year did not receive notification from the state of the schools 

identified for improvement by that time.10

Effectively notifying parents is also a challenge for some districts. For example, 

officials in all four districts we visited reported difficulties contacting parents to inform them about SES in part because some families frequently move and do not always update their mailing address with districts. In addition, some providers we 

interviewed indicated that parental notification letters do not always effectively encourage SES participation. For example, some of the providers we interviewed said 

some districts use confusing and poorly written letters to inform parents of SES or 

send letters to parents of eligible children but conduct no further outreach to encourage participation in SES. 

Another challenge to increasing SES participation is attracting more SES providers for certain areas and groups of students. Specifically, some rural districts surveyed indicated that no students received services last year because of a lack of providers in the area.11 A few rural districts further explained that it has been difficult 

to attract providers to their area because there are few students to serve or providers have trouble finding staff to serve as tutors. Ensuring there are providers to 

serve students with limited English proficiency or disabilities has also been a challenge for some districts. We estimate that there were not enough providers to meet 

the needs of students with limited English proficiency in one-third of districts and 

not enough providers to meet the needs of students with disabilities in one-quarter 

of districts. 

Encouraging student attendance has also been a challenge, in part because students may participate in other after-school activities, such as sports or work. For 

example, about one-quarter of districts reported that both competition from other 

afterschool programs and the availability of services that are engaging to students 

were challenges to implementing SES. To help address this problem, 19 of the 22 

providers we interviewed used incentives to encourage student attendance, such as 

school supplies and gift certificates. 

Providers Have Taken Steps to Deliver Quality Services, but Contracting and Coordination Remain Challenges to Local Implementation 

To promote improved student academic achievement, providers took steps to gather information on district curriculum and student needs from teachers and parents. 

Specifically, providers aligned their curriculum with district instruction primarily by 

hiring district teachers and communicating with the teachers of participating students. However, when providers did not hire district teachers, the frequency of contact between tutors and teachers varied, and we estimate that some providers did 

not contact teachers in almost 40 percent of districts in 2004-2005. Regarding communication with parents, providers reported mailing information as well as meeting 

with parents over the phone and in-person to communicate information on student 

needs and progress; however, the frequency of communication with parents also varied. Specifically, we estimate that some providers did not contact parents in about 

30 percent of districts in 2004-2005. 

39

Despite communication challenges, most districts and providers reported that they 

had positive working relationships. Specifically, an estimated 90 percent of districts 

indicated that their working relationships with providers during 2004-2005 were 

good, very good, or excellent. Further, 90 percent of districts reported that none or 

few of the providers they worked with used incentives prohibited by state or district 

SES policy, and 89 percent of districts reported that none or few of the providers 

they worked with billed the district for services not performed. Many of the providers we interviewed during our site visits also reported having positive working 

relationships with district officials. 

While providers have taken steps to deliver quality services and establish positive 

relationships with districts, both providers and districts experienced contracting and 

coordination difficulties. Regarding contracting, some of the providers we interviewed said certain districts imposed burdensome contract requirements, such as requiring substantial documentation to be submitted with invoices, limiting the marketing they could do to parents and students, or restricting the use of school facilities to deliver services. Districts also reported that contracting is a challenge. We 

estimate that negotiating contracts with providers was a moderate, great, or very 

great challenge in about 40 percent of districts nationwide. For example, district officials at three of the sites we visited expressed concern about their lack of authority 

to set parameters in provider contracts around costs and program design, such as 

tutor-to-student ratios and total hours of instruction. Coordination of service delivery has also been a challenge for providers and districts, and sometimes these coordination difficulties have resulted in service delays. For example, services were delayed or withdrawn in certain schools in three of the districts we visited because 

not enough students signed up to meet the providers’ enrollment targets and districts were not aware of these targets.12

In part because SES is often delivered in school facilities, providers and officials 

in the districts and schools we visited reported that involvement of school administrators and teachers can improve SES delivery and coordination. Although schools 

do not have federally defined responsibilities for administering SES, many officials 

said SES implementation is hindered when school officials are not involved. For example, some providers we interviewed said that a lack of involvement of school principals can make it difficult for them to coordinate with schools to encourage student 

participation. In addition, Illinois and Oregon school principals told us they found 

it difficult to manage afterschool activities because they didn’t have sufficient authority to oversee SES tutors operating in their buildings at that time. While helping to administer the SES program adds additional administrative burden on 

schools, school officials in all four of the districts we visited said they welcomed a 

stronger or more clearly defined role. 

States are Increasing SES Monitoring though it Remains A Challenge, and Many 

Continue to Struggle with Developing Meaningful Evaluations 

While state monitoring of SES had been limited, more states reported taking 

steps to monitor both district and provider efforts to implement SES in 2005-2006. 

For example, more states conducted or planned to conduct on-site reviews of districts and providers in 2005-2006 than had done so in 2004-2005. In addition to 

state efforts to monitor providers, districts have also taken a direct oversight role, 

and their monitoring activities similarly increased during this time. For example, 

while we estimate that less than half of districts collected information from parents, 

school staff, on-site reviews, and students to monitor providers in 2004-2005, 70 percent or more were collecting or planning to collect information from these sources 

in 2005-2006. In addition, states and districts both collected information on several 

aspects of SES programs, such as elements related to service delivery and use of 

funds, to monitor providers (see table 4). District assistance with monitoring is likely welcomed by states, as over two-thirds of states reported that on-site monitoring 

of providers has been a challenge. During our site visits, officials explained that 

both state and district capacity to implement SES is limited, because there is typically one staff person at each level coordinating all aspects of SES implementation, 

and sometimes that person may also oversee implementation of additional federal 

education programs.

40

TABLE 4.—PERCENTAGE OF STATES AND DISTRICTS THAT REVIEWED SPECIFIED PROGRAM 

ELEMENTS TO MONITOR PROVIDERS IN 2005-2006

Program element 

Percentage of states Estimated percentage of districts 

Monitored Planned to 

monitor 

Monitored 

or planned 

to monitor 

Monitored Planned to 

monitor 

Monitored 

or planned 

to monitor 

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

Provider communication with teachers and parents .................................................................. 37 56 92 46 43 89

Extent to which a provider’s program, as enacted, reflects its program design, as outlined in its application to your state .............. 19 73 92 30 41 70

Evidence of meeting academic achievement 

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

Evidence of improved student achievement 

based on any statewide assessment .............. 15 71 87 26 65 91

Alignment of provider curriculum with district/

school curriculum or instruction ..................... 25 62 87 35 39 74

Student attendance records ................................. 27 56 83 67 25 93

Evidence of improved student achievement 

based on provider assessments ...................... 27 56 83 39 52 91

Protection of student privacy ............................... 33 50 83 55 28 82

Adherence to applicable health, safety, and civil 

rights laws ....................................................... 29 48 77 48 26 74

Provider financial stability (e.g., audits, financial statements) ............................................... 31 42 73 N/A N/A N/A 

Evidence of improved student achievement 

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

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

Source: GAO.

Note: The percentage of states that did not review or plan to review these program elements to monitor providers in 2005-2006 and the 

percentage of states that did not answer these survey questions are not shown in this table. In addition, we did not ask states if they monitored billing and payment for services, and we did not ask districts if they monitored provider financial stability. 

While states are beginning to increase monitoring of SES implementation, many 

states continue to struggle with developing evaluations to determine whether SES 

providers are improving student achievement. Specifically, over three-fourths of 

states reported that determining sufficient academic progress of students, having 

the time and knowledge to analyze SES data, and developing data systems to track 

SES information have been challenges to evaluating SES providers. Although states 

are required to withdraw approval from providers that fail to increase student academic achievement for 2 years, at the time of our survey in early 2006, only a few 

states had drafted or completed an evaluation report addressing individual SES provider’s effects on student academic achievement. Further, we found that no state 

had produced a report that provided a conclusive assessment of this effect. Likely 

because of states’ struggle to complete SES evaluations, states did not report that 

they had withdrawn approval from providers because their programs were determined to be ineffective at increasing student academic achievement.13 Rather, although over 40 percent of states reported that they had withdrawn approval from 

some providers, they most frequently reported withdrawing provider approval because the provider was a school or district that had entered needs improvement status, the provider asked to be removed from the state-approved provider list, or because of provider financial impropriety. 

Several Education Offices Monitor and Support SES Implementation, but States and 

Districts Reported Needing Additional Assistance and Flexibility 

Several offices within Education monitor various aspects of SES activity across 

the country and provide support, but states and districts reported needing additional assistance and flexibility with SES implementation. Education conducts SES 

monitoring in part through reviews of policy issues brought to the department’s attention and structured compliance reviews of states and districts, and provides SES 

support through guidance, grants, research, and technical assistance. The Office of 

Innovation and Improvement (OII) and the Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (OESE) are primarily responsible for monitoring and supporting SES implementation, while the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Policy Program and StudVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\FC\9-21-06\29860.TXT EDUWK PsN: DICK
41

ies Service, and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives also contribute to these efforts (see fig. 3).

Specifically, OII leads SES policy development and provides strategic direction, 

and its staff also primarily monitor SES policy issues through ‘‘desk monitoring,’’ 

which involves review of SES-related research and media reports. In addition to 

these activities, OII also conducts more intensive monitoring of specific SES implementation challenges when states, districts, and providers bring them to Education’s 

attention. Regarding other support for SES implementation, OII has provided SES 

implementation assistance in part through presentations at conferences and grants 

to external organizations. For example, OII funded the Supplemental Educational 

Services Quality Center (SESQC), which provided technical assistance to states and 

districts. OII is also responsible for coordinating the publication of the non-regulatory SES guidance. Since 2002, OII has coordinated four versions of this guidance, 

each updated to address ongoing challenges with SES implementation. The latest 

and most comprehensive version of non-regulatory SES guidance was published in 

June 2005, though additional information was provided to states in May 2006 concerning private school participation in providing SES and the definition of a districtaffiliated provider. 

OESE, which oversees and supports NCLBA implementation, is involved in monitoring SES implementation through its overall monitoring of state compliance with 

Title I and NCLBA. To monitor Title I, OESE staff visit state departments of education and selected districts within each state to interview officials and review relevant documents. Following the visit, OESE issues a report to the state outlining 

any instances of Title I non-compliance, including those related to SES, and actions 

needed to comply with regulations. Since the monitoring cycle began in 2003-2004, 

OESE has visited and publicly issued reports to 48 states, D.C., and the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs.14 OESE also monitors SES through its oversight of the collection of 

state NCLBA data, including data on SES, through the annual Consolidated State 

Performance Report (CSPR). For the CSPR, each state is required to report the 

number of schools with students receiving SES, the number of students eligible for 

services, and the number that received services.15 To support SES implementation, 

OESE funded the Comprehensive Centers Program through grants that established 

technical assistance centers across the country to help low-performing schools and 

districts close achievement gaps and meet the goals of NCLBA. Of these, the Center 

on Innovation and Improvement provides support to states and districts on SES and 

other Education programs. 

Given the technical assistance and support Education has already provided to 

states and districts for implementation of SES and school choice, and the departVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\FC\9-21-06\29860.TXT EDUWK PsN: DICK

gao926c.eps
42

ment’s view that implementation of these provisions has been uneven throughout 

the country, in May 2006, Education issued a policy letter announcing the department’s plans to take significant enforcement action. Specifically, Education plans to 

use the data collected through its monitoring and evaluation efforts to take enforcement actions such as placing conditions on state Title I grants, withholding federal 

funds, or entering into compliance agreements. In the letter, the department noted 

that its various monitoring activities have identified several areas of noncompliance 

with SES requirements. For example, because some states failed to adequately monitor their districts for compliance, some districts failed to include the required key 

components in parental notification letters or budget sufficient funding for services. 

While three-fourths of states reported that the most recent version of Education’s 

SES non-regulatory guidance has been very or extremely useful, many states and 

districts reported needing clearer guidance or additional assistance with certain 

SES provisions. Specifically, 85 percent of states and an estimated 70 percent of districts needed additional assistance with methods for evaluating SES, and over 60 

percent also needed assistance with developing data systems. Many districts also 

needed more information on provider quality and effectiveness. Although OESE and 

OIG monitoring results have also continually indicated that states and districts 

struggle with SES evaluation, Education has yet to provide comprehensive assistance in this area, and during our site visits, officials mentioned that they have been 

relying on other states, organizations, or individuals for evaluation assistance. In 

addition, several states commented through our survey that they also needed additional guidance on managing costs and fees, implementing SES in rural areas, and 

handling provider complaints. During three of our site visits, officials also expressed 

some concern about the lack of clarity in the SES guidance with regard to student 

eligibility requirements and how to craft a parental SES notification letter that is 

both complete and easy for parents to understand. Specifically, though Education’s 

monitoring reports have found many states and districts to be non-compliant with 

the federal requirement that district SES parental notification letters include several specific elements,16 Education’s SES guidance provides a sample that does not 

clearly specify all of the key elements required by SES law and regulations. Furthermore, a few state and district officials commented that, when followed, the SES 

regulations yield a letter that is unreasonably long and complex, which may be difficult for parents to understand. 

Many states and districts expressed interest in the flexibility offered through two 

pilot programs that Education implemented during 2005-2006. The department designed these pilots to increase the number of eligible students receiving SES and 

to generate additional information about the effect of SES on student academic 

achievement. For example, several state and district SES coordinators expressed interest in Education’s pilot program that allowed two districts in needs improvement 

status to act as SES providers in exchange for their expansion of student access to 

SES providers and collection of achievement data to determine SES program effectiveness. Through both our surveys and site visits, officials suggested that allowing 

districts to act as providers may ease student access to SES for rural districts that 

do not have providers located nearby, allow more students to participate in SES because district costs to provide services are sometimes lower than other providers’ 

costs, and enable districts to continue their existing tutoring programs that they feel 

are effective and meet the same goals as SES. 

The other SES pilot allowed four districts in Virginia to offer SES instead of 

school choice in schools that have missed state performance goals for 2 years and 

are in their first year of needs improvement. During our site visits and through our 

surveys, many states and districts expressed interest in adjusting the order of the 

SES and school choice interventions. Specifically, half of states and over 60 percent 

of districts suggested that SES should be made available before school choice (see 

table 5). In line with interest in increased flexibility with these interventions, in 

May 2006, Education announced that due to the positive results in Virginia districts 

under the pilot, the department would extend and expand this pilot in 2006-2007.

TABLE 5.—STATE AND DISTRICT OPINION ON THE ORDERING OF SCHOOL CHOICE AND SES 

[In percent] 

Order of school choice and SES States District 

SES should precede school choice .................................................................................................................. 48 62

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

School choice should precede SES .................................................................................................................. 15 23

Source: GAO.

43

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

Prior Recommendations 

Our August report recommended that Education clarify guidance and provide additional assistance to states and districts to help them comply with the federal requirements for parental notification letters and ensure that letters are easy for parents to understand, collect and disseminate information on promising practices used 

by districts to attract providers for certain areas and groups, and collaborate with 

school officials to coordinate local SES implementation. In addition, we recommended that Education consider expanding its current SES pilot program allowing selected districts in need of improvement to serve as providers and clarify state 

authority to set parameters around service design and costs. Finally, we also recommended that Education require states to collect and submit information on the 

amount spent by districts to provide SES and the percentage of districts’ Title I 

funds that this amount represents and provide states with technical assistance and 

additional guidance on how to evaluate the effect of SES on student academic 

achievement. 

Education expressed appreciation for our recommendations and cited actions the 

department had taken or planned to take to address them. Specifically, Education 

outlined several projects under development that may provide more assistance to 

states related to parental notification, attracting providers for certain areas and 

groups, and involving schools in SES implementation. Further, after commenting on 

our report, Education expanded the pilot allowing districts in need of improvement 

to apply to become SES providers. The department also stated that it will consider 

further clarifying state authority to set program parameters in the next update of 

the SES guidance. Regarding federal and state monitoring of SES, Education said 

it will propose that districts report their SES expenditures to the department and 

provide more SES evaluation assistance to states through an updated issue brief as 

well as technical assistance provided by the Comprehensive Center on Innovation 

and Improvement and at a conference this fall. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have. 

ENDNOTES

1GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Local Implementation 

and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services, GAO-06-758 (Washington, D.C.: 

Aug. 4, 2006). 2 In this report, we refer to Title I, Part A of ESEA as ‘‘Title I.’’ Other Parts of Title I (Parts 

B, C, and D) are targeted at specific populations or purposes and are commonly referred to by 

their program names, such as Even Start. 3 A state or each of its districts calculates the Title I per pupil allocation by dividing the district’s total Title I, Part A allocation by the number of children residing within the district aged 

5-17 who are from families below the poverty level, as determined by the most recent Census 

Bureau estimates from the Department of Commerce. 4 Certain states did not submit SES recipient information to Education through their NCLBA 

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

and North Dakota, 2003-2004 data from Pennsylvania, and 2004-2005 data from New Jersey 

are not included in figure 1. In addition, 2002-2003 data from New York only include information from New York City. Further, Education did not collect data on the number of students 

eligible for SES in 2002-2003, and therefore, an estimate of the SES participation rate is unavailable for that year. 5This district estimate has a margin of error that exceeds plus or minus 8 percentage points. 

See table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 for more information. 6We did not review the academic achievement records of students receiving SES or independently verify this information obtained through the district survey. 7Many of the district estimates included in this paragraph have a margin of error that exceeds plus or minus 8 percentage points. See table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 for more information. 8 In addition to our analysis, the Center on Education Policy reported that that as of August 

2005, more than half of approved SES providers were private, for-profit entities. See the Center 

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

Act (Washington, D.C.: March 2006), for more information. 9GAO previously reported that some states have difficulty notifying schools of their status in 

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

and correcting errors in student assessment data. See GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education’s Process for Tracking States’ Implementation of Key Provisions, 

GAO-04-734 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004), for more information. 10This district estimate has a margin of error that exceeds plus or minus 8 percentage points. 

See table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 for more information. 11GAO previously reported that geographic isolation created difficulties for rural districts in 

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

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

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

44

No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on Effective Strategies Would 

Help Small Rural Districts, GAO-04-909 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2004), for more details. 12 In addition to our analysis, the Center on Education Policy case studies also found that in 

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

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

Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom, Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act (Washington, 

D.C.: March 2006), for more information. 13Only one state reported withdrawing approval from one of its providers because that provider’s program was generally ineffective. However, this provider’s program was found to be ineffective because the provider did not deliver services to all of the students it enrolled. This state 

also indicated that it had not yet completed an evaluation of SES’s effect on student academic 

achievement. 14The federal government has direct responsibility for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

school system, and BIA schools depend almost entirely on federal funds. Similar to public 

schools, BIA schools are eligible to receive Title I funds. 15States have only reported the number of students eligible for SES since the 2003-2004 

CSPR. Also, starting with the 2003-2004 CSPR, Education gave states the option to report the 

number of students who applied for SES. 16OIG found all six of the states it visited during its audits of state SES implementation to 

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

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

of the states it had visited for SES non-compliance with respect to district parent notifications. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Barr? 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BARR, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTER FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT, OHIO 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Mr. BARR. Chairman McKeon, members of the committee, I wish 

to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding 

supplemental services. I am here on behalf of Dr. Susan Zelman, 

superintendent of public instruction for the Ohio Department of 

Education. 

Today I would like to address three issues. One is our initial efforts to implement No Child Left Behind, specifically supplemental 

services; efforts to solve administrative issues that we met; and 

third, continuing concerns that we still have in implementing No 

Child Left Behind. 

The Ohio department took a very aggressive approach in systems 

monitoring approach to implementing this landmark legislation, including the SES provisions. We developed an online supplemental 

educational services provider application that is available yearround for acceptance or rejection. Outside reviewers is typically 

completed within 2 weeks. And we currently have about 384 providers statewide. 

We post the approved-provider list on the Web site where parents access their local lists by selecting their county from a map 

or from a drop-down box and then selecting their district of residence. The list is always up-to-date, includes the name of the providers, their qualifications, descriptions of services delivered, group 

sizes, locations, hourly rates and contact information. 

Our Title I committee was instrumental in developing the state 

SES provider effectiveness report to help evaluate the effectiveness 

of providers. This is another online performance report. And the indicators we use are achievement outcomes, communications with 

parents and teachers, instructional alignment, staff qualifications 

and current satisfaction, to name just a few. 

In order to check compliance the SES is being implemented, the 

state includes it as part of a very sophisticated tiered Federal monVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\FC\9-21-06\29860.TXT EDUWK PsN: DICK
45

itoring process, including self-evaluation, onsite monitoring, telephone monitoring and desk audits. 

We, in addition, require all districts to submit letters, SES letters, to the state to verify both the content of the letter and the 

date of mailing. Then we also require that they submit an electronic verification that letters came from all buildings within their 

district in addition to the mailing time. 

Additional administrative issues that we have had: Some where 

providers were offering enticements to encourage selection. And to 

help head off this potential problem, which did not surface very 

much in Ohio, we adopted the industry guidelines for professional 

conduct, which were developed by the education industry association. 

To identify and resolve other potential issues, our agency, the 

education industry association, which represents many SES providers, and Ohio’s major urban districts met. Districts and providers shared some best practices, such as provider fairs and parent SES booklets. 

They also addressed some very difficult issues. And results of 

these discussions include plans to implement improved communications, development of suggested guidelines for SES administration, 

policies to help ensure providers stay true to their commitments 

and a process to withdraw nonparticipating providers. Issues not so 

easily solved are facilities cost and access to eligible families for the 

providers. 

Finally, we recognize that, at this point in time, not all eligible 

students choose to participate, and we are trying to take steps to 

improve on that. However, districts in our state we find, by and 

large, are attempting to comply with the law. So they are meeting 

the compliance of notification and making the services available. 

The hard part is getting districts going beyond what is required 

under the law in the compliance arena. And some of the strategies 

that we have heard from Chicago and all we will take back with 

us and try to recommend to our districts. 

Other areas that might reasonably be reviewed as part of SES 

is the administrative burden that this causes. This is a contractual 

process that has many, many difficult areas in it and could be 

looked at for streamlining. 

The other area is difficulty of attributing success or failure by 

virtue of SES services. It is a half-an-hour to an hour a week that 

could occur 20 weeks, 30 weeks out of the school year. And because 

it is individual-goals-oriented, it is very difficult for us to develop 

assessments that really can go back and say, because of the implementation of these services, this child succeeded in this way. 

Finally, NCLB does focus on highly qualified teachers in the 

classroom, and we would suggest a review of the minimal qualifications and standards for SES providers or minimal training requirements pushed into the law. 

Again, I want to thank you and the members of the committee 

for your responsiveness and for inviting us to participate. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barr follows:]

46

Prepared Statement of Dr. Stephen Barr, Associate Superintendent, Center 

for School Improvement, Ohio Department of Education 

I want to thank Chairman McKeon and members of the House Committee on 

Education and the Workforce for the opportunity to provide testimony on increasing 

parental awareness of Supplemental Educational Services (SES) under No Child 

Left Behind (NCLB). 

I am here on behalf of Dr. Susan Zelman, Superintendent of Public Instruction 

for the Ohio Department of Education. I am Stephen Barr, Associate Superintendent in the Center for School Improvement at the Ohio Department of Education. The Center for School Improvement administers many No Child Left Behind 

programs and oversees accountability and district/school improvement efforts. 

No Child Left Behind confers on the State Educational Agency (SEA) many responsibilities. These responsibilities include: promoting maximum participation by 

providers to ensure parents have choices; developing and applying objective criteria 

to the SEA provider selection process; maintaining an updated list of approved providers across the state, by school district, from which parents may select; developing, implementing and publicly reporting on standards and techniques for monitoring the quality and effectiveness of provider services; and withdrawing from approval providers that fail to contribute to increasing the academic proficiency of students served. 

Under Superintendent Zelman’s leadership, the Ohio Department of Education 

(ODE) took an aggressive approach to implementing the landmark NCLB legislation. In keeping with the spirit of the legislation, we attempted to integrate a systems-thinking process rather than a fragmented implementation approach. To prepare for successful implementation of SES, ODE has woven together many of the 

service delivery processes: the provider application process; the updated state approved provider list; the provider effectiveness report (used to evaluate providers); 

and the identification of school buildings required to provide SES services. Through 

this process, ODE has linked a Title I building eligibility section to the statewide 

Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan (CCIP). The CCIP is the automated 

system for district planning and funds application. The linkage allows our consultants to know which buildings must provide SES and budget for professional development. 

The Ohio Department of Education developed an on-line Supplemental Educational Services application to provide parents with the opportunity to review the 

full array of available choices. The application is available year round. The standard 

for application review and recommendation by outside reviewers is two weeks or 

less. Rejected applicants may re-submit. Ohio currently has around 384 providers 

statewide. 

To facilitate parent and district access to the Ohio list of approved providers, ODE 

posts the list on its web-site. Districts and parents can see the state approved providers available to serve eligible students in their district. Districts and parents can 

access their local list by selecting their county from a map or from a drop down box 

and then selecting their district of residence. The listing is always up-to-date and 

includes the name of the providers, their qualifications, description of services delivered, group sizes and locations, hourly rates and contact information. 

Evaluating the effectiveness of SES providers was an especially difficult issue to 

confront. Many problems were evident from the very beginning. For instance, the 

State is not permitted to have individual student test data, thus making it difficult 

to view changes in proficiency by student. This restriction on student data also precludes the State agency from knowing which students were selected for SES services 

or who their providers may have been. NCLB requires the district to develop in collaboration with parents and the selected provider, a statement of specific achievement goals for the student, how the student’s achievement will be measured, and 

a timetable for improvement. Individualized measures complicate the development 

and administration of a set of valid and reliable assessments over the range of possible grade spans. Additionally, many participating students are in kindergarten 

through second grade where no statewide assessments aligned to the State curricula 

exist. 

Given these and other difficulties, we asked and received help from the Title I 

Committee of Practitioners to develop a SES Effectiveness report. The Committee 

of Practitioners represents parents, teachers, administrators, local boards of education, pupil personnel services, higher education and private schools as described 

in NCLB. Our committee is chaired by a representative of the Parents Teachers Association. 

The Committee responded with the Supplemental Educational Services Effectiveness Report which requires districts to reflect on and report on-line the performance 

47

of SES providers to students in their district. Performance indicators include 

achievement outcomes, communication with parents and teachers, instructional 

alignment, staff qualifications, and parent satisfaction to name a few. The on-line 

reporting allows our State agency to aggregate scores from across the state and arrive at a fair provider evaluation. Providers are informed if their score does not 

meet quality standards. If they miss the standards for two consecutive years, the 

provider will be withdrawn from the State approved list. A contractor trains the districts and providers about the evaluation process and the documentation required. 

The contractor also evaluates any district or public school building providing SES 

services. 

To ensure compliance with the law, SES is included as part of the state’s tiered 

federal programs monitoring process. The process includes a self-evaluation, on-site 

monitoring and/or telephone monitoring and desk audit. Annually, districts are required to send copies of their SES letters to the State to verify the content of the 

letters and the date of mailing. Districts also submit an electronic report to verify 

that each required building sent parent notifications along with documentation of 

the mailing date. 

ODE has made several efforts to increase participation of SES programs. Most recently Superintendent Zelman wrote a guest column in the Ohio PTA’s May newsletter, encouraging more grassroots support of SES programs. 

While Ohio’s implementation was relatively smooth, anecdotally, ODE had received word from other states related to providers targeting parents with enticements to encourage their selection. To help head off this potential problem, ODE 

adopted the Industry Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of Members of the 

Education Industry Association. 

