No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services
Published: 2006-09-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires districts with schools receiving Title I funds that have not met state performance goals for 3 consecutive years to offer low-income students enrolled in these schools supplemental educational services (SES), such as tutoring. This testimony discusses early implementation of SES, including (1) how SES participation changed in recent years; (2) how providers work with districts to deliver services; (3) how states monitor and evaluate SES; and (4) how the Department of Education (Education) monitors and supports SES implementation. This testimony is based on an August 2006 report (GAO-06-758). For this report, GAO used the best available data on participation and obtained more recent information on other SES implementation issues through a state survey and a district survey, as well as visits to four school districts and interviews with providers.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: SES participation increased from 12 to 19 percent between school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Most students receiving services were among the lower-achieving students in school. District actions to increase participation have included greater efforts to notify parents and offering services on school campuses and at various times. However, timely and effective notification of parents remains a challenge, as well as attracting providers to serve certain areas and students, such as rural districts or students with disabilities. SES providers took steps to align their curriculum with district instruction and communicate with teachers and parents, though the extent of their efforts varied. For example, providers reported their efforts to communicate with the teachers of participating students, but some providers did not have any contact with teachers in about 40 percent of districts. Both providers and district officials experienced challenges related to contracting and coordination of service delivery. In part because SES is often delivered in school facilities, providers and officials in the districts and schools GAO visited reported that involvement of school administrators and teachers can improve SES delivery. State monitoring of district and provider efforts to implement SES had been limited in past years; however, more states reported conducting on-site reviews and other monitoring activities during 2005-2006. Districts have also increased their oversight role. While oversight has increased, many states struggle with how to evaluate whether SES providers are improving student achievement. While a few states have completed evaluations, none provides a conclusive assessment of SES providers' effect on student academic achievement. Education conducts SES monitoring in part through policy oversight and compliance reviews of states and districts, and provides SES support through written guidance, grants, and technical assistance. Education monitoring found uneven implementation and compliance with SES provisions, and states and districts reported needing SES policy clarification and assistance in certain areas. For example, 85 percent of states reported needing assistance with methods for evaluating SES. Many states also voiced interest in Education's pilot programs that increase SES flexibility, including the recently expanded pilot allowing certain districts identified as in need of improvement to act as providers.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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). In school year  2005-2006, Title I of NCLBA—the most recent reauthorization 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 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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 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 receiving 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.
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, for-profit 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 state-approved 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.
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).
section_title: SES Participation Has Increased As Districts Have Taken Steps to Improve Access, but Challenges Remain
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: The SES Participation Rate Increased from 12 to 19 Percent between 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, and Most Participants Were Low Achieving
paragraphs: 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). This increase may be due in part to the increase in the number  of schools required to offer SES over that time period.
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.
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, 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. 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. 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 African-American, 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. 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.
section_title: Districts Used Several Methods to Notify Parents and Offered Services on School Campuses and at Various Times to Increase Participation
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Notifying Parents in a Timely and Effective Manner and Attracting More Providers for Certain Areas and Students Remain Challenges
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. 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.
section_title: Providers Have Taken Steps to Deliver Quality Services, but Contracting and Coordination Remain Challenges to Local Implementation
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
section_title: States are Increasing SES Monitoring though it Remains A Challenge, and Many Continue to Struggle with Developing Meaningful Evaluations
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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.
section_title: Several Education Offices Monitor and Support SES Implementation, but States and Districts Reported Needing Additional Assistance and Flexibility
paragraphs: 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 Studies 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 district-affiliated 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. 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. 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 department’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, 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.
section_title: Prior Recommendations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: GAO Contacts
paragraphs: For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at  (202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony  include Lacinda Ayers and Rachel Frisk.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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.: August 4, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States  Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency.  GAO-06-815. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic  Growth That Education’s Initiatives May Help Address. GAO-06-661.  Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated  in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved.  GAO-05-618. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005  No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional  Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School  Choice Provision. GAO-05-7. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education’s Process  for Tracking States’ Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734.  Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on  Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909.  Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2004.
Disadvantaged Students: Fiscal Oversight of Title I Could Be Improved.  GAO-03-377. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2003.
Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit Though Funding Per Poor Child  Differs. GAO-02-242. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2002.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.