November 2009

Students’ Use of Tutoring Services, by Adequate 

Yearly Progress Status of School 

Statistics

in Brief

Introduction

Tutoring has a history as a tool to improve students’ academic achievement 

in the United States (Cohen, Kulik, and Kulik 1982; Wasik and Slavin 1993; 

Invernizzi 2002). Children can receive tutoring from a variety of sources, 

both at school and outside of school. Parents who can tutor their children 

often first try to intervene themselves and then, given economic means, hire 

private tutoring services for their children. Children of parents who cannot 

help, either educationally or financially, rely upon tutoring services provided 

at school (Farkas and Durham 2008). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

(NCLB)—which mandated that Title I schools not meeting yearly assessment 

targets offer free tutoring as part of the supplemental education services (SES) 

in the legislation—brought new attention to tutoring. Recent research on 

Title I has investigated the implementation of and participation in SES (U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 2006; Stullich, Eisner, and McCrary 2007; 

U.S. Department of Education 2007; U.S. Department of Education 2009).

This Statistics in Brief contributes to current research by investigating the use 

of tutoring services among a nationally representative group of public school 

students enrolled in grades K–12.1

 The report compares students in schools that 

have not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for 3 or more years, and were 

thereby enrolled in schools that may have been required to provide SES (such as 

tutoring), to students who attended other public schools. Comparisons include 

parents’ reports of receipt of information on free tutoring; their child receiving 

free tutoring; their child receiving other tutoring; paying, in whole or in part, 

for other tutoring; and parent satisfaction with free and other tutoring.

Background

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) reauthorized Title I of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides federal funds to help 

elementary and secondary schools establish and maintain programs to meet the 

1

 The 2007 National Household Education Survey (NHES) questionnaire did not use the term “supplemental 

educational services” but instead asked parents, “Some schools and districts help students get free tutoring 

or extra academic help outside of regular school hours. This extra help can be offered after school, on 

weekends, or during the summer. Have you received information from (CHILD)’s current school or district 

about opportunities for free tutoring? During this school year, has (CHILD) received free tutoring outside 

of regular school hours by a provider approved by your state or district?” Although these questions were 

intended to measure the use of free tutoring under supplemental educational services, parents may not have 

been aware of their child’s eligibility or whether their child’s school offered free tutoring as a provision of 

supplemental educational services under Title I.

Authors

Siri Warkentien 

Education Statistics Services 

Institute – American Institutes for Research

Sarah Grady

Education Statistics Services 

Institute – American Institutes for Research

For more information, 

contact Lisa Hudson, 

National Center for 

Education Statistics, 

(202) 502-7358, 

lisa.hudson@ed.gov

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2010–023

Contents

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

Background.....................1

Research Questions.........2

Data Source.....................3

Student Characteristics....5

Free Tutoring and 

Information About 

Free Tutoring..............5

Other Tutoring................7

Satisfaction With 

Tutoring......................9

Summary.......................11

Methodology and 

Technical Notes........11

References.....................14

Appendix A: Standard 

Error Tables..............16
2 NCES 2010-023

Research Questions

This Statistics in Brief investigates the use of 

tutoring services by a nationally representative 

group of public school students enrolled in grades 

K–12 and attending schools that did not make AYP 

for 3 or more years. The report seeks to answer 

the following research questions: What percentage 

of students attends schools not making AYP for 3 

or more years and how does this vary by student 

background characteristics? What percentage 

of students had parents who reported that they 

received information about free tutoring from the 

student’s school or district, and what percentage of 

students received free tutoring or other tutoring? 

Among those who received other tutoring, what 

percentage bore any cost for the tutoring services? 

Finally, what percentage of parents reported 

being very satisfied with the free or other tutoring 

that their child received? Within each of these 

research questions, the brief compares tutoring 

usage among students attending schools that did 

not make AYP for 3 or more years to the use of 

tutoring services among students attending other 

public schools.4

 In addition, the report examines 

background characteristics of students for each 

research question.5

Because each state has developed its own standards, 

assessments, definitions of student proficiency, and 

AYP targets, the definition of a “school that did 

not make AYP” is not consistent across states. A 

school that misses AYP targets in one state may in 

fact have higher achievement than a school that 

meets AYP targets in another state. However, this 

designation determines whether a school must offer 

SES to low-income students, and so this analysis 

focuses on examining students in schools that did 

not make AYP for 3 years and the extent to which 

their parents report that such services were offered 

in these schools (regardless of family income) in 

addition to comparing the use of tutoring services 

of students in these schools to students attending 

other public schools.

4

 In this brief, “other public schools” include schools that have not 

made AYP for 1 or 2 years (and, therefore, are not required under 

NCLB legislation to provide SES) as well as schools meeting AYP 

targets. The data included on the NHES file do not support a finer 

breakout of “other public schools.”

5

 The characteristics examined may be related to each other and 

therefore differences in one variable may explain some or all of the 

results shown. Although beyond the scope of this report, the variables 

are worthy of further consideration in multivariate modeling.

educational needs of low-achieving students in 

high-poverty schools.2

 NCLB requires states to 

establish yearly assessment targets for districts and 

schools. Schools that receive Title I funds and do 

not make AYP for 2 consecutive years are identified 

for improvement. If a Title I school does not make 

AYP for a 3rd year, the district must offer SES to 

low-income students in that school.3 

Supplemental educational services are defined 

as “additional academic instruction designed to 

increase the academic achievement of students in 

schools in need of improvement” (U.S. Department 

of Education 2005). They can include tutoring 

and other supplemental academic enrichment 

services, as long as they occur outside of the regular 

school day. SES providers can be from the public 

or private sector; however, all providers must be 

approved by the state. States have the option of 

requiring all schools that did not make AYP for a 

3rd year, regardless of Title I status, to provide SES 

to students. For example, 6 of the 48 responding 

states and the District of Columbia required that 

non-Title I schools offer SES to low-income students 

in the 2003–04 school year (U.S. Department of 

Education 2006). Additionally, some schools may 

offer SES to students who are not low income (U.S. 

Department of Education 2009). Therefore, the 

only consistent determinant of a student’s potential 

eligibility for receiving SES (such as tutoring 

services) is whether or not the child attends a school 

which has not made AYP for 3 years or more.

Recent findings from research on Title I and SES 

indicate that students with certain characteristics 

receive SES at higher rates than do other students. 

For example, a study of nine large, urban school 

districts in the 2004–05 school year found that 

among eligible students, those in grades 2–5, Black 

and Hispanic students, limited English proficiency 

students, and students with disabilities received 

SES at higher rates than did other students (U.S. 

Department of Education 2007). 

2

 Title I funds can either be administered in a schoolwide program 

or a targeted assistance program. Schoolwide programs operate in 

schools in which 40 percent or more of the children are from lowincome families and that use their Title I funds to improve instruction 

throughout the entire school. Targeted assistance programs operate 

in schools that use Title I funds to provide services only to children 

who have been identified as most at risk of failing to achieve academic 

targets (No Child Left Behind Act, sections 1114 and 1115).

