[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


 
                    NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: HOW CAN WE
                     INCREASE PARENTAL AWARENESS OF
                    SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES?

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                         COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                           AND THE WORKFORCE
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           September 21, 2006

                               __________

                           Serial No. 109-57

                               __________

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



 Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                 house
                                   or
            Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov


                                 ______

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-860                      WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ï¿½091800  
Fax: (202) 512ï¿½092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ï¿½090001

                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

            HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice     George Miller, California,
    Chairman                           Ranking Minority Member
Michael N. Castle, Delaware          Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Sam Johnson, Texas                   Major R. Owens, New York
Mark E. Souder, Indiana              Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Charlie Norwood, Georgia             Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan           Robert C. Scott, Virginia
Judy Biggert, Illinois               Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania    Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio              Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Ric Keller, Florida                  John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Tom Osborne, Nebraska                Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Joe Wilson, South Carolina           Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Jon C. Porter, Nevada                David Wu, Oregon
John Kline, Minnesota                Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado        Susan A. Davis, California
Bob Inglis, South Carolina           Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Cathy McMorris, Washington           Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Kenny Marchant, Texas                Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Tom Price, Georgia                   Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico         Tim Ryan, Ohio
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana              Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana  [Vacancy]
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Thelma D. Drake, Virginia
John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New 
    York
[Vacancy]

                       Vic Klatt, Staff Director
        Mark Zuckerman, Minority Staff Director, General Counsel


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on September 21, 2006...............................     1
Statement of Members:
    McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' Chairman, Committee on 
      Education and the Workforce................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    McCollum, Hon. Betty, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota:
        Article from Minnesota Women's Press, ``Behind 11 
          Children: A Tutor's Experience With `No Child Left 
          Behind' ''.............................................    28
        Table 1: Estimated Allocations to Local Educational 
          Agencies (LEAs) Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary 
          and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for FY2004 at the 
          Full Authorized Amount Compared to Actual FY2004 Grants    70
        Table 2: Estimated Allocations to Local Educational 
          Agencies (LEAs) Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary 
          and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for FY2005 at the 
          Full Authorized Amount Compared to Actual FY2005 Grants    76
        Table 3: Estimated Allocations to Local Educational 
          Agencies (LEAs) Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary 
          and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for FY2006 at the 
          Full Authorized Amount Compared to Actual FY2006 at the 
          Level Provided.........................................    82
        Table 4: Estimated `New Money' for Minnesota LEAs Under 
          IDEA Part B Grants to States...........................    88
    Miller, Hon. George, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 
      Education and the Workforce................................     4

Statement of Witnesses:
    Anderson, Dr. Barbara, Vice President of Education, Knowledge 
      Learning Corporation-School Partnerships...................    52
        Prepared statement of....................................    54
    Ashby, Cornelia M., Director, Education, Workforce, and 
      Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability 
      Office.....................................................    30
        Prepared statement of....................................    32
    Barr, Dr. Stephen, Associate Superintendent, Center for 
      School Improvement, Ohio Department of Education...........    44
        Prepared statement of....................................    46
    Brown, Morgan S., Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation 
      and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education..............     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
    Dollonne, Monique, Parent of a Supplemental Education 
      Services Student...........................................    56
        Prepared statement of....................................    58
    Harris, Erica L., Manager, Academic After School Programs, 
      Office of After School and Community School Programs, 
      Chicago Public Schools.....................................    48
        Prepared statement of....................................    50

Additional Materials Submitted:
    Education Industry Association:
        Code of Professional Conduct and Business Ethics for 
          Supplemental Educational Services Providers............    94
        Analysis of GAO SES Study................................    96
        Campaign to Support Quality Tutoring for America's 
          Students...............................................    98
        Guidelines for Accountability in Supplemental Education 
          Services...............................................    98


                    NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: HOW CAN WE
                     INCREASE PARENTAL AWARENESS OF
                    SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES?

                              ----------                              


                      Thursday, September 21, 2006

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                Committee on Education and the Workforce

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:33 a.m., in room 
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard McKeon 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives McKeon, Castle, Biggert, Platts, 
Osborne, Kline, Inglis, Fortuno, Foxx, Miller, Kildee, Owens, 
Payne, Scott, Woolsey, McCarthy, Tierney, Kucinich, Wu, Holt, 
Davis of California, McCollum, and Bishop.
    Staff present: James Bergeron, Counselor to the Chairman; 
Kathryn Bruns, Legislative Assistant; Joanna Glaze, Education 
Policy Counsel; Jessica Gross, Press Assistant; Taylor Hansen, 
Legislative Assistant; Cameron Hays, Legislative Assistant; 
Richard Hoar, Professional Staff Member; Lindsey Mask, Press 
Secretary; Chad Miller, Coalitions Director for Education 
Policy; Susan Ross, Director of Education and Human Resources 
Policy; Deborah L. Emerson Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern 
Coordinator; Rich Stombres, Assistant Director of Education and 
Human Resources Policy; Toyin Alli, Staff Assistant; Alice 
Cain, Legislative Associate/Education; Denise Forte, Education 
Coordinator; Lauren Gibbs, Legislative Associate/Education; 
Lloyd Horwich, Legislative Associate/Education; Thomas Kiley, 
Communications Director; Joe Novotny, Legislative Assistant/
Education, Clerk; Rachel Racusen, Press Assistant; and Daniel 
Weiss, Special Assistant to the Ranking Member.
    Chairman Mckeon [presiding]. A quorum being present, the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order.
    We are holding this hearing today to hear testimony on ``No 
Child Left Behind: How Can We Increase Parental Awareness of 
Supplemental Educational Services?''
    Under Committee Rule 12-B, opening statements are limited 
to the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee. 
Therefore, if other members have statements, they will be 
included in the hearing record.
    With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record 
to remain open 14 days to allow member statements and other 
extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be 
submitted in the official hearing record. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    Good morning. I would like to thank my colleagues for 
joining me here today for the latest in our series of hearings 
on the No Child Left Behind Act.
    As always, I would like to express my gratitude to our 
committee's senior Democrat, Mr. Miller.
    We planned that entrance.
    [Laughter.]
    I would like to thank him for our panel that we held 
yesterday and for his strong support of No Child Left Behind, 
as being one of the very strong members in writing the bill. He 
is a strong advocate. And I am happy to be partnering with him 
on this.
    I would also like to welcome Education Reform Subcommittee 
Chairman Mr. Castle, who will be here, and his ranking member, 
Ms. Woolsey, who will be here, for working closely with us 
during this process.
    These hearings have proven extremely informative and 
beneficial to me. And I am sure they are to all of the 
committee. I trust that it will be informative to all who are 
here today.
    Today's hearing will focus on an aspect of the No Child 
Left Behind Act that is of personal concern to me and one that 
deserves greater scrutiny. We will be examining the challenges 
and successes of the implementation of the supplemental 
educational services provisions under the No Child Left Behind 
Act.
    Let me be clear. Access to supplemental educational 
services is vital to the success of the No Child Left Behind 
Act. And while the number of students benefiting from these 
services is gradually increasing, I remain concerned with the 
low overall rate of participation in these important services.
    Among the most important features of No Child Left Behind 
is the priority it places on expanding options for parents 
whose children attend underperforming public schools. Yet more 
and more evidence has emerged that the SES feature is not being 
utilized as widely as it should be. This committee has a 
responsibility to take a thorough and serious look into why and 
how we can change it, as we work to renew the law next year.
    Under the No Child Left Behind Act, students attending 
public schools that do not make adequate yearly progress for 3 
consecutive years have the right to take advantage of free 
supplemental education services such as private tutoring.
    However, government and media reports have highlighted an 
apparent lack of parental awareness that these options exist, 
meaning scores of students are not taking advantage of these 
unique benefits even though they are eligible for them.
    For example, a U.S. Department of Education report released 
earlier this year found that many states do not notify those 
schools which did not achieve AYP in a timely enough manner. 
For the 2003 and 2004 academic year, only 15 states provided 
final AYP results to schools by September of 2004.
    The report also found that, despite the fact that NCLB 
requires parents to be informed of a school's AYP status prior 
to the beginning of the next school year, almost half of all 
school districts notified parents an average of 5 weeks after 
school had started.
    A Government Accountability Office study released even more 
recently raises similar concerns. It concludes that while 
districts have taken multiple actions to encourage supplemental 
services participation, about half of the districts researched 
did not notify parents of their children's eligibility before 
the beginning of the current school year, due in part to delays 
in the receipt of school improvement results from their state.
    Today we are here to ask why this is occurring. Are some 
states slow in making test scores available for identifying 
schools in need of improvement? Are other states late in 
approving SES providers? Are some local school districts 
failing to set aside the required amount of funds to implement 
these options?
    I am pleased we have officials from the Education 
Department and from the GAO with us to help explain their 
findings so we might better answer these questions.
    The bottom line is this: Parent and student choices have 
been delayed or, in some cases, even denied. And we need to get 
to the bottom of why that is the case.
    Joining us today are stakeholders who will share unique 
perspectives on this critical matter. And I am eager to hear 
from each of you. And I thank you for joining us this morning.
    With that, I now yield to Mr. Miller for his opening 
statement.
    [The opening statement of Chairman McKeon follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

