Supplemental Educational Services and Student Achievement in Five Waiver Districts
Author: Berger, Andrea
Date: 2011-03-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Improvement,Achievement Gains,Federal Programs,Student Participation,Academic Achievement,Compliance (Legal),School Districts,Supplementary Education,Improvement Programs,Low Income Groups,Academic Support Services,Federal Regulation,Academic Standards,Benchmarking,Eligibility,Parent School Relationship,Organizational Communication,Institutional Characteristics

Under the &quot;Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965&quot; (&quot;ESEA&quot;), as amended, schools that are served under Title I, Part A of the ESEA and that do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two consecutive years are identified for school improvement. If an identified Title I school does not make AYP while in that status, and thus enters the second year of school improvement status, its district must offer students from low-income families in the school the opportunity to receive free supplemental educational services (SES) such as tutoring, remediation or other academic instruction provided outside the regular school day. The district must offer SES to students from low-income families until the school makes AYP for two consecutive years and thereby exits improvement status. A state educational agency (SEA) may approve as an SES provider a school district that is not identified for improvement or corrective action. However, under federal regulations 34 C.F.R. Section 200.47(b)(1)(iv)(B), an SEA may not approve as an SES provider a school district that is identified for improvement or corrective action. In 2005, the U.S. Department of Education began a pilot through which it granted waivers to five districts identified for improvement or corrective action, to allow those districts to serve as SES providers. Boston and Chicago received waivers starting in the 2005-06 school year, although both served as providers before the waivers. Anchorage and Hillsborough received waivers starting in the 2006-07 school year, and Charlotte-Mecklenburg received a waiver starting in the 2008-09 school year. Anchorage, Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Hillsborough began serving as SES providers after receiving their respective waivers. The central evaluation question for this report is whether SES participation for students served by the district providers was associated with achievement gains that were at least comparable with those of students served by non-district providers. This report also describes student participation in SES, the differences between students receiving SES from district and non-district providers, and the ways in which districts communicate with parents about SES. Each district provided student-level data on SES: whether the student was eligible and whether the student participated, with which providers, in what subjects, and for how many hours. Districts also supplied data on student achievement and student characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, disability status and grade level). All these data were provided for multiple academic years. Because districts received the waivers in different years and state assessment systems included different grades, this report covers different academic years and grade levels for each district. Appendices include: (1) Additional Exhibits; (2) Supplemental Exhibits for Anchorage; (3) Supplemental Exhibits for Boston; (4) Supplemental Exhibits for Charlotte-Mecklenburg; (5) Supplemental Exhibits for Chicago; (6) Supplemental Exhibits for Hillsborough; (7) Comparison of Full and Partial Examples on SES Provider Type Achievement Gains; and (8) Average Achievement Gains Associated with SES Participation Across Five Districts. A bibliography is included. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 119 exhibits.)