3

 Readers should note that the regulations as outlined here are those 

that were in place at the time of the 2007 NHES survey.
NCES 2010-023 3

For this analysis, the list was used to create the 

two analytic samples of students—those attending 

schools that did not make AYP for 3 or more 

years and those attending other public schools. 

Schools not making AYP for 3 or more years that 

receive Title I funds are required to offer free SES 

to low-income students (exhibit 1). The particular 

practices of each school, district, and state are 

not addressed in this analysis (e.g., some states 

require that SES be offered to students at non-Title 

I schools; some states have demand for SES that 

exceeds their funding and can offer SES only to 

the lowest achieving students). It is not possible to 

determine in the NHES data whether the sampled 

student received or was eligible for free tutoring as 

part of SES under Title I. Therefore, this analysis 

focuses on tutoring among students who attended 

schools that did not make AYP for 3 or more years 

compared to tutoring among students who attended 

other public schools. The NHES sample used for 

the analyses presented in this report includes 9,003 

students representing almost 45.6 million students 

in grades K–12.

All differences discussed in the text were tested for 

statistical significance at the .05 level using t-tests 

without adjustments for multiple comparisons.

Data Source

The report uses data from the Parent and Family 

Involvement in Education (PFI) Survey of the 2007 

National Household Education Surveys Program 

(NHES:2007) to analyze the characteristics of 

students by their school’s AYP status and their use 

of tutoring services. The AYP status of the school 

was merged from the National Adequate Yearly 

Progress and Identification (NAYPI) database.6

NHES is a random-digit-dial telephone survey of 

U.S. households conducted for the U.S. Department 

of Education’s National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES). In 2007, the NHES PFI Survey 

completed 10,681 interviews with parents or 

guardians of a nationally representative sample 

of children enrolled in grades K–12, including 

homeschoolers. These data, when properly weighted, 

represent a population of 53.2 million students. The 

PFI Survey asks the person in the household who 

is most knowledgeable about the child’s education 

to provide information about family involvement 

in the child’s school, school efforts to involve the 

family in school activities, parental involvement 

with the child’s homework, school choice, and 

homeschooling. In 2007, the PFI Survey also 

included a series of questions about tutoring. 

In NHES:2007 parents were asked to report the 

name of the school attended by each child. The 

school names were coded using established school 

ID numbers from the Common Core of Data for 

public schools.7

 NHES:2007 also included a list 

of NCES school ID numbers in the restricted-use 

file that identify schools not making AYP for 3 

or more years in the 2006–07 school year. The 

list was created from the NAYPI database of all 

schools that did not make AYP for 3 or more years 

in the 2006–07 school year and includes only those 

schools attended by students sampled in NHES. 

6

 The NAYPI database was created by the American Institutes for 

Research for the State Study of the Implementation of Accountability 

and Teacher Quality under No Child Left Behind (SSI NCLB) for the 

U.S. Department of Education. For additional information on the 

NAYPI database, visit http://www.air.org/publications/naypi.data.

download.aspx.

7

 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD) (http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/

ccddata.asp).

Exhibit 1. Adequate yearly progress status and Title I 

mandates

Adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) status1

Provision of supplemental 

educational services (SES) under 

Title I reauthorization

Make AYP †

Failure to make AYP—1st year †

Failure to make AYP—2nd 

year (identified for 

improvement)2 School choice

Failure to make AYP—3rd 

year or more (identified for 

improvement)2

School choice and SES 

to low-income students 

in Title I schools3

† Not applicable.

1

 Adequate yearly progress is the measure of the extent to 

which students in a school meet annual achievement targets 

in reading and mathematics. Each state develops its own 

definition of AYP; these definitions must reflect the objective 

of all students demonstrating proficiency by the 2013–14 

school year.

2

 Schools that are labeled as “identified for improvement” 

have not made AYP for 2 or more years.

3

 States and schools may offer SES to students who are not low 

income and/or may offer SES to students attending schools 

that are not receiving Title I funds. SES can include tutoring and 

other supplemental academic enrichment services, as long as 

they occur outside of the regular school day. Readers should 

note that the regulations as outlined here are those that were 

in place at the time of the NHES survey.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Supplemental Educational Services Non-Regulatory Guidance.

Washington, DC.
4 NCES 2010-023

Table 1. Percentage distribution of public school students in grades K–12, by whether their school made adequate yearly progress 

targets and selected characteristics: 2006–07

Selected characteristics

Percent attending schools that did 

not make AYP for 3 or more years

Percent attending 

other public schools 

Total 10.1 89.9

Student characteristics

Race/ethnicity1

White 4.5 95.5

Black 18.9 81.1

Hispanic 18.2 81.8

Other 11.4 88.6

Grade level

K–5 8.8 91.2

6–8 15.9 84.1

9–12 7.7 92.3

Poverty level2

Poor 19.6 80.4

Near-poor 13.3 86.7

Nonpoor 5.6 94.4

English spoken in household

Both parents/only parent 8.2 91.8

One of two parents 14.2 85.8

No parent(s) 24.2 75.8

Family structure

Two-parent household 8.4 91.6

One-parent household 13.5 86.5

Nonparent guardians 17.9 82.1

Student’s school characteristics

School status

Schoolwide Title I-eligible 23.0 77.0

Title I-eligible, not schoolwide 6.5 93.5

Not Title I-eligible 2.0 98.0

Missing 2.1 ! 97.9

Students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

25 percent or fewer 1.9 98.1

26 to 50 percent 3.9 96.1

Greater than 50 percent 24.4 75.6

Missing 7.2 ! 92.8

! Interpret data with caution; standard error is more than one-third of the estimate. 1

 Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Black includes African American and Hispanic includes Latino. The “other” race/

ethnicity category includes Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, Alaska Native, and multiracial children not of Hispanic 

ethnicity. 2

 “Poor” includes those students living in households below the poverty threshold; “near-poor” is defined as those at 100–199 

percent of the poverty threshold; and “nonpoor” is defined as those at 200 percent or more of the poverty threshold. The poverty 

threshold is determined by the federal government based on the household’s size and composition. For more information, see 

U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty Thresholds for 2006 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years at http://www.

census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh06.html. 

NOTE: Estimates exclude homeschooled and ungraded students. AYP is adequate yearly progress. “Other public schools” include 

schools that have not made AYP for 1 or 2 years (and, therefore, are not required under NCLB legislation to provide SES) as well as 

schools meeting AYP targets.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education 

Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2007 and Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2006–07, Version 1c.
NCES 2010-023 5

Student Characteristics

During the 2006–07 school year, approximately 

10 percent of public school students in grades 

K–12 attended a school that did not make AYP 

for 3 or more years (table 1). The percentage 

of students attending these schools varied by 

several background characteristics. For example, 

19 percent of Black students and 18 percent of 

Hispanic students in grades K–12 attended such 

schools compared to 5 percent of White students. 

In terms of grade level, a higher percentage of 

students in grades 6–8 than in grades K–5 or 9–12 

were in schools that missed AYP targets for 3 or 

more years (16 vs. 9 and 8 percent, respectively). 