    Good morning. I'd like to thank my colleagues for joining me here 
today for the latest in our series of hearings on the No Child Left 
Behind Act. As always, I'd like to express my gratitude to our 
Committee's senior Democrat, Mr. Miller, for joining me in leading this 
important series of hearings as we head into next year's 
reauthorization of NCLB. I'd also like to welcome the Education Reform 
Subcommittee's Chairman, Mr. Castle, and Ranking Democrat, Mrs. 
Woolsey, for working closely with us during this process. These 
hearings have proven extremely informative and beneficial to me, and I 
trust they have been for our Committee colleagues as well.
    Today's hearing will focus on an aspect of No Child Left Behind 
that is of personal concern to me and one that deserves greater 
scrutiny. We will be examining the challenges and successes of the 
implementation of the supplemental educational services (or SES) 
provisions under the No Child Left Behind Act.
    Let me be clear: Access to supplemental educational services is 
vital to the success of No Child Left Behind. And while the number of 
students benefiting from these services is gradually increasing, I 
remain concerned with the low overall rate of participation in these 
important services.
    Among the most important features of No Child Left Behind is the 
priority it places on expanding options for parents whose children 
attend underperforming public schools. Yet more and more evidence has 
emerged that the SES feature is not being utilized as widely as it 
should be. This Committee has a responsibility to take a thorough and 
serious look into why--and how we can change it--as we work to renew 
the law next year.
    Under No Child Left Behind, students attending public schools that 
do not make adequate yearly progress (or AYP) for three consecutive 
years have the right to take advantage of free supplemental educational 
services, such as private tutoring. However, government and media 
reports have highlighted an apparent lack of parental awareness that 
these options exist, meaning scores of students are not taking 
advantage of these unique benefits even though they are eligible for 
them.
    For example, a U.S. Department of Education report released earlier 
this year found that many states do not notify those schools which did 
not achieve AYP in a timely enough manner. For the 2003-04 academic 
year, only 15 states provided final AYP results to schools by September 
2004. The report also found that despite the fact that NCLB requires 
parents to be informed of a school's AYP status prior to the beginning 
of the next school year, almost half of all school districts notified 
parents an average of five weeks after school had started.
    A Government Accountability Office study released even more 
recently raises similar concerns. It concludes that while districts 
have taken multiple actions to encourage supplemental services 
participation, about half of the districts researched did not notify 
parents of their children's eligibility before the beginning of the 
current school year, due--in part--to delays in the receipt of school 
improvement results from their state.
    Today, we're here to ask why this is occurring. Are some states 
slow in making test scores available or identifying schools in need of 
improvement? Are other states late in approving SES providers? Are some 
local school districts failing to set aside the required amount of 
funds to implement these options? I'm pleased we have officials from 
the Education Department and from the GAO with us to help explain their 
findings so we might better answer these questions.
    The bottom line is this: parent and student choices have been 
delayed--or, in some cases, denied--and we need to get to the bottom of 
why that's the case. Joining us today are stakeholders who will share 
unique perspectives on this critical matter. I'm eager to hear from 
each of you, and I thank you for joining us this morning. And with 
that, I now yield to my friend, Mr. Miller, for his opening statement.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am sorry that I 
was a couple moments late there. But thank you for the 
entrance.
    And thank you also for your participation yesterday in the 
forum on No Child Left Behind. I am always amazed the extent to 
which people are amazed or astonished when we say we want to 
work in a bipartisan fashion in this city. But I think overall 
people will welcome it.
    And I thank you for this hearing, one in a series of 
hearings on No Child Left Behind. It is intended to provide us 
information that we need as we consider the reauthorization. We 
are learning what works and what doesn't with the law. And we 
are learning how it can be strengthened and improved.
    The purpose of No Child Left Behind is to ensure that every 
child can read and do math and science at grade level while 
closing the achievement gap between white and minority 
children, between low-income and their peers.
    One way the law sets out to close the achievement gap is 
through the use of free after-school tutoring of low-income 
children who attend schools that do not make adequate yearly 
progress for 3 consecutive years.
    I have heard this aspect of the law described as a 
sanction. But in my discussions with parents, they describe it 
as an opportunity, as a benefit that is afforded their children 
to try and improve their academic achievement.
    And I am delighted that we have with us today a parent who 
is eager to--and I am eager to hear her testimony about her 
child's experience.
    I am also looking forward to hearing the testimony from the 
GAO about the most recent NCLB report. A number of my 
colleagues and I requested this investigation back in April of 
2005 after hearing various reports on what was occurring in our 
districts and across the country.
    The GAO apparently found that, more than 4 years after the 
enactment of No Child Left Behind, only one out of five 
children eligible for the extra academic help under law is 
actually receiving it. This is very disappointing.
    I hope this hearing will help us get to the bottom of this 
problem and begin to think about the possible solutions that we 
can incorporate into law during reauthorization next year.
    The GAO also found that organizations that provide extra 
academic help to students are not being monitored closely 
enough, leading to questions about the quality of the tutoring 
services in some cases.
    The No Child Left Behind law gives parents the ability to 
choose from among a range of approved tutoring providers for 
their children. I am concerned, however, that too often parents 
are being offered providers that are not necessarily effective 
or appropriate because the states have not lived up to their 
monitoring and oversight responsibilities.
    I am concerned that the Department of Education is 
encouraging states to err on the side of offering many choices 
at the expense of ensuring high-quality choices. It is 
imperative that our precious Federal education dollars be used 
for the most effective ways possible. This means we must do 
more to ensure that the organizations that are providing 
tutoring services are the highest quality possible.
    I am also interested to hear from the Department of 
Education. I have some very specific questions for the 
department. The GAO reported that 85 percent of the states said 
they needed more help from the Department of Education in 
evaluating companies and nonprofit organizations that provide 
tutoring services. My question is, what has the Department of 
Education done so far and what more does it plan to do to 
address this concern?
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, on a separate topic that I have been 
asked to raise by several of my colleagues, and that is a 
broader concern with NCLB, concern that has just been brought 
to our attention. And that is our understanding that the 
department is considering some changes related to the 
collection and maintenance of data on students' race and 
ethnicity. There is concern that these changes could undermine 
efforts to measure academic process longitudinally by racial 
sub-groups.
    I hope the committee will hear more about this before any 
steps are taken. This aggregated data is one of the 
cornerstones of No Child Left Behind. And I urge the Department 
of Education not to do anything that would undermine it in any 
way and certainly to consult with this committee before they 
take those steps.
    I know that is not the subject of this morning's hearing, 
but my colleagues asked that it be placed on the public record.
    And I would finally say, Mr. Chairman, that I truly believe 
that if supplemental services are going to provide the benefit 
that they promise, that we are going to have to have additional 
funding.
    These are schools that are in need of improvement. They are 
in need of improvement. They have not made adequate progress 
for 3 years. And there is a lot of effort in these schools to 
try to improve the quality of that education. And clearly, 
supplemental service is a part of that. And I think that 
clearly we go back to the issue of funding.
    This is the time when additional funding was supposed to be 
available to these schools as they enter into the process of 
trying to reconstitute themselves, to improve themselves, to 
make the kinds of changes necessary, including the access to 
supplemental services and to choice. And I worry that funding 
is going to constrain the availability of these services to 
young people.
    But I look forward to the witnesses that we have assembled 
today. And thank you for having this hearing.
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
    We have two distinguished panels of witnesses today.
    And I would like to begin by welcoming our first witness, 
the Honorable Morgan Brown, who is the assistant deputy 
secretary for the Office of Innovation and Improvement at the 
U.S. Department of Education, where he coordinates the 
implementation of the public school choice and supplemental 
educational service provisions within the No Child Left Behind 
Act.
    I would like to remind members that we will be asking 
questions of the witness after testimony.
    In addition, Committee Rule 2 imposes a 5-minute limit on 
all questions. And we know how that light works. When it's red, 
you are finished. Thank you very much.
    You may begin, Mr. Brown.

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

    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 
truly appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today on 
this crucial issue.
    By including the supplemental educational services, or SES, 
provisions in the current version of Title I, the Congress 
recognized that parent options and information are essential to 
meeting No Child Left Behind's goal of all students achieving 
academic proficiency by 2013, 2014.
    The Department of Education is working hard to inform 
families about SES and ensure that all parents of eligible 
students are empowered to take advantage of this option and 
obtain tutoring services that will best meet their children's 
learning needs in reading and math.
    I have recently come to the Department of Education from 
Minnesota, where I headed an office in the state education 
agency that was responsible for overseeing SES there and was 
actually modeled after the department's own office of 
innovation and improvement.
    The department's interim report on the national assessment 
of Title I estimated more than a fivefold increase in the 
number of students receiving SES from the 2002-2003 year to the 
2003-2004 year.
    In addition, a recent GAO report, which you are going to 
hear more about today, estimates that 19 percent of eligible 
students received services in the 2004-2005 school year, an 
increase from the estimated 12 percent of students the year 
before. This translates to about 430,000 of the 2.25 million 
eligible students receiving tutoring.
    However, in spite of this evidence that student 
participation in SES is increasing, we all know that current 
participation rates are unacceptably low. Secretary Spellings 
and I believe strongly that these numbers can and should be 
higher and that more can be done to get students these tutoring 
services.
    As the secretary explained in a May 15th letter to the 
chief state school officers, the department is taking a two-
pronged approach toward improving SES implementation across the 
country.
    On the one hand, we are continuing and enhancing our 
efforts to provide high-quality technical assistance to states 
and local school districts and to also grant states and 
districts reasonable flexibility in implementing the 
requirements of No Child Left Behind in exchange for meaningful 
results.
    On the other hand, we are prepared to take significant 
enforcement action where poor implementation of SES by states 
and districts require it. Over the past 2 years, the department 
has provided resources to help states and districts implement 
SES successfully, issued extensive nonregulatory guidance and 
identified exemplary practices and remedies for problems where 
they exist.
    However, we recognize that some states and districts still 
need information on how to best communicate with parents. The 
department has assigned to our comprehensive Center on 
Innovation and Improvement the task of developing a technical 
assistance initiative to respond to the needs of states, 
districts and community-based organizations to conduct 
effective parent outreach.
    The department will also continue to collect and 
disseminate examples of districts that are effectively reaching 
out to parents and working well with providers to increase SES 
participation rates.
    And particularly, we hope there are lessons that can be 
learned from the states and districts to which the department 
has granted additional flexibility through its two SES pilot 
programs.
    The first program is what we call the flip pilot. And this 
pilot of select number of districts in a state may reverse, or 
flip, the ordering of offering public school choice and SES, 
meaning that SES is offered in schools in their first year of 
improvement status, and public school choice follows for 
students in schools in their second year of that status.
    The second pilot allows districts identified as in need of 
improvement to offer supplemental services, which is currently 
prohibited under the department's regulation.
    In both cases, districts participating in the pilot 
programs will report to the department on their parent 
notification materials, activities and results as part of the 
terms of their pilot agreement.
    Finally, the department recognizes that, in some cases, 
ensuring compliance means taking enforcement actions. Through 
our monitoring and evaluation efforts we know that in the 2003-
2004 year several states did not ensure that districts included 
all required information in their notices to parents, and some 
districts failed to offer eligible parents the option to 
participate in SES at all.
    We are preparing to strengthen our monitoring efforts on 
these provisions to determine the extent to which these 
problems are prevalent across states and districts and how best 
to address them. However, for those states and districts that 
persistently fail to meet the requirements of the law, we are 
ready to take serious enforcement action such as placing 
conditions on grants, withholding funds and entering into 
compliance agreements.
    We know parents want these services for their kids and are 
receptive to SES when they know it is there. Across the 
country, hundreds of thousands of families are taking advantage 
of this free tutoring. And it is clear that parents value SES 
as a tool to help their children find academic success in 
school.
    I will conclude by reiterating that the department is 
committed to making widespread access to SES a reality and to 
ensuring that students and families who most dearly need it can 
get it.
    Thank you again for the attention and scrutiny you are 
bringing to this important educational choice issue. And I will 
be happy to take any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