All of the state processes described above were in place by the end of the first 

year of NCLB. Modifications to these processes continue. Even with the efforts of 

State agency and district personnel and the Committee of Practitioners, some problems still surfaced. In an effort to address the issues, our agency and the Education 

Industry Association co-hosted a discussion meeting with representatives from the 

Ohio 8—the eight largest urban districts in Ohio. In addition to identifying some 

problems, districts and providers shared some successful practices such as parent 

booklets and provider fairs. Use of facilities, scheduling, transportation and parent 

information continue to be issues. However, the EIA and the districts discussed 

some ideas for mutually addressing some of these issues. Ultimately, the local district and the provider must agree to work together if progress around these issues 

is to be made. 

The cooperative meeting with the EIA also identified that some providers lack understanding of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The EIA and 

the State will work together to do a better job of informing. Districts also had problems with having too many providers who finally determine they lack sufficient clients to make tutoring financially feasible in some districts. These types of on again/

off again business decisions are essential for providers. However, the district is left 

with the job of communicating to parents why their choice of providers is no longer 

available. This may create tension, mistrust and administrative overload. 

The Title I, Committee of Practitioners and the State are moving forward with 

recommendations to allow providers to specify a minimum child count. If the number of participants meets the provider standard, we will expect the provider to provide services. Ohio is also considering removing providers from the state list if they 

have not provided any services for two successive years. This strategy will help reduce the number of contacts the districts needs to make to create meaningful preliminary information for parents. 

Another result of the cooperative meeting with districts and the EIA was the development of a recommended timeline for parent notification, student selection, and 

services initiation. The guidelines are a joint initiative between the districts and the 

State. The timeline is being used this year in many districts. 

The reauthorization of NCLB provides us with an opportunity to make improvements to the SES program. We offer these thoughts and concerns for your consideration. 

The law requires district to notify parents and make services available. However, 

most districts go beyond the requirements of the law to help encourage parents to 

participate in SES. Many districts host or co-host provider fairs and develop SES 

booklets to better inform parents of the providers and the services available. The 

fact that parents do not always choose to participate in SES should not be viewed 

as a failure of the districts. There are legitimate reasons some parents choose not 

to participate or are hesitant to participate. For example, some parents are concerned about turning their children over to strangers. This may be more worrisome 

if the services are provided at non-district sites. Some parents have trouble proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\FC\9-21-06\29860.TXT EDUWK PsN: DICK
48

viding or arranging for transportation for their child after school—even if the tutoring occurs on school grounds. Other parents do not want strangers coming to their 

homes to provide services or are upset if they must rearrange family schedules to 

accommodate the provider. 

Many students are involved in other after school activities. Some of these activities occur at the school and others at other locations in the community. SES is just 

one more thing to add to a busy schedule. Because students are often busy and not 

all students can be tutored during the first hour after school, it make some sense 

to better connect SES to other after school programs such as 21st Century to ensure 

someone is watching out for the child. Schools should not be asked to find funds 

to provide after-school child care for students awaiting tutoring services or to establish additional transportation opportunities. The costs of each of the types of activities are prohibitive in today’s tight school budgets. 

Finally, it must be recognized that the law determines eligibility based on poverty 

status of students. Some economically disadvantaged students are performing at or 

above grade level. Parents often see no purpose in additional tutoring. 

It should be understood that the SES process in the law is very administratively 

burdensome to districts. Districts are often required to add additional administrative staff to contact parents and providers, create schedules, write contracts, identify 

student learning objectives, verify and process invoices, hold provider fairs, etc. Adding administrative staff reasonably redirects funds away from the classroom. 

The problems we confronted with trying to attribute student result to a half-hour 

or more of tutoring per week still exists. Several models have been tried by other 

states but none seem to have the validity and reliability required by the law. Other 

problems such as connecting provider services to students, lack of state tests for K2 students, trying to cover individualized objectives with State achievement test results, and State access to individualized student data are all real and should be acknowledged as part of the reauthorization. 

NCLB focuses on highly qualified teachers in the classroom and research based 

practices for public schools yet does not provide minimal quality standards for providers. If SES is to meet its potential and the expectations of parents and the public, quality standards for tutors working with students needs some attention. This 

committee might want to think about requiring successful completion of some basic 

training in tutoring and curriculum content for anyone employed as a provider. 

Again, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and the members of this committee for 

inviting the Ohio Department of Education to discuss Supplemental Educational 

Services. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent Superintendent Zelman 

and the Ohio State Board of Education and the Ohio Department of Education. Ohio 

looks forward to working with the committee as discussions continue on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

Ms. Harris? 

STATEMENT OF ERICA HARRIS, MANAGER, ACADEMIC AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS, CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Ms. HARRIS. Thank you, Chairman McKeon and members of the 

committee. I am the manager of Academic After-School Programs 

for the Chicago Public Schools. And thank you for the opportunity 

to speak to you today about supplemental services. 

I also want to thank you for acknowledging the significance of 

this issue and for your work to ensure that all students should receive the highest quality services that they deserve. 

I also would like to thank our Illinois representation for their 

continued support of Chicago Public Schools. 

My testimony today will focus on the assets of CPS, Chicago Public Schools, that this has made. To ensure the effective delivery of 

tutoring services to our students, I will discuss the successful parent outreach strategies that we have implemented and also offer an 

update regarding the status of the pilot program that was negotiated between Chicago and the U.S. Department of Education. 

49

Chicago Public Schools is the third-largest school district in the 

country, serving over 430,000 students in 600 schools. Over 80 percent of our students are low-income, and 50 percent of the poor 

children in Illinois attend Chicago Public Schools. 

CPS established the Office of After-School Community School 

Programs in 2001 with the purpose of enabling and supporting 

schools and offering a variety of high-quality programs in afterschool to support academic instruction and enrich the development 

of the whole child. We offer five major initiatives in 500 schools, 

serving over 250,000 students. 

Expanding student learning opportunities, including the creation 

and expansion of after-school programs, is one of the district’s three 

core strategies. As part of the strategy, CPS strongly embraces 

free-market innovations and competition. Given CPS’s commitment 

to choice, innovation and quality after-school, SES was seen as an 

opportunity to support and enhance the district’s vision for its students and families. 

CPS has embraced the spirit of No Child Left Behind for SES by 

allowing providers to utilize our buildings to render services. In 

2005-2006, over 75,000 students did register to receive SES at 300 

schools. And we did spend $50 million to offer these services. 

In addition, we partnered with over 40 providers, 32 of whom 

wanted to use our buildings. The district fundamentally believes it 

to be in the best interest of our students to do this because it improves the attendance for tutoring but also ensures the students 

are in a safe place in the critical hours from 3 to 6:00, when they 

are most likely to become engaged in negative behaviors. 

While CPS has embraced the use of district facilities, there are 

significant challenges in doing so. One of the most challenging aspects of implementing SES is to ensure parent choice but to do so 

in a way that is manageable for the schools that must work with 

the providers to deliver services. In a recent survey of providers, 

even the majority of providers agreed that fewer competing interests at the school level would be preferable. 

So to address this, CPS has established a fair, transparent method to match providers wishing to serve onsite with eligible SES 

schools. The process is approved by ISBE, our state and the Department of Education, and involves gathering the preference of 

each SES school principal and that of the preferences of SES providers. 

SES schools have been matched with no more than five onsite 

provider options, and parents have the opportunity to choose between those five options onsite and the online and offsite programs 

available. The result is parent choice which is also manageable at 

the school level. 

CPS has made significant efforts to refine its parent notification 

strategy. And, to this point, we have been quite successful. Last 

year we were able to fulfill the amount of demand for SES, but 

30,000 students were unfortunately placed on a wait-list. I should 

say we were not able to fill the demand due to a lack of funds. 

Our goal is to raise parent awareness. And to do that, we have 

mentioned some strategies here for how we will accomplish this. 

We sent an initial notification letter in April to parents to inform 

them about the opportunity to receive free tutoring. We also emVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\FC\9-21-06\29860.TXT EDUWK PsN: DICK
50

power schools to promote registration as all registration occurs at 

the local school level and not centrally from our office. A parent 

handbook was sent home. Each SES school is mandated to do a 

local school provider fair. And we also do a massive campaign with 

public service announcements and a flyer campaign as well. 

We are proud of our district’s efforts to promote SES and look 

forward to another outstanding showing of parent support for the 

program. 

As part of NCLB, a district in need of improvement, like CPS, 

is supposed to be prevented from providing supplemental services. 

Yet this past year we were part of the pilot with the Department 

of Education which allowed the district to serve our students. And 

we are confident that this program is positively impacting student 

achievement and achieving results. 

Our curriculum is aligned to what is happening in the regular 

school day. We tailor our program to accommodate special education and English language learner needs. In 2004-2005, our evaluation showed that students of CPS program had a positive impact 

on student achievement and showed the CPS was as effective, if 

not more effective, than other private tutoring programs. 

Finally, we serve a great number of students because the costefficiency is great. We cost about one-fourth of that of private providers. As has been mentioned, several evaluations are being done. 

It will be concluded by the end of the year. And we expect these 

studies will prove that Aim High has been successful. 

Finally, we are thankful for the flexibility agreement with the 

Department of Education, believe it was the right thing to do, as 

it gave another high-quality option to parents and allowed thousands of students to be served. We estimate that without Aim High 

or the district’s program, over 80,000 students would not have been 

served this past year. 

I would be happy to answer any questions as they arise. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Harris follows:]

Prepared Statement of Erica L. Harris, Manager, Academic After School 

Programs, Office of After School and Community School Programs, Chicago Public Schools 

My name is Erica Harris and I am the Manager of Academic After School Programs for the Chicago Public Schools. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to 

you today about the supplemental services provision in No Child Left Behind. I also 

want to thank you for acknowledging the significance of this issue—and for your 

work to ensure that all students receive the high-quality supplemental educational 

services that they deserve. 

My testimony today will focus on the efforts Chicago Public Schools has made to 

ensure the effective delivery of tutoring services to our students. I will discuss the 

successful parent outreach strategies Chicago Public Schools has implemented. I 

will also offer an update to the committee regarding the status of the pilot program 

that was negotiated between the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) and the US Department of Education (USDOE). 

Strategies Toward Making SES an Effective Program 

The Chicago Public Schools is the third largest school district in the country, serving over 430,000 students in 600 schools. Over 80% of students are low income (over 

90% in Elementary Schools), and 50% of the poor children in the state of Illinois 

attend CPS. 

Chicago Public Schools established the Office of After School and Community 

School Programs (2001), which provides the overall leadership and guidance to ensure that every CPS student has access to quality programs beyond the regular 

51

school day. We offer 5 major initiatives, in over 500 schools, serving 250,000 students. The mission of our Office is to enable and support schools in offering a variety of high-quality programs that support academic instruction and enrich the development of the whole child. Expanding student learning opportunities, including 

the creation of new schools and the expansion of after-school programs, is one of the 

District’s three core strategies to becoming the premier urban school district in the 

nation. As a part of this strategy, CPS strongly embraces free market innovations 

and competition. 

Given CPS’ commitment to choice, innovation and quality after-school programs, 

SES was seen as an opportunity to support and enhance the District vision for its 

students and families. CPS has embraced the spirit of the NCLB provision for SES 

by allowing providers to utilize our building facilities to render services. In 2005-

2006, over 75,000 students registered to receive supplemental services at 300 

schools, and we spent $50 million dollars to offer these services. In addition, the district partnered with over 40 providers, 32 of whom used CPS buildings. The district 

fundamentally believes it to be in the best interest of our students to make tutoring 

available at the school. Not only does this ensure improved attendance for tutoring, 

but it also ensures that students are in a safe place during the critical hours of 3-

6 pm, when students are most likely to become engaged in negative behaviors. 

While CPS has embraced the use of district facilities, significant challenges arise 

when a district opens its doors. One of the most challenging aspects of implementing 

the SES program is to ensure parent choice, but to do so in a way which is manageable for the school personnel that work with providers to deliver services. Schools 

have a difficult time managing 4-5 programs, let alone managing the activity of the 

nearly 60 providers that would like to use CPS buildings. In a recent survey of providers administered by our office, even the majority of providers agreed that fewer 

competing interests offered at the school level would be preferable. 

To address this issue, CPS has established a fair and transparent method to 

match providers wishing to serve onsite, with eligible SES schools. This process has 

been approved by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and the USDOE and 

involves gathering the preferences of each SES school principal, and the preferences 

of the SES providers. Using this data, all SES schools are matched with no more 

than 5 onsite provider options. Parents have an opportunity to choose between these 

5 onsite programs, and the online and offsite programs which are available. The result is a parent choice model, which is also manageable at the school level. 

CPS has adopted the philosophy that the school is the critical unit of change with 

the most potential to impact student achievement. On a daily basis our principals 

are challenged to identify the unique needs of their student population, and are 

given the authority to deploy strategies to accommodate those needs. While the CPS 

model encourages creativity and customization, The SES model dictates a more 

‘‘One size fits all’’ approach. The balance between the two methodologies is not easy 

to reconcile. The district has tried to do so by allowing some decisions within the 

parameters of the law to be made at the school level, and by allowing for principal 

input. Empowering schools in this way has facilitated the successful implementation 

of SES at the school level. In the same regard, we have surveyed providers and have 

asked for their input. Their feedback was integrated within the program design and 

implementation and fosters a sense of partnership between the LEA and vendors. 

Effective Parent Notification Strategies 

CPS has made significant efforts to refine its parent notification strategy and up 

till this point, we have been quite successful in engaging parents. So successful in 

fact, that last year, CPS was unable to fulfill the amount of demand for the SES 

program, and over 30,000 students were unfortunately placed on a waitlist, due to 

a lack of funds. 

Our goal is to raise parent awareness about SES, to ensure that individuals are 

equipped with the information which would allow them to make informed decisions 

as they select their child’s provider and to provide all service providers with an 

equal opportunity to market their program to parents. To that end, CPS has incorporated the following successful outreach strategies: 

• An initial notification letter was distributed to parents in April to inform them 

that their student could be eligible to receive free tutoring 

• Schools are empowered to encourage parent registration as all registration occurs at the local school level. 

• A SES Parent Handbook, which is a how to guide on how to register and choose 

a provider was created by the Office of After School and Community School Programs, and is disseminated by the schools to parents. 

• Each eligible SES school is mandated to host a local school open house for parents and providers 

52

• Public Service Announcements, advertisements are published in local print 

media and air on seven major local radio stations 

• Over 30,000 flyers were distributed through schools and in a door-to-door outreach campaign 

• SES hotline was created for parents (English, Spanish, and Polish) to answer 

all program questions 

We are proud of our district’s efforts to promote SES, and look forward to another 

outstanding showing of parent support for the program. 

An Update on the Pilot Program with the US Department of Education 

As part of the NCLB Act, a district ‘‘in need of improvement,’’ like CPS is prevented from providing supplemental services. However, CPS was part of a pilot program with the US Department of Education last year, which allowed the district 

to serve our own students. We are confidant that the district’s program is positively 

impacting student achievement and achieving results. 

Our curriculum is aligned to what’s happening during the regular school day. We 

are able to tailor our program to accommodate the needs of Special Education and 

English Language Learners, (groups that are typically underserved by providers). 

A 2004-2005 evaluation of provider effectiveness indicated that the CPS program 

did have a positive impact on student achievement and showed that CPS’ program 

was as effective if not more effective, than many other private tutoring programs. 

Finally, we can serve a great number of students because of the cost efficiency as 

we cost about 1/4 of that of the private providers. 

The Illinois State Board of Education is in the process of evaluating the performance of Aim High and private providers for 2005-2006 which will be completed later 

this year. In addition, the USDOE will complete its own evaluation of Aim High by 

January 2007. Finally CPS will do its own internal evaluation as we did in 2004-

2005, which looks at the impact that all providers have had on student achievement. 

We expect that these studies will all prove that Aim High has been successful. 

We are thankful for The Flexibility Agreement with the USDOE and believe it 

was the right thing to do for students. It gave another high quality option to parents, and allowed thousands of more students to be served by the program. Our estimates show that without Aim High in the pool, over 8,000 additional students would 

not have been served. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have and thank you 

again for this opportunity to provide a perspective on behalf of the local educational 

authority. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

Dr. Anderson? 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA ANDERSON, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

EDUCATION, KNOWLEDGE LEARNING CORPORATION, 

SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS 

Ms. ANDERSON. Thank you, Chairman McKeon and Ranking 

Member Miller, for inviting me to testify today. I am the vice president of Education for the Knowledge Learning Corporation, School 

Partnerships Division, KLC-SP. And we are a supplemental educational services provider. 

I bring more than 30 years of experience in public education to 

my role and responsibilities with the Knowledge Learning Corporation. I began my career as a teacher in an urban school district and 

have served as a school and district administrator, a county superintendent of schools and assistant commissioner for the New Jersey 

Department of Education, working with the 30 poorest districts, 

known as the Abbott Special Needs Districts. My children have 

also attended public schools. 

KLC-SP, a division of Knowledge Learning Corporation, is the 

largest national education company delivering unique, in-school solutions for educational enrichment. Recently, KLC-SP acquired 

Education Station, bringing together two of the nation’s leading 

53

education companies with decades of experience and expertise in 

partnering with schools to deliver high-quality, proven-effective 

supplemental instruction and educational enrichment programs. 

In the SES arena, we are now approved in 36 states and have 

served more than 33,000 children. We are also an active member 

of the Education Industry Association, which is very active in supporting SES goals. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide testimony on the 

issue that represents the cornerstone of supplemental educational 

services: how to best empower parents to choose the provider and 

programs best suited to their child’s tutoring needs. 

Parent awareness, education and information are essential to a 

parent’s ability to make an informed choice for their child. Our 

company’s experience indicates that when local school districts and 

providers work in concert, parents and students benefit and parents are willing partners. This partnership role was underscored in 

the recent GAO report on SES. 

In districts where we worked directly with the central administration and building principals, we have forged a better understanding of the types of communication that work best for parents 

and the most effective ways to support their attendance at school 

functions and special events. 

As examples of our effective school partnerships, we sent home 

bi-monthly parent newsletters providing information, helpful tips 

on working at home with their children improving reading and 

math skills, and articles on NCLB and SES. We also continue to 

offer free parent and teacher workshops. We provide all of our parent information in English and Spanish. 

We have also found that community-based organizations, CBOs, 

are effective partners in working with parents to heighten their 

awareness and emphasize their involvement in making informed 

choices for their children. 

Our experience also indicates, however, that too many parents 

remain unaware of supplemental educational services, and the 

processes and procedures to gain access are often too complex, too 

confusing and too inconvenient to permit many parents to take full 

advantage of them. 

To improve parent participation and involvement we have four 

recommendations. 

One, rolling enrollments to keep open year-round the window for 

parents to sign up their children or at least two very large windows 

of opportunity. 

Two, coordination with providers and districts to work together 

to boost enrollment. Rather than districts prohibiting providers 

from marketing to parents, Federal Government or the state should 

create a regulatory framework to define necessary requirements to 

promote this. 

Third, there should be better involvement of CBOs. They have 

close ties to the communities we wish to serve. There should be 

some seed funding to these organizations to assist them with promoting SES in a systemic way. 

And finally, we should standardize the enrollment process and 

the forms. The Federal Government should send out guidance 

54

which should be available through CBOs as well as providers and 

school districts. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

And I would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the committee may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Dr. Barbara Anderson, Vice President of Education, 

Knowledge Learning Corporation-School Partnerships 

Thank you Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Miller for inviting me to testify today. My name is Dr. Barbara Anderson and I am the Vice President of Education for Knowledge Learning Corporation-School Partnerships (KLC-SP) Division, 

and we are a Supplemental Educational Services provider. I bring more that 30 

years of experience in public education to my role and responsibilities with the 

Knowledge Learning Corporation. I began my career as a teacher in an urban school 

district and have served as a school and district administrator, a county superintendent of schools, and assistant commissioner for the New Jersey Department of 

Education, working with the 30 poorest districts known as the Abbott Special Needs 

districts. My children have also attended public schools. 

KLC-SP, a division of Knowledge Learning Corporation, is the largest national 

education company delivering unique, in-school solutions for educational enrichment. Recently, KLC-SP acquired Education Station bringing together two of the 

nation’s leading education companies with decades of expertise in partnering with 

schools to deliver high quality, proven-effective supplemental instruction and educational enrichment programs. The KLC family also includes KinderCare, Children’s 

World Learning Centers and other trusted and well-known names in childcare and 

education. Company-wide, KLC last year served more than 200,000 children in 38 

states and the District of Columbia. In the SES arena we are now approved in 36 

states and have served more than 33,000 children. We are also an active member 

of the Education Industry Association (EIA) which is very active in supporting the 

goals of SES. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide testimony on the issue that represents the cornerstone of Supplemental Educational Services—how to best empower parents to choose the provider and programs best suited to their child’s tutoring needs. Parental awareness, education and information are essential to a parent’s 

ability to make an informed choice for their child. 

Our company’s experience indicates that when local school districts and providers 

work in concert, parents and students benefit. This partnership role was underscored in the recent GAO report on SES. In districts where we have worked directly 

with the central administration and building principals we have forged a better understanding of the types of communication that work best for parents and the most 

effective ways to support their attendance at school functions and special events. 

Working with school officials is essential for providers to gain access to student 

records and enrollment forms. Providers also need direct communication with principals, often by cell phone or email, to trouble shoot parent and student issues as 

they arise. As a national provider with talent and resources available to us, we continue to offer our services to districts and schools to partner with us to offer and 

market special parent events, create parent educational materials and to encourage 

parent participation on parent advisory groups and at parent resource conferences. 

As part of our Champions tutoring programs, we send home a bi-monthly parent 

newsletter updating parents on current information about our programs, offering 

helpful tips on working with their children at home, and providing articles on important topics related to NCLB and SES tutoring. We continue to offer free parent 

workshops and to-date we have facilitated more that 21 workshops to more that 300 

parents in 6 states. Through our Education Station programs we provide ‘‘Home 

Connection’’, our parent outreach curriculum that reinforces essential learning concepts in a fun and exciting way that parents can do at home with their children. 

We provide all of our parent information and materials in both English and Spanish. 

We have also found that Community Based Organizations (CBOs) are effective 

partners in working with parents to heighten their awareness and emphasize their 

involvement in making informed choices for their children. CBOs can provide direct 

contact with parents and parent groups to allow providers to share information, attend community fairs, and distribute flyers in such places as county and city recreation facilities and housing authority communities. 

55

As an SES provider, we have customized our parent outreach to address parent 

needs in the communities we serve. For example, we have partnered with bus companies to distribute flyers at bus stops. We have also attended back-to-school events, 

open houses and parent fairs designed to provide information to parents about the 

content and quality of our program offerings. Knowledge Learning CorporationSchool Partnerships has provided free parent workshops in all of our SES markets 

along with receiving an invitation to present at the Colorado Statewide Parent Conference in May of this year. 

I am pleased that the GAO report, ‘‘NCLB-Education Actions Needed to Improve 

Local Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services’’, 

highlights the need to better educate parents about the availability of free tutoring 

and their right to make informed choices to select the provider, programs and services that best meet the needs of their children. We also agree that more work and 

direction are needed to address the needs of English Language Learners and Special 

Needs students. We make every effort to provide ESL or Bilingual teachers when 

they are available. We work with schools to gain access to student IEPs to ensure 

appropriate program considerations and accommodations. We also work with principals, teachers, and parents to describe our tutoring programs to ensure that student’s needs are addressed. 

Our company’s experience indicates that too many parents remain unaware of 

Supplemental Educational Services and the process and procedure to gain access to 

services. Unfortunately, in too many places, parent notification letters are full of 

legal terms and long complex explanations that only serve to confuse parents. All 

communications should be written with parents in mind, they should be ‘‘parent 

friendly’’ and in a language they can understand. Parent representatives should be 

invited to assist with composing them to ensure their clarity and appeal. Once parents understand that free tutoring is available to help their children improve their 

academic achievement in reading and math, they are willing partners. Districts, 

schools and providers need to educate parents about NCLB throughout the school 

year in a variety of ways including but not limited to: working with the PTAs, parent meetings, local school councils and NCLB parent groups or by hosting parent 

meetings. 

To improve parent participation and involvement we offer the following recommendations for consideration by the Committee: 

1. Rolling Enrollments—If our ultimate goal is to boost enrollment in SES, districts need to keep open year round the window of opportunity for parents to sign 

up their children in SES, similar to the way the consumer marketplace works and 

spend their entire set-aside. Short of a rolling enrollment, they should provide at 

least two very large windows of opportunity for parents to learn about SES and enroll their children in SES at once. Also, the enrollment process should take place 

in the communities where the families live and during the hours that parents are 

not at work, such as evenings and weekends. 

2. Coordination with providers—If the goal of SES is to boost student achievement 

and remove schools from the needs improvement status, we must find a way to work 

closely together to boost enrollment. We and other private sector partners have the 

resources and the know-how to market to low-income communities and help districts 

meet their goals. The Federal government or the states may even consider creating 

a regulatory framework similar to the way the FCC currently regulates advertising. 

Instead of prohibiting us from doing any advertising to parents which is the case 

in many school districts, school districts and providers should partner to produce 

high quality parent information and materials and allow providers to play a role in 

enrolling students in SES. 

3. Better involvement of Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and other local 

leaders—These entities have close ties to the communities we wish to serve and 

they are currently not a part of the SES parent recruitment equation in a significant way. This needs to change and the best way to do so is by offering some seed 

funding to these organizations to assist with promoting SES in a systemic way. Parent Information Resource Centers (PIRCs) also need to play a larger role in educating parents. 

4. Standardized Enrollment process and forms—The Federal government should 

consider standardizing the enrollment process and forms and make them available 

through CBOs and the providers as well as the districts. 

As most educators can attest, it takes hard work and more time on task to raise 

student achievement. SES can only help in this task if it is used by the student population it is intended to serve. Otherwise, its true effectiveness will never be realized. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you or other committee members may have. 

56

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

Ms. Dollonne? 

STATEMENT OF MONIQUE DOLLONNE, PARENT OF A 

SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES STUDENT 

Ms. DOLLONNE. Good morning, Chairman McKeon. Good morning, Congressman Miller, my fellow Californian. My name is 

Monique Dollonne. I am coming to see you today to testify as a 

mother of a child who was a recipient of supplemental education 

services and also as a parent advocate representing the millions of 

parents whose children are eligible for SES and unfortunately 

could not fit in my suitcase today. 

I am honored to be here to testify today before this committee 

to provide the views of parents, stakeholders in education who are 

many times not invited to forum such as this. Thank you again for 

the opportunity. 

Now the burden is on me to be as clear and concise as I can be 

to let you hear their voices. 

First of all, as my own experience, I want you to know that SES 

tutoring works. I have watched it with my own child. Her increase 

in reading comprehension level by one grade in less than 5 weeks 

was phenomenal. Her math skills improved as well. 

The one-to-one attention from her tutor that she received built 

her confidence and increased her interest level in both subjects. 

She was able to go back to her classroom teacher with stronger 

skills and help the other children who did not get the chance to access the services. It was all around a very positive and helpful experience. 

As I watched the results amongst her peers at her school site and 

listened to the other parents, it became evident that, for a lot of 

the Title I children, the tutoring program was not just an academic 

support program; it was a safe haven as well. It became a place 

where students were looking forward to come and get help. 