Approximately one-fifth (20 percent) of all poor 

K–12 students attended a school not making AYP 

for 3 or more years compared to 13 percent of 

near-poor students.8

 Nonpoor students (6 percent) 

had the smallest percentage attending these schools. 

A higher percentage of students living in 

households where no parent spoke English than in 

households in which one out of two parents spoke 

English attended schools not making AYP for 3 or 

more years (24 vs. 14 percent). Students living in 

households where either both parents or the only 

parent spoke English had the smallest percentage 

attending such schools (8 percent).9

Thirteen percent of students from one-parent 

households attended schools that missed AYP 

targets for 3 or more years compared to 8 percent 

of students from two-parent households. 

8

 “Poor” includes those students living in households below the poverty 

threshold, “near poor” is defined as those at 100 percent to 199 

percent of the poverty threshold, and “nonpoor” is defined as those at 

200 percent or more of the poverty threshold. The poverty threshold is 

determined by the federal government based on a household’s size and 

composition. For this report, a household with four people would be 

considered poor with an income of $20,000 or less, near poor with an 

income between $20,001 and $40,000, and nonpoor with an income 

greater than $40,000. For more information see U.S. Census Bureau, 

Poverty Thresholds for 2006 by Size of Family and Number of Related 

Children Under 18 Years, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/

threshld/thresh06.html.

9

 The student’s household language indicates the knowledge and/or use 

of English by the parent(s)/guardian(s) in the household. The variable 

has three values which represent whether the student’s parent(s) 

speak(s) English, regardless of other languages known or spoken: both 

or only parent speaks English at home, one of two parents speaks 

English at home, and no parent speaks English at home.

About one out of four students (23 percent) who 

attended schools with schoolwide Title I programs 

were in schools that also did not make AYP targets 

for 3 or more years.10 Higher percentages of students 

at schools with schoolwide Title I programs than 

at Title I-eligible schools not operating schoolwide 

programs attended a school not making AYP for 3 

or more years (23 vs. 7 percent). Students at schools 

not eligible for Title I (2 percent) were the least 

likely to attend a school not meeting the necessary 

AYP targets. 

Twenty-four percent of students attending schools 

in which greater than 50 percent of the students 

were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch were 

at schools that did not make AYP for 3 or more 

years. This percentage is higher than the percentage 

of students at schools in which 26 to 50 percent of 

students were eligible (4 percent), which is in turn 

higher than the percentage of students at schools 

in which fewer than 25 percent of students were 

eligible (2 percent).

Compared to the overall percentage (10 percent), 

higher percentages of the following groups of 

students attended schools not making AYP for 3 or 

more years: Black and Hispanic students, students 

in grades 6–8, poor and near-poor students, 

students from households in which no parent spoke 

English, students from one-parent households, 

students attending schools with schoolwide Title I 

programs, and students attending schools in which 

greater than 50 percent of students were eligible for 

free or reduced-price lunch. 

Free Tutoring and Information About 

Free Tutoring 

During the 2006–07 school year, approximately 

60 percent of the public school students in grades 

K–12 who attended a school that did not make AYP 

for 3 or more years (approximately 10 percent of 

public school students in grades K–12) had parents 

who reported that they received information about 

free tutoring from their child’s school or district 

(table 2). Twenty-two percent of students attending 

such schools received free tutoring, according to 

10 Any given school may be either Title I, or may have failed to meet AYP 

for 3 or more years, or may meet both of these conditions, or neither.
6 NCES 2010-023

Table 2. Percentage of public school students in grades K–12 whose parents reported receiving information about free tutoring 

and who received free tutoring, by whether their school made adequate yearly progress and selected characteristics: 

2006–07

Selected characteristics

Free tutoring, among students 

attending schools not making AYP for 

3 or more years

Free tutoring, among students 

attending other public schools

Percent receiving 

information1

Percent receiving 

free tutoring1

Percent receiving 

information1

Percent receiving 

free tutoring1

Total 59.9 21.7 43.3 13.0

Student characteristics

Race/ethnicity2

White 48.6 11.3 40.2 9.7

Black 64.6 29.6 48.0 20.2

Hispanic 67.8 22.3 52.4 19.5

Other 44.5 21.8 38.2 9.6

Grade level

K–5 59.8 24.4 37.2 9.3

6–8 58.7 21.7 45.5 15.5

9–12 61.6 17.3 50.3 16.3

Poverty level3

Poor 62.1 23.7 43.2 15.5

Near-poor 62.2 22.4 45.3 15.4

Nonpoor 55.0 18.5 42.8 11.5

English spoken in household

Both parents/only parent 56.8 19.9 41.8 12.0

One of two parents 71.7 21.6 ! 59.4 20.4

No parent(s) 66.8 26.2 54.9 21.0

Family structure

Two-parent household 56.6 19.8 43.5 11.7

One-parent household 66.9 26.0 43.8 16.8

Nonparent guardians 55.3 17.5 ! 37.2 13.2

Student’s school characteristics

School status

Schoolwide Title I-eligible 62.2 23.2 46.6 15.0

Title I-eligible, not schoolwide 56.2 17.6 38.0 8.7

Not Title I-eligible 46.8 14.4 42.5 12.4

Missing ‡ ‡ 55.2 26.4

Students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch

25 percent or fewer 67.0 12.0 ! 42.2 11.0

26 to 50 percent 46.4 13.2 41.4 12.0

Greater than 50 percent 60.5 24.1 45.1 14.9

Missing 73.4 ! 11.4 ! 53.1 22.1

! Interpret data with caution; standard error is more than one-third of the estimate. 

‡ Reporting standards not met. 1

 Parents were asked whether they had received information from their child’s school about opportunities for free tutoring and 

whether their child received tutoring outside regular school hours by a provider approved by their school district or state.

2

 Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Black includes African American and Hispanic includes Latino. The “other” race/ethnicity 

category includes Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, Alaska Native, and multiracial children not of Hispanic ethnicity.

3

 “Poor” includes those students living in households below the poverty threshold; “near-poor” is defined as those at 100–199 

percent of the poverty threshold; and “nonpoor” is defined as those at 200 percent or more of the poverty threshold. The poverty 

threshold is determined by the federal government based on the household’s size and composition. For more information, see 

U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty Thresholds for 2006 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years at http://www.

census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh06.html. 

NOTE: Estimates exclude homeschooled and ungraded students. AYP is adequate yearly progress. “Other public schools” include 

schools that have not made AYP for 2 or fewer years (and, therefore, are not required under NCLB legislation to provide SES) as well 

as schools meeting AYP targets.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education 

Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2007 and Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2006–07, Version 1c.
NCES 2010-023 7

their parents.11 Lower percentages of students 

who did not attend such schools had parents who 

reported receiving information about free tutoring 

(43 percent) or receiving free tutoring (13 percent). 

Students in Schools Not Making AYP

Among students in schools not making AYP 

for 3 or more years, race/ethnicity was the only 

characteristic by which parents reported differences 

in both receipt of information about free tutoring 

and receipt of free tutoring. A smaller percentage of 

White students had parents who reported receiving 

information about free tutoring—and a smaller 

percentage of White students received free tutoring—

than did Black or Hispanic students. About half 

(49 percent) of White students had parents who 

received information about free tutoring, compared 

to about two-thirds of Black and Hispanic students 

(65 and 68 percent, respectively). Eleven percent 

of White students received free tutoring, compared 

to 30 percent of Black students and 22 percent of 

Hispanic students. 