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

    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, thank you for convening this hearing on 
increasing parental awareness of Supplemental Educational Services. I 
appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today on this important 
issue.
    By including the Supplemental Educational Services (or SES) 
provisions in the current version of Title I, the Congress recognized 
that parent options and information are essential to meeting No Child 
Left Behind's goal of all students achieving academic proficiency by 
2013-2014. The Department of Education is working hard to inform 
parents about SES and ensure that all parents of eligible students are 
empowered to take advantage of this option and obtain the services 
their child needs to achieve success in school.
    I have recently come to the Department of Education from the state 
of Minnesota, where I headed an office in the state's education agency 
modeled after the Office of Innovation and Improvement, which I now 
oversee. In Minnesota, we concentrated on ensuring parents had the 
information and choices necessary to give their children the best 
education possible. In my new position here in Washington, the needs of 
families have, for me, acquired even greater focus.
    As we all know, SES participation rates are low. There is evidence, 
however, that student participation in SES is increasing. The 
Department's interim report on the National Assessment of Title I 
estimates more than a five-fold increase in the number of students 
receiving SES from the 2002-03 year to the 2003-04 year. A recent GAO 
report estimates that 19 percent of eligible students received services 
in the 2004-2005 school year, which is an increase over an estimated 12 
percent of students receiving services in 2003-2004, and which 
translates to about 430,000 of two and a quarter million eligible 
students. Secretary Spellings and I believe strongly that these numbers 
can be higher, and that more can be done to get more students these 
services.
    As the Secretary explained in a May 15 letter to the Chief State 
School Officers, the Department is taking a two-pronged approach toward 
improving SES implementation across the country. On the one hand, we 
are continuing and enhancing our efforts to provide high-quality 
technical assistance and resources to States and local school 
districts, and to grant States and districts flexibility in 
implementing the requirements of No Child Left Behind in exchange for 
meaningful results. On the other, we are prepared to take significant 
enforcement action where poor implementation of SES by States and 
districts requires it. In both these areas, parental awareness is a 
crucial ingredient.
    Over the past few years, the Department has provided States and 
districts with technical assistance and resources needed to implement 
SES successfully. We have issued extensive non-regulatory guidance on 
SES. We also have issued documents identifying exemplary practices and 
remedies for problems where they exist. For example, as part of our 
series of ``innovation guides,'' we produced a publication discussing 
promising practices that States and districts can use to develop strong 
SES programs. The Department has also provided support and assistance 
in the area of SES through national conferences and ongoing discussions 
with States.
    As part of our technical assistance efforts, and in direct response 
to the need we saw in the field for more informative and higher-quality 
parent notification letters about SES, the Department drafted and 
included in the SES guidance a sample parent letter, which is intended 
not only to contain all required information, but also to be as 
``parent-friendly'' and easy to use as possible. However, we recognize 
that States and districts need more information on parent outreach and 
communication. The Department has recently assigned to our 
Comprehensive Center on Innovation and Improvement the task of 
developing a technical assistance effort to help respond to the needs 
of States, districts, and community-based organizations to conduct 
effective parent outreach on SES issues. The Center will be developing 
this effort this fall and will implement it in sites around the country 
during the 2006-07 school year. The Center's effort will include 
technical assistance in the areas of planning and implementing 
outreach, as well as providing sample tools for educators to use to 
reach parents effectively. The Department is also sponsoring a meeting 
of State SES administrators in October, in conjunction with the Council 
of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the C.S. Mott Foundation, to 
provide additional technical assistance and guidance to States. Through 
this forum, we will facilitate further discussion of the issues 
confronting States and districts and the types of technical assistance 
that would be most useful in improving parent outreach and 
communication.
    The Department will also continue to collect and disseminate 
examples of districts that are effectively reaching out to parents and 
working well with providers to increase SES participation rates. In 
particular, we believe there are lessons to be learned from the States 
and districts to which we have granted additional flexibility through 
our two SES pilot programs.
    The first program is what we call the ``flip pilot.'' In this 
pilot, a select number of districts in a state may reverse--or flip--
the order of offering public school choice and SES, meaning that SES is 
offered in schools in year 1 of improvement, and public school choice 
follows for students in schools in year 2. In 2005-06--the first year 
for this pilot--four districts in the State of Virginia participated, 
and each district enrolled more students in SES programs than they had 
in the previous year and had higher participation rates than the 
national average. In the May 15 letter to Chief State School Officers, 
Secretary Spellings invited other states to apply to participate in 
this pilot on the basis of these positive results. We are excited to 
see that there are five States and sixteen districts participating in 
this pilot for the 2006-2007 school year. This year, we will be looking 
closely at SES implementation in the pilot districts, and are requiring 
them to report on their parent notification materials and activities as 
part of the terms of the pilot agreement.
    The second pilot allows districts identified as ``in need of 
improvement'' to offer supplemental educational services, which is 
currently prohibited under the Department's regulations. In 2005-06--
the first year for this pilot also--Boston Public Schools and Chicago 
Public Schools participated and, again, both districts enrolled more 
students in SES programs than they had in the previous year. I want to 
thank Mr. Miller, Mr. Davis and others for their December 2004 letter 
and for their continued support of Chicago's participation in this 
pilot project. For the 2006-2007 year, Anchorage School District in 
Alaska and Hillsborough County Public Schools in Florida have joined 
Boston and Chicago in the pilot. As with the flip pilot, districts 
participating in this pilot program will report to the Department on 
their parent notification materials and activities as part of the terms 
of their agreement.
    While we are working to provide enhanced technical assistance and 
are learning valuable lessons from the States and districts 
participating in our pilot programs, we recognize that, in some cases, 
ensuring compliance means taking enforcement actions. Through our 
monitoring and evaluation of the public school choice and SES 
provisions, we know that, in the 2003-2004 year, several States did not 
ensure that LEAs included all required information in their notices to 
parents. Further, the Department's Office of Inspector General 
conducted a series of six audits over the past few years that revealed 
significant findings on State and LEA implementation of these 
provisions. The audits found that each of the six States failed to 
monitor adequately their LEAs for compliance. As a result, nearly all 
of the parent notification letters reviewed failed to include the 
required elements of the law, and multiple LEAs did not offer eligible 
parents the option to participate in SES at all. We are preparing to 
enhance our monitoring efforts on these provisions to determine the 
extent to which these problems are prevalent across States and 
districts, and we look forward to continuing to work together to 
expedite the implementation of improvements. However, for those States 
and districts that persistently fail to meet the requirements of the 
law, we are ready to take enforcement action such as placing conditions 
on grants, withholding funds, and entering into compliance agreements.
    We know parents want these services for their kids, and are 
receptive to SES when they know it's there. Across the country, 
hundreds of thousands of families are taking advantage of these free 
services, and we know that, in some school districts, demand for SES 
exceeds the funds the district is required to spend for SES and public 
school choice. It is clear that parents value SES as a way to help 
their children find academic success in school. I conclude by 
reiterating that the Department is committed to making SES a reality, 
and to ensuring that the students and families who most dearly need it 
can get it. I'll be happy to take questions.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much. And thank you for 
your testimony.
    Can you explain how the department is preparing to enhance 
the monitoring efforts of the SES provisions with respect to 
parental notification and awareness so that these prevalent 
problems across the states and districts can be eliminated?
    Mr. Brown. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First, I should point out 
that, in terms of the current Title I monitoring that is done 
by our office in elementary and secondary education, monitoring 
on these issues is fully integrated into that monitoring that 
is done in the individual states. And I can talk more about 
that process if you care to have me do so.
    In addition, I should also point out that the Office of the 
Inspector General has conducted audits in six states related to 
these issues. And those findings are presented to the states, 
and those states have responded. And those reports will be 
coming forth shortly. So there has been corrective actions 
asked for in those cases, as there would be in the Title I 
monitoring case.
    Furthermore, we have a pretty involved and intense 
discussion going on in the department currently about how we 
can enhance efforts to do monitoring that specifically focuses 
on choice at SES. Obviously with the Title I monitoring, it is 
part of a larger picture of monitoring that goes on for Title I 
under No Child Left Behind. But this would be something that 
would specifically focus on choice in SES and identify 
particular states and districts that perhaps need that 
monitoring to the greatest degree.
    And I hope that we will be able to share some additional 
details about that with you shortly.
    Chairman Mckeon. Do you get the feeling that some states or 
local districts are just resisting this? Or is it just taking 
them a while to get up to speed?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I think we have seen a variety of 
responses. There certainly are some states that have proceeded 
with good intent and are very serious about trying to as a 
state, as an SCA, make this information available to parents 
and then partner well with their school districts to assist 
them in going forward.
    Having said that, I think there are certainly some cases 
that have been raised by some of the reviews that have been 
done where there is questions that have been raised about 
whether the district, the local school district, is a willing 
partner in working with the state even if the state has good 
intent on getting information out, increasing parent awareness 
about supplemental education services.
    And I think one of the things the GAO report points out, 
which I think is quite accurate, is the importance of the 
individual schools and the leaders of those schools being 
involved in doing outreach to families on both school choice 
and supplemental services.
    But I think it is also fair to point out that those 
principles are going to take some direction, some guidance from 
the leadership of the school district. And so, that message 
from the leadership of the school district--not only should 
they provide some training to principals and teachers so that 
they can be outreach messengers to parents and ask questions of 
parents, but that there is a strong interest in making sure 
that parents know about these choices and can avail themselves 
of them.
    Chairman Mckeon. You know, I have heard stories of the 
Federal Government doing certain things when they find people 
are not carrying out their responsibilities.
    For instance, it was brought to my attention years ago a 
university was violating the law in recruiting students. They 
had caught the practice themselves, corrected it themselves. 
And by the time it was brought to the attention of the 
department, they had already put it behind them. But the 
department was going to fine them something like $9 million.
    I think this is crazy because I think the purpose of 
government should be to help. And where you find somebody that 
is not doing what they are supposed to do, you should inform 
them, educate them. Then if they persist, then you should go in 
and fine them. But it shouldn't be a ``game of gotcha'' type 
thing.
    But where people don't understand at all or they are having 
problems implementing, we should be helping them do that. When 
we find that the resistance is intentional, then we should take 
strong enforcement action, I believe.
    So I thank you for what you are doing there.
    My time is up, and I yield now for 5 minutes to Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And I would want to associate myself with the concerns 
raised by the chairman on the questions of timing and notice to 
parents about these services and the concern that it raises in 
terms of the real availability of these services to those 
students.
    Let me go to the other question on the other side of this, 
on the question of quality. What plans do you have or may be 
under way that I am not aware of to start to monitor the 
effectiveness of these services?
    Some services are offered sort of region-wide. Some are 
very local. Some are part of a national effort, you know, 
outfit to provide these services.
    We are now spending billions of dollars in this effort. I 
just wonder, where we are going on the question of whether or 
not this is--you know, has this been efficient? Is it helpful? 
Is it worth the money? And is it the right way to proceed?
    Mr. Brown. Right.
    Mr. Miller. I mean, I am a supporter of this.
    Mr. Brown. Right.
    Mr. Miller. And I always worry that you can collapse, you 
know, you can implode on quality if you don't pay attention. 
And I just wonder where the department is going on this.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Miller, I totally agree, particularly as a 
former state official who was having to build and develop that 
kind of evaluation as well at the state level. The evaluation 
issue is incredibly important.
    And I think, as the GAO report pointed out, that is 
probably maybe where there is the greatest demand right now 
from states, for additional technical assistance and guidance.
    Let me say a couple things about what the department is 
hoping to do.
    First of all, with the pilot projects that I mentioned in 
my opening statement, built into the condition of that pilot 
project is an evaluation and a yearly evaluation for each year 
they are in the pilot project. And as we get that information 
back, that will be an important test case on looking at 
evaluation, looking at the effectiveness of providers in 
serving students and what kind of progress those students make. 
And we may even, out of that, find some effective practices 
that then we can appropriately disseminate.
    In addition, there is something we have charged our 
comprehensive Center for Innovation and Improvement with, as 
you are aware, the department is identifying giving grants to 
five comprehensive centers nationally that focus on specific 
areas of No Child Left Behind. And for the one that is focusing 
on innovation and improvement, they have been tasked with 
really honing in on this evaluation issue and how we can 
disseminate good practices and have backed up on their Web 
site.
    Now they have a copy of New Mexico's plan. New Mexico is a 
little bit ahead of some of the other states. And they have 
looked at that and feel that that is an appropriate one to 
share with other states, that they perhaps could model some 
things on.
    The department also gave a grant to the American Institutes 
for Research to put together an issue brief. This was even a 
year or 2 ago. And that is available online at the 
TutorsForKids site. And that provides some guidance to states 
on this.
    In addition, we have several conferences coming up, one 
next month, with directors of state education agencies from 
around the country that we are doing in partnership with the 
council for chief state school officers and the C.S. Mott 
Foundation. And a good portion of that is going to focus on 
evaluation guidance and also hearing from the states about what 
specific kind of guidance and assistance they are looking for.
    And then also we have the national Title I meeting in 
January. This will also be a major portion of that.
    And then, finally, with the national longitudinal study of 
No Child Left Behind that a third party is conducting, this is 
also a crucial part of that study as well. And they will be 
giving some feedback particularly in some districts that they 
have selected.
    Mr. Miller. In terms of our timetable, you really won't 
have any in-depth evaluation of these services during next 
year.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Miller, we will, perhaps on a state-by-state 
basis, depending on where the states are--and the states are in 
a variety of different places for a variety of reasons--we will 
have reports by the end of the calendar year from the first 
year of the pilot projects for Boston and Chicago. And that is 
being done by a third-party evaluator. That should be available 
by the end of this calendar year.
    Mr. Miller. I raise this issue because, obviously, given 
what certainly I believe are the funding problems with this 
legislation over the last 5 years and the manner in which this 
money is set up, and certainly a belief in some people's mind 
that somehow this money can only stay in the school district, 
it shouldn't be used--there is going to be attention around 
this money.
    And I have given this same speech to the providers of these 
services, that there is not some demonstration of the 
effectiveness of these programs and the cost-benefits, so to 
speak, that attention is going to be very lively here.
    And I think that, you know, some effort really has to be 
put on the evaluation of what is taking place with these 
services. It is not just whether the parents are happy they 
have access to them. Are they happy because they are helping 
their child achieve the goals that they want? And I think that 
is a critical question.
    I have run out of time. But if I can come back to you on 
the question of--I am really concerned about participation of 
IDA students and English learners in these services. But I 
don't know if there will be time in another round, or you can 
submit that to me. We can talk about that and get it in 
writing.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
    Was that this calendar year that you would have that?
    Mr. Brown. Yes, it is expected by the end of this calendar 
year, 2006.
    Chairman Mckeon. So that will help us.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Kline for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank you, Mr. Brown, for being here. And I would 
like to identify myself with the remarks of both the chairman 
and the ranking member, in terms of making sure that we are 
getting out of these supplemental services what we want, not 
just that they are available.
    I think that Mr. Miller puts his finger right on it. If the 
students are not better able to achieve their goals, it doesn't 
make any difference if there is access to it, if it is not 
working. So I would encourage you to make sure that you are 
looking at that.
    And in the interest of being able to eventually get to the 
second panel, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Chairman Mckeon. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Kildee.
    Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
    Thank you for your appearance here this morning.
    Congress very thoughtfully and carefully provided the 
provision for supplemental educational services. And we are 
concerned that these dollars are not being used, in many 
instances, for these services in a certain school district or 
they are not being used effectively where the programs are 
quality programs.
    What can the department do, first of all, to ensure that 
these dollars are used for the purpose for which they were 
authorized and then appropriated?
    And what can the department do to make sure these programs 
are effective? Because some of them are much more effective 
than others; some are maybe not effective at all.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Congressman Kildee.
    On the first issue of just making sure that the funding is 
used, this is an issue--and again, discussing the GAO report 
about the need for more and better data, including about the 
financial expenditures, as you are aware, there is a 20 percent 
set-aside out of the Title I, Part A funds for school choice 
and supplemental services that districts are expected to allot 
to this area based on demand.
    And we have not had the kind of data, to date, we would 
like to have at the school district level regarding the 
district expenditure of that 20 percent set-aside.
    However, through our EDFacts, our new EDFacts network, 
which is going to be gathering additional data from the states, 
they will be requested to report on a variety of different data 
at the school district level to relate to supplemental 