After 2 weeks of efforts, their respective teachers at school noticed a difference. Out of the tutoring effort, we saw friendships 

grow with the tutors, attitude toward studying change, confidence 

build and test scores go up. 

SES, to a lot of children, represents extra support that will help 

them achieve. In most cases, it is a life preserver thrown at them 

when they are drowning in the school system. 

With all the evidence of the obvious benefits, the question remains, why can’t many more parents access SES? 

The data that was presented to us today, we are talking about 

19 percent of the children. Working with parents and advocacy 

groups, I can tell you, in California, for example, we are finding 

areas where only 1 to 3 percent of the children are being served. 

And this is not acceptable. And I am coming here to you to tell you, 

please, we need to take a look at that access part of the program. 

Notification letters. How does the information come to the parents? Notification letters are very confusing. A lot of times I have 

received notification letters that have three deadlines, for example. 

Deadlines that I receive—you are supposed to tell your district if 

your child needs services when you don’t even receive the AYP results. Then you have to give another deadline for choice. 

57

From what I am understanding, we have a choice; we are supposed to be choosing the providers. Why do we parents have to go 

and give three choices and have the district prevent the choices? 

Clarification needs to be put into the law. Apparently this is not 

helping the parent access. 

Marketing. Marketing should be—or the enrollment should be 

total collaboration. We are finding districts that are spending a lot 

of money sending out letters, but they are not reaching the parents. The parents are not understanding what it is they are supposed to be doing. 

They are invited to go to fairs and meet the providers. But they 

have no information about the providers. The states are supposed 

to be giving a list. How many parents in Title I schools have a computer to access the providers list and actually make a judgment 

call when the schools are not allowed to give them the information? 

So we need to have information access to the parents, accurate 

information on the quality of the tutors as well, the quality of the 

information. But as well, we need to put in the provider, for example, professional development, the teachers, the staff, the school 

should understand what NCLB really meant with offering the SES 

providing services. 

The parents. NCLB offers a 1 percent training to train the parents to understand how to implement the NCLB provision. Maybe 

we should have a provision into the SES program that 1 percent 

or maybe a certain percentage can be for the parent development 

so parents can understand how to access SES providers. 

Any time as a parent I try to find out how an SES provider is 

doing, we have had no problem trying to get an evaluation. And, 

yes, we do want the providers to be qualified. We do want the programs to offer good programs. 

But a lot of times what we are finding out is SES comes in conflict with the school district. Why is it that schools recognize that 

the SES providers are not working in collaboration? We need to 

open the doors and finding out what the problems are. 

Funding. Twenty percent goes to the SES providers or actually 

allocated for SES. But it is not 20 percent. It is only we have a certain percentage, certain districts says 15 percent goes to choice. 

Well, then we have 5 percent left. So that becomes very confusing. 

People don’t know if they are eligible or not. And the district cannot explain you are supposed to send an application. But you don’t 

know if you are going to be eligible or not. 

So we need clarification at 20 percent. How much of that 20 percent should be going to transit to a better school? How much is actually going to SES? 

And if you are in a failing school, you should be entitled. The law 

says you are entitled to SES. So why do we have to go through all 

those barriers to access a service that is supposed to help our children succeed and achieve and help the school do better? This is one 

of my main questions. 

I am sorry. I forgot to read now. I will go back to my statement. 

Implementing SES properly and giving it its full force is a civil 

rights issue. SES is an answer to an SOS scream from our children. All the E.L. students are minority students, our most vulnerable children. 

58

SES is giving failing children a second chance or access to success when children have been in failing schools for the 4th year. 

Parents would like to see an earlier implementation of SES. Most 

parents would prefer to have SES access before being given transferring options to a better school. 

I am coming to you to proclaim that SES in the parents book is 

more like an answer to the SOS scream of our children. Of course, 

it can no longer be ignored, unwelcomed and mistreated by our 

school system. It should be embraced, welcomed and given the red 

carpet treatment no later than the very first day of school. 

All eligible students should be entitled to access SES support at 

the beginning of the year—not in December, not in January, not in 

May, like we are finding out in some of the areas in California. 

A stronger accountability process should be required for school 

districts and states are enforced. Funding distribution on SES 

should be strengthened. And districts not spending 20 percent allocation should be required to roll over the remaining funds into the 

next year allocation, increasing SES impact on students achievement for the following year. 

Parents and committee organization should be openly welcomed 

to build connections between their children, the tutoring centers 

and welcome to distribute applications and SES information to the 

community. Right now some applications are kept hostage at the 

district office. An SES application should not be kept hostage by 

school districts, but freely distributed at times of need without 

deadlines. 

The law doesn’t have a deadline. Why do the parents get a deadline? The district receives the funding in August. Why should we 

have a deadline? And why should we be given 2 weeks to decide 

which SES provider we should be getting? We should have until 

June if our child is failing in June. 

It is imperative to give SES a full pledge of support from this 

committee in the reauthorization process. Our children need the 

SES provision to be fully implemented. Its funding needs to be sustained and dispersed until all children are fully served. 

Its accountability must be preserved under the law. SES is giving parents hope and paving the road to our children’s success. 

Please, repair the broken toe of NCLB and transform it into the 

strong pillar as it was originally intended. 

Our children need a strong law to achieve strong results. Please 

do the right thing and help the SES provision save our children, 

our treasures, our nation’s most precious assets. Please help us, the 

parents, be proud of our American kids. We, the parents, know that 

our children can shine again in tomorrow’s world. With your help, 

they will shine. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dollonne follows:]

Prepared Statement of Monique Dollonne, Ventura, CA 

Good morning, Chairman McKeon, and members of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce. My name is Monique Dollonne, I am coming to you to testify 

as a mother of a child who was the recipient of Supplemental Educational Services 

and as a Parent Advocate, representing the Millions of parents whose children are 

eligible for SES and unfortunately could not fit in my suitcase to join us at this 

table today. I am honored to be here to testify today before this Committee to proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\FC\9-21-06\29860.TXT EDUWK PsN: DICK
59

vide the views of Parents, the stakeholders in education who are many times not 

invited to forum such as this. Thank you for this opportunity. Now the burden is 

on me to be as clear and concise and let you hear their voices. 

First of all, I would like to thank all of the players who will have an important 

role in the NCLB reauthorization and specifically in the reauthorization of one of 

the important pillars of NCLB: The tutoring previsions of the Law so called SES. 

I watched my child increase her reading and comprehension levels by one grade 

in less than 5 weeks. Her math skills improved as well as her confidence in computing the numbers at her 4th grade level. The one on one attention that she received built her confidence and increased her interest level in both subjects. She was 

able to go back to her classroom teacher with stronger skills and help the other children who did not get the chance to access the services. It was all around a very 

positive and helpful experience. 

As I watched the results amongst her peers at her PI (Program Improvement) 2 

level school and listen to the other parents, it became evident that for a lot of the 

Title I children, the tutoring program was more than a support and help in improving results and test scores, it was a safe heaven. It became a place where students 

were looking forward to come and get help. After 2 weeks of efforts, their respective 

teachers at school noticed a difference. For the first time, some of those students 

were given a desk to study at, their own books, and one on one mentoring attention 

from their tutors. Out of the tutoring effort, we saw friendships grow, attitude towards studying change, confidence build, and test scores go up. SES, to a lot of children, represents extra support that will help them achieve; however, to most children, SES is also an opportunity for emotional support that might not be available 

at home. In most cases, it is a life preserver thrown at them when they are drowning in the system. 

With all the evidence of the obvious benefits, the question remains: Why can’t all 

parents access SES? Why are we serving only 19% of our eligible children (Nationwide Data)? 

This is what my experience has been in the field after working with many parents; 

1) Access to Services 

a) Notification letter. Letters are confusing, contradictory at times, poorly translated in a foreign language, not sent in a timely manner, full of deadlines 

Ex: Tutor (having a different meaning in the Spanish Language 

Ex: One letter has 3 deadlines in one paragraph. 

The access to SES needs to be free of deadlines. (The Law does not have a deadline, the funding does not have a dead line, why are the Notification letters full of 

deadlines?) 

b) How do parents receive the information of their rights to SES? 

One notification letter sent anytime is not sufficient. In some cases notification 

letters were received a month prior to receiving the PI Status information of the 

school attended. 

The SES provisions need much more clarification so there is no room for confusion. Information about SES under NCLB is crucial for its proper implementation. 

It can be received under training provided by Schools. The same as the teachers receive Professional Development; the parents should be entitled to Professional development access. May be through the 1% minimum allocation or may be through another allocation within the 20% allocation for the SES. Districts receive administrative allocations, the marketing of SES should also be a budget allocated for a better 

outreach campaign for parents. 

c) Eligibility 

Even though the funding clearly comes to Districts and States pre calculated, parents are given a blurry picture and have a difficult time knowing whether or not 

their child is eligible, and for how much, creating more confusion. Parents who are 

intimidated by the process do not follow up, thinking that their children are not eligible. 

d) Choice of SES provider: 

A lot of parents in need of SES providers do not have access to computers. They 

therefore rely on school personnel to help them choose a provider. As we know the 

Law is clear: the School cannot choose the provider and therefore cannot not get 

involved in that process. Parents complain they do not know how to find the tutors. 

Teachers are often times uninformed about SES and about NCLB altogether. A provision put into the Law making it part of the Professional development curriculum 

for teachers would help tremendously. 

Parents say it is hard to get the information from the District. There are definitely feelings of conflict of interest coming through during the information process. 

Districts often times organize a Providers Fair, though these are not well attended. 

60

The Fairs are in the middle of the afternoon, not convenient for working parents 

or parents with large families. They are located in County’s Office quite a distance 

form the school sites. 

Suggestions for changes: 

SES Provider information should be freely accessible at the School Site. Districts 

and School personnel could very easily have an abundance of information on School 

Sites without divulging opinions or forcing a choice on the parents. 

SES Fairs could be taking place at the school sites. Every provider we have spoken with has had no problem in being available for a school visit or a Community 

Expo giving them an opportunity to explain their services to the parents. All providers should feel welcome at failing school sites and should be encouraged to engage in communication with parents as early as possible. 

e) Timing process: 

Because Schools do not have open door policies for SES Providers, the timing 

process between the time Notification letters are sent and the time fairs are organized and contracts get signed is very lengthy. As a result, the children do not have 

access to tutoring until December or January in many cases. We have found School 

Districts starting tutoring programs in May, which of course defeats the purpose. 

This process needs better and clearer regulations and some attention in the reauthorization process. 

SES provider Selection from the State: SES providers have to go through an 

elaborate process to apply and become an SES Provider and get on the approved 

list. The approved list should be made readily available to all parents via media 

campaign or mailing Distribution. Right now, Districts are not diffusing the information as profusely as they could. At times, we find that they exclude certain providers or include providers who do not have the profile mandated by NCLB. Example: Parents have complained of being given one choice of tutoring services; their 

children’s failing school site. It would be very helpful to see reinforcement in the 

Law not allowing for this type of practice to continue. 

Suggestions: A massive mailer coming from the State and distributed by the District to all eligible families as soon as the PI Status of schools is determined would 

be very helpful. 

Accountability of SES Providers: 

Many Districts complain they cannot measure the performance increase delivered 

by SES providers and therefore question the efficiency of the SES Providers. 

As a parent, it seems totally inconceivable that a system based on Data Research 

analysis cannot come up with a consistent and fair evaluation system of the process. 

Without Data analysis, parents can’t tell whether their children are improving. Why 

can’t districts find a way to put the obvious into a reliable Data Format? May be 

the issue can be addressed and put into the Law. 

Implementing SES properly and giving it its full force is a Civil rights Issue for 

all of our most vulnerable children. SES is giving failing children a second chance 

of access to success when children have been in a failing school for the 4th year. 

Parents would like to see an earlier implementation of SES, most parents would 

prefer to have SES access before being given transferring options to a better school. 

I am coming to you to proclaim that SES in the parents’ books is more like an answer to the SOS scream from our children (maybe we can change the names (Save 

Our Schools Program). SES reaching out to very few children is like a broken toe 

of NCLB. It can no longer be ignored, unwelcome and mistreated by our school systems; it should be embraced, welcome and given the red carpet treatment no later 

than the very first day of school. All eligible students should be entitled to access 

SES support at the beginning of the year, not in December, January or May. A 

stronger accountability process should be required from School Districts and States 

and enforced. Funding distribution on SES should also be strengthened. Districts 

not spending their 20% allocations should be required to roll over their remaining 

balance into the following year allocation increasing their SES impact on students’ 

achievement for the following year. Parents and Community Organization should be 

openly welcome to build connections between their children and the tutoring centers 

and welcome to distribute applications and SES information to the Community. An 

SES application should not be kept hostage by School Districts but freely distributed 

at times of need without deadlines. 

It is imperative to give SES a full pledge of support from this Committee in the 

reauthorization process. Our children need the SES provision to be fully implemented. Its funding needs to be sustained and dispersed until all children are fully 

served. Its accountability MUST be preserved under the Law. SES is giving parents 

hope and paving the road to our children’s success. Please, repair the broken toe 

of NCLB and transform it into the strong pillar as originally intended. Our children 

61

need a strong Law to achieve strong results. Please do the right thing and help the 

SES provision save our children, our treasures, our Nation’s most precious assets! 

Please help us be proud of our American kids! 

We, the parents know that our children can shine again in tomorrow’s World! 

With your help they will shine! 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Ashby, in visiting school districts, in gathering the information, did you get the feeling that there is resistance on embracing 

the program? Or does it just take time to do it? Or is there competition? Do they look at it this is competition? Did you feel that 

there was acceptance of the program? What are some of the responses to that? 

Ms. ASHBY. I think, as Mr. Brown said earlier, it is sort of all 

the above. There certainly is acceptance of supplemental educational services. And this certainly is a learning curve or a period 

of time that is needed in order for there to be increased acceptance 

and increased participation on the part of students and encouragement from their parents. 

The same thing with respect to school districts and principals 

and teachers. Certainly, as with any human endeavor, there has to 

be a period of time where people get used to the idea of change and 

adapt and participate and can shape it to fit their needs. There is 

some of that, too. 

There probably is some resistance and some competition from 

teachers and schools. But overall, the indications I get are that it 

is accepted. It is the law of the land. And people are trying to implement it. 

Chairman MCKEON. So you would be optimistic that it is——

Ms. ASHBY. I would be optimistic, yes. 

Chairman MCKEON. I am glad to hear that. 

Dr. Barr, you said you had 384 providers? 

Mr. BARR. On the approved list, yes. 

Chairman MCKEON. On the approved list, 384? Would that go to 

like one person that signs up to provide tutoring to national companies? What is the range? 

Mr. BARR. We have the whole gamut. We have very localized providers who only want to provide at one school. We have national 

providers who do statewide or a few districts or regions of the 

state. So it covers the whole gamut. 

Chairman MCKEON. Ms. Harris, you said in the Chicago schools 

that 80 percent of your children come from low-income families. Is 

that just the way income is in Chicago? Or are students going to 

other schools? 

Ms. HARRIS. I think you find that the majority of students who 

live in Chicago who are low-income students attend the public 

school system. And those that are perhaps of a higher-income status are attending the parochial and private schools in the city. 

Chairman MCKEON. Dr. Anderson, your company is approved in 

several states. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Yes. 

Chairman MCKEON. So do you find different acceptance levels, 

some states easier to work with than others? 

Ms. ANDERSON. Absolutely, yes. 

62

Chairman MCKEON. And could we get a list of those that are—

you probably wouldn’t want to give that. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Well, I think what I would be happy to do is to 

provide you with information about types of situations that have 

occurred that have been both positive and not so positive. 

Where we have seen good collaboration, it has happened because 

you have leadership at the top or you have a school superintendent 

who embraces the concept, where you have a principal as an educational leader who believes in SES, who supports it, the teachers 

then support it. Parents are then involved. Then you have strong 

programs. 

So, yes, there are certainly other circumstances where we are 

present where we have found that school districts do not embrace 

supplemental educational services. And in those situations, it is difficult to get information to parents. It is difficult to get support. It 

is difficult to get participation. Oftentimes we are barred from 

schools and from speaking directly to parents. 

So I think there are a lot of ways for us to work to improve SES. 

We believe in it. We support it, and we certainly think it ought to 

continue. 

Chairman MCKEON. It seems to me that teamwork is vital in this 

effort because if you have a football team, you have got an offense, 

you have got a defense. And if one of them feels like they are doing 

the job and the other one isn’t, they feel like they are doing the 

job and they are not. You know, they all are part of one team. But 

if they don’t accept that and work together as a team, then, again, 

we forget what the ultimate goal is. And that is the child. 

Ms. Dollonne, have you found in some of the students that need 

this extra help—probably some of them come from families where 

there isn’t a lot of parental support. And it would be if you could 

reach those families, maybe they are not in tune to reach out for 

that extra help. And that would be one of the problems with trying 

to get this service implemented. 

Ms. DOLLONNE. Absolutely. One of the examples that we have 

found out, for example, in Latino community, the word ‘‘tutor’’ 

means different things. And we have come to the homes of parents 

when the mother would say, well, you want to give me another 

husband. Because, you know, a tutor in Spanish means somebody 

who has custody of your child. And we said, no, no, no, this is not 

what it means. 

And the parents do not understand the test scores. That is another piece of information. They are not being explained at the beginning. Schools have a problem admitting that they are in school 

improvement or failing schools. They don’t want to tell the parents. 

So that comes in the way. 

Chairman MCKEON. You know what one thing? I have heard the 

word several times today: failing school. And what I would like to 

do is eliminate that from our vocabulary. We have schools that 

need improvement. And that is what we need to focus on, because 

I don’t think any school, any individual is totaling failing. 

You know, you might have problems in a subject. And I think 

then we paint a cloud over their head that I would like to see us 

just eliminate that from our vocabulary and focus on improvement, 

trying to bring improvement. 

63

Ms. DOLLONNE. That is right. And SES is part of the improvement. Therefore, it should be a celebration, a collaboration at the 

beginning of the year and say, let’s address the issue and let’s all 

work together and get it out. 

Chairman MCKEON. Make it part of the team. 

Ms. DOLLONNE. And be part of the team. 

And the families receiving a very bureaucratic written letter is 

not going to do the access and the marketing. So we need to have 

a different approach. 

And I haven’t found one family that said, no, I don’t want to access $1,200 of free tutoring if they are explained properly. They all 

want to help their children. All those families care, and they love 

their children. They want to see them succeed. But they don’t understand where they are at, in terms of their level. And they understand where they need the help. 

So this is where the teachers need to be pushing for that and be 

open to have a open conversation with a tutor. And if everybody 

talks together, there is no competition, no fear. We are all going 

to get better, everyone will benefit from it, including the children, 

who we are trying to serve. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you very much. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, Ms. Dollonne, my wife will probably sign up for supplemental services if she thought she would get a different husband. But let’s see. 

[Laughter.] 

I want to thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Dollonne, 

because you rattle off a series of questions. I hope the reporter was 

able to get all of this down. But when you left your formal testimony and rattled off all the questions that a practical person might 

have about engaging this program, I think it will be helpful to us. 

Ms. DOLLONNE. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Ms. Harris, Ms. Ashby in her report raises a question about the adequacy of acceptability for English learners and 

for students with disabilities. Obviously, you have this huge cohort 

of students who are engaged in these supplemental services. 

How are you addressing that? And have you been able to find 

providers with the quality of services for those students that you 

desire? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes, I think it is an excellent question and certainly 

one that I think the state is trying to address, trying to bring in 

providers or approve providers on the front end that actually do 

service those populations. 

Currently I believe there are 12 out of 60 in our district that do 

serve special-education and ESL students. And so, we are excited 

to be able to work with those. And we, you know, certainly have 

parents gravitate to those programs because they accommodate 

special student needs. 

I should also mention that——

Mr. MILLER. Is that sufficient? I mean, you have a really substantial extreme population. 

Ms. HARRIS. We do. And, yes, it is a significant challenge. 

64

And, in fact, what I was going to mention is that, actually, our 

program, Aim High, does have a special program specifically for 

our English language learners and also have special accommodations for our special-education students. 

And so, even as another argument for why the district’s program 

should exist, we actually are always available to service those students and make a very strong effort to reach out to parents to let 

them know that we do exist to fill that void, because there is one. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Barr, what is your situation in Ohio? 

Mr. BARR. Congressman, thus far we have not had any complaints about limited-English students or IET. I think as the program does increase, however, we will confront those issues of not 

having sufficient resources in the provider area, particularly as we 

get out to more of the rural areas. And while we are not a very 

populous state with languages, that is increasing in certain areas 

of the state. 

Mr. MILLER. Ms. Anderson, as a national provider, how do you 

look at this issue? I mean, obviously in some cases it can be an isolated population or can be certainly students with special needs, individual special needs. How do you look at addressing that? 

Ms. ANDERSON. Just to give you some statistics, in the 2005-2006 

school year, our company served 14 percent students who were limited English proficient. That was about 3,988 students. And we also 

served 5.3 percent students with special needs. And that was about 

1,500 students in those categories. 

I think there does need to be better coordination in terms of 

identification of students, particularly those with disabilities. Oftentimes those students come into our programs and we are not 

aware that that student has an IEP, therefore not aware to specifically identify the areas of disability. We will pre-test those students 

as we will all others in the program. And sometimes it is during 

that process that we are able to determine, in making sure we are 

identifying the individual goals of each student, that this student 

has a disability or that the student is significantly lower than the 

other students in terms of ability. Therefore, then we start asking 

questions. 

But, in our view, there needs to be much better coordination with 

teachers, with schools in terms of identifying students so that we 

can ensure that our programs are, in fact, meeting their needs. 

Mr. MILLER. Are these services more expensive? 

Ms. ANDERSON. That is on a case-by-case basis. And individually 

they certainly can be, yes. Not always, though. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. Ashby, I want to thank you very much for your, GAO’s, attention to the issues that we raised in our letter and the response 

that you have given back. I think this has really been very helpful 

to tease out a whole range of concerns that we are going to have 

to deal with. And I really want to appreciate you and your colleagues at GAO for the work you did on your report. 

Ms. ASHBY. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Appreciate it. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Ms. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

65

Thank you to all of you for being here. 

If I could go back, Dr. Barr, I may have not heard you quite correctly, but I think you questioned whether or not it was possible 

to determine the effects of the program, whether or not, you know, 

there were other intervening programs that might have made a difference in the success of a student or the progress, et cetera. 

Did you feel that there is really a question of how do we evaluate 

these programs and, in fact, whether we can attribute the SES program to the progress or lack thereof of the student? 

Mr. BARR. I think we find, just from an assessment process from 

the state, that it is very difficult for us to use any type of state assessments to make any judgments regarding whether a child has 

improved or not. 

Understand, all we have are an assessment that is given once a 

year. We would have to look at gains from 1 year to the next. And 

there would have to be some way to tease out what was the effect 

attributed by the SES, what was the effect attributed by the regular classroom teacher. And we find that very difficult to do. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. And that does not say that the SES program is or is 

not effective. We are just saying we are having trouble accounting 

for attribution. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Yes. Well, what kind of validity, 

then, can we put into programs? 

I don’t know. Dr. Anderson, I would assume that the organizations that you work with do have an evaluation, they have a pretest, post, et cetera. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Right. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. I think part of what I am trying to 

get at here, too, is, is this the right model? Clearly, students need 

assistance. And exceptional tutoring is always better than nothing. 

It has to be the right kind of tutoring. 

But I am wondering, in your look at this, can you offer whether, 

you know, this the right direction that we should be taking as we 

look at reauthorization? What should be done differently? I am concerned that it is difficult to tell whether it is having an effect or 

not. 

Mr. BARR. Well, if we are trying to get some attribution or really 

be able to tell the effects of SES—and I am not sure how important 

that is. I mean, the importance really is, is the child learning from 

1 year to the next with all the additional types of supports? And 

we would have the same thing as if this classroom teacher or the 

additional supports coming in from IDEA or other things. So it is 

very difficult. 

Our important issue is, is the child doing better and what are all 

the supports that are getting there? And so, we do spend a lot of 

time, more on how do we help the school become a more effective 

school, how do we help teachers become more effective teachers, 

and trying to build systems behind all of those folks that provide 

the necessary support and push on the quality issues of professional development, frequent assessment, looking at the data constantly to see how children are doing. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. OK. Thank you. 

Ms. Ashby, did you have any other thoughts? 

66

And I really wanted to ask you, Ms. Dollonne, as well about that. 

Ms. ASHBY. Just to say that really we are dealing with this issue 

on two levels, I think. Supplemental educational services are directed to individual students on the micro level. And they are coming out of a system that is in need of improvement. That is the 

macro level. 

There are no evaluations of the effect of SES on the school or certainly on school districts or anything beyond that. But I do think 

that there could be measurements and outcomes for individual students: pre-, post-test or some other way of doing it. 

And in terms of evaluations, I think, at least for a long, long 

time, that has to be the focus, because there aren’t enough students 

participating to have any impact on the macro level. It has to be 

on the micro. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. I would certainly suggest, as a parent—and I am sure that you would agree—I mean, a parent knows 

whether a child is feeling better about their learning and how excited they are to go to school, all those kinds of measures. But I 

am also hoping that we are able to try and discern how, whether 

it is the Education Department or schools, how we can better 

evaluate this, in a way. 

Because one of the things that has been mentioned is, even 

though we are talking about 20 percent of the funding, Title I funding, that can go to this, as you pointed out very ably, 5 percent is 

going toward choice. Another quite a few percentage points are 

going toward transportation, to allow a child to go to a different 

school. That is a struggle, I know, in San Diego. And so, realistically, maybe 5 percent is going toward SES programs for children. 

And clearly, schools are not able to meet the need then. 

We also have children that, as you mentioned, come into school 

after the deadlines. They are not there. We know that we have 

children constantly coming into school, 150 percent turnover in 

some schools. 

So there are so many children that I am afraid are, you know, 

falling through the cracks or we just haven’t been able to create the 

kind of program that really is able to do what we would all hope 

is that children get assistance when they need it at the right time 

in the most perfect way possible. 

And so, it is a complicated issue. And I think we took it on and 

yet are looking for ways that we can make it work better. And so, 

I just appreciate your being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

In your, Ms. Ashby, report, of all the recommendations that the 

GAO has in the report, which would you think would have the 

greatest impact on improving access to after-school tutoring programs? 

Ms. ASHBY. Well, there was a lot of discussion in our report because there has been a lot of discussion, among the people that we 

have talked to and the data we have gathered, on the notification 

letter itself. That is one way of informing parents of the supplemental educational services program. 

67

Our recommendation is that states or districts be helped in clarifying the language for that letter, that notification. I read of one 

example of a letter, for example, that was 15, 20 pages long, that 

perhaps technically included the information it should have, but I 

doubt very many parents would have understood it, would have 

had the time to read it. So getting clear information to parents. 

As our parent at the end of the table said, all parents care about 

their children, even parents that have substantial problems: unemployed, homeless. They care about their children. They want the 

best for their children. 

But they need help in understanding what that is. And this is 

a resource that is available. It doesn’t cost them anything. They 

just need to understand what it is and how to access it. And that, 

I think, would make a big difference. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. In the discussion about onsite and offsite, you 

know, in some areas in some of our urban cities, safety is a real 

problem. Children are reluctant to go home after the group goes 

home. And I guess staying after school is one thing. Going to another site out of your local area, there is a lot of turf problems and 

so forth. 

Do you find that the in-school programs have a better success or 

neighborhood-type facilities? 