Receipt of information about tutoring services 

varied by students’ family structure for students 

who attended schools that did not make AYP for 

3 or more years. Fifty-seven percent of students 

living in two-parent households had parents who 

reported receiving information about free tutoring, 

compared to 67 percent of students living in 

one-parent households. 

Comparisons by School Status

In general, higher percentages of students 

attending schools that did not make AYP for 3 or 

more years than other public schools had parents 

who reported receiving information about free 

tutoring. This was true for Black and Hispanic 

students; students in grades K–5, 6–8, and 9–12; 

poor, near-poor, and nonpoor students; students 

in households in which both parents, or the only 

parent, spoke English and students in households 

in which no parent spoke English; students living in 

one- or two-parent households; students attending 

schools with schoolwide Title I programs as 

well as students attending Title I-eligible schools 

not operating schoolwide programs; and those 

11 Although supplemental education services can be offered in the 

summer according to the NCLB legislation, the data presented here 

are limited to tutoring received during the school year, and thus may 

be an underestimate.

attending schools in which 25 percent or fewer 

students were eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunch and in which greater than 50 percent of the 

students were eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunch. Differences for those receiving information 

about free tutoring ranged from 11 percent for 

students in grades 9–12 (62 vs. 50 percent) to 25 

percent for students attending schools where 25 

percent or fewer students were eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch (67 vs. 42 percent). 

In addition, students attending schools that 

did not meet AYP targets for 3 or more years 

had parents who reported higher levels of free 

tutoring compared to parents of their peers who 

attended other public schools. This was also true 

for students in grades K–5; poor and nonpoor 

students; students in households in which both 

parents, or the only parent, spoke English; 

students living in one- and two-parent households; 

students attending schools operating schoolwide 

Title I programs; and students attending schools 

in which greater than 50 percent of the students 

were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. 

Differences by school status for those receiving 

free tutoring, according to their parents, ranged 

from 7 percent for nonpoor students (19 vs. 12 

percent) to 15 percent for students in grades K–5 

(24 vs. 9 percent). 

Other Tutoring 

In addition to being asked about free tutoring, 

parents of school-age children were asked if their 

child received “any other tutoring services.” Parents 

may have used broad and diverse interpretations of 

“tutoring services” in their responses. For example, 

parents may have considered free tutoring from a 

source other than the school or district, tutoring 

from a family member, or tutoring services for which 

they paid a provider. In total, about 12 percent of 

students attending schools that did not make AYP 

for 3 or more years received some other form of 

tutoring (table 3). Of these students, 27 percent 

received other tutoring services that were paid for, 

in whole or in part, by their household. Overall, 11 

percent of students attending other schools received 

other tutoring; among these students, 67 percent 

received services for which their household paid.
8 NCES 2010-023

Table 3. Percentage of public school students in grades K–12 who received tutoring other than free tutoring and whose household 

paid for tutoring, by whether their school made adequate yearly progress and selected characteristics: 2006–07

Selected characteristics

Other tutoring, among students 

attending schools not making AYP 

for 3 or more years

Other tutoring, among students 

attending other public schools

Received other 

tutoring1

Household paid for 

other tutoring2

Received other 

tutoring1

Household paid for 

other tutoring2

Total 11.8 27.1 11.2 67.2

Student characteristics

Race/ethnicity3

White 12.0 46.6 11.1 64.1

Black 15.0 22.6 10.6 75.1

Hispanic 9.0 11.4 ! 11.7 78.8

Other 11.6 ! ‡ 11.5 49.7

Grade level

K–5 14.4 36.6 9.5 72.8

6–8 9.3 14.4 ! 9.7 68.0

9–12 11.5 24.1 ! 14.5 61.9

Poverty level4

Poor 7.8 ‡ 8.5 81.5

Near-poor 16.5 ‡ 12.6 84.8

Nonpoor 12.9 53.6 11.6 57.9

English spoken in household

Both parents/only parent 13.6 30.7 11.3 65.8

One of two parents 17.3 ! ‡ 12.4 ‡

No parent(s) 6.4 ‡ 9.9 77.9

Family structure

Two-parent household 11.9 22.6 11.4 64.8

One-parent household 9.9 30.1 ! 10.4 75.4

Nonparent guardians 18.6 ! ‡ 12.5 66.1

Student’s school characteristics

School status

Schoolwide Title I-eligible 11.2 27.3 8.8 75.6

Title I-eligible, not schoolwide 18.7 ‡ 11.1 63.4

Not Title I-eligible 8.5 ! ‡ 12.8 64.5

Missing # # 10.7 72.7

Students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch

25 percent or fewer 16.6 ! ‡ 13.5 57.9

26 to 50 percent 10.1 ! ‡ 10.4 69.4

Greater than 50 percent 11.9 22.3 9.2 82.2

Missing ‡ # 10.7 67.9

# Rounds to zero. 

! Interpret data with caution; standard error is more than one-third of the estimate. 

‡ Reporting standards not met. 1

 Parents were asked whether their child received “other tutoring” outside of free tutoring from a provider approved by the state 

or district. 

2

 Tutoring services were paid for, in whole or in part, by the student’s household. 3

 Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Black includes African American and Hispanic includes Latino. The “other” race/ethnicity 

category includes Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, Alaska Native, and multiracial children not of Hispanic ethnicity.

4

 “Poor” includes those students living in households below the poverty threshold; “near-poor” is defined as those at 100–199 

percent of the poverty threshold; and “nonpoor” is defined as those at 200 percent or more of the poverty threshold. The poverty 

threshold is determined by the federal government based on the household’s size and composition. For more information, see 

U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty Thresholds for 2006 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years at http://www.

census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh06.html. 

NOTE: Estimates exclude homeschooled and ungraded students. AYP is adequate yearly progress. “Other public schools” include 

schools that have not made AYP for 2 or fewer years (and, therefore, are not required under NCLB legislation to provide SES) as well 

as schools meeting AYP targets.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education 

Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2007 and Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2006–07, Version 1c.
NCES 2010-023 9

Students in Schools Not Making AYP

The receipt of other tutoring services varied by the 

student’s poverty level and by whether English was 

spoken at home by the child’s parents. A smaller 

percentage of poor students had parents who 

reported that their children received other tutoring 

than did parents of near-poor students (8 vs. 17 

percent), and a larger percentage of students from 

homes in which both parents, or the single parent, 

spoke English received other tutoring than students 

from homes in which no parent spoke English (14 

vs. 6 percent).