services, including the expenditure of that 20 percent set-
aside.
    And that is going to happen during this school year. So we 
will know more about whether those funds were expended fully as 
intended.
    On the effectiveness side, one additional thing I should 
mention that I didn't necessarily cover in my response to 
Congressman Miller is that there really is a responsibility 
here for the state education department on the front end of 
this whole process to have the kind of rigorous review process 
for providers that are seeking approval, which is, of course, 
the states' responsibility and authority under this law, that 
they are setting up the kind of rigorous process that is 
looking at, for established providers, what is their record of 
effectiveness, what is their record of success.
    And for new providers, which is sometimes the case with a 
community-based provider, for instance, a smaller provider, is, 
what is the model that they are using, what is the demonstrated 
record of effectiveness.
    So there should be some things on the front end to deal 
with that. And then obviously, as I indicated in my remarks to 
Congressman Miller, on the back end, with the evaluation 
process, is the need to look at actual results for students in 
a variety of ways.
    Mr. Kildee. Well, if they don't spend the dollars for the 
supplemental education services--of course, they can retain the 
dollars. And I really don't want to take those dollars away 
from them, since we are underfunding No Child Left Behind 
anyway. But is there a stronger administrative role that the 
United States Department of Education can play here?
    I know we would like to have the 50 states' departments of 
education doing a better job in this. But isn't there a role 
you can play?
    Or also, should there be a legislative change here to make 
sure that, first of all, the dollars are spent for that purpose 
and that they are spent for effective programs?
    Mr. Brown. Congressman, that is a very good question. I 
think there is two parts of this.
    And the focus of this hearing being parent awareness, some 
of the difficulty now when we see a school district that hasn't 
spent the 20 percent set-aside is, is it because there is not 
demand, which is what some districts say, or is it because 
there hasn't been enough outreach or enough for parent 
awareness to create that demand?
    So that is one side of why it is so important to have the 
kind of outreach that we have certainly advised districts and 
states through our guidance.
    On the issue, as you mentioned, obviously now if there are 
remaining dollars in that set-aside amount, they, districts, 
can roll them back in to other kinds of Title I expenditures 
currently under the law. And I know there has been some 
discussion about whether those funds should be, in the Congress 
and elsewhere, whether those funds should be preserved and 
there should be a rollover to a following year so that they are 
preserved for school choice and supplemental service 
expenditures.
    Mr. Kildee. Do you think that, as we reauthorize or 
starting at least in the next Congress, that we could tighten 
up in the law itself, rather than waiting for the department, 
either on the Federal level or state level, to do a better job 
on monitoring this?
    Mr. Brown. I think there certainly are chances to make 
improvements in the statute. And I know the secretary would be 
very willing to work with you and the other members of the 
committee to discuss those and decide what those should be.
    Mr. Kildee. We look forward to that. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Congressman.
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
    The chair recognizes the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Castle.
    Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Brown, let me just focus on the subject of who is 
providing these services. And you may not be able to give a 
brief answer. But if you can't, then don't try to go on too 
long.
    But who gives those services now? Is it mostly national-
type operations with local affiliates who are doing it? Or have 
corporations or services been formed at the local level?
    And how many of these entities are there out there, 
roughly? I know that is a very broad question, but can you give 
me a short answer on that?
    Mr. Brown. Congressman, we would be happy to get you a 
detailed breakdown of that, because we do have some data on 
that.
    Again, there is quite a mix. But it does vary from state to 
state in terms of the mix between national for-profit 
providers, local community-based providers, and then, of 
course, school districts and schools themselves that are making 
adequate yearly progress.
    Mr. Castle. Right. Well, I want to talk to you about the 
local school districts. I read in these notes and I had heard 
otherwise that you have a pilot program. And it says here the 
department instituted a pilot program allowing certain 
districts to serve as their own SES providers. And that is 
certain big cities and Alaska, et cetera. It is on page 5 of 
our notes here.
    I am very curious about that, because, you know, it seems 
to me that just because a school is under review doesn't mean 
there are not teachers or other people in that school who could 
perhaps provide these services.
    And I am playing devil's advocate here, because I am not 
sure what the right answer is. But if that is the case, should 
they be able to submit and go under review and whatever?
    And would there be greater interest because there is 
already a connection with the teachers and the parents and the 
kids, et cetera, and we up that level from the 19 percent, I 
think is the last number we have here, you know, to a higher 
percentage who are participating and not necessarily 
exclusively, but perhaps in competition with the outside 
interests or whatever.
    I have never quite understood why we didn't provide for 
that more when we did the bill originally. And I am glad the 
department is at least looking at it as a pilot.
    Do you have any conclusions with respect to that, as to 
where that particular pilot project is going? Or is that just 
too premature to determine anything?
    Mr. Brown. Congressman, I think the whole purpose of the 
pilot is to test some of the issues that you are raising. Now, 
both of the pilots, both the one that allowed the flip as well 
as the one that allowed school districts in need of improvement 
to provide their own supplemental services, both only began 
last school year. So it is a fairly recent--and then they were 
both expanded this school year.
    There are four districts participating in the pilot that 
were school districts in need of improvement, which are Boston, 
Chicago, Anchorage, and the Hillsborough County in Florida. And 
then there are another five states with a variety of districts 
participating in the flip pilot.
    But there were some very specific conditions built into 
that pilot about, well, first of all, the goals of those pilots 
are, first and foremost, increase participation rates----
    Mr. Castle. Right.
    Mr. Brown [continuing]. And second, to have better data, 
both better data about participation and all those pieces on 
the input side, but also better data on the output side in 
terms of evaluation.
    And so, under the conditions of those pilots, those 
districts are required to do a number of things in terms of 
extended parent outreach, larger windows of time for parents to 
enroll in the services, committing to expending their 20 
percent set-aside, working with providers fairly to make sure 
that not just they as their own provider, but other providers 
have access to school facilities.
    And so, there is a number of pieces we are going to be 
looking at in these test cases to see did this work, was it 
effective and, therefore, should it be continued or expanded.
    Mr. Castle. Well, I think you have answered my question. I 
mean, you are really monitoring that pilot program to see how 
it works versus outside providers and making a determination at 
that point. It is a small pilot, I understand, but you are 
doing that.
    Mr. Brown. Absolutely. In fact, we just sent out questions 
earlier this week.
    Mr. Castle. You are not just providing the services, but 
you are monitoring very carefully.
    Mr. Brown. Yes, yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Castle. On the money aspect of it, I can't remember the 
whole formula for this, but isn't this a formula, a takeoff of 
Title I money or something of that nature, in terms of the 
money that is used for the supplemental services?
    Mr. Brown. For both, yes, as we were discussing in response 
to Congressman Kildee's answer. Right, there is a 20 percent 
set-aside, equal to a 20 percent set-aside of the Title I part 
a funds.
    Mr. Castle. Well, if that is the case--and I am taking up 
Mr. Miller's question ere. But I don't know if I agree with him 
yet or not. But if that is the case, is there a lack of 
funding, as far as this aspect of the program is concerned? I 
know that, in some cases, there has been a lack of funding. Is 
that something that we need to be paying a lot more attention 
to?
    And we hear about lack of funding for No Child Left Behind 
in general. But in this specific program, is there a funding 
issue? I thought that formula would have taken care of that.
    Mr. Brown. Congressman, there are some instances, and 
Chicago happens to be one of them, where the district has 
entirely expended its 20 percent set-aside and not met the 
demand of all the eligible students who are eligible for choice 
or supplemental services.
    So, in that case, those districts have had to decide 
whether they want to take resources from other areas in 
addition to the 20 percent set-aside or they want to somehow 
prioritize which students should get it, such as to the 
students who have the most need to increase performance on 
state assessments.
    Mr. Castle. Right.
    Mr. Brown. But in other cases, as we are talking about a 
lot today, because of the inadequacies in terms of outreach and 
making supplemental services truly accessible to parents, many 
districts have not gotten to that 20 percent set-aside level.
    Mr. Castle. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Mckeon. Well, in the instance of Chicago, where 
they used the whole 20 percent, do we have data on how 
effective it has been?
    Mr. Brown. We have data on the increase in the 
participation rates. And there was an increase, I believe, from 
about----
    Chairman Mckeon. No, I mean----
    Mr. Brown. There was an increase from 41,000 to a little 
over 55,000, the participation rate. But the evaluation on the 
academic side of it is the one that is scheduled to come by the 
end of the calendar year.
    Chairman Mckeon. OK. That is what I was asking for. OK.
    The chair recognizes Ms. Davis.
    Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Is the department trying to take a look at those school 
districts that have expended their percentage allotments from 
Title I and see what is not being accomplished? It is really 
along with Mr. Castle's question.
    Mr. Brown. For those that have not met the 20 percent set-
aside?
    Mrs. Davis of California. Well, I guess for those who have 
met it and have many more students who still could use those 
services. They obviously, then, are cutting into their Title I 
programs in the school districts. What is not getting done as a 
result of that?
    Mr. Brown. I think that that would be a question you would 
have to direct to the school districts themselves. I mean, the 
position of the department is that Title I funding is intended 
to be Federal assistance for additional help for school 
districts in servicing economically disadvantaged students. And 
in the case of the set-aside for supplemental services, it 
still is doing that.
    And, in fact, I mean, for parents that have had the 
outreach and the awareness and get the concept, they very much 
understand this per-pupil amount is the Federal dollars that is 
intended to serve my student. And now I have some say in how 
that happens through the choice of a supplemental service 
provider. So, in some ways, it is really very directed on the 
individual student.
    Mrs. Davis of California. Right. But I guess it seems like 
there would be a comparison between those districts that are 
able to fold in the SES requirements into an ongoing program 
for a student versus those that are essentially adding it on.
    Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, if I understand the question 
right, I mean, there are a variety of ways to do supplemental 
services. And for some districts that are providers, they have 
folded that in into a broader array of after-school 
programming.
    And one thing that the departments focus on, and the 
upcoming conference will, is how you can create partnerships, 
for instance, between the 21st-Century Learning Centers program 
and supplemental services so those are fully integrated.
    Mrs. Davis of California. How, then, is the department 
really monitoring that?
    Mr. Brown. I think that is pretty much in the form of 
reports that come back to us from the states on that issue, 
because it is more of a qualitative issue about how are they 
integrating it into their broader after-school programming.
    We have heard a fair amount anecdotally, not only from 
districts, but from community-based providers that often offer 
wrap-around services in terms of after-school programming and 
the effectiveness of that, both in terms of their outreach to 
families, the attractiveness of that to families and in terms 
of the quality of what they are providing as a whole for the 
students.
    Mrs. Davis of California. Is that, then, going into some of 
these pilots? Are you looking at that issue, as well? Or is 
that separate?
    Mr. Brown. This will be an important issue in the pilots, 
because in the pilots the districts will be getting a special 
waiver to continue providing supplemental services. And so, how 
those services are provided, the quality of those services, 
will be a crucial part of our monitoring and the independent 
evaluation.
    Mrs. Davis of California. Is there any way that you could 
have started these pilots earlier?
    Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, as a recent arrival at the 
Federal department, I am not sure how to answer that. The 
secretary saw this need pretty early on once we started getting 
reliable data, and stated that this was something we needed to 
do, to test out in individual areas in a variety of different 
circumstances whether we could have a substantial impact, first 
and foremost, on increasing participation rates and parental 
awareness.
    So they were planned and were under way last school year. 
And then we will have 2 years of data at the end of this school 
year.
    Mrs. Davis of California. Yes. But I think, like the 
ranking chair had said, I mean, that doesn't really help us out 
in the reauthorization as much as we would like.
    I think the other question is whether the districts that 
you have looked at or the states that are having some 
difficulty serving the students who need that assistance were 
already having difficulty serving students under Title I.
    Is there some consistency to that? Or have we brought a 
whole new area into the equation essentially?
    Mr. Brown. Congressman, that is a good question. And I 
think that would be something that we could go back and get 
some information from you from the Office of Elementary and 
Secondary Education, because under their Title I monitoring 
they are looking at both general Title I efforts as well as the 
supplemental services and choice provisions.
    Mrs. Davis of California. Yes, because I would certainly be 
interested in that interplay. It worries me that by virtue of 
the set-aside that some school districts, even if they are not 
at the 20 percent, something is not perhaps being accomplished. 
But it may be that it wasn't accomplished prior to that either. 
And that would be of concern. Thank you.
    Do you need additional help in monitoring?
    Mr. Brown. The monitoring piece, there is a part that can 
be handled by the department. But a good portion of the 
monitoring here, we need to emphasize, needs to happen by the 
states themselves, the state educational agencies. And so, 
where I think we can be helpful is in providing guidance to the 
state educational agencies how to do that, both from the 
department itself and the comprehensive centers.
    Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
    Mr. Brown. You are welcome.
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Brown, I wanted to ask, I guess, a more fundamental 
question about SES, because it occurs to me if you have 
identified a school as failing, it might be the school's fault 
and not the students' fault.
    And it also seems more appropriate to me that if a student 
is behind and needs services, it doesn't matter whether the 
student is at a good school or a failing school, if we are 
going to leave no child behind, then we need to address all of 
the students.
    So, you know, I have always been curious about the actions 
we take when we identify a school as failing. We give the 
students help, and then we have this choice thing where I guess 
a few handful of people can sneak out the backdoor and take 
care of themselves and leave the other 95 percent stuck in the 
failing school.
    Would it make as much sense if we have identified a school 
as failing to come in with professional development for 
teachers or bring in new specialized expert teachers or 
professional development for the principal? Or a principal that 
has failed 3 years in a row--maybe you want to get rid of the 
principal or maybe smaller class sizes?
    Would that make as much sense, if we have extra money, to 
come in with those kinds of services for the failing school, 
rather than try to help the students get through the bad 
education that they have been afflicted with?
    Mr. Brown. Congressman, I think a couple points to be made 
here is when we are looking at--first, I want to point out that 
this is available to students at schools that are just in their 
second year in needing improvement, as well as at the later 
stages of corrective action and restructuring.
    A lot of the things that you suggest, I think, the 
departments are saying. That is what Title I funding is 
supposed to be doing, in terms of that additional help for 
economically disadvantaged students.
    But in cases where schools, as Congresswoman Davis was 
discussing, are having difficulty meeting those needs for 
several years in a row, the belief was and the philosophy 
behind this was that then that money should be given more 
directly to the students and their parents to have some choice 
in how they were going to get additional educational services 
in that kind of situation.
    And that is not to say that there shouldn't be additional 
assistance. And many states do provide this once you get to the 
area of corrective action, restructuring, et cetera.
    But I think the philosophy behind it was that the school 
had already received additional funding under Title I. And that 
had not, for whatever reason, proven successful to date. And 
therefore, now there needed to be more direct access for the 
parents and the families to that funding to improve educational 
success.
    Mr. Scott. Well, I mean, if the school hasn't improved, why 
don't we do more to try to improve the school? Because if it is 
failing, that means a whole lot of people aren't getting it. 
And it may be still the school's fault.
    Mr. Brown. Again, not every school that has students 
eligible for supplemental services is something that the 
department would necessarily tag as ``failing.'' They may be in 
some kind of state-of-improvement status. And there are other 
things that they need to do when they are in improvement 
status, such as coming together with a school improvement plan.
    I mean, it does need to be addressed in a wholistic way 
beyond just supplemental services. But I think the feeling was, 
again, that Title I funding was already provided to help the 
school improve in its services to economically disadvantaged 
students. And where that does not appear to be happening, some 
portion of that should be set aside for the families themselves 
to seek educational improvement for their children.
    Mr. Scott. In following up with the questions from the 
subcommittee chairman, I know some teachers get extra money if 
they coach extracurricular sports and other things. Are there 
examples where teachers have actually come in to provide these 
services?
    Mr. Brown. Congressman, the answer to that is yes, both in 
terms of school districts that can be providers, hiring their 
own teachers sometimes under the collective bargaining contract 
to provide supplemental services. And also there have been 
cases where other providers, including community-based 
providers, hire local teachers on an after-school, weekend, 
summer-school basis to provide services to students.
    Chairman Mckeon. The chair recognizes Mr. Payne.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
    Let me sort of continue that line of questioning. In Leave 
No Child Behind, it seems like they dealt with most things but 
left out principles.
    And it appears to me that probably most important--I am a 
former teacher a long time ago. But when I taught at a school 
where we had a principal that was effective, on the ball, 
really a lot of energy, creative, you know, didn't leave before 
the teachers and the students, you know, it really set a pretty 
good tone.
    Is there any thought of trying to, as we reauthorize it, 
thinking in terms of dealing with the principals? Because 
principals are totally left out.
    And second, superintendents in urban states tend to simply 
bounce from one school district to the other. I guess you have 
to have certain qualifications. But someone that fails in one 
district, after 3 years, a new board comes in. They terminate 
that person because people are failing, and they end up in 
another failing school district and stay there.
    And I know it is local control, and people have a right to 
hire whomever they want to hire. But it just seems that failing 
superintendents just go from one place to another. I would 
imagine the average term is maybe 2.5, 3, 3.5 years in tough 
urban districts.
    Is there any way that we could look at that?
    And, I guess, finally, if you went from 12 percent in 2003-