Ms. ASHBY. Well, certainly, the participation rates would be 

greater. Parents and students are certainly more likely to take advantage of a program that is in the school building. 

There have been cases where there is public housing, and somewhere on the facility of the public housing there is a facility. Certainly, in those instances there would be more participation. 

Mr. PAYNE. Do you find any reluctance for providers, when they 

have preferences, you know, more reluctant to go, say, to a housing 

development to do the programs or in schools? 

Ms. ASHBY. I don’t know the specific example, but I would be 

surprised if there weren’t reluctance. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Let me just ask Ms. Harris, in Chicago, the public schools are 

under the office of the mayor. You don’t have the board of education. What is the situation there now? 

Ms. HARRIS. Our superintendent, our CEO, is appointed by the 

mayor. So we are under the mayor’s, I guess, umbrella, you could 

say. But we also have, of course, a board of education that operates 

and works in collaboration with our superintendent or CEO, Arne 

Duncan. 

Mr. PAYNE. Are they appointed or elected? 

Ms. HARRIS. They are appointed. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Because in so many instances, you know, the direction from the board of education or whoever is in charge of the 

school district has a lot to do with it having been a product of local 

politics and so forth and so on. The question of who should have 

control, the elected officials feel they have got to come up with the 

money, and the board of education spends it. 

And they don’t have control in Chicago, though, if the mayor’s office—and I am not saying which one is better. But I am just wondering if it impacts. 

68

Ms. HARRIS. Certainly. I think we have certainly seen in Chicago 

that leadership does have a lot to do with how it is embraced by 

administrative, which, I think, was your point earlier. Our principals have seen our CEO embrace SES, embrace competition in 

general through charter schools and our Renaissance 2010 program 

and things of that nature. And so, in doing so, I think from the top 

down we have also embraced the spirit of SES. We have invited 

them into our buildings. 

We certainly have continued to make the argument that we believe that the CPS version of SES is just as good and can have a 

positive impact on student achievement as well and that there are 

positive benefits to that. But we certainly encourage and welcome 

our providers. 

And I think, over the years, we have developed very strong relationships with many of them. We have asked for their feedback. We 

have actually used their feedback in the implementation. 

And that all really, I think, certainly is directed by, you know, 

our CEO and his motivation of wanting to welcome the competition 

and welcome the services because our students need them. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Since my time has almost expired, let me just 

ask a quick question. I am color blind, you know. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman MCKEON. Almost. 

Mr. PAYNE. I don’t know what that red—is that red? 

Chairman MCKEON. Quick question, quick answer. 

Mr. PAYNE. Dr. Anderson, seeing that you have been a part of 

New Jersey and the Abbott school districts, do you—Abbott in our 

state, for those who don’t know, means that there is level funding 

for the poor districts, state constitutional agreement. 

Let me move it right from there to the state-appointed districts. 

Do you find that, if you have had that experience, finding it easier 

to work with state-appointed superintendents under the Abbott, 

you know, the failing school districts in Jersey? And is there a uniformity? Or do you find that, even under the state take-over, that 

individual superintendents operate their own way? 

Ms. ANDERSON. I would tend to say both are true. Each of the 

superintendents in the state-operated districts very talented individuals, all of whom come from an educational philosophy and pedagogy who have clear goals and ideas about how they expect students to be successful in their districts. And I think that is why 

they are there. 

I think that one of the biggest challenges in state-operated school 

districts is getting the community to be supportive of the school 

district. Because it is, once again, a school district in need of improvement. And moving it from where it has been and all of the 

different issues that have caused it to be there and the challenges 

that it has had to face, to recognizing success, accepting resources 

to support it and then being willing to move forward and then recognizing that when that happens, control is returned to the local 

communities. 

And I think it is that process and that transition that, just as 

with supplemental educational services, the community has to be 

a partner in that relationship. Otherwise, they see themselves as 

disenfranchised. And as our parent has already indicated, when 

69

that happens, parents are the ones who are not benefiting from the 

services as we intended. 

So I think it is that partnership, the clear communication. In 

New Jersey, the state clearly played a very significant role precedent-setting across the country. But if you don’t bring the partners 

along, then the initiative cannot be successful. 

Chairman MCKEON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Dollonne, have you put any thought into what if those services that your child, your student received had been made available 

in the classroom and why not? I mean, why aren’t our schools 

doing all that Dr. Anderson has talked about? 

Ms. DOLLONNE. I thought this was a question I could ask you 

guys. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, good. I mean, because the question is, why 

doesn’t every school, every classroom, every child that needs help, 

and kids who are doing better that need to be kept interested, I 

mean, why aren’t we investing our resources at the school site instead of in transportation and negotiating with providers for that 

extra help? 

Ms. DOLLONNE. OK, OK. I agree. I understand the question. And 

I agree totally with you. And from an outside point of view, an outside investigation, I could tell you that our school in improvement 

unfortunately do not get the services and the resources. It is almost 

like it has a cork somewhere. You know, the money comes from the 

U.S. Department, and it goes to the state, and it comes to the district. And then somewhere in between the district and the schools, 

there is something going on. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, my question would be, if we are willing to 

increase the budget by 20 percent so that every child can succeed, 

which we must, that ought to go to the sites and the classrooms 

and the districts that need it. 

Dr. Anderson, can you discuss the qualifications required of your 

tutors, both in terms of their education, their knowledge, the subject knowledge and how you measure success? 

Ms. ANDERSON. We use highly qualified teachers, because many 

of our tutors come from school districts, so they are, in fact, certified teachers. And I would say I am talking about 95 percent of 

the tutors that we employ. 

I would also urge you, however, to recognize that in some situations you will have a college professor or individuals who come to 

Teach for America who may not be certified but are subject-area 

experts. We also think those types of individuals are important to 

keep in the process, because they bring a level of expertise to the 

circumstance that is important to help students, particularly in 

areas of math, in working with students to help them really understand things. When you see that light go on in the classroom because that tutor has connected with that child in that area. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. So can I ask you, don’t you think that shouldn’t 

be the exception, that the schools themselves ought to be allowed 

to hire that person and not——

Ms. ANDERSON. Well, there are mechanisms——

Ms. WOOLSEY [continuing]. Count their value because——

70

Ms. ANDERSON. There are mechanisms in place for that to happen. But I would mention one other thing. 

The reason we are in the schools is because parents choose us 

and because we bring to the table an area of expertise that is supportive of what schools are doing. We are not trying to replace 

what schools do. We are trying to be supportive partners. 

We have experience in the area of tutoring. We can offer smaller 

teacher-student ratios. We can offer specialized training to teachers 

that they may not have in the school district during the school day. 

So we are there as their partners. We want to be part of the solution and are, not part of the problem. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, no, and I respect you for that. But I also believe that what you provide ought to be onsite. I don’t think we 

should be spending money on transportation. We shouldn’t be, you 

know, making it more difficult. We should make it easier by bringing all——

Ms. ANDERSON. We agree it should be onsite. 

Ms. WOOLSEY [continuing]. That you bring to the school site. 

Ms. ANDERSON. We agree it should be on the school site. And in 

every instance where it is, we have seen that students participate 

in larger numbers. We are certainly supportive of that opinion, yes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCKEON. And thank you for being here and for your 

patience. 

We have another series of votes. I think this has been a very 

good hearing. 

If you think of something that you would like to add that you 

didn’t get to say today, again, the hearing record will be held open 

for 14 days. 

And I hope you will stay involved as we go through this reauthorization process and continue to help us with your expertise. 

Thank you very much. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota 

follows:]

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2004 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2004 GRANTS 

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2004 grant Estimated FY2004 grant at 

full authorized level 

Minnesota ..... 2700001 MOUNTAIN IRON-BUHL $156,900 $209,900

Do. ............ 2700005 UNITED SOUTH CENTRAL $174,400 $235,300

Do. ............ 2700006 MAPLE RIVER $145,300 $208,800

Do. ............ 2700007 KINGSLAND $112,500 $142,200

Do. ............ 2700008 ST. LOUIS COUNTY $580,800 $737,900

Do. ............ 2700013 WATERVILLE-ELYSIAN-MORRISTOWN $121,500 $160,200

Do. ............ 2700017 CHISAGO LAKES $226,400 $319,100

Do. ............ 2700019 MINNEWASKA $196,000 $271,900

Do. ............ 2700021 EVELETH-GILBERT $220,200 $283,700

Do. ............ 2700022 WADENA-DEER CREEK $293,800 $406,800

Do. ............ 2700023 BUFFALO LAKE-HECTOR $83,400 $116,600

Do. ............ 2700024 WARREN-ALVARADO-OSLO $83,200 $112,000

Do. ............ 2700088 LAKEVIEW $43,700 $58,600

71

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2004 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2004 GRANTS—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2004 grant Estimated FY2004 grant at full authorized level 

Do. ............ 2700089 N.R.H.E.G. $86,100 $121,800

Do. ............ 2700090 MURRAY COUNTY $121,900 $172,500

Do. ............ 2700091 M.A.C.C.R.A.Y. $98,200 $136,300

Do. ............ 2700099 YELLOW MEDICINE EAST $136,400 $193,900

Do. ............ 2700100 FILLMORE CENTRAL $196,600 $271,800

Do. ............ 2700101 NORMAN COUNTY EAST $75,100 $95,400

Do. ............ 2700102 SIBLEY EAST $157,000 $227,200

Do. ............ 2700103 CLEARBROOK-GONVICK $90,800 $125,800

Do. ............ 2700104 WEST CENTRAL AREA $143,300 $181,000

Do. ............ 2700105 BELGRADE-BROOTEN-ELROSA $211,400 $287,200

Do. ............ 2700106 A.C.G.C. $185,800 $245,800

Do. ............ 2700107 GREENBUSH-MIDDLE RIVER $91,500 $109,400

Do. ............ 2700108 PIPESTONE-JASPER $180,100 $253,900

Do. ............ 2700109 LONG PRAIRIE-GREY EAGLE $346,900 $479,200

Do. ............ 2700110 CEDAR MOUNTAIN $34,900 $50,100

Do. ............ 2700111 REDWOOD FALLS $158,300 $215,800

Do. ............ 2700112 EAGLE VALLEY $128,500 $155,100

Do. ............ 2700123 HOWARD LAKE-WAVERLY-WINSTED $115,300 $163,900

Do. ............ 2700124 FAIRMONT AREA SCHOOLS $476,700 $634,900

Do. ............ 2700125 LAC QUI PARLE VALLEY $147,300 $203,800

Do. ............ 2700126 ADA-BORUP $63,500 $90,800

Do. ............ 2700127 STEPHEN-ARGYLE CENTRAL SCHOOLS $66,500 $91,800

Do. ............ 2700128 GLENCOE-SILVER LAKE $153,300 $211,800

Do. ............ 2700130 BLUE EARTH AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS $230,700 $313,400

Do. ............ 2700131 JACKSON COUNTY CENTRAL $177,700 $251,500

Do. ............ 2700132 RED ROCK CENTRAL $121,900 $155,100

Do. ............ 2700148 GLENVILLE-EMMONS $57,400 $77,200

Do. ............ 2700149 MCLEOD WEST SCHOOLS $60,100 $78,400

Do. ............ 2700150 CLINTON-GRACEVILLE-BEARDSLEY $150,700 $199,100

Do. ............ 2700162 LAKE PARK-AUDUBON $121,800 $161,000

Do. ............ 2700163 RENVILLE COUNTY WEST $205,100 $240,700

Do. ............ 2700183 WESTBROOK-WALNUT GROVE $61,000 $84,800

Do. ............ 2702640 LESTER PRAIRIE $62,300 $90,200

Do. ............ 2702720 SOUTHLAND $70,500 $90,300

Do. ............ 2702730 ADRIAN $104,500 $144,700

Do. ............ 2702760 AITKIN $203,400 $267,800

Do. ............ 2702910 WALKER-HACKENSACK-AKELEY $250,300 $346,400

Do. ............ 2702930 ALBANY $181,500 $250,400

Do. ............ 2702970 ALBERT LEA $462,000 $661,500

Do. ............ 2703030 ALDEN $9,000 $9,000

Do. ............ 2703060 ALEXANDRIA $407,300 $578,800

Do. ............ 2703150 ANNANDALE $183,600 $262,200

Do. ............ 2703180 ANOKA-HENNEPIN $1,685,100 $1,685,100

Do. ............ 2703300 ASHBY $24,200 $35,100

Do. ............ 2703450 AUSTIN $627,200 $893,700

Do. ............ 2703540 BADGER $33,500 $48,400

Do. ............ 2703570 BAGLEY $368,400 $484,300

Do. ............ 2703600 BALATON $38,700 $47,700

Do. ............ 2703660 BARNESVILLE $58,600 $58,600

Do. ............ 2703690 BARNUM $72,500 $101,700

Do. ............ 2703750 BATTLE LAKE $136,000 $172,600

Do. ............ 2703870 BECKER $69,800 $71,500

Do. ............ 2704050 BELLE PLAINE $58,600 $58,600

Do. ............ 2704080 BELLINGHAM $45,200 $57,900

Do. ............ 2704440 BEMIDJI $1,188,300 $1,556,800

Do. ............ 2704470 BENSON $110,300 $143,000

Do. ............ 2705430 BERTHA-HEWITT $165,800 $195,800

Do. ............ 2705460 BIG LAKE $95,700 $95,700

Do. ............ 2705660 BIRD ISLAND-OLIVIA-LAKE LILLIA $115,400 $162,900

Do. ............ 2705730 BLACKDUCK $159,100 $215,600

Do. ............ 2705760 BLOOMING PRAIRIE $156,100 $186,400

72

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2004 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2004 GRANTS—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2004 grant Estimated FY2004 grant at full authorized level 

Do. ............ 2705790 BLOOMINGTON $372,300 $372,300

Do. ............ 2706060 BRAHAM $117,800 $164,400

Do. ............ 2706090 BRAINERD $1,109,600 $1,491,500

Do. ............ 2706120 BRANDON $48,400 $68,800

Do. ............ 2706150 BRECKENRIDGE $148,700 $193,800

Do. ............ 2706180 BREWSTER $37,300 $45,100

Do. ............ 2706240 BROOKLYN CENTER $240,100 $324,800

Do. ............ 2706300 BROWERVILLE $96,100 $133,200

Do. ............ 2707110 BROWNS VALLEY $64,000 $74,000

Do. ............ 2707200 BUFFALO $227,000 $227,000

Do. ............ 2707290 BURNSVILLE $883,800 $1,249,800

Do. ............ 2707320 BUTTERFIELD $31,200 $45,100

Do. ............ 2707350 BYRON $45,800 $45,800

Do. ............ 2707380 CALEDONIA $131,800 $190,400

Do. ............ 2707410 CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI $382,200 $552,900

Do. ............ 2707450 CAMPBELL-TINTAH $29,800 $36,300

Do. ............ 2707470 CANBY $100,500 $145,300

Do. ............ 2707500 CANNON FALLS $64,300 $64,300

Do. ............ 2707590 CARLTON $86,600 $122,300

Do. ............ 2708070 CASS LAKE $431,600 $648,700

Do. ............ 2708100 CENTENNIAL $201,100 $201,100

Do. ............ 2708190 CHASKA $252,900 $252,900

Do. ............ 2708220 CHATFIELD $37,200 $37,200

Do. ............ 2708880 FRANCONIA $0 $0

Do. ............ 2708910 CHISHOLM $124,900 $175,000

Do. ............ 2708940 CHOKIO-ALBERTA $40,000 $52,900

Do. ............ 2709330 CLEVELAND $29,300 $29,300

Do. ............ 2709360 CLIMAX $61,400 $82,100

Do. ............ 2709420 CLOQUET $365,000 $484,400

Do. ............ 2709440 COLD SPRING $154,700 $223,800

Do. ............ 2709480 GREENWAY $288,300 $397,700

Do. ............ 2709510 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS $383,100 $538,700

Do. ............ 2709540 COMFREY $44,800 $51,200

Do. ............ 2709690 CROMWELL $61,200 $81,500

Do. ............ 2709720 CROOKSTON $263,400 $371,900

Do. ............ 2709750 CROSBY-IRONTON $288,200 $400,700

Do. ............ 2709960 CYRUS $27,100 $36,000

Do. ............ 2710060 DASSEL-COKATO $193,700 $271,500

Do. ............ 2710090 DAWSON-BOYD $50,700 $69,000

Do. ............ 2710140 DEER RIVER $387,600 $565,300

Do. ............ 2710170 DELANO $88,400 $88,400

Do. ............ 2710230 DETROIT LAKES $618,800 $847,700

Do. ............ 2710260 DILWORTH-GLYNDON-FELTON $226,900 $307,700

Do. ............ 2711010 DOVER-EYOTA $72,200 $72,200

Do. ............ 2711040 DULUTH $2,502,100 $3,579,900

Do. ............ 2711085 EAST CENTRAL $266,400 $373,200

Do. ............ 2711130 EAST GRAND FORKS $310,500 $399,200

Do. ............ 2711190 EDEN VALLEY $87,200 $122,900

Do. ............ 2711220 EDGERTON $46,400 $63,700

Do. ............ 2711250 EDINA $151,300 $151,300

Do. ............ 2711340 ELGIN-MILLVILLE $40,300 $40,300

Do. ............ 2711370 ELK RIVER $317,600 $317,600

Do. ............ 2711460 ELLSWORTH $30,100 $39,000

Do. ............ 2711520 ELY $106,700 $130,500

Do. ............ 2711610 EVANSVILLE $31,500 $42,900

Do. ............ 2711670 MINNETONKA $0 $0

Do. ............ 2711760 FARIBAULT $371,800 $537,900

Do. ............ 2711820 FARMINGTON $206,400 $206,400

Do. ............ 2711880 FERGUS FALLS $380,000 $529,100

Do. ............ 2711910 FERTILE-BELTRAMI $115,300 $149,500

Do. ............ 2712180 FISHER $21,800 $30,700

73

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2004 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2004 GRANTS—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2004 grant Estimated FY2004 grant at full authorized level 

Do. ............ 2712210 FLOODWOOD $63,200 $87,400

Do. ............ 2712240 FOLEY $220,100 $289,500

Do. ............ 2712270 FOREST LAKE $288,300 $288,300

Do. ............ 2712300 FOSSTON $161,400 $205,000

Do. ............ 2712360 FRAZEE $209,400 $257,000

Do. ............ 2712420 FRIDLEY $282,500 $399,000

Do. ............ 2712480 FULDA $58,400 $82,200

Do. ............ 2712580 G.F.W. $163,000 $204,600

Do. ............ 2712900 GOODHUE $42,700 $57,500

Do. ............ 2713020 GOODRIDGE $64,300 $91,100

Do. ............ 2713040 GRANADA HUNTLEY-EAST CHAIN $48,600 $63,000

Do. ............ 2713110 COOK COUNTY $80,800 $116,900

Do. ............ 2713140 GRAND MEADOW $14,600 $14,600

Do. ............ 2713170 GRAND RAPIDS $755,400 $994,300

Do. ............ 2713380 HANCOCK $28,600 $28,600

Do. ............ 2713530 HASTINGS $253,200 $253,200

Do. ............ 2713560 HAWLEY $77,100 $108,900

Do. ............ 2713590 HAYFIELD $59,600 $59,600

Do. ............ 2713680 HENDRICKS $32,100 $45,000

Do. ............ 2713860 HENNING $101,700 $129,400

Do. ............ 2713890 HERMAN-NORCROSS $55,000 $64,600

Do. ............ 2713920 HERMANTOWN $57,000 $57,000

Do. ............ 2713930 HERON LAKE-OKABENA $36,300 $46,200

Do. ............ 2713980 HIBBING $414,400 $583,400

Do. ............ 2714010 HILL CITY $130,600 $170,100

Do. ............ 2714040 HILLS-BEAVER CREEK $32,300 $42,200

Do. ............ 2714070 HINCKLEY-FINLAYSON $319,500 $430,100

Do. ............ 2714190 HOLDINGFORD $120,200 $156,900

Do. ............ 2714220 EDEN PRAIRIE $280,700 $280,700

Do. ............ 2714260 HOPKINS $324,500 $324,500

Do. ............ 2714280 HOUSTON $81,900 $109,700

Do. ............ 2714970 HUTCHINSON $285,200 $412,600

Do. ............ 2715000 INTERNATIONAL FALLS $312,300 $422,300

Do. ............ 2715030 INVER GROVE $374,300 $501,200

Do. ............ 2715510 ISLE $71,300 $92,600

Do. ............ 2715540 IVANHOE $47,700 $65,000

Do. ............ 2715750 JORDAN $95,200 $95,200

Do. ............ 2716830 PRINSBURG $20,500 $26,800

Do. ............ 2716980 KASSON-MANTORVILLE $72,200 $72,200

Do. ............ 2717010 KELLIHER $164,000 $265,500

Do. ............ 2717100 KENYON-WANAMINGO $74,200 $103,000

Do. ............ 2717120 KERKHOVEN-MURDOCK-SUNBURG $86,900 $120,000

Do. ............ 2717220 KIMBALL $125,100 $155,900

Do. ............ 2717250 LACRESCENT-HOKAH $86,900 $86,800

Do. ............ 2717460 LAKE BENTON $27,300 $38,700

Do. ............ 2717520 LAKE CITY $137,100 $197,100

Do. ............ 2717570 LAKE OF THE WOODS $83,000 $117,200

Do. ............ 2717780 LAKEVILLE $0 $0

Do. ............ 2717880 LANCASTER $45,100 $62,900

Do. ............ 2717910 LANESBORO $71,100 $91,900

Do. ............ 2717940 LAPORTE $98,500 $140,800

Do. ............ 2718030 LECENTER $44,500 $44,500

Do. ............ 2718060 LEROY $43,800 $57,200

Do. ............ 2718070 LESUEUR-HENDERSON $167,500 $234,900

Do. ............ 2718090 LEWISTON $132,900 $173,600

Do. ............ 2718210 LITCHFIELD $169,900 $235,300

Do. ............ 2718240 LITTLE FALLS $502,900 $675,400

Do. ............ 2718270 LITTLEFORK-BIG FALLS $62,900 $87,100

Do. ............ 2718330 LUVERNE $162,800 $235,500

Do. ............ 2718360 LYLE $48,100 $56,600

Do. ............ 2718390 LYND $0 $0

74

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2004 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2004 GRANTS—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2004 grant Estimated FY2004 grant at full authorized level 

Do. ............ 2718540 MABEL-CANTON $145,300 $192,800

Do. ............ 2718570 MADELIA $100,900 $139,000

Do. ............ 2718660 MAHNOMEN $265,600 $373,900

Do. ............ 2718750 MAHTOMEDI $81,000 $81,000

Do. ............ 2718780 MANKATO $744,500 $1,055,300

Do. ............ 2718810 MAPLE LAKE $33,500 $33,500

Do. ............ 2718920 GRYGLA $36,100 $46,500

Do. ............ 2718940 MARSHALL $221,600 $306,900

Do. ............ 2718960 MARTIN COUNTY WEST $140,500 $160,800

Do. ............ 2719170 MCGREGOR $201,200 $282,600

Do. ............ 2719320 MEDFORD $24,600 $24,600

Do. ............ 2720550 MELROSE $255,800 $328,100

Do. ............ 2720580 MENAHGA $166,200 $222,500

Do. ............ 2720670 MILACA $240,200 $347,400

Do. ............ 2721210 MILROY $19,500 $27,400

Do. ............ 2721240 MINNEAPOLIS $20,163,000 $31,457,900

Do. ............ 2721270 MINNEOTA $68,900 $97,100

Do. ............ 2721320 MONTEVIDEO $168,800 $239,100

Do. ............ 2721360 MONTGOMERY-LONSDALE $126,600 $177,200

Do. ............ 2721390 MONTICELLO $189,900 $189,900

Do. ............ 2721420 MOORHEAD $870,800 $1,159,800

Do. ............ 2721450 MOOSE LAKE $82,400 $107,700

Do. ............ 2721480 MORA $285,400 $382,600

Do. ............ 2721540 MORRIS $93,900 $129,100

Do. ............ 2722920 WESTONKA $0 $0

Do. ............ 2722950 MOUNDS VIEW $372,300 $372,300

Do. ............ 2723010 MOUNTAIN LAKE $207,200 $289,200

Do. ............ 2723310 NASHWAUK-KEEWATIN $113,200 $163,700

Do. ............ 2723370 NEVIS $68,600 $95,500

Do. ............ 2723400 NEW LONDON-SPICER $109,900 $109,900

Do. ............ 2723430 NEW PRAGUE $72,300 $72,300

Do. ............ 2723490 NEW ULM $262,100 $379,200

Do. ............ 2723520 NEW YORK MILLS $170,600 $238,000

Do. ............ 2723550 NEWFOLDEN $68,100 $85,400

Do. ............ 2723580 NICOLLET $35,600 $50,500

Do. ............ 2723820 NORTH BRANCH $254,000 $367,500

Do. ............ 2723850 NORTH ST. PAUL-MAPLEWOOD $598,500 $598,500

Do. ............ 2723880 NORTHFIELD $226,500 $226,500

Do. ............ 2723910 NORWOOD $78,000 $78,000

Do. ............ 2723970 OGILVIE $170,700 $236,600

Do. ............ 2724030 OKLEE $30,700 $41,600

Do. ............ 2725050 ONAMIA $346,000 $469,700

Do. ............ 2725080 ORONO $0 $0

Do. ............ 2725110 ORTONVILLE $67,300 $86,100

Do. ............ 2725140 OSAKIS $117,300 $144,500

Do. ............ 2725200 OSSEO $816,200 $816,200

Do. ............ 2728050 OWATONNA $408,600 $584,600

Do. ............ 2728080 PARK RAPIDS $352,300 $489,500

Do. ............ 2728110 PARKERS PRAIRIE $82,900 $113,200

Do. ............ 2728140 PAYNESVILLE $178,600 $217,800

Do. ............ 2728170 PELICAN RAPIDS $213,600 $309,000

Do. ............ 2728200 PEQUOT LAKES $148,900 $215,500

Do. ............ 2728230 PERHAM $219,400 $317,400

Do. ............ 2728290 RUSHFORD-PETERSON $67,000 $96,900

Do. ............ 2728320 PIERZ $196,700 $255,200

Do. ............ 2728350 PILLAGER $100,900 $140,100

Do. ............ 2728380 PINE CITY $300,000 $396,200

Do. ............ 2728950 PINE ISLAND $72,800 $103,100

Do. ............ 2728960 PINE POINT $64,200 $94,200

Do. ............ 2728970 PINE RIVER-BACKUS $308,500 $418,000

Do. ............ 2729040 PLAINVIEW $52,300 $52,300

75

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2004 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2004 GRANTS—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2004 grant Estimated FY2004 grant at full authorized level 