Overall, higher percentages of students attending 

schools that did not make AYP for 3 or more years 

had parents who reported that their students received 

free tutoring (22 percent) than other tutoring (12 

percent) (tables 2 and 3). The following groups 

also had higher percentages receiving free tutoring 

than other tutoring: Black and Hispanic students; 

students in grades K–5 and 6–8; poor students; 

students from households in which no parent spoke 

English; students from one- and two-parent households; students attending schools with schoolwide 

Title I programs, and students attending schools 

in which greater than 50 percent of students were 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

Comparisons by School Status 

There were no measurable differences in the 

overall percentage of students attending schools 

not making AYP for 3 or more years who received 

other tutoring and the percentage of students 

attending other public schools (12 vs. 11 percent) 

(table 3). Furthermore, there were no measurable 

differences by any selected background characteristics. In contrast, the percentage of students whose 

household paid for other tutoring, in whole or in 

part, varied by the student’s school’s AYP status. 

In general, lower percentages of students attending schools that did not make AYP for 3 or more 

years had parents who reported that they paid for 

tutoring services. Among students who received 

other tutoring, 27 percent of students attending 

schools not making AYP targets for 3 or more 

years received tutoring services that were paid for 

by their household, compared to 67 percent of 

students attending other public schools. This was 

also true for Black and Hispanic students; students 

in grades K–5, 6–8, and 9–12; students living in 

households in which both parents, or the only 

parent, spoke English; students living in one- and 

two-parent households; students attending schoolwide Title I schools; and those attending schools 

in which greater than 50 percent of students were 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

Satisfaction With Tutoring

Parents of students were also asked how satisfied 

they were with the tutoring services that their child 

received. Parents could respond “very satisfied,” 

“somewhat satisfied,” “somewhat dissatisfied,” 

or “very dissatisfied.” Of the students attending 

schools that did not make AYP for 3 or more years, 

about 63 percent of students who received free 

tutoring and 54 percent of students who received 

other tutoring had parents who were very satisfied 

with the services that their child received (table 

4). Among students at other public schools, 62 

percent of students who received free tutoring and 

59 percent of students who received other tutoring 

had parents who reported being very satisfied with 

the services their child received.

Students in Schools Not Making AYP

Parent satisfaction varied by poverty level and 

family structure among students attending schools 

that did not make AYP for 3 or more years. 

Specifically, a greater percentage of poor students 

who received free tutoring had parents who were 

very satisfied with the services than did their 

near-poor or nonpoor peers (80 percent vs. 57 and 

41 percent, respectively). In addition, 50 percent 

of all students living in two-parent households had 

parents who were very satisfied, compared to 75 

percent of students living in one-parent households.

Parent satisfaction with other tutoring varied 

by students’ grade level. A greater percentage of 

students enrolled in grades K–5 in schools that 

missed AYP targets for 3 or more years and who 

received other tutoring had parents who were very 

satisfied with the services (66 percent) than did the 

comparable group of students enrolled in grades 

6–8 (38 percent).

Comparisons by School Status

There were no measurable differences in parent 

satisfaction with tutoring services by the AYP status 

of the student’s school.
10 NCES 2010-023

Table 4. Percentage of public school students in grades K–12 who received free or other tutoring whose parents reported being 

very satisfied with tutoring services, by whether their school made adequate yearly progress, type of tutoring, and 

selected characteristics: 2006–07

Selected characteristics

Parental satisfaction, among students 

attending schools not making AYP for 3 

or more years who received tutoring

Parental satisfaction, among 

students attending other public 

schools who received tutoring

Free tutoring1 Other tutoring2 Free tutoring1 Other tutoring2

Total 62.9 54.2 61.9 58.7

Student characteristics

Race/ethnicity3

White 71.0 ‡ 58.7 61.3

Black 61.4 53.0 65.5 62.1

Hispanic 59.9 52.2 65.6 51.7

Other ‡ ‡ 55.5 50.4

Grade level

K–5 68.0 66.1 68.4 64.0

6–8 55.3 38.2 60.9 58.9

9–12 66.2 50.5 57.5 53.8

Poverty level4

Poor 80.3 ‡ 65.7 59.2

Near-poor 56.9 53.6 61.7 58.4

Nonpoor 40.9 53.8 60.4 58.7

English spoken in household

Both parents/only parent 63.9 52.8 61.7 58.7

One of two parents ‡ ‡ 62.6 ‡

No parent(s) 62.7 ‡ 62.9 57.3

Family structure

Two-parent household 50.5 50.7 61.5 57.9

One-parent household 74.6 63.2 63.4 60.8

Nonparent guardians ‡ ‡ 56.5 61.9

Student’s school characteristics

School status

Schoolwide Title I-eligible 67.0 54.8 64.1 59.9

Title I-eligible, not schoolwide ‡ ‡ 61.0 60.9

Not Title I-eligible ‡ ‡ 59.9 57.2

Missing ‡ # 65.4 61.3

Students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch

25 percent or fewer ‡ ‡ 57.7 54.5

26 to 50 percent ‡ ‡ 63.6 61.7

Greater than 50 percent 64.8 51.5 63.3 62.1

Missing ‡ ‡ 65.6 62.1

‡ Reporting standards not met. 1

 Parents were asked whether they had received information from their child’s school about opportunities for free tutoring and 

whether their child received tutoring outside regular school hours by a provider approved by their school district or state.

2

 Parents were asked whether their child received “other tutoring” outside of free tutoring from a provider approved by the state 

or district. 

3

 Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Black includes African American and Hispanic includes Latino. The “other” race/ethnicity 

category includes Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, Alaska Native, and multiracial children not of Hispanic ethnicity.

4

 “Poor” includes those students living in households below the poverty threshold; “near poor” is defined as those at 100–199 

percent of the poverty threshold; and “nonpoor” is defined as those at 200 percent or more of the poverty threshold. The poverty 

threshold is determined by the federal government based on the household’s size and composition. For more information, see 

U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty Thresholds for 2006 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years at http://www.

census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh06.html. 

NOTE: Estimates exclude homeschooled and ungraded students. AYP is adequate yearly progress. “Other public schools” include 

schools that have not made AYP for 2 or fewer years (and, therefore, are not required under NCLB legislation to provide SES) as well 

as schools meeting AYP targets.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education 

Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2007 and Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2006–07, Version 1c.
NCES 2010-023 11

Summary

During the 2006–07 school year, approximately 10 

percent of all public school students in grades K–12 

attended a school that did not make AYP for 3 or 

more years. Higher percentages of certain student 

groups attended such schools compared to the 

overall percentage—Black and Hispanic students; 

poor and near-poor students; students living in 

households in which no parent spoke English; 

students attending schools in which greater than 

50 percent of students were eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch or attending schools that had 

schoolwide Title I programs. 

In general, greater percentages of students attending 

schools that did not make AYP for 3 or more years 

than other public schools received information 

about free tutoring and received free tutoring, 

according to their parents (60 vs. 43 percent and 22 

vs. 13 percent, respectively, for students overall).

Among all students in schools that missed AYP 

targets for 3 or more years, about 60 percent had 

parents who reported having received information 

about free tutoring from the student’s school. 

Twenty-two percent of students received free 

tutoring services, according to their parents. 

Receipt of information about free tutoring from 

the student’s school varied by race/ethnicity and 

family structure among students who attended such 

schools. Receipt of free tutoring also varied by race/

ethnicity. Larger percentages of Black and Hispanic 

students received information about free tutoring 

and received free tutoring than White students.