2004 to 19 percent for 2005 and if your goal is to increase, 
then how are you going to be able to provide the funding if you 
are only at 19 percent? I mean, it seems like there is a lot 
lacking.
    Mr. Brown. Congressman, let me address the first questions 
you mentioned initially.
    The point about principals is very well-taken. And I think 
you will find in the GAO report, one of the things they 
emphasize is the importance of partnerships for this to be 
effective, partnerships not just between providers and the 
school district administration, but between individual 
principals, individual leaders at the schools where 
supplemental services may be taking place, where parents are 
likely to get their information and become aware of 
supplemental services.
    And so, that, to me, is very important. And a lot of the 
outreach and guidance we have done have emphasized how to 
engage at the principal level.
    This also relates, as I referenced earlier, to the issue of 
the superintendent level, because the tone that the 
superintendent sets about parent awareness on choice and 
supplemental services is very much going to probably impact how 
principals react. And when you have that variation in 
superintendents, that can be an issue.
    It is potentially resolved if there are strong district 
staff who are actually overseeing the supplemental services 
program who continue. But probably the best way to deal with it 
is for the state education agency to have very strong 
consistent guidance and monitoring of the districts. So even if 
the leadership may fluctuate, as new leadership comes in, it is 
clear that there is certain expectations in terms of outreach 
on choice and supplemental services.
    If I understood your other question correctly, maybe I just 
need to clarify that there is some confusion. The 20 percent 
set-aside that I was referring to earlier, the funding set-
aside, the 19 percent amount is just about the number of 
students participating. So there is a lot of room for increase 
in the number of students participating.
    Mr. Payne. Yes, that is clear. You were saying that there 
was 12 percent participation. You worked at it. You moved it up 
to 19 percent of eligible students participating. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Brown. That is.
    Mr. Payne. If you moved up then the other 80 percent that 
might be eligible to participate, how would it be funded? I 
mean, do you have enough? That is my question.
    Mr. Brown. I am sorry. Again, as we were discussing, it 
really would depend on the district. Many districts still have 
room under that 20 percent set-aside to serve additional 
students. There are some districts that have completely 
expended the 20 percent set-aside. And then they have to go 
through that prioritization process.
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
    We have been called to the floor for votes. There will be 
three votes. So we will recess during those votes and return. 
And if you can, if you can remain with us.
    And members that aren't able to return, if they wish, could 
submit questions to you in writing, and you could get them. 
Thank you.
    The committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Mckeon. The committee will come to order.
    The chair recognizes Ms. McCarthy.
    Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 
having this hearing.
    And thank you, Mr. Brown, for your testimony.
    Mr. Brown, in the second panel we are going to have Ms. 
Harris from Chicago. And she tells us in her testimony that not 
only have the Chicago Public Schools engaged students in their 
SES programs, but they have had to wait-list students for 
services, which you had brought up in your testimony.
    Ms. Harris lists several strategies which have been 
successful: an initial notification letter distributed in April 
to inform them about the tutoring; registering parents at local 
level rather than a remote location; providing a handbook for 
parents holding open house; doing advertising, distributing 
flyers; and creating a multiple-lingual hotline to answer 
questions.
    These all sound like terrific ideas, and obviously they 
have got it right. Can the department get other districts to do 
what Chicago is doing, as far as a model goes?
    And following up on that, hopefully at this time, I mean, 
how is New York doing? And if you don't know that, you know, if 
you could get me that information when you have it, I would 
appreciate it. Because I have several schools, failing schools 
that have made some good strides but are still struggling, one 
school being taken over by the state.
    And I guess I agree with Mr. Payne. The state put the 
superintendent in there. We had many good programs in there: 
GEAR UP, Project GRAD. And this particular superintendent came, 
kicked everybody out, and now we find out that he is $5 million 
in deficit. And this is controlled by the state.
    So I have a concern on that, like who is actually watching 
over these schools that need the most help.
    Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, thank you for your question.
    First, let me just take a moment, since you referenced the 
fact that Chicago did expend its full 20 percent set-aside.
    One of my colleagues shared with me that in the GAO report 
you just have a picture of this nationally that nationally 
about 5 percent of the 20 percent set-aside among all districts 
has been expended or was expended in the most recent year we 
have data for. So I just wanted to put that in, because some 
people have been trying to get a sense of what is the level of 
available funding on a broader basis.
    Certainly, many of the outreach practices that you 
referenced for the Chicago public schools are the kinds of 
things that we would like to replicate. And I think once we do 
our monitoring and our site visits at the pilot sites, plus get 
the third-party evaluation, then we will look at participation, 
cooperation with providers and academic results.
    That will give us even more solid data perhaps to share 
that information through the comprehensive center and through 
the department itself in some of those conferences to get those 
kind of practices that have been effective out to other 
districts and make sure states know about them as well.
    With regard to the New York City public school system, 
rather than just kind of comment on things I have heard 
anecdotally, if we can get back to you with something more 
comprehensive on whatever data we have about New York and other 
information we have heard about how their outreach and public 
awareness program is going.
    Mrs. McCarthy. I am going to be curious also--and I know 
with the second panel that is coming up, being that they have 
done such an outreach program, obviously that took funding. And 
then to have children on the wait-listing because they have run 
out of their money, I wonder if that is something that we 
should be looking at.
    If a school is doing everything right, reaching everything, 
making the program which we intended to do to really facilitate 
for those schools that, you know, do as well as Chicago, should 
they be getting extra funding? I think that is food for thought 
there.
    Mr. Brown. And, Congresswoman, I believe, although you will 
hear this from the witness in the next panel, that Chicago, 
actually, since they were going beyond their 20 percent set-
aside and still wanted to serve more students, may have even 
set aside some additional funding from other resources so they 
could serve more students, because they had such a wait-list, 
even though they had expended the 20 percent.
    Mrs. McCarthy. The one thing I didn't understand with, you 
know, your testimony--and I am sure I am going to hear from the 
second testimony--why wouldn't schools do this? You know, with 
Leave No Child Behind, the assessing involved, they would 
certainly want their students to perform better, to have the 
test scores, so they are not a school that needs extra help. 
And I am actually flabbergasted when I saw the reports on how 
many schools aren't doing it.
    Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, I think the great point--and I 
think you have heard the department and the secretary very much 
appreciate the bipartisan support for supplemental services, 
because I think the department's position is, if it works well, 
everyone wins. The child does better. Things work out better 
for the school in terms of performance and assessments. It is 
hard to see, even in the long run, though, even in the short 
run, how there is any losers when supplemental services is done 
well.
    Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you very much.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
    The chair recognizes Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
    Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Thank you.
    Mr. Brown, I notice you referenced the state of Minnesota 
in your statement. And I just want to make sure we keep the 
record clear. Can you tell me when the state of Minnesota this 
year gave the list of providers to the school districts?
    Mr. Brown. I am sorry, Congressman. Are you talking about 
in previous years or for this year?
    Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. This year.
    Mr. Brown. I left the Minnesota Department of Education a 
couple of months ago, and my understanding is that the school 
districts do have the current list of approved providers for 
this school year.
    Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Yes, and it came out on August 
31st. So I just want to--it needs improvement in Minnesota. And 
I didn't want people to read the testimony and think that we 
have arrived there.
    According to the 2004 state auditors report on the 
Minnesota Department of Education, it needs to do more to 
carefully monitor the results of the supplemental services, 
because we don't have any record, according to our state 
auditor, whether or not they are effective and a way to hold 
them accountable.
    Would you agree with the 2004 report of the Minnesota state 
auditor on that?
    Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, I would agree with the report at 
that time, which was looking at the first year that Minnesota 
had implemented a supplemental education services. Since that 
time, a number of steps have been taken, both for ongoing 
monitoring of providers and to put in place an evaluation 
system for providers.
    Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Well, that is not totally 
correct. The state of Minnesota has provided supplemental 
services for parents provided on a tax credit on their tax 
forms since the mid-1990's. So the department has had the 
ability to put certain things in place.
    I would like to go back to the funding for a second. I just 
held some hearings in my district, in which many of our school 
districts right now are having to hold referendum hearings. And 
all the testimony that I received basically was that, if the 
Federal Government fully funded IDEA, that the levies mostly in 
my district--and I think we could extrapolate that out to the 
state--would disappear. In other words, taxpayers wouldn't have 
to be picking up to make up for the shortfall just in IDEA from 
the failure of the Federal Government to fund that program.
    And, as you mentioned, I believe, in your testimony, the 
Federal Government still has failed to fund No Child Left 
Behind. Could you tell me if the Federal Government is fully 
funding all the Title I dollars that districts have coming to 
them?
    Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, if I can just clarify a couple of 
things. First of all, I don't recollect in my testimony saying 
that No Child Left Behind had not been fully funded.
    Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Well, then has it been fully 
funded?
    Mr. Brown. I think, as probably has been discussed by the 
department a number of times----
    Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. I think that is a yes or no. Has 
No Child Left Behind been fully funded by this Congress? And 
has the administration asked for all the dollars that was 
originally promised when the bipartisan bill moved forward?
    Mr. Brown. The administration's position is that funding 
for Title I and for education funding in general has 
substantially increased since No Child Left Behind.
    Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. It is not fully funded. So Title 
I is not fully funded either right now?
    Mr. Brown. Actually, my understanding is that Title I 
funding has gone up $4 billion, or 45 percent, under No Child 
Left Behind.
    Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. But it is not fully funded?
    Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, can you clarify your definition 
of ``fully funded'' for me?
    Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. I will get you the numbers of 
what fully funded would be.
    So if we are not fully funding Leave No Child Behind, if we 
are not fully funding IDEA, if we are not fully funding Title 
I, and then we take 20 percent out of Title I, I don't know how 
we get ahead in giving the service that the children need, as 
other people have pointed out, that the students really need to 
be successful. But the schools need to have all the tools that 
are available to them.
    So, you know, when we are passing levy referendums to make 
up for the shortage in special education and we don't have all 
the dollars for Title I, when we have a waiting list for Head 
Start, when Leave No Child Behind is not fully funded, I think 
the supplemental services is a noble goal. But if we don't do 
the basics first, if we don't have a good foundation, then 
putting a fancy layer on top of it, I don't see how it moves 
our children ahead.
    And so, I want to know what the Education Department is 
going to do to make sure that we go back to basics, just like 
we are asking our schools to do, to implement all the funding 
that has been promised the state education departments.
    Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, I may have some differences of 
opinion with some of the assumptions. But I think the important 
thing in terms of understanding the set-aside is that funding 
is not being taken away from the families and children that 
need it. In fact, it is being allocated to them so they 
actually have a say in how the educational services are going 
to be provided that that student needs. So that is very much 
being directed to economically disadvantaged families.
    In addition, I think when we look at this more broadly, one 
of the things I should at least note is that in the president's 
fiscal year 2007 budget request, there is an additional $200 
million requested for schools in need of improvement. So on top 
of the Title I funding they already get, they would have 
additional funds for schools in improvement status where 
students are eligible for supplemental services to focus on 
curriculum, teacher professional development, et cetera.
    Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Mr. Chair pointed out--
parliamentary inquiry--that the record is going to be open to 
submit. I wouldn't begin to tell other school districts around 
the country, but I will submit the numbers for my school 
district for the record of the Federal shortfall if the record 
is going to be open.
    Could you tell me how many days, sir?
    Chairman Mckeon. Fourteen days.
    This hearing is not on IDEA. But just for the record, I 
will clarify that when I first came here I was in the minority 
when the IDEA was originally passed in the 1970's. The Federal 
Government, at that time, said we would put in 40 percent of 
the funding. They never have done that.
    I think when I first came here, it was running about 6 or 7 
percent. When it was originally passed, $2 billion would have 
been enough to fully fund it. But the way it has grown, we have 
not really kept up with that.
    However, with the additional funding that we have put in 
since we have become the majority, we are up now to almost 20 
percent. Twelve billion dollars is what we put in in 2006.
    So is there enough money? You know, we could always say we 
could probably find more ways to spend more money. But just so 
that we know for the record, it has gone from 6 percent when I 
first came here to where we are now funding about almost 20 
percent.
    Mr. Miller. Since we are creating a record, Mr. Chairman, I 
hate to----
    Chairman Mckeon. Go right ahead.
    Mr. Miller. I would just say that the promise that was made 
and the authorization that was agreed to at the White House was 
in recognition that these were the most substantial reforms to 
the system in 30 years. And to quote the president, he said, 
``You get me the reforms. I will get you the resources.'' He 
did for 2 years, and then we have stagnated. And that is the 
problem that we are having, is we have this mounting deficit of 
obligation to No Child Left Behind.
    Chairman Mckeon. I understand that. What I was clarifying 
for the record was, even though the hearing is not on IDEA, I 
was trying to clarify the record on that.
    The chair recognizes Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I think it is important that we know how the 
department is ensuring that these supplemental service 
providers meet the same standards as the educators are required 
to meet, as far as, you know, their level of education, 
knowledge of subjects, their state certification.
    Are we ensuring to the parents that these supplemental 
services have to live up to the same standards? And how do we 
ensure that?
    Mr. Brown. There is a couple of pieces to that, 
Congresswoman. One is that when states approve supplemental 
providers on the front end, they absolutely can ask and build 
into those requirements information about how tutors are 
selected, what kind of training tutors receive, what kind of 
ongoing professional development tutors receive. And those all 
can be taken into account as part of the approval process.
    In addition, I think one thing that is clear about the 
intent of the law is that there is an intent that--but I want 
to make clear that there is just supplemental services--you 
can't have any provider, any tutor just walk in off the street 
and do supplemental services. But also a clear intent of the--
--
    Ms. Woolsey. Well, could I just, could I just----
    Mr. Brown. Yes.
    Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. Go a little further with that 
then?
    Mr. Brown. Sure.
    Ms. Woolsey. But we aren't ensuring that those supplemental 
providers and tutors have to have as good or better education 
than the teachers that they are supplementing?
    Mr. Brown. The supplemental service providers have to have 
tutors that are effective for their program and have to 
demonstrate effectiveness and success when they are applying 
and when they are being renewed.
    Ms. Woolsey. Well, OK. I am going to interrupt again, 
because we are not allowing schools to have teachers that are 
good and have proven themselves over and over again and over 
the years. They have to live up to an education standard. They 
have to live up to certification. They have to know their 
subject material.
    Why would we take funds away from the school and give it to 
a supplemental service that doesn't insist on the same 
standard?
    Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, the department, I think, would 
have a difference of opinion that the funds are being taken 
away from the children, which is where they are being expended 
on.
    Ms. Woolsey. No, I said the school.
    Mr. Brown. But I think the point here is many providers do 
hire teachers. And that is absolutely appropriate. But many 
providers have other means by which they determine what tutors 
work best for their program. And I think the department 
recognizes that there perhaps are some different qualifications 
for a tutor involved in a one-on-one reading tutoring process 
than for a classroom teacher standing before the classroom for 
the full school day.
    Ms. Woolsey. So let me ask you then, with No Child Left 
Behind, can a school choose to have a program that meets the 
needs of that child within the school, in the classroom, or do 
they have to have those providers--in the classroom, teachers 
have to have a different set of standards.
    Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, I think you are comparing two 
pretty different situations here.
    Ms. Woolsey. No, I am not.
    Mr. Brown. But the other point that I really feel obligated 
to mention is the intent of the statute is that there be a wide 
range of providers available in a wide range of areas for 
families to choose from. And if you are going to implement the 
kinds of restrictions I think you are implying, the providers 
that will likely be shut out initially and most quickly will be 
the community-based providers, which have had some real 
interesting successes, both in terms of their doing some of the 
best work in terms of outreach to parents because they are 
trusted organizations within the community. They also provide 
wrap-around services to those families and students.
    Ms. Woolsey. OK. Well, I understand that. But----
    Mr. Brown. And they are available in rural areas.
    Ms. Woolsey. But then why can't we trust the educators, the 
teachers that are providing great services also?
    Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Woolsey. And I would like to yield to Betty McCollum.
    Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Thank you. This is from an 
article Wednesday, May 5, 2004--I will submit the whole 
article--and a tutor's experience with Leave No Child Behind. 
This individual had taught in the Minneapolis school district.
    And I quote: ``Before I began tutoring, I received 15 hours 
of training, most which revolved around abstract teaching 
theories rather than the information about the curriculum being 
taught in the public schools. I received a book to teach 
phonics but no guide to teach math. At no time did I receive 
ESL as the second language training, although all of my 
students were immigrants or children of immigrants and English 
was their second language.''
    I will submit the rest of this into the record.
    But we do have to do something about making sure that we 
have highly qualified tutors.
    I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
    [The article follows:]