Do. ............ 2729070 PLUMMER $33,800 $41,200

Do. ............ 2730030 PRINCETON $167,900 $167,900

Do. ............ 2730060 PRIOR LAKE $170,600 $174,500

Do. ............ 2730090 PROCTOR $118,800 $118,800

Do. ............ 2730150 RANDOLPH $17,800 $17,800

Do. ............ 2730450 RED LAKE FALLS $64,900 $83,200

Do. ............ 2730480 RED WING $266,100 $377,100

Do. ............ 2730510 RED LAKE $1,193,100 $1,921,000

Do. ............ 2730870 REMER $291,600 $440,100

Do. ............ 2731750 RICHFIELD $426,200 $601,200

Do. ............ 2731780 ROBBINSDALE $758,600 $758,600

Do. ............ 2731800 ROCHESTER $1,546,100 $2,247,500

Do. ............ 2732070 ROCKFORD $49,100 $49,100

Do. ............ 2732250 ROSEAU $56,000 $56,000

Do. ............ 2732390 ROSEMOUNT-APPLE VALLEY-EAGAN $719,400 $719,400

Do. ............ 2732430 ROSEVILLE $251,700 $251,700

Do. ............ 2732460 ROTHSAY $27,700 $40,100

Do. ............ 2732490 ROUND LAKE $24,900 $30,900

Do. ............ 2732520 ROYALTON $133,900 $172,500

Do. ............ 2732550 RUSH CITY $113,200 $163,700

Do. ............ 2732640 RUSSELL $18,600 $24,500

Do. ............ 2732670 RUTHTON $45,600 $57,500

Do. ............ 2732700 SOUTH KOOCHICHING $90,300 $126,500

Do. ............ 2732820 SARTELL $192,800 $279,000

Do. ............ 2732850 SAUK CENTRE $176,000 $176,000

Do. ............ 2732880 SAUK RAPIDS $300,200 $434,300

Do. ............ 2732970 SEBEKA $143,600 $181,800

Do. ............ 2733000 SHAKOPEE $155,300 $156,600

Do. ............ 2733210 SLEEPY EYE $118,700 $168,200

Do. ............ 2733270 SOUTH ST. PAUL $300,300 $300,300

Do. ............ 2733300 SPRING GROVE $33,200 $46,000

Do. ............ 2733330 SPRING LAKE PARK $263,700 $263,700

Do. ............ 2733390 SPRINGFIELD $49,200 $49,200

Do. ............ 2733420 ST. ANTHONY-NEW BRIGHTON $47,100 $47,100

Do. ............ 2733450 ST. CHARLES $183,000 $251,400

Do. ............ 2733480 ST. CLAIR $22,500 $22,500

Do. ............ 2733510 ST. CLOUD $1,134,700 $1,608,700

Do. ............ 2733540 ST. FRANCIS $215,000 $215,000

Do. ............ 2733600 ST. JAMES $221,200 $308,400

Do. ............ 2733720 NETT LAKE $40,600 $55,600

Do. ............ 2733780 ST. LOUIS PARK $211,900 $211,900

Do. ............ 2733790 ST. MICHAEL-ALBERTVILLE $64,400 $64,400

Do. ............ 2733810 SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY $353,200 $353,200

Do. ............ 2733840 ST. PAUL $16,931,300 $26,927,700

Do. ............ 2733870 ST. PETER $252,100 $307,200

Do. ............ 2733900 STAPLES-MOTLEY $419,100 $558,400

Do. ............ 2738160 STEWARTVILLE $72,700 $72,700

Do. ............ 2738190 STILLWATER $327,200 $327,200

Do. ............ 2738280 SWANVILLE $61,200 $88,500

Do. ............ 2738850 THIEF RIVER FALLS $281,400 $393,400

Do. ............ 2738880 ESKO $83,700 $120,300

Do. ............ 2740590 TRACY $149,600 $202,100

Do. ............ 2740665 TRITON $134,800 $192,100

Do. ............ 2740680 TRUMAN $64,300 $91,900

Do. ............ 2740740 LAKE SUPERIOR $206,700 $299,000

Do. ............ 2740770 TYLER $65,900 $81,700

Do. ............ 2740810 ULEN-HITTERDAL $167,700 $185,500

Do. ............ 2740830 UNDERWOOD $59,800 $59,800

Do. ............ 2740860 UPSALA $63,700 $86,000

Do. ............ 2740920 VERNDALE $100,800 $107,900

Do. ............ 2741040 VIRGINIA $213,600 $300,800

76

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2004 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2004 GRANTS—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2004 grant Estimated FY2004 grant at full authorized level 

Do. ............ 2741060 WABASHA-KELLOGG $93,600 $124,900

Do. ............ 2741430 WABASSO $100,500 $140,200

Do. ............ 2741460 WACONIA $64,800 $66,400

Do. ............ 2741850 WARROAD $138,600 $200,400

Do. ............ 2741880 WASECA $261,000 $371,000

Do. ............ 2741910 WATERTOWN-MAYER $63,100 $64,700

Do. ............ 2742120 WAUBUN $272,900 $383,400

Do. ............ 2742160 WAYZATA $0 $0

Do. ............ 2742270 WEST ST. PAUL-MENDOTA HTS. $232,800 $232,800

Do. ............ 2742330 WHEATON $51,800 $72,100

Do. ............ 2742360 WHITE BEAR LAKE $357,300 $365,900

Do. ............ 2742720 WILLMAR $809,700 $1,102,200

Do. ............ 2742750 WILLOW RIVER $150,800 $214,100

Do. ............ 2742780 WINDOM $168,600 $214,700

Do. ............ 2744070 WINONA $510,300 $726,600

Do. ............ 2744160 WORTHINGTON $367,200 $531,200

Do. ............ 2744190 WRENSHALL $36,000 $45,400

Do. ............ 2745735 ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA $106,800 $153,700

Do. ............ 2781053 Balance of Hennepin County $0 $0

Do. ............ 2781097 Balance of Morrison County $0 $0

Do. ............ 2791445 LAKE CRYSTAL-WELLCOME MEMORIAL $96,300 $127,500

Do. ............ 2791446 TRI-COUNTY $96,400 $124,200

Do. ............ 2791447 KITTSON CENTRAL $41,800 $57,600

Do. ............ 2791448 HALSTAD-HENDRUM $68,900 $86,100

Do. ............ 2791449 WIN-E-MAC $161,300 $192,000

Do. ............ 2791450 MESABI EAST $256,000 $342,800

Do. ............ 2791451 JANESVILLE-WALDORF-PEMBERTON $135,000 $159,800

Do. ............ 2799998 $0 $0

Do. ............ 2799999 PART D SUBPART 2 $2,036,000 $2,948,500

Important limitations: 

A. Each of these amounts may be reduced by approximately 3% for state administration and school improvement activities. 

B. These amounts may also be reduced to account for grants to charter schools or recent local educational agency (LEA) boundary

changes. 

C. States are also authorized to adjust these amounts for all LEAs serving localities with total population below 20,000 persons (currently 

8 states exercise this authority).

Notice: these are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the relative impact of alternative 

formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended to predict specific amounts which states or LEAs will receive. 

Estimates are based on FY2004 program data. Estimates prepared by CRS. 

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2005 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2005 GRANTS 

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2005 grant Estimated FY2005 grant at 

full authorized level 

Minnesota ..... 2700001 MOUNTAIN IRON-BUHL $152,000 $216,700

Do. ............ 2700005 UNITED SOUTH CENTRAL $161,300 $248,200

Do. ............ 2700006 MAPLE RIVER $155,200 $231,300

Do. ............ 2700007 KINGSLAND $96,900 $137,600

Do. ............ 2700008 ST. LOUIS COUNTY $519,000 $715,600

Do. ............ 2700013 WATERVILLE-ELYSIAN-MORRISTOWN $109,500 $157,900

Do. ............ 2700017 CHISAGO LAKES $226,700 $346,100

Do. ............ 2700019 MINNEWASKA $174,000 $283,200

Do. ............ 2700021 EVELETH-GILBERT $198,200 $276,800

Do. ............ 2700022 WADENA-DEER CREEK $307,200 $440,100

Do. ............ 2700023 BUFFALO LAKE-HECTOR $83,800 $124,000

Do. ............ 2700024 WARREN-ALVARADO-OSLO $72,300 $111,400

Do. ............ 2700088 LAKEVIEW $38,800 $58,200

Do. ............ 2700089 N.R.H.E.G. $84,900 $133,300

Do. ............ 2700090 MURRAY COUNTY $112,800 $188,800

Do. ............ 2700091 M.A.C.C.R.A.Y. $89,400 $142,500

77

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2005 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2005 GRANTS—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2005 grant Estimated FY2005 grant at full authorized level 

Do. ............ 2700099 YELLOW MEDICINE EAST $119,500 $214,700

Do. ............ 2700100 FILLMORE CENTRAL $176,800 $294,000

Do. ............ 2700101 NORMAN COUNTY EAST $65,400 $92,600

Do. ............ 2700102 SIBLEY EAST $162,000 $251,700

Do. ............ 2700103 CLEARBROOK-GONVICK $85,200 $136,300

Do. ............ 2700104 WEST CENTRAL AREA $126,000 $175,000

Do. ............ 2700105 BELGRADE-BROOTEN-ELROSA $221,800 $311,700

Do. ............ 2700106 A.C.G.C. $175,400 $246,300

Do. ............ 2700107 GREENBUSH-MIDDLE RIVER $79,100 $103,300

Do. ............ 2700108 PIPESTONE-JASPER $167,500 $275,800

Do. ............ 2700109 LONG PRAIRIE-GREY EAGLE $334,600 $527,200

Do. ............ 2700110 CEDAR MOUNTAIN $36,900 $55,500

Do. ............ 2700111 REDWOOD FALLS $110,200 $215,800

Do. ............ 2700112 EAGLE VALLEY $121,700 $147,700

Do. ............ 2700123 HOWARD LAKE-WAVERLY-WINSTED $420,000 $181,400

Do. ............ 2700124 FAIRMONT AREA SCHOOLS $137,400 $657,000

Do. ............ 2700125 LAC QUI PARLE VALLEY $52,300 $211,000

Do. ............ 2700126 ADA-BORUP $56,800 $100,100

Do. ............ 2700127 STEPHEN-ARGYLE CENTRAL SCHOOLS $158,600 $94,400

Do. ............ 2700128 GLENCOE-SILVER LAKE $217,900 $218,400

Do. ............ 2700130 BLUE EARTH AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS $108,600 $334,900

Do. ............ 2700131 JACKSON COUNTY CENTRAL $51,700 $275,800

Do. ............ 2700132 RED ROCK CENTRAL $55,800 $150,600

Do. ............ 2700148 GLENVILLE-EMMONS $135,600 $76,800

Do. ............ 2700149 MCLEOD WEST SCHOOLS $108,900 $77,000

Do. ............ 2700150 CLINTON-GRACEVILLE-BEARDSLEY $180,800 $203,700

Do. ............ 2700162 LAKE PARK-AUDUBON $147,400 $160,900

Do. ............ 2700163 RENVILLE COUNTY WEST $55,800 $225,300

Do. ............ 2700183 WESTBROOK-WALNUT GROVE $154,900 $88,800

Do. ............ 2702640 LESTER PRAIRIE $78,200 $99,900

Do. ............ 2702720 SOUTHLAND $63,400 $87,900

Do. ............ 2702730 ADRIAN $97,200 $156,600

Do. ............ 2702760 AITKIN $179,400 $265,200

Do. ............ 2702910 WALKER-HACKENSACK-AKELEY $231,100 $381,300

Do. ............ 2702930 ALBANY $167,500 $257,200

Do. ............ 2702970 ALBERT LEA $498,100 $732,900

Do. ............ 2703030 ALDEN $7,700 $7,700

Do. ............ 2703060 ALEXANDRIA $384,200 $640,300

Do. ............ 2703150 ANNANDALE $188,800 $290,600

Do. ............ 2703180 ANOKA-HENNEPIN $1,763,600 $1,643,200

Do. ............ 2703300 ASHBY $22,300 $38,900

Do. ............ 2703450 AUSTIN $647,800 $990,100

Do. ............ 2703540 BADGER $32,400 $53,700

Do. ............ 2703570 BAGLEY $335,600 $491,500

Do. ............ 2703600 BALATON $32,900 $45,500

Do. ............ 2703660 BARNESVILLE $49,800 $49,800

Do. ............ 2703690 BARNUM $65,900 $109,200

Do. ............ 2703750 BATTLE LAKE $120,600 $167,400

Do. ............ 2703870 BECKER $74,000 $73,500

Do. ............ 2704050 BELLE PLAINE $58,200 $58,700

Do. ............ 2704080 BELLINGHAM $42,700 $58,500

Do. ............ 2704440 BEMIDJI $1,075,500 $1,530,600

Do. ............ 2704470 BENSON $100,700 $140,000

Do. ............ 2705430 BERTHA-HEWITT $142,200 $186,000

Do. ............ 2705460 BIG LAKE $99,900 $98,000

Do. ............ 2705660 BIRD ISLAND-OLIVIA-LAKE LILLIA $118,400 $177,700

Do. ............ 2705730 BLACKDUCK $155,400 $229,600

Do. ............ 2705760 BLOOMING PRAIRIE $137,600 $176,000

Do. ............ 2705790 BLOOMINGTON $404,500 $364,200

Do. ............ 2706060 BRAHAM $107,200 $174,000

Do. ............ 2706090 BRAINERD $1,014,600 $1,534,000

78

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2005 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2005 GRANTS—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2005 grant Estimated FY2005 grant at full authorized level 

Do. ............ 2706120 BRANDON $45,800 $75,900

Do. ............ 2706150 BRECKENRIDGE $127,400 $190,100

Do. ............ 2706180 BREWSTER $31,800 $42,800

Do. ............ 2706240 BROOKLYN CENTER $248,400 $346,000

Do. ............ 2706300 BROWERVILLE $92,800 $144,300

Do. ............ 2707110 BROWNS VALLEY $57,600 $73,200

Do. ............ 2707200 BUFFALO $319,400 $231,100

Do. ............ 2707290 BURNSVILLE $1,030,700 $1,356,000

Do. ............ 2707320 BUTTERFIELD $27,000 $50,000

Do. ............ 2707350 BYRON $44,900 $44,600

Do. ............ 2707380 CALEDONIA $122,900 $211,000

Do. ............ 2707410 CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI $394,300 $612,600

Do. ............ 2707450 CAMPBELL-TINTAH $26,400 $34,400

Do. ............ 2707470 CANBY $92,700 $161,000

Do. ............ 2707500 CANNON FALLS $54,700 $54,700

Do. ............ 2707590 CARLTON $75,300 $133,300

Do. ............ 2708070 CASS LAKE $405,500 $724,100

Do. ............ 2708100 CENTENNIAL $218,800 $201,400

Do. ............ 2708190 CHASKA $262,900 $253,900

Do. ............ 2708220 CHATFIELD $34,600 $35,900

Do. ............ 2708880 FRANCONIA $0 $0

Do. ............ 2708910 CHISHOLM $120,600 $186,900

Do. ............ 2708940 CHOKIO-ALBERTA $34,100 $52,200

Do. ............ 2709330 CLEVELAND $24,900 $24,900

Do. ............ 2709360 CLIMAX $56,700 $85,100

Do. ............ 2709420 CLOQUET $321,800 $489,800

Do. ............ 2709440 COLD SPRING $165,300 $248,000

Do. ............ 2709480 GREENWAY $302,400 $430,300

Do. ............ 2709510 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS $405,400 $581,100

Do. ............ 2709540 COMFREY $38,300 $47,700

Do. ............ 2709690 CROMWELL $54,300 $83,200

Do. ............ 2709720 CROOKSTON $258,000 $405,300

Do. ............ 2709750 CROSBY-IRONTON $282,300 $434,500

Do. ............ 2709960 CYRUS $23,700 $36,400

Do. ............ 2710060 DASSEL-COKATO $185,400 $290,600

Do. ............ 2710090 DAWSON-BOYD $46,900 $69,000

Do. ............ 2710140 DEER RIVER $356,100 $627,800

Do. ............ 2710170 DELANO $75,200 $75,200

Do. ............ 2710230 DETROIT LAKES $613,700 $932,100

Do. ............ 2710260 DILWORTH-GLYNDON-FELTON $213,200 $329,500

Do. ............ 2711010 DOVER-EYOTA $61,400 $61,400

Do. ............ 2711040 DULUTH $2,496,300 $3,863,600

Do. ............ 2711085 EAST CENTRAL $257,500 $411,600

Do. ............ 2711130 EAST GRAND FORKS $277,000 $389,200

Do. ............ 2711190 EDEN VALLEY $89,400 $133,300

Do. ............ 2711220 EDGERTON $41,000 $64,800

Do. ............ 2711250 EDINA $161,300 $143,600

Do. ............ 2711340 ELGIN-MILLVILLE $34,200 $34,200

Do. ............ 2711370 ELK RIVER $275,400 $269,900

Do. ............ 2711460 ELLSWORTH $26,500 $38,200

Do. ............ 2711520 ELY $94,700 $124,300

Do. ............ 2711610 EVANSVILLE $28,000 $42,900

Do. ............ 2711670 MINNETONKA $0 $0

Do. ............ 2711760 FARIBAULT $428,900 $595,900

Do. ............ 2711820 FARMINGTON $315,000 $201,400

Do. ............ 2711880 FERGUS FALLS $349,600 $557,100

Do. ............ 2711910 FERTILE-BELTRAMI $102,100 $146,300

Do. ............ 2712180 FISHER $20,100 $33,300

Do. ............ 2712210 FLOODWOOD $67,500 $94,600

Do. ............ 2712240 FOLEY $202,600 $285,100

Do. ............ 2712270 FOREST LAKE $250,300 $246,900

79

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2005 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2005 GRANTS—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2005 grant Estimated FY2005 grant at full authorized level 

Do. ............ 2712300 FOSSTON $150,900 $198,800

Do. ............ 2712360 FRAZEE $185,200 $245,200

Do. ............ 2712420 FRIDLEY $308,300 $434,900

Do. ............ 2712480 FULDA $51,600 $88,800

Do. ............ 2712580 G.F.W. $144,500 $197,400

Do. ............ 2712900 GOODHUE $38,600 $57,300

Do. ............ 2713020 GOODRIDGE $57,900 $98,000

Do. ............ 2713040 GRANADA HUNTLEY-EAST CHAIN $43,300 $61,700

Do. ............ 2713110 COOK COUNTY $68,700 $129,600

Do. ............ 2713140 GRAND MEADOW $20,100 $13,100

Do. ............ 2713170 GRAND RAPIDS $672,800 $983,500

Do. ............ 2713530 HASTINGS $215,200 $215,200

Do. ............ 2713560 HAWLEY $71,500 $118,400

Do. ............ 2713590 HAYFIELD $50,700 $50,700

Do. ............ 2713680 HENDRICKS $27,300 $49,000

Do. ............ 2713860 HENNING $90,800 $125,700

Do. ............ 2713890 HERMAN-NORCROSS $47,300 $60,800

Do. ............ 2713920 HERMANTOWN $54,300 $54,300

Do. ............ 2713930 HERON LAKE-OKABENA $31,000 $44,900

Do. ............ 2713980 HIBBING $394,300 $631,100

Do. ............ 2714010 HILL CITY $126,600 $172,100

Do. ............ 2714040 HILLS-BEAVER CREEK $21,900 $41,400

Do. ............ 2714070 HINCKLEY-FINLAYSON $310,300 $461,300

Do. ............ 2714190 HOLDINGFORD $109,500 $154,000

Do. ............ 2714220 EDEN PRAIRIE $310,900 $271,400

Do. ............ 2714260 HOPKINS $358,900 $310,800

Do. ............ 2714280 HOUSTON $71,700 $113,400

Do. ............ 2714970 HUTCHINSON $338,400 $457,100

Do. ............ 2715000 INTERNATIONAL FALLS $273,300 $447,500

Do. ............ 2715030 INVER GROVE $351,800 $497,400

Do. ............ 2715510 ISLE $64,600 $90,700

Do. ............ 2715540 IVANHOE $40,600 $70,300

Do. ............ 2715750 JORDAN $80,900 $80,900

Do. ............ 2716830 PRINSBURG $18,700 $26,400

Do. ............ 2716980 KASSON-MANTORVILLE $61,400 $61,400

Do. ............ 2717010 KELLIHER $194,000 $298,600

Do. ............ 2717100 KENYON-WANAMINGO $69,200 $107,300

Do. ............ 2717120 KERKHOVEN-MURDOCK-SUNBURG $86,800 $130,000

Do. ............ 2717220 KIMBALL $113,700 $149,800

Do. ............ 2717250 LACRESCENT-HOKAH $73,800 $73,800

Do. ............ 2717460 LAKE BENTON $23,300 $42,600

Do. ............ 2717520 LAKE CITY $132,900 $218,400

Do. ............ 2717570 LAKE OF THE WOODS $70,900 $127,700

Do. ............ 2717880 LANCASTER $38,300 $69,300

Do. ............ 2717910 LANESBORO $61,800 $89,900

Do. ............ 2717940 LAPORTE $88,700 $155,800

Do. ............ 2718030 LECENTER $37,800 $37,800

Do. ............ 2718060 LEROY $39,700 $56,100

Do. ............ 2718070 LESUEUR-HENDERSON $151,900 $251,700

Do. ............ 2718090 LEWISTON $118,800 $170,400

Do. ............ 2718210 LITCHFIELD $170,900 $244,300

Do. ............ 2718240 LITTLE FALLS $471,700 $703,600

Do. ............ 2718270 LITTLEFORK-BIG FALLS $53,700 $94,300

Do. ............ 2718330 LUVERNE $146,300 $261,000

Do. ............ 2718360 LYLE $42,200 $53,200

Do. ............ 2718390 LYND $0 $0

Do. ............ 2718540 MABEL-CANTON $132,900 $198,100

Do. ............ 2718570 MADELIA $91,000 $150,500

Do. ............ 2718660 MAHNOMEN $295,100 $402,900

Do. ............ 2718750 MAHTOMEDI $83,400 $75,300

Do. ............ 2718780 MANKATO $789,700 $1,160,400

80

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2005 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2005 GRANTS—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2005 grant Estimated FY2005 grant at full authorized level 

Do. ............ 2718810 MAPLE LAKE $28,500 $28,500

Do. ............ 2718920 GRYGLA $30,700 $45,400

Do. ............ 2718940 MARSHALL $199,800 $318,300

Do. ............ 2718960 MARTIN COUNTY WEST $120,300 $149,500

Do. ............ 2719170 MCGREGOR $195,200 $311,900

Do. ............ 2719320 MEDFORD $20,900 $20,900

Do. ............ 2720550 MELROSE $231,000 $319,600

Do. ............ 2720580 MENAHGA $160,000 $231,300

Do. ............ 2720670 MILACA $226,700 $384,900

Do. ............ 2721210 MILROY $20,100 $29,600

Do. ............ 2721240 MINNEAPOLIS $23,256,300 $33,958,900

Do. ............ 2721270 MINNEOTA $70,400 $105,500

Do. ............ 2721320 MONTEVIDEO $162,000 $262,800

Do. ............ 2721360 MONTGOMERY-LONSDALE $115,000 $188,800

Do. ............ 2721390 MONTICELLO $161,400 $161,400

Do. ............ 2721420 MOORHEAD $771,500 $1,189,600

Do. ............ 2721450 MOOSE LAKE $71,500 $105,800

Do. ............ 2721480 MORA $255,000 $396,600

Do. ............ 2721540 MORRIS $80,200 $131,400

Do. ............ 2722950 MOUNDS VIEW $391,900 $381,700

Do. ............ 2723010 MOUNTAIN LAKE $189,600 $315,800

Do. ............ 2723310 NASHWAUK-KEEWATIN $100,500 $181,400

Do. ............ 2723370 NEVIS $59,200 $103,600

Do. ............ 2723400 NEW LONDON-SPICER $93,400 $93,400

Do. ............ 2723430 NEW PRAGUE $72,400 $70,900

Do. ............ 2723490 NEW ULM $254,700 $420,100

Do. ............ 2723520 NEW YORK MILLS $173,500 $262,200

Do. ............ 2723550 NEWFOLDEN $58,000 $82,400

Do. ............ 2723580 NICOLLET $40,200 $55,500

Do. ............ 2723820 NORTH BRANCH $251,300 $407,200

Do. ............ 2723850 NORTH ST. PAUL-MAPLEWOOD $539,100 $533,100

Do. ............ 2723880 NORTHFIELD $273,100 $192,600

Do. ............ 2723910 NORWOOD $66,300 $66,300

Do. ............ 2723970 OGILVIE $166,200 $260,500

Do. ............ 2724030 OKLEE $26,900 $41,500

Do. ............ 2725050 ONAMIA $320,600 $492,200

Do. ............ 2725080 ORONO $0 $0

Do. ............ 2725110 ORTONVILLE $59,600 $83,800

Do. ............ 2725140 OSAKIS $102,700 $138,200

Do. ............ 2725200 OSSEO $701,200 $693,700

Do. ............ 2728050 OWATONNA $425,500 $647,800

Do. ............ 2728080 PARK RAPIDS $321,000 $530,700

Do. ............ 2728110 PARKERS PRAIRIE $81,100 $122,500

Do. ............ 2728140 PAYNESVILLE $158,500 $207,100

Do. ............ 2728170 PELICAN RAPIDS $220,000 $342,400

Do. ............ 2728200 PEQUOT LAKES $141,800 $238,700

Do. ............ 2728230 PERHAM $226,700 $351,600

Do. ............ 2728290 RUSHFORD-PETERSON $63,700 $107,300

Do. ............ 2728320 PIERZ $175,600 $251,300

Do. ............ 2728350 PILLAGER $91,600 $151,800

Do. ............ 2728380 PINE CITY $267,000 $395,200

Do. ............ 2728950 PINE ISLAND $73,700 $112,900

Do. ............ 2728960 PINE POINT $64,300 $101,400

Do. ............ 2728970 PINE RIVER-BACKUS $286,400 $451,500

Do. ............ 2729040 PLAINVIEW $63,000 $44,600

Do. ............ 2729070 PLUMMER $28,900 $39,200

Do. ............ 2730030 PRINCETON $142,800 $142,800

Do. ............ 2730060 PRIOR LAKE $177,900 $179,500

Do. ............ 2730090 PROCTOR $100,900 $100,900

Do. ............ 2730150 RANDOLPH $15,100 $15,100

Do. ............ 2730450 RED LAKE FALLS $55,300 $81,100

81

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2005 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2005 GRANTS—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2005 grant Estimated FY2005 grant at full authorized level 

Do. ............ 2730480 RED WING $264,700 $414,600

Do. ............ 2730510 RED LAKE $1,295,100 $2,146,400

Do. ............ 2730870 REMER $285,500 $492,000

Do. ............ 2731750 RICHFIELD $490,300 $653,300

Do. ............ 2731780 ROBBINSDALE $1,158,900 $689,000

Do. ............ 2731800 ROCHESTER $1,658,800 $2,410,600

Do. ............ 2732070 ROCKFORD $49,600 $49,000

Do. ............ 2732250 ROSEAU $49,600 $51,700

Do. ............ 2732390 ROSEMOUNT-APPLE VALLEY-EAGAN $790,100 $711,700

Do. ............ 2732430 ROSEVILLE $213,900 $213,900

Do. ............ 2732460 ROTHSAY $26,800 $44,400

Do. ............ 2732490 ROUND LAKE $21,500 $29,600

Do. ............ 2732520 ROYALTON $119,100 $168,400

Do. ............ 2732550 RUSH CITY $112,800 $181,400

Do. ............ 2732640 RUSSELL $16,400 $24,200

Do. ............ 2732670 RUTHTON $40,100 $55,600

Do. ............ 2732700 SOUTH KOOCHICHING $81,600 $139,100

Do. ............ 2732820 SARTELL $210,000 $309,100

Do. ............ 2732850 SAUK CENTRE $173,700 $149,600

Do. ............ 2732880 SAUK RAPIDS $334,000 $481,200

Do. ............ 2732970 SEBEKA $127,000 $176,000

Do. ............ 2733000 SHAKOPEE $161,300 $161,100

Do. ............ 2733210 SLEEPY EYE $108,300 $185,100

Do. ............ 2733270 SOUTH ST. PAUL $328,500 $255,300

Do. ............ 2733300 SPRING GROVE $29,300 $48,100

Do. ............ 2733330 SPRING LAKE PARK $224,100 $224,100

Do. ............ 2733390 SPRINGFIELD $53,400 $41,800

Do. ............ 2733420 ST. ANTHONY-NEW BRIGHTON $75,900 $45,500

Do. ............ 2733450 ST. CHARLES $177,800 $272,700

Do. ............ 2733480 ST. CLAIR $19,100 $19,100

Do. ............ 2733510 ST. CLOUD $1,153,800 $1,692,700

Do. ............ 2733540 ST. FRANCIS $209,300 $206,600

Do. ............ 2733600 ST. JAMES $190,700 $335,000

Do. ............ 2733720 NETT LAKE $37,700 $57,600

Do. ............ 2733780 ST. LOUIS PARK $293,700 $181,200

Do. ............ 2733790 ST. MICHAEL-ALBERTVILLE $62,200 $61,300

Do. ............ 2733810 SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY $348,600 $348,400