About 12 percent of students attending schools 

that did not make AYP for 3 or more years received 

tutoring services other than free tutoring from 

their school. Among these students, 27 percent 

received tutoring that was paid for, in whole or in 

part, by their household. Receipt of other tutoring 

varied by poverty level and by the language most 

spoken in the child’s home. For example, a smaller 

percentage of poor than near-poor students 

received other tutoring. 

There were no measurable differences between 

the percentage of students attending schools not 

making AYP for 3 or more years and those in 

other public schools who received other tutoring 

(12 vs. 11 percent). However, among students 

who received other tutoring, higher percentages 

of students attending other public schools had 

the services paid for, in whole or in part, by their 

household than did their peers attending schools 

not making AYP targets (67 vs. 27 percent). 

Overall, among students in schools that missed 

AYP targets for 3 or more years and who received 

free tutoring, approximately 63 percent had 

parents who reported being very satisfied with 

the free tutoring their child received. Fifty-four 

percent reported being very satisfied with other 

tutoring services. The percentage of students whose 

parents reported that they were very satisfied with 

free tutoring varied by poverty level and family 

structure. For example, larger percentages of poor 

students than near-poor or nonpoor students 

and larger percentages of students in one-parent 

households than in two-parent households had 

parents who were very satisfied with free tutoring. 

The percentage of students whose parents were 

very satisfied with other tutoring services varied by 

grade level, with a larger percentage of students in 

grades K–5 than in grades 6–8 having parents who 

were very satisfied with other tutoring services.

Parent satisfaction with free tutoring did not vary 

based on the AYP status of their child’s school. 

In addition, there were no measurable differences 

by AYP status of the child’s school for parent 

satisfaction with other tutoring.

Methodology and Technical Notes

Overview of NHES

The 2007 National Household Education Survey 

(NHES) was a telephone survey conducted for the 

U.S. Department of Education’s National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES). Data collection 

occurred from January through May 2007. When 

appropriately weighted, the sample used in this 

analysis is nationally representative of public 

school students in grades K–12 in the 50 states and 

the District of Columbia. The sample was selected 

using random-digit-dial methods, and the data 

were collected using computer-assisted telephone 

interviewing (CATI) technology. A screening 

questionnaire administered to a member of the 

household age 18 or older was used to determine 
12 NCES 2010-023

whether any children enrolled in grades K–12 

lived in the household, to collect age and grade 

information on each child, and to identify the 

appropriate parent or guardian to respond for the 

sampled child. More detailed, extended interviews 

were conducted about each sampled child. Each 

interview was conducted with the parent or 

guardian most knowledgeable about the care and 

education of the sampled child.

In 2007, parents were asked to provide the name 

of their child’s school during the interview. NHES 

matched the NCES identification number of the 

child’s school to data from one of two NCES 

surveys—the Common Core of Data (CCD) for 

public schools or the Private School Universe 

Survey (PSS) for private schools. All NHES 

variables pertain to the student, but CCD and PSS 

variables pertain to the student’s school. At the 

time that the data from the CCD file were merged 

with the NHES data, CCD data from the 2004–05 

academic school year were the most recent data 

available. However, for this analysis, CCD data 

from the 2006–07 academic year were merged 

to the NHES file in order to better align with the 

timing of the NHES data collection. The variable 

SCHLID, available in the PFI restricted-use data 

file, was used to merge the NHES data with data 

from the 2006–07 CCD data file, to recreate some 

of the school-level derived variables included in the 

data files. The CCD variables used for this analysis 

include schoolwide Title I status (STITLI06) and 

percentage of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch (calculated by dividing TOTFRL06 by 

MEMBER06).

The restricted data file for NHES:2007 also 

includes a list of NCES school identification 

numbers that identify schools that did not make 

adequate yearly progress (AYP) for 3 or more years 

in the 2006–07 school year. This list was created 

from the National Adequate Yearly Progress and 

Identification (NAYPI) database which combines 

data collected from state education agency officials 

and consolidated state performance reports and 

data from the Department of Education’s EDFacts/

Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) 

system. The list was used to identify which students 

attended a school that may have been required to 

provide supplemental educational services (SES) 

under the No Child Left Behind legislation. Readers 

should note that individual states are always the 

most authoritative, detailed, and current source 

for their own AYP status and identification for 

improvement status.

For complete information on NHES:2007 

methodology, please see Hagedorn et al. (2008). 

Response Rates

Screening interviews were completed with 54,034 

households in 2007, with a unit response rate of 

53 percent. The second-stage response rate, or the 

percentage of eligible sampled children for whom 

interviews were completed, was 74 percent for 

the Parent and Family Involvement in Education 

(PFI) extended interviews. Thus, the overall unit 

response rate for the PFI Survey was 39 percent 

in 2007. Response bias analyses showed no 

evidence of substantial bias in estimates. Statistical 

adjustments used in weighting corrected, at least 

partially, for any biases resulting from differential 

nonresponse (Van de Kerckhove et al. 2008). 

In 2007, item nonresponse (the failure to complete 

some items in an otherwise completed interview) 

was very low (less than 2 percent for most variables 

in this report). For information about specific item 

response rates, see Hagedorn et al. (2008). All 

items with missing responses, except those derived 

from the CCD and the PSS, were imputed using 

a hot-deck imputation procedure (Kalton and 

Kasprzyk 1986).

Quality of Estimates: Reliability of 

NHES:2007 Data

Estimates produced using data from NHES are 

subject to two types of errors: nonsampling 

and sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are 

errors made in the collection and processing of 

data. Sampling errors occur because the data are 

collected from a sample, rather than a census, of 

the population.

Nonsampling Errors

“Nonsampling error” is the term used to describe 

variations in the estimates that may be caused by 

population coverage limitations and data collection, 

processing, and reporting procedures. The sources 

of nonsampling errors are typically problems 
NCES 2010-023 13

such as unit and item nonresponse, differences 

in respondents’ interpretations of the meaning of 

survey questions, response differences related to 

the particular time the survey was conducted, the 

tendency for respondents to give socially desirable 

responses, and mistakes in data preparation.

In general, it is difficult to identify and estimate 

either the amount of nonsampling error or the bias 

caused by this error. For each NHES survey, efforts 

were made to prevent such errors from occurring 

and to compensate for them where possible. 

For instance, during the survey design phase, 

cognitive interviews were conducted to assess 

respondents’ knowledge of the topics, respondents’ 

comprehension of questions and terms, and item 

sensitivity. The design phase also entailed extensive 

staff testing of the CATI instrument and a pretest in 

which several hundred interviews were conducted 

to identify problems with the initial questionnaire. 

An important nonsampling error for a telephone 

survey is the failure to include persons who do 

not live in households with telephones. Weighting 

adjustments using characteristics related to telephone coverage were used to reduce the bias in the 

estimates associated with children who do not live 

in households with telephones.

Sampling Errors

The sample of households with telephones selected 

for an NHES survey is just one of many possible 

samples that could have been selected from all 

households with telephones. Therefore, estimates 

produced from each NHES survey may differ from 

estimates that would have been produced from 

other samples. This type of variability is called 

sampling error because it arises from using a 

sample of households with telephones rather than 

all households with telephones.