            [From the Minnesota Women's Press, May 5, 2004]

 Behind 11 Children: A Tutor's Experience With ``No Child Left Behind''

                            By Abigail Cerra

    Reports and political debates have sprung up around the Bush 
administration's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. A quick search on the 
net or in newspaper archives will return an abundance of facts and 
figures regarding the economic costs and benefits of the program. It 
seems that in public discussions of the act, the best interest of the 
left-behind children is a distant second to the economics of helping 
them.
    I was hired under NCLB to tutor 11 students in inner city 
Minneapolis. This is a description of my experience.
Building a bridge with an eraser
    Under a provision of the NCLB, some elementary school students 
qualify to receive one-on-one sessions with a private tutor. The 
federal government grants participating states one lump sum to finance 
the NCLB program. Individual school districts then apply to the state 
for a piece of the pie.
    Although I taught in the Minneapolis district, I was not an 
employee of the state, the city or the school district. In December 
2003 I was hired by A+ Tutoring Services in Edina, a private company 
contracted to supply tutors for the NCLB program in Minneapolis. Though 
promised 30-35 hours a week, I was only assigned 22 hours. A+ paid me 
$16/hour with no benefits; I don't know how much the government paid 
A+.
    Before I began tutoring, I received 15 hours of training, most of 
which revolved around abstract teaching theories rather than 
information about the curriculums being taught in public schools. I 
received a book to teach phonics but no guide to teach math. At no time 
did I receive ESL (English as a Second Language) training, though all 
of my students were immigrants or children of immigrants and English 
was their second language. I was given some cheap supplies: an eraser, 
some pencils and one pair of child scissors.
    I dove in. Between 3 and 8 p.m. weekdays and 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. 
Saturdays, I went to the families' homes (most families had multiple 
children in the program) and tutored the kids one by one. I was to 
teach either math or reading to each child for the entirety of the 
program. This limitation was problematic. Since many of the children 
could barely form a sentence in English, they had problems in all of 
their classes.
    One of my students was 13 and, unlike her younger siblings, entered 
the American system too late to make up for the years in Mexico where 
she says she only sporadically attended school. While playing a math 
game with the entire family, I discovered that she could not add or 
subtract. Her parents had chosen reading for her, but I could not 
ignore her blatant math deficiency. I decided to divide the two hours 
she had per week between math and reading. After 23 sessions, it was 
evident my tutoring alone was not enough to bring her up to par with 
her classmates. She had made significant advances, but she'd started 
out far, far behind. She illustrates how ill-conceived parts of NCLB 
are; the tutoring facet of the program, at least, overlooks the fact 
that a child with problems in one academic area will likely have 
trouble in others as well.
Well-funded schools and open libraries
    Some of my students were more successful academically. One family 
in particular did quite well: the Xiong/Lee family. Their mother came 
as a refugee from a camp in Thailand, and the children were all born in 
the U.S. Though they grew up speaking only Hmong, all five of them 
attended American schools from the beginning and learned English 
quickly. In addition to having teachers they adored at Powderhorn 
Elementary School, the kids attended after-school programs and church 
activities. They had homework from class nearly every time I had a 
session with them. More than tutoring, these kids simply needed some 
individual attention. It seems their teacher and school activities did 
much more for them academically than the tutoring sessions, though they 
enjoyed being in the spotlight for at least two hours each week.
    After 23 sessions each with 11 students, I must say that, as an 
employee of NCLB, the good I did for their education was minimal. 
Simply by working for an Edina company rather than one of the many 
organizations in their neighborhoods (which are equipped to educate at-
risk kids), I diverted government funds from Minneapolis to the 
suburbs.
    Though tutoring is good, schooling is better. If the money that 
paid my salary was invested in after-school programs or classroom 
supplies or lowering class size, I estimate the return would have been 
10 times greater. The children who benefited the most from tutoring 
regularly attended school activities and used resources such as the 
city library to provide what schools or parents could not.
    Libraries are cutting their hours of service, nine schools in 
Minneapolis will close next fall, and many teachers have been laid off. 
Tutors and the remaining teachers are still expected to bring every 
child up to national educational standards. We are required to 
administer more and more standardized tests (I gave each student two, 
on top of the ones they received at school), but we are given fewer and 
fewer resources to prepare the children for these tests.
    I cannot say the mission of NCLB is wrong, but the program 
provisions are ineffective in light of the budget cuts education has 
suffered. The children with learning disabilities or poor educational 
backgrounds certainly need tutoring, but much more than two hours a 
week. Scrapping the program altogether would hurt many students, but 
they need more than what NCLB is offering them before they can be 
expected to move forward.
The ABCs of No Child Left Behind
    President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 into law 
Jan. 8, 2002, reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
(ESEA), which encompasses Title I.
    Primary objective: Impel progress in student achievement; hold 
states and schools accountable for such progress.
    Testing: Annual testing of students in grades 3-8 in math and 
reading by 2005-6 school year; testing in science at least once in 
elementary, middle and high school by 2007-8; National Assessment of 
Educational Progress testing in reading and math for a sample of 4th 
and 8th graders every other year.
    Academic progress: States must raise every student to 
``proficient'' level on state tests by 2013-14; each school must meet 
state ``adequate yearly progress'' targets toward this goal for both 
the student populations as a whole and specific demographic subgroups; 
students in schools that do not meet these standards for three 
consecutive years must also be offered supplemental education services, 
including private tutoring.
    Nearly 30,000 schools nationwide did not make adequate yearly 
progress in 2002-2003.