Do. ............ 2733840 ST. PAUL $18,258,100 $29,969,200

Do. ............ 2733870 ST. PETER $221,400 $292,000

Do. ............ 2733900 STAPLES-MOTLEY $393,200 $576,400

Do. ............ 2738160 STEWARTVILLE $61,800 $61,800

Do. ............ 2738190 STILLWATER $340,800 $333,500

Do. ............ 2738280 SWANVILLE $62,500 $98,100

Do. ............ 2738850 THIEF RIVER FALLS $250,900 $418,300

Do. ............ 2738880 ESKO $79,300 $133,300

Do. ............ 2740590 TRACY $141,300 $214,600

Do. ............ 2740665 TRITON $126,200 $212,800

Do. ............ 2740680 TRUMAN $59,200 $101,800

Do. ............ 2740740 LAKE SUPERIOR $201,000 $331,300

Do. ............ 2740770 TYLER $56,000 $78,400

Do. ............ 2740810 ULEN-HITTERDAL $42,600 $168,500

Do. ............ 2740830 UNDERWOOD $50,900 $50,900

Do. ............ 2740860 UPSALA $60,000 $90,800

Do. ............ 2740920 VERNDALE $85,600 $99,800

Do. ............ 2741040 VIRGINIA $210,000 $325,700

Do. ............ 2741060 WABASHA-KELLOGG $86,700 $123,700

Do. ............ 2741430 WABASSO $114,100 $152,300

Do. ............ 2741460 WACONIA $69,300 $68,300

Do. ............ 2741850 WARROAD $129,600 $222,100

Do. ............ 2741880 WASECA $273,600 $410,900

Do. ............ 2741910 WATERTOWN-MAYER $63,700 $66,500

82

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2005 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2005 GRANTS—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2005 grant Estimated FY2005 grant at full authorized level 

Do. ............ 2742120 WAUBUN $269,200 $404,000

Do. ............ 2742160 WAYZATA $0 $0

Do. ............ 2742270 WEST ST. PAUL-MENDOTA HTS. $254,200 $228,500

Do. ............ 2742330 WHEATON $46,200 $75,900

Do. ............ 2742360 WHITE BEAR LAKE $380,900 $376,400

Do. ............ 2742720 WILLMAR $830,500 $1,190,800

Do. ............ 2742750 WILLOW RIVER $147,000 $236,700

Do. ............ 2742780 WINDOM $149,100 $208,400

Do. ............ 2744070 WINONA $512,700 $805,100

Do. ............ 2744160 WORTHINGTON $339,500 $588,500

Do. ............ 2744190 WRENSHALL $25,300 $43,900

Do. ............ 2745735 ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA $109,500 $170,300

Do. ............ 2781037 Balance of Dakota County $0 $0

Do. ............ 2781053 Balance of Hennepin County $0 $0

Do. ............ 2781097 Balance of Morrison County $0 $0

Do. ............ 2791445 LAKE CRYSTAL-WELLCOME MEMORIAL $86,600 $125,900

Do. ............ 2791446 TRI-COUNTY $82,000 $121,200

Do. ............ 2791447 KITTSON CENTRAL $35,500 $59,200

Do. ............ 2791448 HALSTAD-HENDRUM $59,300 $82,900

Do. ............ 2791449 WIN-E-MAC $138,900 $181,900

Do. ............ 2791450 MESABI EAST $260,200 $359,200

Do. ............ 2791451 JANESVILLE-WALDORF-PEMBERTON $117,800 $150,000

Do. ............ 2799999 PART D SUBPART 2 $1,947,800 $3,270,700

Important limitations: 

A. Each of these amounts may be reduced by approximately 5% for state administration and school improvement activities. 

B. These amounts may also be reduced to account for grants to charter schools or recent local educational agency (LEA) boundary

changes. 

C. States are also authorized to adjust these amounts for all LEAs serving localities with total population below 20,000 persons (currently 

8 states exercise this authority).

Notice: these are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended to predict specific amounts which states or LEAs will receive. Estimates are based on FY2005 program data. Estimates prepared by CRS. 

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2006 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2006 GRANTS AT THE LEVEL PROVIDED 

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2006 grant Estimated FY2006 grant at full authorized level 

Minnesota ....... 2700001 MOUNTAIN IRON-BUHL $142,300 $230,100

Do. .............. 2700005 UNITED SOUTH CENTRAL $138,900 $222,100

Do. .............. 2700006 MAPLE RIVER $157,800 $257,600

Do. .............. 2700007 KINGSLAND $84,400 $118,900

Do. .............. 2700008 ST. LOUIS COUNTY $451,600 $687,100

Do. .............. 2700013 WATERVILLE-ELYSIAN-MORRISTOWN $98,700 $157,100

Do. .............. 2700017 CHISAGO LAKES $229,300 $400,100

Do. .............. 2700019 MINNEWASKA $151,000 $246,600

Do. .............. 2700021 EVELETH-GILBERT $175,400 $275,500

Do. .............. 2700022 WADENA-DEER CREEK $265,700 $410,300

Do. .............. 2700023 BUFFALO LAKE-HECTOR $81,700 $133,400

Do. .............. 2700024 WARREN-ALVARADO-OSLO $64,700 $104,300

Do. .............. 2700088 LAKEVIEW $34,200 $54,000

Do. .............. 2700089 N.R.H.E.G. $87,400 $144,300

Do. .............. 2700090 MURRAY COUNTY CENTRAL $97,600 $157,100

Do. .............. 2700091 M.A.C.C.R.A.Y. $86,300 $142,500

Do. .............. 2700099 YELLOW MEDICINE EAST $104,400 $177,200

Do. .............. 2700100 FILLMORE CENTRAL $164,300 $252,200

Do. .............. 2700101 NORMAN COUNTY EAST $58,000 $88,300

Do. .............. 2700102 SIBLEY EAST $163,400 $270,400

Do. .............. 2700103 CLEARBROOK-GONVICK $74,700 $124,000

Do. .............. 2700104 WEST CENTRAL AREA $109,800 $158,800

83

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2006 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2006 GRANTS AT THE LEVEL 

PROVIDED—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2006 grant Estimated FY2006 grant at 

full authorized level 

Do. .............. 2700105 BELGRADE-BROOTEN-ELROSA $234,100 $372,000

Do. .............. 2700106 A.C.G.C. $163,200 $273,000

Do. .............. 2700107 GREENBUSH-MIDDLE RIVER $68,400 $91,600

Do. .............. 2700108 PIPESTONE AREA SCHOOLS $148,700 $248,500

Do. .............. 2700109 LONG PRAIRIE-GREY EAGLE $302,400 $459,600

Do. .............. 2700110 CEDAR MOUNTAIN $32,900 $54,800

Do. .............. 2700112 EAGLE VALLEY $95,100 $128,000

Do. .............. 2700123 HOWARD LAKE-WAVERLY-WINSTED $131,700 $219,200

Do. .............. 2700124 FAIRMONT AREA SCHOOLS $403,300 $646,600

Do. .............. 2700125 LAC QUI PARLE VALLEY $131,700 $215,600

Do. .............. 2700126 ADA-BORUP $53,300 $89,500

Do. .............. 2700127 STEPHEN-ARGYLE CENTRAL SCHOOLS $51,500 $84,000

Do. .............. 2700128 GLENCOE-SILVER LAKE $133,800 $248,500

Do. .............. 2700130 BLUE EARTH AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL $182,400 $305,100

Do. .............. 2700132 RED ROCK CENTRAL $94,700 $141,300

Do. .............. 2700148 GLENVILLE-EMMONS $45,800 $73,100

Do. .............. 2700149 MCLEOD WEST SCHOOLS $47,800 $78,600

Do. .............. 2700150 CLINTON-GRACEVILLE-BEARDSLEY $116,200 $167,200

Do. .............. 2700162 LAKE PARK-AUDUBON DISTRICT $102,100 $156,800

Do. .............. 2700163 RENVILLE COUNTY WEST $157,200 $213,200

Do. .............. 2700182 REDWOOD FALLS AREA SCHOOLS $124,300 $226,500

Do. .............. 2700183 WESTBROOK-WALNUT GROVE SCHOOLS $53,300 $89,500

Do. .............. 2700231 JACKSON COUNTY CENTRAL $153,200 $252,100

Do. .............. 2702640 LESTER PRAIRIE $76,000 $129,700

Do. .............. 2702720 SOUTHLAND $57,000 $88,200

Do. .............. 2702730 ADRIAN $89,900 $140,200

Do. .............. 2702760 AITKIN $157,000 $251,100

Do. .............. 2702910 WALKER-HACKENSACK-AKELEY $201,800 $326,300

Do. .............. 2702930 ALBANY $170,200 $277,700

Do. .............. 2702970 ALBERT LEA $451,700 $783,800

Do. .............. 2703030 ALDEN $6,500 $6,500

Do. .............. 2703060 ALEXANDRIA $367,700 $626,700

Do. .............. 2703150 ANNANDALE $219,000 $361,700

Do. .............. 2703180 ANOKA-HENNEPIN $1,727,900 $5,384,500

Do. .............. 2703300 ASHBY $22,700 $36,500

Do. .............. 2703450 AUSTIN $668,500 $1,114,500

Do. .............. 2703540 BADGER $31,800 $51,200

Do. .............. 2703570 BAGLEY $303,000 $440,500

Do. .............. 2703600 BALATON $24,100 $33,800

Do. .............. 2703660 BARNESVILLE $42,300 $42,300

Do. .............. 2703690 BARNUM $54,600 $106,000

Do. .............. 2703750 BATTLE LAKE $101,900 $149,800

Do. .............. 2703870 BECKER $77,700 $86,200

Do. .............. 2704050 BELLE PLAINE $106,700 $182,700

Do. .............. 2704080 BELLINGHAM $38,500 $54,800

Do. .............. 2704440 BEMIDJI $912,600 $1,511,400

Do. .............. 2704470 BENSON $83,600 $135,200

Do. .............. 2705430 BERTHA-HEWITT $120,800 $159,900

Do. .............. 2705460 BIG LAKE $102,200 $117,100

Do. .............. 2705660 BIRD ISLAND-OLIVIA-LAKE LILLIAN $113,500 $188,200

Do. .............. 2705730 BLACKDUCK $138,200 $227,600

Do. .............. 2705760 BLOOMING PRAIRIE $120,600 $169,300

Do. .............. 2705790 BLOOMINGTON $406,600 $445,800

Do. .............. 2706060 BRAHAM $111,200 $191,800

Do. .............. 2706090 BRAINERD $907,600 $1,551,400

Do. .............. 2706120 BRANDON $46,500 $74,900

Do. .............. 2706150 BRECKENRIDGE $111,100 $172,300

Do. .............. 2706180 BREWSTER $27,500 $36,300

Do. .............. 2706240 BROOKLYN CENTER $223,700 $418,300

Do. .............. 2706300 BROWERVILLE $81,700 $128,300

84

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2006 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2006 GRANTS AT THE LEVEL 

PROVIDED—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2006 grant Estimated FY2006 grant at 

full authorized level 

Do. .............. 2707110 BROWNS VALLEY $51,400 $69,400

Do. .............. 2707200 BUFFALO $342,800 $595,600

Do. .............. 2707290 BURNSVILLE $1,249,300 $2,189,000

Do. .............. 2707320 BUTTERFIELD $25,000 $40,200

Do. .............. 2707350 BYRON $49,100 $52,100

Do. .............. 2707380 CALEDONIA $121,400 $204,600

Do. .............. 2707410 CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI $373,400 $668,700

Do. .............. 2707450 CAMPBELL-TINTAH $23,600 $35,700

Do. .............. 2707470 CANBY $78,400 $131,500

Do. .............. 2707500 CANNON FALLS $46,500 $48,800

Do. .............. 2707590 CARLTON $64,900 $118,800

Do. .............. 2708070 CASS LAKE-BENA SCHOOLS $343,900 $593,900

Do. .............. 2708100 CENTENNIAL $218,000 $243,200

Do. .............. 2708190 CHASKA $283,800 $309,900

Do. .............. 2708220 CHATFIELD $33,300 $82,200

Do. .............. 2708880 FRANCONIA $0 $0

Do. .............. 2708910 CHISHOLM $116,900 $193,700

Do. .............. 2708940 CHOKIO-ALBERTA $30,700 $46,100

Do. .............. 2709330 CLEVELAND $21,200 $21,200

Do. .............. 2709360 CLIMAX $51,000 $74,500

Do. .............. 2709420 CLOQUET $278,900 $475,700

Do. .............. 2709440 ROCORI $162,300 $270,400

Do. .............. 2709480 GREENWAY $258,400 $453,600

Do. .............. 2709510 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS $465,300 $760,000

Do. .............. 2709540 COMFREY $33,200 $43,300

Do. .............. 2709690 CROMWELL-WRIGHT $58,600 $99,300

Do. .............. 2709720 CROOKSTON $233,800 $425,700

Do. .............. 2709750 CROSBY-IRONTON $263,600 $432,000

Do. .............. 2709960 CYRUS $20,800 $31,900

Do. .............. 2710060 DASSEL-COKATO $177,100 $328,900

Do. .............. 2710090 DAWSON-BOYD $39,600 $73,100

Do. .............. 2710140 DEER RIVER $309,800 $534,600

Do. .............. 2710170 DELANO $63,900 $63,900

Do. .............. 2710230 DETROIT LAKES $552,800 $898,500

Do. .............. 2710260 DILWORTH-GLYNDON-FELTON $214,300 $339,700

Do. .............. 2711010 DOVER-EYOTA $52,200 $52,200

Do. .............. 2711040 DULUTH $2,137,600 $4,072,600

Do. .............. 2711085 EAST CENTRAL $231,700 $381,000

Do. .............. 2711130 EAST GRAND FORKS $243,400 $381,700

Do. .............. 2711190 EDEN VALLEY-WATKINS $90,800 $148,000

Do. .............. 2711220 EDGERTON $35,600 $58,500

Do. .............. 2711250 EDINA $174,400 $179,000

Do. .............. 2711340 ELGIN-MILLVILLE $29,100 $29,100

Do. .............. 2711370 ELK RIVER $275,800 $308,300

Do. .............. 2711460 ELLSWORTH $23,300 $34,700

Do. .............. 2711520 ELY $81,600 $118,600

Do. .............. 2711610 EVANSVILLE $27,200 $43,800

Do. .............. 2711670 MINNETONKA $0 $0

Do. .............. 2711760 FARIBAULT $390,400 $681,500

Do. .............. 2711820 FARMINGTON $377,900 $613,900

Do. .............. 2711880 FERGUS FALLS $299,400 $511,600

Do. .............. 2711910 FERTILE-BELTRAMI $90,400 $137,400

Do. .............. 2712180 FISHER $21,600 $34,700

Do. .............. 2712210 FLOODWOOD $57,100 $104,000

Do. .............. 2712240 FOLEY $180,300 $292,300

Do. .............. 2712270 FOREST LAKE $301,200 $322,100

Do. .............. 2712300 FOSSTON $131,800 $201,900

Do. .............. 2712360 FRAZEE $161,400 $229,200

Do. .............. 2712420 FRIDLEY $350,700 $590,100

Do. .............. 2712480 FULDA $44,300 $73,100

85

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2006 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2006 GRANTS AT THE LEVEL 

PROVIDED—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2006 grant Estimated FY2006 grant at 

full authorized level 

Do. .............. 2712580 G.F.W. $127,600 $185,300

Do. .............. 2712900 GOODHUE $39,700 $63,900

Do. .............. 2713020 GOODRIDGE $50,800 $74,900

Do. .............. 2713040 GRANADA HUNTLEY-EAST CHAIN $37,900 $58,800

Do. .............. 2713110 COOK COUNTY $63,600 $102,300

Do. .............. 2713140 GRAND MEADOW $12,700 $34,700

Do. .............. 2713170 GRAND RAPIDS $567,300 $954,700

Do. .............. 2713530 HASTINGS $196,600 $235,900

Do. .............. 2713560 HAWLEY $71,500 $122,400

Do. .............. 2713590 HAYFIELD $43,100 $43,100

Do. .............. 2713680 HENDRICKS $23,500 $35,600

Do. .............. 2713860 HENNING $77,500 $113,800

Do. .............. 2713890 HERMAN-NORCROSS $41,100 $54,500

Do. .............. 2713920 HERMANTOWN $46,200 $55,300

Do. .............. 2713930 HERON LAKE-OKABENA $27,400 $38,800

Do. .............. 2713980 HIBBING $382,500 $634,000

Do. .............. 2714010 HILL CITY $111,600 $174,000

Do. .............. 2714040 HILLS-BEAVER CREEK $24,800 $36,900

Do. .............. 2714070 HINCKLEY-FINLAYSON $263,900 $424,400

Do. .............. 2714190 HOLDINGFORD $98,000 $154,700

Do. .............. 2714220 EDEN PRAIRIE $326,600 $344,100

Do. .............. 2714260 HOPKINS $540,200 $889,700

Do. .............. 2714280 HOUSTON $71,800 $112,400

Do. .............. 2714970 HUTCHINSON $285,700 $535,300

Do. .............. 2715000 INTERNATIONAL FALLS $250,200 $413,000

Do. .............. 2715030 INVER GROVE $423,300 $703,400

Do. .............. 2715510 ISLE $56,200 $98,800

Do. .............. 2715540 IVANHOE $35,200 $52,600

Do. .............. 2715750 JORDAN $68,800 $68,800

Do. .............. 2716830 PRINSBURG $16,500 $25,900

Do. .............. 2716980 KASSON-MANTORVILLE $52,200 $54,500

Do. .............. 2717010 KELLIHER $168,600 $294,900

Do. .............. 2717100 KENYON-WANAMINGO $73,800 $124,200

Do. .............. 2717120 KERKHOVEN-MURDOCK-SUNBURG $83,200 $130,700

Do. .............. 2717220 KIMBALL $98,500 $151,900

Do. .............. 2717250 LACRESCENT-HOKAH $62,700 $62,700

Do. .............. 2717460 LAKE BENTON $20,200 $31,600

Do. .............. 2717520 LAKE CITY $131,700 $221,100

Do. .............. 2717570 LAKE OF THE WOODS $62,000 $100,500

Do. .............. 2717880 LANCASTER $32,200 $46,800

Do. .............. 2717910 LANESBORO $53,500 $78,000

Do. .............. 2717940 LAPORTE $76,900 $123,100

Do. .............. 2718030 LECENTER $32,100 $70,600

Do. .............. 2718060 LEROY $35,900 $56,700

Do. .............. 2718070 LESUEUR-HENDERSON $163,400 $266,700

Do. .............. 2718090 LEWISTON-ALTURA $112,500 $174,600

Do. .............. 2718210 LITCHFIELD $160,000 $266,700

Do. .............. 2718240 LITTLE FALLS $402,200 $627,900

Do. .............. 2718270 LITTLEFORK-BIG FALLS $47,100 $77,500

Do. .............. 2718330 LUVERNE $135,100 $230,200

Do. .............. 2718360 LYLE $36,100 $49,500

Do. .............. 2718390 LYND $0 $0

Do. .............. 2718540 MABEL-CANTON $120,400 $173,800

Do. .............. 2718570 MADELIA $77,600 $130,500

Do. .............. 2718660 MAHNOMEN $251,000 $407,200

Do. .............. 2718750 MAHTOMEDI $93,500 $104,900

Do. .............. 2718780 MANKATO $794,700 $1,355,800

Do. .............. 2718810 MAPLE LAKE $25,400 $30,900

Do. .............. 2718920 GRYGLA $27,600 $40,400

Do. .............. 2718940 MARSHALL $202,000 $343,500

86

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2006 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2006 GRANTS AT THE LEVEL 

PROVIDED—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2006 grant Estimated FY2006 grant at 

full authorized level 

Do. .............. 2718960 MARTIN COUNTY WEST $103,200 $134,500

Do. .............. 2719170 MCGREGOR $185,900 $295,200

Do. .............. 2719320 MEDFORD $17,800 $17,900

Do. .............. 2720550 MELROSE $212,000 $328,500

Do. .............. 2720580 MENAHGA $149,400 $231,300

Do. .............. 2720670 MILACA $211,100 $376,400

Do. .............. 2721210 MILROY $19,300 $31,100

Do. .............. 2721240 MINNEAPOLIS $24,532,900 $48,341,400

Do. .............. 2721270 MINNEOTA $65,800 $118,800

Do. .............. 2721320 MONTEVIDEO $161,200 $270,400

Do. .............. 2721360 MONTGOMERY-LONSDALE $119,200 $197,300

Do. .............. 2721390 MONTICELLO $137,200 $142,400

Do. .............. 2721420 MOORHEAD $750,000 $1,203,000

Do. .............. 2721450 MOOSE LAKE $62,300 $95,300

Do. .............. 2721480 MORA $218,400 $357,700

Do. .............. 2721540 MORRIS $71,800 $115,100

Do. .............. 2722950 MOUNDS VIEW $369,400 $395,400

Do. .............. 2723010 MOUNTAIN LAKE $169,600 $257,200

Do. .............. 2723310 NASHWAUK-KEEWATIN $85,900 $158,900

Do. .............. 2723370 NEVIS $51,600 $83,000

Do. .............. 2723400 NEW LONDON-SPICER $79,400 $79,400

Do. .............. 2723430 NEW PRAGUE AREA SCHOOLS $74,500 $81,300

Do. .............. 2723490 NEW ULM $254,200 $433,000

Do. .............. 2723520 NEW YORK MILLS $154,900 $232,600

Do. .............. 2723550 MARSHALL COUNTY CENTRAL SCHOOLS $50,900 $72,400

Do. .............. 2723580 NICOLLET $35,200 $67,600

Do. .............. 2723820 NORTH BRANCH $247,400 $442,100

Do. .............. 2723850 NORTH ST PAUL-MAPLEWOOD $841,700 $1,502,800

Do. .............. 2723880 NORTHFIELD $255,400 $429,300

Do. .............. 2723910 NORWOOD $56,300 $56,300

Do. .............. 2723970 OGILVIE $150,600 $229,600

Do. .............. 2724030 OKLEE $25,000 $42,000

Do. .............. 2725050 ONAMIA $287,700 $476,700

Do. .............. 2725080 ORONO $45,200 $48,000

Do. .............. 2725110 ORTONVILLE $51,000 $75,200

Do. .............. 2725140 OSAKIS $90,400 $126,600

Do. .............. 2725200 OSSEO $699,100 $772,000

Do. .............. 2728050 OWATONNA $414,300 $719,800

Do. .............. 2728080 PARK RAPIDS $286,900 $460,200

Do. .............. 2728110 PARKERS PRAIRIE $75,200 $119,600

Do. .............. 2728140 PAYNESVILLE $140,700 $200,800

Do. .............. 2728170 PELICAN RAPIDS $190,700 $314,200

Do. .............. 2728200 PEQUOT LAKES $135,100 $226,500

Do. .............. 2728230 PERHAM $195,200 $328,900

Do. .............. 2728290 RUSHFORD-PETERSON $55,600 $98,700

Do. .............. 2728320 PIERZ $149,800 $223,500

Do. .............. 2728350 PILLAGER $79,900 $131,900

Do. .............. 2728380 PINE CITY $225,500 $376,100

Do. .............. 2728950 PINE ISLAND $86,300 $138,900

Do. .............. 2728960 PINE POINT $50,600 $61,800

Do. .............. 2728970 PINE RIVER-BACKUS $245,600 $389,000

Do. .............. 2729040 PLAINVIEW $38,800 $42,300

Do. .............. 2729070 PLUMMER $26,100 $36,100

Do. .............. 2730030 PRINCETON $123,600 $310,600

Do. .............. 2730060 PRIOR LAKE $192,600 $217,200

Do. .............. 2730090 PROCTOR $85,800 $85,800

Do. .............. 2730150 RANDOLPH $12,900 $12,900

Do. .............. 2730450 RED LAKE FALLS $50,600 $74,700

Do. .............. 2730480 RED WING $283,700 $478,700

Do. .............. 2730510 RED LAKE $1,154,400 $2,048,300

87

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2006 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2006 GRANTS AT THE LEVEL 

PROVIDED—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2006 grant Estimated FY2006 grant at 

full authorized level 

Do. .............. 2730870 NORTHLAND COMMUNITY SCHOOLS $233,600 $429,000

Do. .............. 2731750 RICHFIELD $508,500 $855,000

Do. .............. 2731780 ROBBINSDALE $1,207,500 $2,121,300

Do. .............. 2731800 ROCHESTER $1,873,600 $3,351,200

Do. .............. 2732070 ROCKFORD $54,700 $59,400

Do. .............. 2732250 ROSEAU $42,100 $47,200

Do. .............. 2732390 ROSEMOUNT-APPLE VALLEY-EAGAN $848,900 $913,500

Do. .............. 2732430 ROSEVILLE $181,800 $181,800

Do. .............. 2732460 ROTHSAY $25,000 $43,800

Do. .............. 2732490 ROUND LAKE $19,000 $26,400

Do. .............. 2732520 ROYALTON $101,800 $151,500

Do. .............. 2732550 RUSH CITY $109,000 $195,500

Do. .............. 2732640 RUSSELL $15,000 $23,800

Do. .............. 2732670 RUTHTON $35,600 $51,700

Do. .............. 2732700 SOUTH KOOCHICHING $73,000 $114,300

Do. .............. 2732820 SARTELL $204,300 $345,300

Do. .............. 2732850 SAUK CENTRE $127,200 $127,200

Do. .............. 2732880 SAUK RAPIDS $304,200 $520,700

Do. .............. 2732970 SEBEKA $108,000 $155,700

Do. .............. 2733000 SHAKOPEE $187,900 $203,400

Do. .............. 2733210 SLEEPY EYE $113,500 $186,400

Do. .............. 2733270 SOUTH ST. PAUL $304,300 $489,600

Do. .............. 2733300 SPRING GROVE $27,200 $45,700

Do. .............. 2733330 SPRING LAKE PARK $190,500 $190,500

Do. .............. 2733390 SPRINGFIELD $35,500 $69,000

Do. .............. 2733420 ST. ANTHONY-NEW BRIGHTON $86,300 $149,800

Do. .............. 2733450 ST. CHARLES $172,900 $284,900

Do. .............. 2733480 ST. CLAIR $16,300 $17,900

Do. .............. 2733510 ST. CLOUD $1,032,400 $2,062,900

Do. .............. 2733540 ST. FRANCIS $200,500 $231,000

Do. .............. 2733600 ST. JAMES $170,900 $267,300

Do. .............. 2733720 NETT LAKE $32,700 $47,000

Do. .............. 2733780 ST. LOUIS PARK $306,400 $513,400

Do. .............. 2733790 ST. MICHAEL-ALBERTVILLE $59,400 $65,900

Do. .............. 2733810 SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY $392,300 $440,100