Survey Standard Errors

The standard error is a measure of the variability 

due to sampling when estimating a statistic; 

standard errors for estimates presented in this 

report were computed using a jackknife replication 

method. Standard errors can be used as a measure 

of the precision expected from a particular sample. 

Standard errors for all of the estimates are presented 

in tables found in appendix A. These standard errors 

can be used to produce confidence intervals, which 

indicate the accuracy of an estimate. For example, 

an estimated 10.1 percent of students were reported 

to have attended a school that did not make AYP 

for 3 or more years during the 2006–07 school year. 

This figure has an estimated standard error of 0.48. 

Therefore, the estimated 95 percent confidence 

interval for this statistic is approximately 9.16 to 

11.04 percent [10.1 percent +/– (1.96 × 0.48)]. 

That is, if samples from the same population are 

taken numerous times and confidence intervals 

constructed using each possible sample, 95 percent 

of the intervals will include the true value of the 

population parameter.

Statistical Tests

Comparisons made in this report have been tested 

for statistical significance at the .05 level using the 

student’s t statistic to ensure that the differences are 

larger than those that might be expected because 

of sampling variation. The following formula was 

used to compute the t statistic, without adjustments 

for multiple comparisons:

where E1

 and E2 are the estimates being compared 

and se1

 and se2 are the corresponding standard 

errors of these averages. 

Several points should be considered when 

interpreting t statistics. First, comparisons based 

on large t statistics may appear to merit special 

attention. This can be misleading since the 

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to 

the observed differences in means or proportions 

but also to the number of respondents in the 

specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a 

small difference compared across a large number of 

respondents would produce a large t statistic.

Second, there is a possibility that one can report 

a “false positive” or type I error. In the case of a 

t statistic, this false positive would result when 

a difference measured with a particular sample 

showed a statistically significant difference 

√ t = 

E1

 - E2

2 2 se1

 + se2
14 NCES 2010-023

when there was no difference in the underlying 

population. Statistical tests are designed to control 

this type of error. These tests are set to different 

levels of tolerance or risk known as alphas. The 

alpha level of .05 selected for findings in this report 

indicates that a difference of a certain magnitude 

or larger would be produced no more than 1 time 

out of 20 when there was no actual difference in 

the quantities in the underlying population. When 

p values are smaller than the .05 level, the null 

hypothesis that there is no difference between the 

two quantities is rejected. Finding no difference, 

however, does not necessarily imply that the values 

are the same or equivalent.

Third, the probability of a type I error increases 

with the number of comparisons being made. 

Bonferroni adjustments are sometimes used to 

correct for this problem. Bonferroni adjustments do 

this by reducing the alpha level for each individual 

test in proportion to the number of tests being done. 

However, while Bonferroni adjustments help avoid 

type I errors, they increase the chance of making 

type II errors. Type II errors occur when there 

actually is a difference present in a population, but 

a statistical test applied to estimates from a sample 

indicates that no difference exists. Bonferroni 

adjustments are not employed in this report.

References

Cohen, P.A., Kulik, J.A., and Kulik, C.L.C. 

(1982). Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A 

Meta-analysis of Findings. American Educational 

Research Journal, 19, 237–248.

Farkas, G., and Durham, R. (2007). The Role 

of Tutoring in Standards Based Reform. In A. 

Gamoran (Ed.), Standards-Based Reform and 

the Poverty Gap: Lessons for No Child Left 

Behind (pp. 201–228). Washington, DC: The 

Brookings Institution.

Hagedorn, M., Roth, S.B., O’Donnell, K., Smith, S., 

and Mulligan, G. (2008). National Household 

Education Surveys of 2007: Data File User’s 

Manual, Volume I and Volume III: Parent and 

Family Involvement in Education Surveys (NCES 

2009-024). National Center for Education 

Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Invernizzi, M. (2002). The Complex World of One-onOne Tutoring. In S. Neuman and D. Dickinson 

(Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research. (pp. 

459–470). New York: Guildford Press.

Kalton, G., and Kasprzyk, D. (1986). The Treatment 

of Missing Data. Survey Methodology, 12: 1–16.

Stullich, S., Eisner, E., and McCrary, J. (2007). 

National Assessment of Title I, Final 

Report: Volume I: Implementation (NCEE 

2008-4012). National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute 

of Education Sciences, U.S. Department 

of Education: Washington, DC. Retrieved 

October 10, 2008, from www.eric.ed.gov/

ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_

storage_01/0000019b/80/37/0f/30.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Supplemental 

Educational Services Non-Regulatory Guidance. 

Washington, DC. Retrieved September 29, 

2008, from www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/

suppsvcsguid.doc. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy 

and Program Studies Service. (2006). Title I 

Accountability and School Improvement From 

2001 to 2004. Washington, DC. Retrieved 

October 10, 2008, from www.ed.gov/rschstat/

eval/disadv/tassie3/tassie3.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy 

and Program Studies Service. (2007). State 

and Local Implementation of the No Child 

Left Behind Act, Volume I—Title I School 

Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, 

and Student Achievement. Washington, DC. 

Retrieved October 10, 2008, from www.eric.

ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_

storage_01/0000019b/80/2a/57/54.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy 

and Program Studies Service. (2009). State and 

Local Implementation of the No Child Left 

Behind Act, Volume VII—Title I School Choice 

and Supplemental Educational Services: Final 

Report. Washington, DC. Retrieved April 17, 

2009, from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/

choice/nclb-choice-ses-final/choice-ses-final.pdf.
NCES 2010-023 15

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2006). 

Education Actions Needed to Improve Local 

Implementation and State Evaluation of 

Supplemental Educational Services (GAO-06-

758). Washington, DC. Retrieved October 8, 

2008, from www.gao.gov/new.items/d06758.pdf. 

Van de Kerckhove, W., Montaquila, J.M., Carver, 

P.R., and Brick, J.M. (2008). Evaluation of Bias 

in the 2007 National Household Education 

Surveys Program: Results From a Special Data 

Collection Effort (NCES 2008-065). National 

Center for Education Statistics, Institute 

of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC. 

Wasik, B.A., and Slavin, R.E. (1993). Preventing 

Early Reading Failure With One-to-One 

Tutoring: A Review of Five Programs. Reading 

Research Quarterly, 28, 179–200.