    Source: Education Week
                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
    Mr. Brown, I think everyone has had a chance to answer your 
questions. I appreciate your patience in sitting through our 
recess. I appreciate your testimony here.
    And if other members that weren't able to be here had 
further questions, we will hopefully ask you, if they give you 
questions in writing if you can respond to those, we would 
certainly appreciate it.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much.
    We will ask the second panel now to take their seats. As 
soon as they are ready, I will introduce them.
    Well, thank you for being here with us today.
    I will introduce our panel.
    First we will hear from Ms. Cornelia Ashby, director of 
Education Workforce and Income Securities at the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, where she directs studies 
involving education, child welfare and child support 
enforcement issues.
    And then Dr. Stephen Barr, the associate superintendent for 
the Center for School Improvement at the Ohio Department of 
Education, where he provides leadership for the offices of 
education reform, Federal programs, field relations and quality 
assurance.
    Then from Ms. Erica Harris, who currently serves as manager 
of Academic After-School Programs for the Chicago Public 
Schools, where she has been primarily responsible for the 
implementation of the supplemental education services.
    And Dr. Barbara Anderson, vice president of the Knowledge 
Learning Corporation. Dr. Anderson is responsible for the 
development and implementation of research-based educational 
programs and recommending best practices in the development of 
school programs.
    And our last panelist is Ms. Monique Dollonne, the mother 
of an 11-year-old recipient of supplemental educational 
services in Ventura, California. Ms. Dollonne is also the 
founder of the Coalition for Accountability in Education, for 
which her work emphasizes meaningful parental involvement 
strategies to help underperforming children receive the maximum 
benefits offered to them by their school districts.
    I would again remind you how the lights work. The green 
comes on. When you have 4 minutes, the yellow. When the 5th 
minute comes up and the red, we would ask you to conclude.
    Ms. Ashby?

 STATEMENT OF CORNELIA ASHBY, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, 
  AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 
                             OFFICE

    Ms. Ashby. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am 
pleased to be here today to present information from our August 
2006 report on implementation of supplemental education 
services.
    And I must say it has been gratifying to listen this 
morning to all the references to our report. Some of what I 
will say you have heard, but I think it is worth repeating.
    Our full written testimony statement discusses the eligible 
student participation rate, service delivery, state and 
district monitoring and evaluation efforts and Federal 
oversight and support. This morning I will focus on an 
important cross-cutting issue: communicating with parents.
    While school districts have provided written information 
notifying parents of supplemental educational services and 
taken other actions to encourage participation, challenges 
remain, such as notifying parents in a timely and effective 
manner.
    We estimate that over 90 percent of districts, sometimes in 
collaboration with service providers, send parents written 
information in English, hold individual meeting and/or phone 
conversations with parents, and encourage school staff to talk 
with parents about supplemental educational services.
    We also estimate that over 70 percent of districts held 
informational events for parents to learn about providers and 
gave written information to parents in languages other than 
English.
    In addition, an estimated 40 percent of districts worked 
with community organizations to inform students and parents of 
these services.
    Despite some districts' promising approaches to notifying 
parents, as the chairman alluded to earlier, before the 
beginning of the 2005-2006 school year, an estimated 58 percent 
of the districts had not notified parents that their children 
may have been eligible to receive supplemental educational 
services, which may have been due in part to delays in states 
reporting which schools were identified for improvement.
    Further, officials in all four districts we visited 
reported difficulties contacting parents to inform them about 
supplemental educational services in part because some families 
frequently move and do not always update their mailing lists 
with districts.
    In addition, some providers we interviewed indicated that 
parental notification letters do not always effectively 
encourage participation. For example, some of the providers we 
interviewed said some districts use confusing and poorly 
written letters to inform parents of these services or send 
letters to parents of eligible children but conduct no further 
outreach to encourage participation.
    As I indicated previously, providers also play a role in 
communicating with parents. They reported mailing information 
to parents as well as talking with parents over the phone and 
meeting with them in person to communicate information on 
student needs and progress.
    However, the frequency of communication with parents 
varied. We estimate that some providers did not contact parents 
in about 30 percent of districts in school year 2004-2005.
    In monitoring supplemental educational services providers, 
states and districts consider the perspectives of parents. We 
estimate that 70 percent or more of districts were collecting 
or planning to collect information from parents, school staff, 
onsite reviews and students to monitor providers in school year 
2005-2006.
    In addition, in school year 2005-2006, 90 percent or more 
of states and districts monitored or planned to monitor parent 
and student satisfaction with providers and provider 
communication with teachers and parents.
    Finally, the Department of Education, in its oversight and 
support role, influences the quality of communication with 
parents. In May 2006, Education issued a policy letter 
announcing the department's plans to take significant 
enforcement action. In the letter, the department noted that 
its monitoring activities have identified several areas of 
noncompliance with requirements such as parental notification 
letters lacking key required components.
    However, during three of our site visits, officials 
expressed some concern about the lack of clarity in the 
department's guidance on how to craft a parental notification 
letter that is both complete and easy for parents to 
understand.
    In addition, Education's guidance provides a sample that 
does not clearly specify all the key required elements. 
Further, a few state and district officials commented that 
following department's regulations would yield a letter that is 
unreasonably long and complex.
    Our August report included a recommendation that Education 
clarify guidance and provide additional assistance to states 
and districts to help them comply with the Federal requirements 
for parental notification letters. In response, the department 
indicated that it would provide more parental notification 
assistance to states.
    Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I would be happy 
to answer any questions you or members of the committee may 
have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ashby follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director, Education, 
 Workforce, and Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability 
                                 Office

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to be here 
today to present information from our August 2006 report on early 
implementation of the supplemental educational services (SES) 
provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA).\1\ In school year 
2005-2006, Title I of NCLBA--the most recent 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.
Background
    Enactment of NCLBA strengthened accountability by requiring states 
and schools to improve the academic performance of their students so 
that all students are proficient in reading and math by 2014. Under 
NCLBA, each state creates its own content standards, academic 
achievement tests, and proficiency levels, and establishes and 
implements adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals for districts and 
schools. Students in specified grades are tested annually to determine 
whether districts and schools are making AYP.
    Title I \2\ authorizes federal funds to help elementary and 
secondary schools establish and maintain programs that will improve the 
educational opportunities of economically disadvantaged children. Under 
NCLBA, schools receiving federal Title I funds are required to 
implement specific interventions when they do not meet state AYP goals 
(see table 1). Students from low-income families who attend schools 
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.

            TABLE 1.--NCLBA INTERVENTIONS FOR SCHOOLS NOT MEETING YEARLY PERFORMANCE GOALS OVER TIME
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Number of years school misses                                               NCLBA interventions for Title I
        performance goals              School status in the next year                     schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First year missed................  N/A                                     None
Second year missed...............  Needs Improvement--First Year           Required to offer school choice
Third year missed................  Needs Improvement--Second Year          Required to offer school choice and
                                                                            SES \a\
Fourth year missed...............  Corrective Action \b\                   Required to offer school choice and
                                                                            SES \a\
Fifth year missed................  Planning for Restructuring \c\          Required to offer school choice and
                                                                            SES \a\
Sixth year missed................  Implementation of Restructuring         Required to offer school choice and
                                                                            SES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA.

Note: N/A = not applicable.

\a\ Students that opt to transfer to another school in the district that is not in improvement status are not
  eligible to receive SES, as they are no longer in a school required to offer these services to its students.
\b\ Corrective action is a significant intervention in a school that is designed to remedy the school's
  persistent inability to make adequate progress toward all students becoming proficient in reading and
  mathematics.
\c\ Restructuring is a major reorganization of a school, involving fundamental reforms, such as significant
  changes in the school's staffing and governance. For example, some schools may be converted to charter schools
  during restructuring.

    Under NCLBA, SES primarily include tutoring provided outside of the 
regular school day that is designed to increase the academic 
achievement of economically disadvantaged students in low-performing 
Title I schools. These services must consist of high-quality, research-
based instruction that aligns with state educational standards and 
district curriculum. SES providers may include nonprofit entities, 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.\3\
    Education oversees SES implementation by monitoring states and 
providing technical assistance and support. NCLBA, the Title I 
regulations, and SES guidance outline the roles and responsibilities 
states, school districts, service providers, and parents have in 
ensuring that eligible students receive additional academic assistance 
through SES (see table 2).

          TABLE 2.--SES STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Stakeholder                   Roles and responsibilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State............................  Set criteria and standards for
                                    approving providers
                                   Identify, approve, and maintain
                                    public list of providers
                                   Ensure that the list of approved
                                    providers includes organizations
                                    that are able to serve students with
                                    disabilities and limited English
                                    proficiency
                                   Monitor and evaluate the
                                    effectiveness of provider services
                                   Monitor district SES implementation
                                   Develop and use policy criteria for
                                    withdrawing providers from state-
                                    approved list, including if
                                    provider fails for 2
                                    consecutive years to increase
                                    student proficiency relative to
                                    state academic content and
                                    achievement standards
                                    provider fails to adhere to
                                    applicable health, safety, and civil
                                    rights requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School district..................  Provide an annual notice to parents,
                                    which must identify available
                                    providers; describe the enrollment
                                    process and timeline; describe the
                                    services, qualifications, and
                                    demonstrated effectiveness of each
                                    provider; and be easily
                                    understandable
                                   Help parents choose a provider, if
                                    requested
                                   Protect the privacy of students
                                    eligible for and receiving services
                                   Calculate and establish the SES per
                                    pupil allocation if not determined
                                    by the state
                                   Determine which students should
                                    receive services if more students
                                    apply for SES than can be served
                                    with available funds
                                   Enter into contracts with providers
                                   Ensure eligible students with
                                    disabilities and eligible students
                                    with limited English proficiency may
                                    participate in SES
                                   At the discretion of the state, may
                                    be involved in collecting data from
                                    providers to assist state monitoring
                                    and evaluation activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providers........................  Provide services in accordance with
                                    district agreements
                                   Enable students to attain their
                                    individual achievement goals
                                   Measure student progress and inform
                                    parents and teachers of progress
                                    made by students
                                   Ensure non-disclosure of student data
                                    to the public
                                   Provide services consistent with
                                    applicable health, safety, and civil
                                    rights laws
                                   Provide services that are secular,
                                    neutral, and non-ideological
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents..........................  Choose a provider from the state-
                                    approved list
                                   Are encouraged to be actively
                                    involved in their child's SES
                                    program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO, per P.L.107-110, 34 C.F.R. Part 200, or the U.S. Department
  of Education, Supplemental Educational Services Non-Regulatory
  Guidance, June 2005.

    SES Participation Has Increased As Districts Have Taken Steps to 
Improve Access, but Challenges Remain
    SES participation increased between 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, as 
districts have taken multiple actions to encourage participation, such 
as offering services on or near the school campus or at various times. 
Most students receiving services were among the lower achieving 
students in school. Despite districts' efforts, challenges to 
increasing participation remain, such as notifying parents in a timely 
and effective manner and ensuring there are providers to serve certain 
areas and students.

The SES Participation Rate Increased from 12 to 19 Percent between 
        2003-2004 and 2004-2005, and Most Participants Were Low 
        Achieving
    Nationally, the SES participation rate increased substantially from 
12 percent of eligible students receiving SES in 2003-2004 to 19 
percent in 2004-2005. In addition, the number of students receiving 
services almost quadrupled between 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 from 
approximately 117,000 to 430,000 students nationwide, based on the best 
available national data (see fig. 1).\4\ This increase may be due in 
part to the increase in the number of schools required to offer SES 
over that time period.