Do. .............. 2733840 ST. PAUL $16,870,100 $33,054,800

Do. .............. 2733870 ST. PETER $196,300 $278,800

Do. .............. 2733900 STAPLES-MOTLEY $356,800 $531,500

Do. .............. 2738160 STEWARTVILLE $52,500 $52,500

Do. .............. 2738190 STILLWATER $410,600 $992,100

Do. .............. 2738280 SWANVILLE $53,600 $93,200

Do. .............. 2738850 THIEF RIVER FALLS $238,300 $422,000

Do. .............. 2738880 ESKO $78,300 $127,900

Do. .............. 2740590 TRACY $140,500 $233,700

Do. .............. 2740665 TRITON $129,400 $237,500

Do. .............. 2740680 TRUMAN $57,900 $96,800

Do. .............. 2740740 LAKE SUPERIOR $195,200 $325,200

Do. .............. 2740770 TYLER $48,300 $64,400

Do. .............. 2740810 ULEN-HITTERDAL $43,100 $69,400

Do. .............. 2740830 UNDERWOOD $43,200 $43,200

Do. .............. 2740860 UPSALA $50,900 $77,600

Do. .............. 2740920 VERNDALE $72,100 $93,200

Do. .............. 2741040 VIRGINIA $206,600 $338,000

Do. .............. 2741060 WABASHA-KELLOGG $74,100 $131,500

Do. .............. 2741430 WABASSO $110,700 $173,200

Do. .............. 2741460 WACONIA $69,800 $78,900

Do. .............. 2741850 WARROAD $119,200 $191,800

Do. .............. 2741880 WASECA $256,500 $442,100

Do. .............. 2741910 WATERTOWN-MAYER $97,600 $169,900

Do. .............. 2742120 WAUBUN $230,100 $373,100

88

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, 

PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2006 AT THE 

FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2006 GRANTS AT THE LEVEL 

PROVIDED—Continued

State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2006 grant Estimated FY2006 grant at 

full authorized level 

Do. .............. 2742160 WAYZATA $0 $0

Do. .............. 2742270 WEST ST. PAUL-MENDOTA HTS.-EAGAN $280,600 $670,500

Do. .............. 2742330 WHEATON AREA SCHOOL $43,100 $74,900

Do. .............. 2742360 WHITE BEAR LAKE $334,500 $390,500

Do. .............. 2742720 WILLMAR $737,800 $1,236,900

Do. .............. 2742750 WILLOW RIVER $131,700 $209,000

Do. .............. 2742780 WINDOM $127,800 $194,300

Do. .............. 2744070 WINONA AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS $493,700 $851,400

Do. .............. 2744160 WORTHINGTON $316,700 $520,700

Do. .............. 2744190 WRENSHALL $21,500 $21,500

Do. .............. 2745735 ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA $115,800 $191,800

Do. .............. 2781037 BALANCE OF DAKOTA COUNTY $0 $0

Do. .............. 2781053 BALANCE OF HENNEPIN COUNTY $0 $0

Do. .............. 2781097 BALANCE OF MORRISON COUNTY $0 $0

Do. .............. 2791445 LAKE CRYSTAL-WELLCOME MEMORIAL $76,700 $126,100

Do. .............. 2791446 TRI-COUNTY $70,300 $99,200

Do. .............. 2791447 KITTSON CENTRAL $22,700 $22,700

Do. .............. 2791448 NORMAN COUNTY WEST $53,100 $76,900

Do. .............. 2791449 WIN-E-MAC $120,700 $167,000

Do. .............. 2791450 MESABI EAST $251,100 $397,000

Do. .............. 2791451 JANESVILLE-WALDORF-PEMBERTON $103,400 $140,000

Do. .............. 2799999 PART D SUBPART 2 $1,850,400 $3,096,300

Important limitations: 

A. Each of these amounts may be reduced by approximately 5% for state administration and school improvement activities. 

B. These amounts may also be reduced to account for grants to charter schools or recent local educational agency (LEA) boundary

changes. 

C. States are also authorized to adjust these amounts for all LEAs serving localities with total population below 20,000 persons (currently 

8 states exercise this authority).

Notice: these are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the relative impact of alternative 

formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended to predict specific amounts which states or LEAs will receive. Estimates are based on preliminary FY2006 program data on school-age children poor families and state expenditure factors, FY2005 data 

otherwise. Estimates prepared by CRS. 

TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED ‘NEW MONEY’ FOR MINNESOTA LEAs UNDER IDEA PART B GRANTS TO 

STATES 

[dollars rounded to nearest $100; totals may differ slightly due to rounding] 

Local Educational Agency (LEA) 

Estimated ‘New Money’ Based on FY2006 Grant Estimated ‘New Money’ 

Based on FY2006 Au- thorized Amount 

Estimated Difference 

Between Authorized 

and Appropriated Amounts 

A.C.G.C. ............................................................................... $126,400 $207,800 $81,400

ADA-BORUP ......................................................................... $51,600 $84,900 $33,200

ADRIAN ................................................................................ $63,800 $104,800 $41,000

AITKIN .................................................................................. $141,700 $232,900 $91,200

ALBANY ................................................................................ $179,400 $294,900 $115,500

ALBERT LEA ......................................................................... $425,700 $699,700 $274,000

ALDEN .................................................................................. $23,700 $38,900 $15,200

ALEXANDRIA ........................................................................ $460,600 $757,100 $296,500

ANNANDALE ......................................................................... $235,600 $387,200 $151,600

ANOKA-HENNEPIN ................................................................ $4,696,600 $7,719,600 $3,023,000

ASHBY ................................................................................. $24,200 $39,700 $15,600

AUSTIN ................................................................................. $523,700 $860,800 $337,100

BADGER ............................................................................... $26,600 $43,800 $17,100

BAGLEY ................................................................................ $129,600 $213,000 $83,400

BALATON .............................................................................. $19,300 $31,700 $12,400

BARNESVILLE ....................................................................... $75,900 $124,700 $48,800

BARNUM .............................................................................. $65,900 $108,200 $42,400

BATTLE LAKE ....................................................................... $61,000 $100,300 $39,300

BECKER ............................................................................... $230,200 $378,400 $148,200

89

TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED ‘NEW MONEY’ FOR MINNESOTA LEAs UNDER IDEA PART B GRANTS TO 

STATES—Continued

[dollars rounded to nearest $100; totals may differ slightly due to rounding] 

Local Educational Agency (LEA) 

Estimated ‘New Money’ 

Based on FY2006 

Grant 

Estimated ‘New Money’ 

Based on FY2006 Authorized Amount 

Estimated Difference 

Between Authorized 

and Appropriated 

Amounts 

BELGRADE-BROOTEN-ELROSA ............................................. $116,000 $190,600 $74,600

BELLE PLAINE ...................................................................... $161,700 $265,700 $104,100

BELLINGHAM ........................................................................ $16,700 $27,400 $10,700

BEMIDJI ............................................................................... $677,100 $1,112,900 $435,800

BENSON ............................................................................... $103,400 $170,000 $66,600

BERTHA-HEWITT .................................................................. $52,200 $85,700 $33,600

BIG LAKE ............................................................................. $297,300 $488,600 $191,400

BIRD ISLAND-OLIVIA-LAKE LILLIAN ...................................... $113,600 $186,700 $73,100

BLACKDUCK ......................................................................... $89,600 $147,300 $57,700

BLOOMING PRAIRIE ............................................................. $96,800 $159,200 $62,300

BLOOMINGTON ..................................................................... $1,247,100 $2,049,800 $802,700

BLUE EARTH AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL ................................... $159,300 $261,800 $102,500

BRAHAM .............................................................................. $118,100 $194,100 $76,000

BRAINERD ............................................................................ $789,600 $1,297,900 $508,200

BRANDON ............................................................................ $38,400 $63,100 $24,700

BRECKENRIDGE ................................................................... $104,600 $171,900 $67,300

BREWSTER ........................................................................... $19,200 $31,600 $12,400

BROOKLYN CENTER ............................................................. $153,200 $251,800 $98,600

BROWERVILLE ...................................................................... $52,500 $86,300 $33,800

BROWNS VALLEY ................................................................. $17,100 $28,200 $11,000

BUFFALO .............................................................................. $573,800 $943,100 $369,300

BUFFALO LAKE-HECTOR ...................................................... $68,000 $111,800 $43,800

BURNSVILLE ........................................................................ $1,479,400 $2,431,600 $952,200

BUTTERFIELD ....................................................................... $25,800 $42,300 $16,600

BYRON ................................................................................. $145,500 $239,100 $93,600

CALEDONIA .......................................................................... $137,700 $226,300 $88,600

CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI ............................................................. $524,900 $862,800 $337,900

CAMPBELL-TINTAH ............................................................... $18,800 $31,000 $12,100

CANBY ................................................................................. $71,800 $118,000 $46,200

CANNON FALLS .................................................................... $151,900 $249,700 $97,800

CARLTON ............................................................................. $80,200 $131,700 $51,600

CASS LAKE-BENA SCHOOLS ................................................ $129,000 $212,000 $83,000

CEDAR MOUNTAIN ............................................................... $46,800 $76,900 $30,100

CENTENNIAL ........................................................................ $725,900 $1,193,100 $467,200

CHASKA ............................................................................... $935,100 $1,537,100 $601,900

CHATFIELD ........................................................................... $89,400 $147,000 $57,600

CHISAGO LAKES ................................................................... $352,800 $579,900 $227,100

CHISHOLM ........................................................................... $99,900 $164,200 $64,300

CHOKIO-ALBERTA ................................................................ $27,500 $45,200 $17,700

CLEARBROOK-GONVICK ....................................................... $54,300 $89,300 $35,000

CLEVELAND .......................................................................... $45,100 $74,200 $29,000

CLIMAX ................................................................................ $22,100 $36,400 $14,200

CLINTON-GRACEVILLE-BEARDSLEY ...................................... $62,400 $102,600 $40,200

CLOQUET ............................................................................. $260,600 $428,400 $167,700

COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ............................................................ $419,900 $690,200 $270,300

COMFREY ............................................................................. $20,900 $34,300 $13,400

COOK COUNTY ..................................................................... $81,000 $133,100 $52,100

CROMWELL-WRIGHT ............................................................ $34,500 $56,800 $22,200

CROOKSTON ......................................................................... $196,400 $322,900 $126,400

CROSBY-IRONTON ............................................................... $200,100 $328,800 $128,800

CYRUS ................................................................................. $15,000 $24,600 $9,600

DASSEL-COKATO .................................................................. $240,800 $395,900 $155,000

DAWSON-BOYD .................................................................... $54,200 $89,100 $34,900

DEER RIVER ........................................................................ $134,000 $220,300 $86,300

DELANO ............................................................................... $210,400 $345,900 $135,400

DETROIT LAKES ................................................................... $330,200 $542,700 $212,500

DILWORTH-GLYNDON-FELTON .............................................. $149,500 $245,700 $96,200

DOVER-EYOTA ...................................................................... $77,000 $126,600 $49,600

DULUTH ............................................................................... $1,563,700 $2,570,200 $1,006,500

90

TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED ‘NEW MONEY’ FOR MINNESOTA LEAs UNDER IDEA PART B GRANTS TO 

STATES—Continued

[dollars rounded to nearest $100; totals may differ slightly due to rounding] 

Local Educational Agency (LEA) 

Estimated ‘New Money’ 

Based on FY2006 

Grant 

Estimated ‘New Money’ 

Based on FY2006 Authorized Amount 

Estimated Difference 

Between Authorized 

and Appropriated 

Amounts 

EAGLE VALLEY ..................................................................... $57,100 $93,900 $36,800

EAST CENTRAL .................................................................... $132,600 $217,900 $85,300

EAST GRAND FORKS ............................................................ $198,100 $325,600 $127,500

EDEN PRAIRIE ..................................................................... $1,104,500 $1,815,400 $710,900

EDEN VALLEY-WATKINS ....................................................... $95,600 $157,200 $61,600

EDGERTON ........................................................................... $44,000 $72,300 $28,300

EDINA .................................................................................. $703,600 $1,156,500 $452,900

ELGIN-MILLVILLE ................................................................. $54,000 $88,800 $34,800

ELK RIVER ........................................................................... $1,073,100 $1,763,800 $690,700

ELLSWORTH ......................................................................... $21,900 $36,000 $14,100

ELY ...................................................................................... $72,800 $119,600 $46,800

ESKO .................................................................................... $100,300 $164,800 $64,500

EVANSVILLE ......................................................................... $29,800 $49,100 $19,200

EVELETH-GILBERT ............................................................... $150,900 $248,100 $97,100

FAIRMONT AREA SCHOOLS .................................................. $255,800 $420,500 $164,700

FARIBAULT ........................................................................... $555,900 $913,700 $357,800

FARMINGTON ....................................................................... $519,200 $853,400 $334,200

FERGUS FALLS ..................................................................... $356,500 $586,000 $229,500

FERTILE-BELTRAMI .............................................................. $57,200 $93,900 $36,800

FILLMORE CENTRAL ............................................................. $113,100 $186,000 $72,800

FISHER ................................................................................. $22,600 $37,100 $14,500

FLOODWOOD ........................................................................ $34,700 $57,100 $22,300

FOLEY .................................................................................. $199,100 $327,300 $128,200

FOREST LAKE ....................................................................... $853,600 $1,403,100 $549,400

FOSSTON .............................................................................. $72,900 $119,800 $46,900

FRANCONIA .......................................................................... $3,800 $6,300 $2,500

FRAZEE ................................................................................ $133,300 $219,100 $85,800

FRIDLEY ............................................................................... $296,500 $487,400 $190,800

FULDA .................................................................................. $56,300 $92,500 $36,200

G.F.W. .................................................................................. $124,000 $203,700 $79,800

GLENCOE-SILVER LAKE ....................................................... $225,700 $370,900 $145,300

GLENVILLE-EMMONS ............................................................ $49,800 $81,900 $32,100

GOODHUE ............................................................................ $56,700 $93,200 $36,500

GOODRIDGE ......................................................................... $20,200 $33,200 $13,000

GRANADA HUNTLEY-EAST CHAIN ......................................... $38,700 $63,600 $24,900

GRAND MEADOW ................................................................. $34,200 $56,300 $22,000

GRAND RAPIDS .................................................................... $479,900 $788,800 $308,900

GREENBUSH-MIDDLE RIVER ................................................ $49,100 $80,700 $31,600

GREENWAY .......................................................................... $160,300 $263,500 $103,200

GRYGLA ............................................................................... $20,500 $33,800 $13,200

HANCOCK ............................................................................. $23,000 $37,700 $14,800

HASTINGS ............................................................................ $593,300 $975,200 $381,900

HAWLEY ............................................................................... $83,800 $137,800 $54,000

HAYFIELD ............................................................................. $105,300 $173,100 $67,800

HENDRICKS .......................................................................... $20,400 $33,600 $13,200

HENNING .............................................................................. $47,100 $77,400 $30,300

HERMAN-NORCROSS ........................................................... $19,100 $31,300 $12,300

HERMANTOWN ..................................................................... $167,000 $274,500 $107,500

HERON LAKE-OKABENA ....................................................... $33,000 $54,300 $21,300

HIBBING ............................................................................... $322,600 $530,200 $207,600

HILL CITY ............................................................................. $39,500 $64,900 $25,400

HILLS-BEAVER CREEK ......................................................... $36,400 $59,800 $23,400

HINCKLEY-FINLAYSON .......................................................... $147,900 $243,200 $95,200

HOLDINGFORD ..................................................................... $111,900 $183,900 $72,000

HOPKINS .............................................................................. $948,200 $1,558,500 $610,300

HOUSTON ............................................................................. $59,600 $97,900 $38,300

HOWARD LAKE-WAVERLY-WINSTED ..................................... $182,100 $299,400 $117,200

HUTCHINSON ....................................................................... $354,600 $582,800 $228,200

INTERNATIONAL FALLS ......................................................... $192,600 $316,600 $124,000

91

TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED ‘NEW MONEY’ FOR MINNESOTA LEAs UNDER IDEA PART B GRANTS TO 

STATES—Continued

[dollars rounded to nearest $100; totals may differ slightly due to rounding] 

Local Educational Agency (LEA) 

Estimated ‘New Money’ 

Based on FY2006 

Grant 

Estimated ‘New Money’ 

Based on FY2006 Authorized Amount 

Estimated Difference 

Between Authorized 

and Appropriated 

Amounts 

INVER GROVE ...................................................................... $533,000 $876,000 $343,000

ISLE ..................................................................................... $55,000 $90,400 $35,400

IVANHOE .............................................................................. $26,000 $42,700 $16,700

JACKSON COUNTY CENTRAL ................................................ $152,900 $251,300 $98,400

JANESVILLE-WALDORF-PEMBERTON .................................... $94,200 $154,900 $60,600

JORDAN ................................................................................ $202,600 $333,000 $130,400

KASSON-MANTORVILLE ........................................................ $178,800 $293,800 $115,100

KELLIHER ............................................................................. $37,100 $60,900 $23,900

KENYON-WANAMINGO .......................................................... $106,200 $174,500 $68,300

KERKHOVEN-MURDOCK-SUNBURG ...................................... $61,800 $101,500 $39,800

KIMBALL .............................................................................. $95,100 $156,300 $61,200

KINGSLAND .......................................................................... $97,000 $159,400 $62,400

KITTSON CENTRAL ............................................................... $45,500 $74,800 $29,300

LAC QUI PARLE VALLEY ...................................................... $129,400 $212,600 $83,300

LACRESCENT-HOKAH ........................................................... $162,100 $266,500 $104,400

LAKE BENTON ...................................................................... $24,100 $39,700 $15,500

LAKE CITY ............................................................................ $161,900 $266,100 $104,200

LAKE CRYSTAL-WELLCOME MEMORIAL ............................... $112,900 $185,500 $72,600

LAKE OF THE WOODS .......................................................... $73,400 $120,600 $47,200

LAKE PARK-AUDUBON DISTRICT .......................................... $82,700 $136,000 $53,300

LAKE SUPERIOR ................................................................... $225,200 $370,200 $145,000

LAKEVIEW ............................................................................ $51,500 $84,600 $33,100

LAKEVILLE ............................................................................ $1,006,800 $1,654,800 $648,000

LANCASTER .......................................................................... $21,100 $34,700 $13,600

LANESBORO ......................................................................... $33,000 $54,200 $21,200

LAPORTE .............................................................................. $36,100 $59,400 $23,300

LECENTER ............................................................................ $74,500 $122,500 $48,000

LEROY .................................................................................. $42,200 $69,400 $27,200

LESTER PRAIRIE .................................................................. $64,000 $105,200 $41,200

LESUEUR-HENDERSON ........................................................ $167,000 $274,600 $107,500

LEWISTON-ALTURA ............................................................... $93,200 $153,200 $60,000

LITCHFIELD .......................................................................... $216,300 $355,600 $139,300

LITTLE FALLS ....................................................................... $367,300 $603,700 $236,400

LITTLEFORK-BIG FALLS ........................................................ $34,500 $56,700 $22,200

LONG PRAIRIE-GREY EAGLE ................................................ $180,600 $296,900 $116,300

LUVERNE ............................................................................. $135,100 $222,100 $87,000

LYLE .................................................................................... $26,000 $42,700 $16,700

LYND .................................................................................... $19,400 $31,900 $12,500

M.A.C.C.R.A.Y. ..................................................................... $99,400 $163,400 $64,000

MABEL-CANTON ................................................................... $61,100 $100,500 $39,400

MADELIA .............................................................................. $71,900 $118,200 $46,300

MAHNOMEN ......................................................................... $97,300 $159,800 $62,600

MAHTOMEDI ......................................................................... $338,800 $556,900 $218,100

MANKATO ............................................................................. $813,200 $1,336,600 $523,400

MAPLE LAKE ........................................................................ $108,400 $178,200 $69,800

MAPLE RIVER ...................................................................... $135,900 $223,300 $87,400

MARSHALL ........................................................................... $253,900 $417,300 $163,400

MARSHALL COUNTY CENTRAL SCHOOLS ............................. $34,500 $56,700 $22,200

MARTIN COUNTY WEST ........................................................ $80,700 $132,600 $51,900

MCGREGOR .......................................................................... $84,000 $138,000 $54,100

MCLEOD WEST SCHOOLS .................................................... $60,200 $98,900 $38,700

MEDFORD ............................................................................ $57,200 $94,000 $36,800

MELROSE ............................................................................. $193,000 $317,200 $124,200

MENAHGA ............................................................................ $82,600 $135,800 $53,200

MESABI EAST ....................................................................... $140,600 $231,000 $90,500

MILACA ................................................................................ $218,600 $359,400 $140,700

MILROY ................................................................................ $18,100 $29,800 $11,700

MINNEAPOLIS ....................................................................... $7,832,500 $12,874,000 $5,041,400

MINNEOTA ............................................................................ $56,900 $93,500 $36,600

92

TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED ‘NEW MONEY’ FOR MINNESOTA LEAs UNDER IDEA PART B GRANTS TO 

STATES—Continued

[dollars rounded to nearest $100; totals may differ slightly due to rounding] 

Local Educational Agency (LEA) 

Estimated ‘New Money’ 

Based on FY2006 

Grant 

Estimated ‘New Money’ 

Based on FY2006 Authorized Amount 

Estimated Difference 

Between Authorized 

and Appropriated 

Amounts 

MINNETONKA ....................................................................... $876,300 $1,440,400 $564,100

MINNEWASKA ....................................................................... $164,900 $271,100 $106,100

MONTEVIDEO ....................................................................... $147,900 $243,100 $95,200

MONTGOMERY-LONSDALE .................................................... $150,500 $247,400 $96,900

MONTICELLO ........................................................................ $390,300 $641,500 $251,200

MOORHEAD .......................................................................... $662,300 $1,088,700 $426,300

MOOSE LAKE ....................................................................... $72,100 $118,500 $46,400

MORA ................................................................................... $211,300 $347,200 $136,000

MORRIS ............................................................................... $94,500 $155,300 $60,800

MOUNDS VIEW ..................................................................... $1,280,800 $2,105,100 $824,400

MOUNTAIN IRON-BUHL ........................................................ $91,700 $150,700 $59,000

MOUNTAIN LAKE .................................................................. $81,600 $134,200 $52,500

MURRAY COUNTY CENTRAL ................................................ $94,500 $155,300 $60,800

N.R.H.E.G. ............................................................................ $105,300 $173,200 $67,800

NASHWAUK-KEEWATIN ......................................................... $71,200 $117,000 $45,800

NETT LAKE ........................................................................... $10,700 $17,600 $6,900

NEVIS ................................................................................... $37,600 $61,800 $24,200

NEW LONDON-SPICER ......................................................... $153,000 $251,500 $98,500

NEW PRAGUE AREA SCHOOLS ............................................. $325,500 $535,000 $209,500

NEW ULM ............................................................................. $345,800 $568,400 $222,600

NEW YORK MILLS ................................................................ $83,300 $136,800 $53,600

NICOLLET ............................................................................. $50,400 $82,800 $32,400

NORMAN COUNTY EAST ....................................................... $47,400 $77,900 $30,500

NORMAN COUNTY WEST ...................................................... $35,400 $58,200 $22,800

NORTH BRANCH .................................................................. $391,500 $643,500 $252,000

NORTH ST PAUL-MAPLEWOOD ............................................. $1,410,200 $2,317,800 $907,700

NORTHFIELD ........................................................................ $411,900 $677,000 $265,100

NORTHLAND COMMUNITY SCHOOLS .................................... $79,500 $130,600 $51,200

NORWOOD ............................................................................ $171,100 $281,200 $110,100

OGILVIE ................................................................................ $90,300 $148,500 $58,100

OKLEE .................................................................................. $23,100 $37,900 $14,800

ONAMIA ................................................................................ $133,200 $218,900 $85,700

ORONO ................................................................................. $262,700 $431,800 $169,100

ORTONVILLE ......................................................................... $50,300 $82,700 $32,400

OSAKIS ................................................................................. $67,300 $110,500 $43,300

OSSEO ................................................................................. $2,337,800 $3,842,500 $1,504,700

OWATONNA .......................................................................... $556,100 $914,000 $357,900

PARK RAPIDS ....................................................................... $214,500 $352,500 $138,000

PARKERS PRAIRIE ............................................................... $60,800 $99,900 $39,100

PAYNESVILLE ....................................................................... $122,500 $201,300 $78,800

PELICAN RAPIDS .................................................................. $154,700 $254,300 $99,600

PEQUOT LAKES .................................................................... $130,400 $214,400 $83,900

PERHAM ............................................................................... $191,500 $314,700 $123,200

PIERZ ................................................................................... $110,200 $181,100 $70,900

PILLAGER ............................................................................. $82,600 $135,800 $53,200

PINE CITY ............................................................................ $188,700 $310,200 $121,500

PINE ISLAND ........................................................................ $113,600 $186,700 $73,100

PINE POINT .......................................................................... $12,600 $20,700 $8,100

PINE RIVER-BACKUS ........................................................... $151,800 $249,500 $97,700

PIPESTONE AREA SCHOOLS ................................................. $151,900 $249,700 $97,800

PLAINVIEW ........................................................................... $107,400 $176,500 $69,100

PLUMMER ............................................................................ $15,200 $25,000 $9,800

PRINCETON .......................................................................... $339,400 $557,900 $218,500

PRINSBURG ......................................................................... $17,000 $27,900 $10,900

PRIOR LAKE ......................................................................... $698,400 $1,147,900 $449,500

PROCTOR ............................................................................. $170,700 $280,500 $109,900

RANDOLPH ........................................................................... $44,500 $73,100 $28,600

RED LAKE ............................................................................ $267,600 $439,800 $172,200

RED LAKE FALLS ................................................................. $45,400 $74,700 $29,200

93

TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED ‘NEW MONEY’ FOR MINNESOTA LEAs UNDER IDEA PART B GRANTS TO 

STATES—Continued

[dollars rounded to nearest $100; totals may differ slightly due to rounding] 

Local Educational Agency (LEA) 

Estimated ‘New Money’ 

Based on FY2006 

Grant 

Estimated ‘New Money’ 