For more information on the National Household Education Surveys Program, visit http://nces.ed.gov/nhes. To order additional copies of 

this Statistics in Brief or other NCES publications, call 1-877-4ED-PUBS or visit http://www.edpubs.org. NCES publications are also available 

on the Internet at http://nces.ed.gov.
16 NCES 2010-023

Appendix A. Standard Error Tables

Table A-1. Standard errors for table 1: Percentage distribution of public school students in grades K–12, by whether their school 

made adequate yearly progress targets and selected characteristics: 2006–07

Selected characteristics

Percent attending schools that did 

not make AYP for 3 or more years

Percent attending 

other public schools 

Total 0.48 0.48

Student characteristics

Race/ethnicity

White 0.35 0.35

Black 1.93 1.93

Hispanic 1.26 1.26

Other 2.57 2.57

Grade level

K–5 0.72 0.72

6–8 1.25 1.25

9–12 0.65 0.65

Poverty level

Poor 1.55 1.55

Near-poor 1.10 1.10

Nonpoor 0.39 0.39

English spoken in household

Both parents/only parent 0.50 0.50

One of two parents 2.96 2.96

No parent(s) 1.87 1.87

Family structure

Two-parent household 0.54 0.54

One-parent household 1.16 1.16

Nonparent guardians 5.02 5.02

Student’s school characteristics

School status

Schoolwide Title I-eligible 1.24 1.24

Title I-eligible, not schoolwide 0.77 0.77

Not Title I-eligible 0.28 0.28

Missing 0.91 0.91

Students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

25 percent or fewer 0.37 0.37

26 to 50 percent 0.48 0.48

Greater than 50 percent 1.23 1.23

Missing 3.34 3.34

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education 

Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2007 and Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2006–07, Version 1c. 
NCES 2010-023 17

Table A-2. Standard errors for table 2: Percentage of public school students in grades K–12 whose parents reported receiving 

information about free tutoring and who received free tutoring, by whether their school made adequate yearly 

progress and selected characteristics: 2006–07

Selected characteristics

Free tutoring, among students 

attending schools not making AYP for 

3 or more years

Free tutoring, among students 

attending other public schools

Percent receiving 

information

Percent receiving 

free tutoring

Percent receiving 

information

Percent receiving 

free tutoring

Total 2.76 2.06 0.72 0.50

Student characteristics

Race/ethnicity

White 4.71 3.02 0.89 0.59

Black 6.03 5.96 2.62 1.83

Hispanic 3.93 2.61 1.85 1.66

Other 10.34 6.02 2.97 1.33

Grade level

K–5 5.01 3.63 1.20 0.65

6–8 4.24 3.71 1.71 1.16

9–12 4.36 3.62 1.32 0.95

Poverty level

Poor 5.25 3.83 2.31 1.35

Near-poor 4.24 3.45 1.97 1.53

Nonpoor 3.99 3.15 0.77 0.57

English spoken in household

Both parents/only parent 3.36 2.71 0.74 0.57

One of two parents 11.52 8.68 4.50 3.39

No parent(s) 5.44 3.84 2.52 2.15

Family structure

Two-parent household 3.37 2.28 0.77 0.56

One-parent household 3.94 4.04 1.96 1.16

Nonparent guardians 15.64 9.21 5.22 2.62

Student’s school characteristics

School status

Schoolwide Title I-eligible 3.29 2.41 1.40 1.00

Title I-eligible, not schoolwide 6.84 5.10 1.50 0.83

Not Title I-eligible 7.53 4.25 1.06 0.70

Missing † † 4.24 4.47

Students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch

25 percent or fewer 8.84 5.49 1.26 0.81

26 to 50 percent 7.15 4.07 1.50 1.03

Greater than 50 percent 3.16 2.58 1.68 0.91

Missing 25.50 10.32 3.56 3.46

† Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education 

Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2007 and Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2006–07, Version 1c. 
18 NCES 2010-023

Table A-3. Standard errors for table 3: Percentage of public school students in grades K–12 who received tutoring other than 

free tutoring and whose household paid for tutoring, by whether their school made adequate yearly progress and 

selected characteristics: 2006–07

Selected characteristics

Other tutoring, among students 

attending schools not making AYP 

for 3 or more years

Other tutoring, among students 

attending other public schools

Received other 

tutoring

Household paid for 

other tutoring

Received other 

tutoring

Household paid for 

other tutoring

Total 1.41 5.98 0.43 1.88

Student characteristics

Race/ethnicity

White 2.67 14.56 0.53 2.70

Black 3.31 7.27 1.59 5.53

Hispanic 1.76 6.78 1.19 4.10

Other 5.88 † 1.42 7.19

Grade level

K–5 2.44 10.21 0.69 2.93

6–8 2.09 7.94 0.74 4.47

9–12 2.48 10.35 0.89 3.00

Poverty level

Poor 1.68 † 1.13 5.87

Near-poor 3.80 † 1.25 3.16

Nonpoor 2.20 10.41 0.47 2.60

English spoken in household

Both parents/only parent 1.79 6.96 0.49 2.10

One of two parents 10.32 † 2.97 †

No parent(s) 1.61 † 1.53 6.15

Family structure

Two-parent household 1.83 6.64 0.46 2.41

One-parent household 2.16 13.86 0.86 3.36

Nonparent guardians 10.03 † 2.32 11.54

Student’s school characteristics

School status

Schoolwide Title I-eligible 1.54 7.17 0.84 3.97

Title I-eligible, not schoolwide 4.88 † 1.10 5.05

Not Title I-eligible 2.99 † 0.67 2.65

Missing † † 2.15 8.52

Students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch

25 percent or fewer 5.88 † 0.81 3.32

26 to 50 percent 3.42 † 0.75 3.82

Greater than 50 percent 1.58 6.55 0.83 3.07

Missing † † 1.82 7.87

† Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education 

Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2007 and Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2006–07, Version 1c. 
NCES 2010-023 19

Table A-4. Standard errors for table 4: Percentage of public school students in grades K–12 who received free or other tutoring 

whose parents reported being very satisfied with tutoring services, by whether their school made adequate yearly 

progress, type of tutoring, and selected characteristics: 2006–07

Selected characteristics

Parental satisfaction, among students 

attending schools not making AYP for 3 

or more years who received tutoring

Parental satisfaction, among 

students attending other public 

schools who received tutoring

Free tutoring Other tutoring Free tutoring Other tutoring

Total 5.07 5.84 2.10 2.14

Student characteristics

Race/ethnicity

White 11.62 † 2.82 2.38

Black 9.29 10.55 4.53 7.40

Hispanic 7.47 10.41 3.90 5.38

Other † † 7.99 7.73

Grade level

K–5 7.50 9.41 3.35 4.13

6–8 10.37 10.42 4.61 4.78

9–12 10.31 13.42 3.33 3.07

Poverty level

Poor 6.44 † 4.99 7.54

Near-poor 9.57 13.53 5.37 5.48

Nonpoor 10.56 10.76 2.69 2.23

English spoken in household

Both parents/only parent 6.26 7.28 2.41 2.18

One of two parents † † 8.48 †

No parent(s) 8.18 † 5.43 9.52

Family structure

Two-parent household 7.48 8.16 2.44 2.57

One-parent household 7.10 11.51 3.88 4.70

Nonparent guardians † † 8.87 9.92

Student’s school characteristics

School status

Schoolwide Title I-eligible 5.96 7.47 3.07 5.69

Title I-eligible, not schoolwide † † 5.55 4.91

Not Title I-eligible † † 3.23 2.82

Missing † † 8.44 9.43

Students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch

25 percent or fewer † † 4.13 3.46

26 to 50 percent † † 3.49 4.08

Greater than 50 percent 5.52 7.33 3.01 4.88

Missing † † 7.70 7.56

† Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education 

Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2007 and Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2006–07, Version 1c. 
www.ed.gov ies.ed.gov