Based on FY2006 Authorized Amount 

Estimated Difference 

Between Authorized 

and Appropriated 

Amounts 

RED ROCK CENTRAL ........................................................... $69,800 $114,800 $45,000

RED WING ............................................................................ $353,800 $581,600 $227,700

REDWOOD FALLS AREA SCHOOLS ....................................... $156,400 $257,100 $100,700

RENVILLE COUNTY WEST ..................................................... $93,100 $153,100 $59,900

RICHFIELD ........................................................................... $533,800 $877,400 $343,600

ROBBINSDALE ...................................................................... $1,648,600 $2,709,700 $1,061,100

ROCHESTER ......................................................................... $2,090,500 $3,436,100 $1,345,600

ROCKFORD ........................................................................... $203,300 $334,100 $130,800

ROCORI ................................................................................ $254,300 $418,000 $163,700

ROSEAU ............................................................................... $141,000 $231,800 $90,800

ROSEMOUNT-APPLE VALLEY-EAGAN .................................... $3,047,400 $5,008,900 $1,961,500

ROSEVILLE ........................................................................... $737,100 $1,211,500 $474,400

ROTHSAY ............................................................................. $21,700 $35,600 $14,000

ROUND LAKE ....................................................................... $15,000 $24,700 $9,700

ROYALTON ........................................................................... $75,900 $124,700 $48,800

RUSH CITY ........................................................................... $115,000 $189,100 $74,000

RUSHFORD-PETERSON ......................................................... $71,700 $117,800 $46,100

RUSSELL .............................................................................. $18,000 $29,600 $11,600

RUTHTON ............................................................................. $19,600 $32,100 $12,600

SARTELL .............................................................................. $285,600 $469,500 $183,800

SAUK CENTRE ...................................................................... $141,200 $232,100 $90,900

SAUK RAPIDS ....................................................................... $438,300 $720,500 $282,100

SEBEKA ................................................................................ $60,000 $98,600 $38,600

SHAKOPEE ........................................................................... $568,100 $933,800 $365,700

SIBLEY EAST ........................................................................ $154,100 $253,200 $99,200

SLEEPY EYE ......................................................................... $119,200 $196,000 $76,800

SOUTH KOOCHICHING .......................................................... $34,900 $57,300 $22,400

SOUTH ST. PAUL .................................................................. $387,400 $636,800 $249,400

SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY ............................................. $1,724,200 $2,834,000 $1,109,800

SOUTHLAND ......................................................................... $77,200 $126,900 $49,700

SPRING GROVE .................................................................... $39,700 $65,200 $25,500

SPRING LAKE PARK ............................................................. $442,100 $726,600 $284,500

SPRINGFIELD ....................................................................... $66,500 $109,400 $42,800

ST. ANTHONY-NEW BRIGHTON ............................................. $127,700 $209,900 $82,200

ST. CHARLES ....................................................................... $125,700 $206,700 $80,900

ST. CLAIR ............................................................................ $50,200 $82,500 $32,300

ST. CLOUD ........................................................................... $1,415,200 $2,326,000 $910,900

ST. FRANCIS ........................................................................ $675,000 $1,109,500 $434,500

ST. JAMES ............................................................................ $139,000 $228,400 $89,400

ST. LOUIS COUNTY .............................................................. $329,200 $541,200 $211,900

ST. LOUIS PARK ................................................................... $530,000 $871,100 $341,100

ST. MICHAEL-ALBERTVILLE .................................................. $292,000 $479,900 $187,900

ST. PAUL .............................................................................. $6,697,800 $11,008,900 $4,311,100

ST. PETER ............................................................................ $201,600 $331,400 $129,800

STAPLES-MOTLEY ................................................................ $206,900 $340,100 $133,200

STEPHEN-ARGYLE CENTRAL SCHOOLS ................................ $45,900 $75,400 $29,500

STEWARTVILLE ..................................................................... $172,900 $284,200 $111,300

STILLWATER ......................................................................... $1,079,500 $1,774,300 $694,800

SWANVILLE .......................................................................... $42,800 $70,400 $27,600

THIEF RIVER FALLS ............................................................. $234,700 $385,700 $151,000

TRACY .................................................................................. $90,300 $148,400 $58,100

TRI-COUNTY ......................................................................... $41,800 $68,800 $26,900

TRITON ................................................................................. $153,700 $252,700 $99,000

TRUMAN ............................................................................... $51,700 $85,100 $33,300

TYLER .................................................................................. $33,100 $54,400 $21,300

ULEN-HITTERDAL ................................................................. $38,400 $63,100 $24,700

UNDERWOOD ....................................................................... $35,800 $58,800 $23,000

UNITED SOUTH CENTRAL ..................................................... $124,900 $205,200 $80,400

UPSALA ................................................................................ $44,600 $73,300 $28,700

94

TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED ‘NEW MONEY’ FOR MINNESOTA LEAs UNDER IDEA PART B GRANTS TO 

STATES—Continued

[dollars rounded to nearest $100; totals may differ slightly due to rounding] 

Local Educational Agency (LEA) 

Estimated ‘New Money’ 

Based on FY2006 

Grant 

Estimated ‘New Money’ 

Based on FY2006 Authorized Amount 

Estimated Difference 

Between Authorized 

and Appropriated 

Amounts 

VERNDALE ........................................................................... $34,900 $57,300 $22,400

VIRGINIA .............................................................................. $178,100 $292,700 $114,600

WABASHA-KELLOGG ............................................................. $94,700 $155,600 $60,900

WABASSO ............................................................................. $64,700 $106,300 $41,600

WACONIA ............................................................................. $282,200 $463,900 $181,700

WADENA-DEER CREEK ......................................................... $172,800 $284,100 $111,300

WALKER-HACKENSACK-AKELEY ........................................... $127,500 $209,600 $82,100

WARREN-ALVARADO-OSLO ................................................... $69,200 $113,700 $44,500

WARROAD ............................................................................ $150,000 $246,500 $96,500

WASECA ............................................................................... $241,100 $396,300 $155,200

WATERTOWN-MAYER ............................................................ $174,600 $287,000 $112,400

WATERVILLE-ELYSIAN-MORRISTOWN ................................... $122,200 $200,800 $78,600

WAUBUN .............................................................................. $91,200 $149,900 $58,700

WAYZATA ............................................................................. $977,900 $1,607,300 $629,400

WEST CENTRAL AREA .......................................................... $93,100 $153,100 $60,000

WEST ST. PAUL-MENDOTA HTS.-EAGAN .............................. $732,500 $1,204,000 $471,500

WESTBROOK-WALNUT GROVE SCHOOLS .............................. $49,100 $80,700 $31,600

WESTONKA ........................................................................... $288,300 $473,800 $185,500

WHEATON AREA SCHOOL ..................................................... $44,000 $72,200 $28,300

WHITE BEAR LAKE ............................................................... $1,023,500 $1,682,300 $658,800

WILLMAR .............................................................................. $513,100 $843,400 $330,300

WILLOW RIVER ..................................................................... $62,900 $103,400 $40,500

WINDOM ............................................................................... $111,000 $182,500 $71,500

WIN-E-MAC .......................................................................... $57,600 $94,700 $37,100

WINONA AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS ........................................ $575,100 $945,300 $370,200

WORTHINGTON ..................................................................... $278,800 $458,200 $179,400

WRENSHALL ......................................................................... $32,300 $53,000 $20,800

YELLOW MEDICINE EAST ..................................................... $130,500 $214,500 $84,000

ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA .......................................................... $133,600 $219,600 $86,000

Note: These are estimates provided for the purpose of policy discussion only and do not necessarily represent what LEAs will acturally re- ceive 

[Material submitted by the Education Industry Association follows:]

Education Industry Association Code of Professional Conduct and Business 

Ethics for Supplemental Educational Services Providers 

AMENDED NOVEMBER 15, 2005

This revised code of ethics, as adopted by the EIA Board of Directors on November 

15, 2005, shall become effective November 15, 2005. 

SES Providers (and other education service providers) operate in an environment 

that touches communities, school officials, parents, students and other providers. 

The importance of the activities and complexity of the interactions make it paramount that EIA member organizations adhere to the highest standards of professional conduct and business ethics. In its role of providing critical leadership to the 

education industry, both public and private, EIA has adopted this voluntary code 

to describe key organizational behaviors and policies that will guide its member 

companies. 

High quality educational programs delivered by trained professionals represent 

the core value that is to be reflected throughout all of our partnerships with schools, 

parents and students. The following structure represents the collective judgment of 

what constitutes ethical behavior. EIA members are committed to using it to guide 

to decision-making and performance at all levels of their organizations-from the 

CEO to the employee in the classroom. Accountability for achieving desired results 

consistent with these guidelines and standards is the ultimate benchmark upon 

which EIA member service providers will be judged. 

95

We encourage States and Local School Districts to adopt these guidelines into 

their governance, contractual and oversight systems and apply all appropriate sanctions when the guidelines have been breached. 

General Guidelines 

In the conduct of business and discharge of responsibilities, Providers commit to: 

1. Conduct business honestly, openly, fairly, and with integrity. 

2. Comply with applicable laws, statutes, regulations and ordinances. 

3. Avoid known conflict of interest situations. 

4. Never offer or accept illegal payments for services rendered. 

5. Apply these guidelines and standards throughout the company by insuring all 

employees understand them and act accordingly. 

6. Refrain from publicly criticizing or disparaging other providers. 

7. In the case of any conflict, first attempt resolution directly with each other. 

However, the parties involved may ask EIA to help mediate potential disputes. 

8. Comply with the confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions of all applicable 

federal, state and local laws, including those relating to student identity, records, 

reports, data, scores and other sensitive information. 

9. Be factual and forthright in reporting and documenting attendance rates, effectiveness of their programs, and in explaining the theoretical/empirical rationale behind major elements of its program, as well as the link between research and program design. 

10. Take appropriate corrective action against provider employees, consultants or 

contractors who act in a manner detrimental to the letter or spirit of this code. 

11. Take immediate steps to correct any actions on its part that willfully or inadvertently violate of the letter or spirit of this code. 

Standards Specific to SES 

EIA Members will consistently implement the NCLB Supplemental Services provisions and promote full access to SES services. To that end, 

Providers will NOT: 

1. Compensate school district employees personally in exchange for access to facilities, to obtain student lists, to assist with marketing or student recruitment, to 

promote enrollment in a provider’s program at the exclusion of other providers, to 

obtain other similar benefits for their SES program, or for any illegal purpose. 

2. Employ any district employees who currently serve the districts in the capacity 

of Principal, Assistant Principal, or school or district SES Coordinator. 

3. Employ any individuals, including teachers, parents or community leaders, who 

have any governing authority over a school district or school site. 

4. Hire school-employed personnel for any purpose other than instruction-related 

services or program coordination, as described in item #3 in the next section below. 

5. Make payments or in-kind contributions to schools or school personnel, exclusive of customary fees for facility utilization in exchange for access to facilities, to 

obtain student lists, to increase student enrollment, to obtain other similar benefits 

for their SES program or for any illegal purpose. 

6. Misrepresent to anyone, including parents (during student recruitment), the location of a provider’s program, principal/district or state’s approval of a provider, or 

the likelihood of becoming so approved. 

7. Offer a student any form of incentive for signing-up with a provider. 

8. Employ any District-enrolled student. 

9. Use a district enrollment form that has the selected provider’s name pre-printed as part of the form. 

10. Encourage students/parents to switch providers once enrolled. A student is 

considered enrolled once the District has issued the formal student / Provider selection list. 

Providers MAY: 

1. Provide simple door prizes of a nominal value (approximately $5 per prize) and 

refreshments to potential students and their families, while attending informational 

sessions 

2. Offer enrolled students performance rewards with a maximum value of 5% of 

the district’s PPA that are directly linked to documented meaningful attendance 

benchmarks and/or the completion of assessment and program objectives. 

3. Employ school district employees (subject to items #2, #3 and #4 in the previous 

section above) for instruction-related services or program coordination purposes as 

long as the person does not restrict the marketing or enrollment opportunities of 

other providers, subject to District policies governing conflict of interests and other 

District-imposed requirements. 

96

4. Include in tutor compensation, incentives for student achievement consistent 

with a company’s written policy. 

Education Industry Association Analysis of GAO SES Study 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Supplemental Education Services (SES) generally finds what we have known for some time to be true: 

1. Participation in SES is low; the GAO found that participation increased from 

12% of eligible students receiving services in 2003-04 to 19% in 2004-05; 

2. Overwhelmingly, most districts (90%) report very positive interactions with providers, and there are a great variety and supply of providers, except, perhaps in 

rural districts; 

3. Students receiving services are the most at-risk students; 

4. Many problems remain in the implementation of SES and states, districts, 

schools, providers and the federal government need to continue to work to solve the 

issues, which include communication (with parents, between providers and districts, 

etc.), contracting, hard-to-serve districts, student enrollment/participation, and student attendance; 

5. Providers, districts and schools all believe that a greater role for schools would 

improve SES implementation; 

6. Evaluating the academic impact of SES remains a challenge and many states 

have not taken enough action to address the issue. That does not mean, however, 

that providers are not held accountable for academic performance: providers have 

to pass a high hurdle for state provider-approval status, parents are free to choose 

the best provider for their child, providers only get paid for actual services delivered, districts have done some evaluation (e.g., CPS), and providers must track and 

report student academic achievement; 

7. When school principals and teachers had maximum information and engaged 

providers in the planning and operation of SES programs in their schools, it often 

resulted in more effective implementation of SES services; 

8. Districts in which SES is required to be offered are not fully expending their 

SES set-aside (the report estimates the expenditure at 5% (of 20%) for 2004-05). 

However, the GAO report also has some serious flaws. The report suffers from 

‘‘system’’ bias and is misleading about: facility access; LEP/SPED participation; 

overall student participation and attendance; and provider communication with 

teachers and parents. There is a serious lack of connection between claims and evidence gathered regarding state/district desire to control provider program costs/design; and an incomplete exploration of 20% set-aside issue and districts in need of 

improvement waivers. 

1. To increase participation, the report recommends that more districts in need 

of improvement be given waivers from the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) 

to be able to provide SES. There is no evidence to support whether this recommendation would be effective other than that was what the survey responses indicated was needed; while the federal waivers MAY have this effect, it is unsupported by the findings of the report. Before any additional pilots are granted, the 

Department should first complete its own rigorous evaluation; 

2. To increase participation, the report recommends that states be given clearer 

guidance on controlling provider costs and programs. Again, there is no evidence to 

support whether this recommendation would be effective other than that was what 

the survey responses indicated was needed; 

3. The report does not address its own findings that districts in which SES is required to be offered have spent much less than the statutorily required set aside 

of 20% and why district efforts at parental outreach have been ineffective; 

4. The report does not break down its statistics by the large districts surveyed 

(which have over 100,000 students eligible for SES (21 districts)) and smaller districts surveyed (less than 100,000 students eligible (167 districts)). Given that the 

report found that SES recipients are concentrated in a small group of large districts, 

the data can be very misleading since the number of smaller districts can mask or 

change the survey results from the large districts; 

5. Although the GAO study makes numerous references to limited English proficient and special education students not being served adequately, the report states 

unequivocally: ‘‘* * * we were unable to determine whether certain groups of students were underserved.’’ (Page 17, emphasis added) 

6. GAO estimated that some, most or all providers did not contact teachers to 

align curriculum in 40% of districts and did not contact parents in 30% of districts 

in 04-05. This ‘‘finding’’ is essentially meaningless because the conclusion is based 

on the aggregation of potential responses to the GAO question. There is no breakVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\FC\9-21-06\29860.TXT EDUWK PsN: DICK
97

down between providers, in which districts, and among each category. For example, 

the breakdown for contacting teachers could be: in 25% of districts, some providers 

did not contact teachers; in 10% of districts, most providers did not contact teachers; 

and in 5% of districts, no providers contacted teachers, which is a much different 

picture than that given by the GAO. The report also doesn’t indicate which size of 

districts (the 21 large districts and all other smaller ones) and how many providers 

are in each district. For example, in small districts with one provider, if that provider doesn’t contact teachers, then that yields a result of no providers contacting 

teachers in the district, which is a problem, but not of the same nature as that portrayed by the report. Finally, this finding is specific to providers contacting teachers 

to align curriculum; it doesn’t address other forms of contact between providers and 

teachers that happen everyday on student learning plans, achievement and satisfaction. 

7. The report underestimates the importance of providers serving students in 

school facilities; it lumps together services provided in school facilities with those 

near school facilities—that is a major difference in physical location for parents and 

their children. Further, the report does not examine the question of location of SES 

and impact on student participation and attendance; 

8. The report is a qualitative analysis that relies on self-reported surveys of only 

some of the major actors involved in SES: states and districts. Whereas 50 states 

(and DC and PR) and 188 districts were given in-depth surveys, only 22 providers 

were ‘‘interviewed’’. The report suffers from this imbalance as it gives too much 

weight to state and district survey findings and uncritically parrots the wants of the 

states and districts, particularly in its recommendations (see points 7 and 8 above). 

The report states: ‘‘While we did not validate specific information that states and 

districts reported through our surveys, we reviewed the information to determine 

that their responses were complete and reasonable and found the information to be 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.’’ (Page 2) One method used to 

determine what was ‘‘reasonable’’ was to check two reports by the Center on Education Policy, which were also surveys of states and various districts. 

Conclusion 

The report completely misses some of the biggest drivers of SES mis-implementation and doesn’t directly address the core problems of participation and achievement 

results. All recommendations solve state/district/school concerns, and only touch on 

provider concerns to the extent they are the same as the ‘‘systems.’ ’’ Specifically, 

the report does not directly address and recommend solutions to the following: 

1. Unless and until the issue of the use of the 20% set-aside for SES (and public 

school choice) is addressed, it will be impossible for SES to reach its potential. There 

is an overwhelming disincentive for districts to encourage SES enrollment since ‘‘unused’’ funds revert back to the school district that school year for other uses. Most 

of the obstacles to SES implementation and increasing SES enrollments stem from 

this single issue. There are a number of possible solutions to this core problem, although the surest way to avoid any perverse incentives or conflicts of interest would 

be to have a third party administer the 20% set-aside for the district when the district is a provider. Another approach is the ‘‘lock-box’’ concept that reserves SES/

Choice funds just for that purpose at the district and state levels. With potentially 

surplus funds remaining restricted for those original purposes, the district would 

more likely ‘‘use it vs. lose it’’. We should also study the new approach by the state 

of Florida that sets a high standard of student enrollment or student opt-out before 

unused funds are re-allocated for non-SES purposes. 

2. More widespread facility access must become a reality, as it will increase enrollment, parental satisfaction, safety and even academic achievement. Many districts use facility access as a ’backdoor’ means to regulate SES, including using it 

to lower per-pupil costs and recapture SES dollars leaving their control. There is 

a simple way to address this issue that puts providers on the same footing as other 

groups seeking access to school facilities after the regular school day. Federal law 

should require districts to select an approved provider or providers using a fair, 

transparent and objective process to operate on-site in the school or schools free of 

charge, or for a reasonable fee, on the same basis and terms as are available to 

other groups that seek access to the school building. This process may take into account the performance of a provider. 

About the Education Industry Association and its SES Coalition 

The Education Industry Association (EIA) works to expand educational opportunities and improve student achievement for learners of all ages by infusing American 

education with market-based drivers of service, innovation, and results. Founded in 

1990, EIA is the leading professional association for private providers of education 

98

services, suppliers, and other private organizations in all sectors of education. EIA 

currently has more than 500 individual and corporate members. 

www.educationindustry.org 

A number of EIA members are state-approved providers of supplemental education services (SES) under ‘‘No Child Left Behind,’’ and have delivered tutoring to 

hundreds of thousands of economically and educationally disadvantaged, SES-eligible students. These EIA members have formed the EIA SES Coalition, which sponsors the ‘‘Campaign to Support Quality Tutoring for America’s Students,’’ launched 

in February, 2006. 

In addition to managing the Campaign and the SES Coalition, EIA provides the 

framework for entrepreneurs and corporate executives to work together to promote 

public understanding of the education industry and develop public-private partnerships to advance better teaching and learning. The association also works to advance state and federal education policies—such as No Child Left Behind—to the 

benefit of EIA members, children, educators and parents. EIA members include tutoring companies, education management organization, charter schools, educators, 

publishers, school suppliers, financial institutions, investors, and colleges and universities. More information on the Education Industry Association (EIA) may be obtained by calling Steve Pines, EIA executive director at 800-252-3280 or visiting 

www.educationindustry.org. 

Education Industry Association Campaign to Support Quality Tutoring for 

America’s Students 

Parents: How to Get Free Tutoring for Your Child? 

10 Questions To Ask Your Local School District 

1. Is free tutoring being offered in my child’s school? 

2. Where can I learn more about this program? 

3. Is my child eligible to receive free tutoring? 

4. How do I enroll my child in the tutoring program? 

5. How much time do I have to make up my mind? 

6. Can I ask the principal of my child’s school about this program? 

7. Will I be given plenty of information about all the tutoring organizations I can 

choose from? 

8. Will I be able to ask questions of the tutoring organizations I am considering? 

9. Will my child be able to receive the tutoring at his or her school? 

10. How soon will the program begin? 

Education Industry Association Guidelines for Accountability in 

Supplemental Education Services 

REVISED FEBRUARY 9, 2006

Under ‘‘No Child Left Behind,’’ state education agencies (SEAs) are tasked with 

developing lists of approved providers of supplemental education services (SES) 

deemed capable of helping students most at need—those who are Title 1-eligible, 

and who attend schools that have failed to make adequate yearly progress for two 

straight years. NCLB stipulates that if an SES provider’s program fails to demonstrate effectiveness for two consecutive years, an SEA may remove that organization from its state’s approved provider list. 

Four years after NCLB was signed into law, SEAs seem to have fulfilled their responsibility of reviewing and approving SES providers; as of this writing, there are 

approximately 1,800 approved SES providers nationwide, with about 300,000 educationally and economically needy students currently enrolled in programs. 

SEA measurement of SES effectiveness, on the other hand, has proven to be much 

more problematic. Very few SEAs have initiated SES evaluation programs, and 

fewer still have used SES evaluation data to improve program content or delivery. 

The Education Industry Association (EIA), representing over 600 education organizations that serve students, schools and the community, including SES providers 

nationwide, calls on all SEAs to take immediate action to develop and implement 

sound, equitable and effective SES evaluation systems. EIA believes that to do any 

less would be unfair to the students currently enrolled in SES programs nationwide, 

and detrimental to the future viability of the SES program under NCLB. 

The Association and its members stand ready to work cooperatively with all states 

and districts nationwide not only to deliver the highest-quality SES services, but to 

99

ensure those services are helping our nation’s economically and educationally disadvantaged students. 

General Principles of Effective SES Evaluation 

EIA’s position on SES evaluation, fully outlined below, follows these general principles: 

• Providers strongly endorse accountability. The industry supports valid and reliable evaluation methods that recognize effective programs, while sanctioning programs that fail to produce results. 

• The process of accountability starts prior to service delivery. During the state 

review and approval process for providers, SEAs should set high benchmarks in the 

application including: demonstrated organizational capacity; a record of prior performance with similar programs/student populations; viable financial management 

systems; use of research-based materials/methods; and use of qualified staff. SEAs 

and providers should understand what success looks like before the first SES student is enrolled in a program. 

• Provider performance can be maximized when providers follow industry standards of program quality and business ethics such as those endorsed by the EIA. EIA 

has adopted voluntary codes followed by our members, which have been utilized by 

some state departments of education in their provider review process, including 

those in CT, NY, OH, MD, GA, and IL. 

• Evaluation designs and their implementation must be fair and sensitive enough 

to record gains of individual students, especially students whose achievement level 

is several grades behind their grade level. It’s simply not realistic for anyone to expect that an average of 40 hours of tutoring can, or should, bring students up to 

grade-level performance if they are one, two or three grade levels behind. That said, 

effective tutoring must be able to demonstrate that students are making progress 

toward pre-defined goals. 

• Evaluation designs need to account for, and be fair to, providers serving larger 

and smaller populations of students, and using varying methods of instruction. Unlike the use of standardized testing to measure students’ knowledge of state-mandated core content taught in the regular classroom, SES evaluation designs should 

be comprehensive enough to assess growth achieved through multiple variables including different tutoring pedagogies, ratios, contact hours, and student characteristic, etc. 

• States should collect qualitative data on parental satisfaction in addition to student academic achievement data. From their perspective on access, to choices in the 

selection of SES providers, to their views on the influence and impact of tutoring 

programs on their children overall, parents’ voices can and should be heard as part 

of the SES evaluation process. States should understand this, and use multiple 

measures of provider success in addition to student achievement data, including levels of parental satisfaction and attendance rates. 

• States should receive support from the federal government to conduct proper 

evaluation of SES. Sound evaluation of SES cannot, and should not be achieved on 

the cheap. EIA advocates that States either be permitted to use a portion of Title 

I funding to conduct SES evaluation, or that the federal government provide funding 

for evaluation beyond funding for SES itself. 

Specific Recommendations on SES Evaluation 

1. States should closely involve Providers and LEAs early in the development of 

evaluation policies and specific methodologies. Providers and districts have ‘‘been in 

the trenches’’ with SES programs for nearly four years, and should be consulted on 

the selection of assessment tools and the means for monitoring and data collection. 

2. States should ensure the overall fairness of the system especially when the 

LEA is an approved provider. There are potential conflicts of interest that must be 

openly disclosed and avoided with respect to SES evaluation, especially when the 

local school district is also an SES provider and conducts monitoring on behalf of 

the State. EIA urges States to consider the use of third-party outside evaluators to 

mitigate any potential conflicts. 

3. States should isolate the effects of SES from other variables that might affect 

a student’s achievement. SES evaluations must be designed to detect and measure 

the specific effects of the tutoring intervention, apart and separate from classroom 

instruction or other extracurricular activities that might influence academic achievement. Statistical regression models can help project academic growth that tutored 

students may be expected to make and then compare their actual performance with 

these projections. 

4. States should consider the use of control groups for comparison purposes. This 

offers a way to demonstrate whether or not enrollment in SES programs enhances 

100

performance beyond attendance of regular classroom instruction. It will also enable 

administrators to determine whether eligible students who choose not to enroll in 

SES programs are being left behind students who do choose to enroll. 

5. States should factor in the length of time a student is in an SES program. If 

a student does not attend a provider’s program for at least 75% to 80% of the scheduled time, his or her chronic absences should be taken into account at the time the 

provider is evaluated. Overall attendance patterns, however, should be one of several criteria that SEAs should include in the performance review of providers. 

6. States should exercise extreme care or avoid using standardized testing for purposes other than for which it was originally deemed reliable and valid. Measuring 

a 30-, 40- or even an 80-hour tutoring program with an standardized instrument 

designed to measure year-over-year growth of students in classrooms full time, may 

not pick up potential change from a short-term tutoring program unless there are 

very large samples and evaluators use sophisticated statistical controls that can accurately isolate these effects. Another limitation of the use of grade-level standardized testing comes with SES students who are frequently achieving well-below grade 

level. Learning gains from SES may not be picked up by these tests. The federal 

government should assist States with the extraordinary costs that may be incurred 

if state-standardized assessments need to be modified for SES purposes. 

7. States should implement a standards-based testing framework that is aligned 

to their core reading and mathematics standards. They should then ensure that the 

provider’s curriculum is linked to these standards through the upfront provider approval process. 

8. States should include in their overall evaluation of provider effectiveness, data 

from providers’ pre- and post-testing of SES students. Since individual learning 

goals are set for each student, this approach may better measure those individualized results. This is the least costly approach, since the provider pays these costs. 

9. States should include in their evaluation policies the prospect of providers demonstrating clear effectiveness in one or more districts within a State, and a lack of 

progress in other district within that same State. At the same time, States should 

also develop an appeals process which would allow a provider deemed ineffective to 

make its best case not to be removed from the approved provider list. 

10. States should ensure privacy for all students and their families. Information 

on student performance in SES programs should be protected to the same degree 

that all other student information is protected. 

For more information on EIA, please contact Mr. Steve Pines, Executive Director, 

800-252-3280, or spines@educationindustry.org.

Æ