    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,\5\ 
others reported that the full set-aside amount was not sufficient to 
fund SES for all eligible students whose parents requested services in 
2004-2005. Similarly, according to Chicago, Ill., district officials, 
the district budgeted the entire 20 percent Title I set-aside to fund 
SES in 2005-2006, and because parents' demand for services 
significantly exceeded the amount of funding available, the district 
also allocated $5 million in local funds to provide SES.
    Many students receiving SES in 2004-2005 shared certain 
characteristics. For example, districts reported that most students 
receiving services were among the lower achieving students in school. 
Specifically, an estimated 91 percent of the districts that reviewed 
the academic records of students receiving SES classified most or all 
of the students receiving SES as academically low achieving.\6\ 
Further, over half of SES recipients were elementary school students in 
the majority of districts, and about 60 percent of schools required to 
offer SES in 2004-2005 were elementary schools.\7\ In some districts, 
the majority of SES recipients were African-American or Hispanic. In 
about 40 percent of districts, over half of SES recipients were 
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.\8\ The number of providers delivering services in the 21 
districts with more than 100,000 total enrolled students ranged from 4 
to 45, and averaged 15 providers per district in 2004-2005.

Districts Used Several Methods to Notify Parents and Offered Services 
        on School Campuses and at Various Times to Increase 
        Participation
    Districts have taken multiple actions to encourage participation, 
as shown in table 3. In line with the federal statutory requirement 
that districts notify parents in an understandable format of the 
availability of SES, over 90 percent of districts provided written 
information in English, held individual meetings with parents, and 
encouraged school staff to talk with parents about SES. Some districts 
collaborated with providers to notify parents. For example, during our 
site visit, Illinois state officials described a provider and district 
sharing administrative resources to increase participation, which 
involved the provider printing promotional materials and the district 
addressing and mailing the materials to parents. In addition, we 
estimate that over 70 percent of districts lengthened the period of 
time for parents to turn in SES applications, held informational events 
for parents to learn about providers, and provided written information 
to parents in languages other than English. For example, during our 
site visit to Woodburn, Ore., district officials reported extending the 
time parents had to sign up their children for SES and hosting an event 
where providers presented their programs to parents in English and 
Spanish. Further, Newark, N.J., district officials told us during our 
site visit that the district provided transportation for parents to 
attend informational events and worked with a local community 
organization to increase awareness of SES, a method we estimate was 
also used by about 40 percent of all districts. Specifically, Newark 
district officials collaborated with a local organization to inform 
parents and students living in public housing and homeless shelters 
about SES. Also to encourage participation, an estimated 90 percent of 
districts offered services at locations easily accessible to students, 
such as on or near the school campus, and almost 80 percent of 
districts offered services at a variety of times, such as before and 
after school or on weekends.

 TABLE 3.--DISTRICT ACTIONS TAKEN TO ENCOURAGE SES PARTICIPATION (2005-
                                  2006)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Estimated
                                                              percentage
       Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year              of
                                                              districts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided written information in English to parents99.......
Held individual meetings and/or phone conversations with              95
 interested parents........................................
Encouraged principals, teachers, or other school staff to             93
 talk with parents.........................................
Offered supplemental services in locations that are easily            90
 accessible to students after school (e.g., on or near the
 school campus)............................................
Offered SES at a variety of times (e.g., after school,                79
 weekends, summer break)...................................
Lengthened the period of time parents have to submit                  79
 applications for SES......................................
Held events where parents of eligible students can learn              78
 about providers...........................................
Provided written information in language(s) other than                72
 English about SES to parents..............................
Made public announcements (e.g., television, billboards,              67
 newspaper ads, school newsletters)........................
Worked with a local community partner to raise awareness of           39
 SES (e.g., Parent Information Resource Center)............
Provided or arranged for transportation of students                   33
 receiving SES to off-site providers.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of district survey results.

Notifying Parents in a Timely and Effective Manner and Attracting More 
        Providers for Certain Areas and Students Remain Challenges
    Despite some districts' promising approaches to encourage 
participation, notifying parents in a timely manner remains a challenge 
for some districts. An estimated 58 percent of districts did not notify 
parents that their children may be eligible to receive SES before the 
beginning of the 2005-2006 school year, which may be due in part to 
delays in states reporting which schools were identified for 
improvement.\9\ Specifically, about half of districts that did not 
notify parents before the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year did 
not receive notification from the state of the schools identified for 
improvement by that time.\10\
    Effectively notifying parents is also a challenge for some 
districts. For example, officials in all four districts we visited 
reported difficulties contacting parents to inform them about SES in 
part because some families frequently move and do not always update 
their mailing address with districts. In addition, some providers we 
interviewed indicated that parental notification letters do not always 
effectively encourage SES participation. For example, some of the 
providers we interviewed said some districts use confusing and poorly 
written letters to inform parents of SES or send letters to parents of 
eligible children but conduct no further outreach to encourage 
participation in SES.
    Another challenge to increasing SES participation is attracting 
more SES providers for certain areas and groups of students. 
Specifically, some rural districts surveyed indicated that no students 
received services last year because of a lack of providers in the 
area.\11\ A few rural districts further explained that it has been 
difficult to attract providers to their area because there are few 
students to serve or providers have trouble finding staff to serve as 
tutors. Ensuring there are providers to serve students with limited 
English proficiency or disabilities has also been a challenge for some 
districts. We estimate that there were not enough providers to meet the 
needs of students with limited English proficiency in one-third of 
districts and not enough providers to meet the needs of students with 
disabilities in one-quarter of districts.
    Encouraging student attendance has also been a challenge, in part 
because students may participate in other after-school activities, such 
as sports or work. For example, about one-quarter of districts reported 
that both competition from other afterschool programs and the 
availability of services that are engaging to students were challenges 
to implementing SES. To help address this problem, 19 of the 22 
providers we interviewed used incentives to encourage student 
attendance, such as school supplies and gift certificates.

Providers Have Taken Steps to Deliver Quality Services, but Contracting 
        and Coordination Remain Challenges to Local Implementation
    To promote improved student academic achievement, providers took 
steps to gather information on district curriculum and student needs 
from teachers and parents. Specifically, providers aligned their 
curriculum with district instruction primarily by hiring district 
teachers and communicating with the teachers of participating students. 
However, when providers did not hire district teachers, the frequency 
of contact between tutors and teachers varied, and we estimate that 
some providers did not contact teachers in almost 40 percent of 
districts in 2004-2005. Regarding communication with parents, providers 
reported mailing information as well as meeting with parents over the 
phone and in-person to communicate information on student needs and 
progress; however, the frequency of communication with parents also 
varied. Specifically, we estimate that some providers did not contact 
parents in about 30 percent of districts in 2004-2005.
    Despite communication challenges, most districts and providers 
reported that they had positive working relationships. Specifically, an 
estimated 90 percent of districts indicated that their working 
relationships with providers during 2004-2005 were good, very good, or 
excellent. Further, 90 percent of districts reported that none or few 
of the providers they worked with used incentives prohibited by state 
or district SES policy, and 89 percent of districts reported that none 
or few of the providers they worked with billed the district for 
services not performed. Many of the providers we interviewed during our 
site visits also reported having positive working relationships with 
district officials.
    While providers have taken steps to deliver quality services and 
establish positive relationships with districts, both providers and 
districts experienced contracting and coordination difficulties. 
Regarding contracting, some of the providers we interviewed said 
certain districts imposed burdensome contract requirements, such as 
requiring substantial documentation to be submitted with invoices, 
limiting the marketing they could do to parents and students, or 
restricting the use of school facilities to deliver services. Districts 
also reported that contracting is a challenge. We estimate that 
negotiating contracts with providers was a moderate, great, or very 
great challenge in about 40 percent of districts nationwide. For 
example, district officials at three of the sites we visited expressed 
concern about their lack of authority to set parameters in provider 
contracts around costs and program design, such as tutor-to-student 
ratios and total hours of instruction. Coordination of service delivery 
has also been a challenge for providers and districts, and sometimes 
these coordination difficulties have resulted in service delays. For 
example, services were delayed or withdrawn in certain schools in three 
of the districts we visited because not enough students signed up to 
meet the providers' enrollment targets and districts were not aware of 
these targets.\12\
    In part because SES is often delivered in school facilities, 
providers and officials in the districts and schools we visited 
reported that involvement of school administrators and teachers can 
improve SES delivery and coordination. Although schools do not have 
federally defined responsibilities for administering SES, many 
officials said SES implementation is hindered when school officials are 
not involved. For example, some providers we interviewed said that a 
lack of involvement of school principals can make it difficult for them 
to coordinate with schools to encourage student participation. In 
addition, Illinois and Oregon school principals told us they found it 
difficult to manage afterschool activities because they didn't have 
sufficient authority to oversee SES tutors operating in their buildings 
at that time. While helping to administer the SES program adds 
additional administrative burden on schools, school officials in all 
four of the districts we visited said they welcomed a stronger or more 
clearly defined role.

States are Increasing SES Monitoring though it Remains A Challenge, and 
        Many Continue to Struggle with Developing Meaningful 
        Evaluations
    While state monitoring of SES had been limited, more states 
reported taking steps to monitor both district and provider efforts to 
implement SES in 2005-2006. For example, more states conducted or 
planned to conduct on-site reviews of districts and providers in 2005-
2006 than had done so in 2004-2005. In addition to state efforts to 
monitor providers, districts have also taken a direct oversight role, 
and their monitoring activities similarly increased during this time. 
For example, while we estimate that less than half of districts 
collected information from parents, school staff, on-site reviews, and 
students to monitor providers in 2004-2005, 70 percent or more were 
collecting or planning to collect information from these sources in 
2005-2006. In addition, states and districts both collected information 
on several aspects of SES programs, such as elements related to service 
delivery and use of funds, to monitor providers (see table 4). District 
assistance with monitoring is likely welcomed by states, as over two-
thirds of states reported that on-site monitoring of providers has been 
a challenge. During our site visits, officials explained that both 
state and district capacity to implement SES is limited, because there 
is typically one staff person at each level coordinating all aspects of 
SES implementation, and sometimes that person may also oversee 
implementation of additional federal education programs.

  TABLE 4.--PERCENTAGE OF STATES AND DISTRICTS THAT REVIEWED SPECIFIED PROGRAM ELEMENTS TO MONITOR PROVIDERS IN
                                                    2005-2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Percentage of states           Estimated percentage of
                                               ---------------------------------            districts
                                                                                --------------------------------
                                                                      Monitored                        Monitored
                Program element                             Planned       or                 Planned       or
                                                Monitored      to      planned   Monitored      to      planned
                                                            monitor       to                 monitor       to
                                                                       monitor                          monitor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parent/student satisfaction with a provider...         27         67         94         34         57         91
Provider communication with teachers and               37         56         92         46         43         89
 parents......................................
Extent to which a provider's program, as               19         73         92         30         41         70
 enacted, reflects its program design, as
 outlined in its application to your state....
Evidence of meeting academic achievement goals         23         65         88         28         60         88
 as stated on student learning plan...........
Evidence of improved student achievement based         15         71         87         26         65         91
 on any statewide assessment..................
Alignment of provider curriculum with district/        25         62         87         35         39         74
 school curriculum or instruction.............
Student attendance records....................         27         56         83         67         25         93
Evidence of improved student achievement based         27         56         83         39         52         91
 on provider assessments......................
Protection of student privacy.................         33         50         83         55         28         82
Adherence to applicable health, safety, and            29         48         77         48         26         74
 civil rights laws............................
Provider financial stability (e.g., audits,            31         42         73        N/A        N/A        N/A
 financial statements)........................
Evidence of improved student achievement based         12         58         69         23         57         80
 on grades, promotion, and/or graduation......
Billing and payment for services..............        N/A        N/A        N/A         72         21         93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO.

Note: The percentage of states that did not review or plan to review these program elements to monitor providers
  in 2005-2006 and the percentage of states that did not answer these survey questions are not shown in this
  table. In addition, we did not ask states if they monitored billing and payment for services, and we did not
  ask districts if they monitored provider financial stability.

    While states are beginning to increase monitoring of SES 
implementation, many states continue to struggle with developing 
evaluations to determine whether SES providers are improving student 
achievement. Specifically, over three-fourths of states reported that 
determining sufficient academic progress of students, having the time 
and knowledge to analyze SES data, and developing data systems to track 
SES information have been challenges to evaluating SES providers. 
Although states are required to withdraw approval from providers that 
fail to increase student academic achievement for 2 years, at the time 
of our survey in early 2006, only a few states had drafted or completed 
an evaluation report addressing individual SES provider's effects on 
student academic achievement. Further, we found that no state had 
produced a report that provided a conclusive assessment of this effect. 
Likely because of states' struggle to complete SES evaluations, states 
did not report that they had withdrawn approval from providers because 
their programs were determined to be ineffective at increasing student 
academic achievement.\13\ Rather, although over 40 percent of states 
reported that they had withdrawn approval from some providers, they 
most frequently reported withdrawing provider approval because the 
provider was a school or district that had entered needs improvement 
status, the provider asked to be removed from the state-approved 
provider list, or because of provider financial impropriety.
Several Education Offices Monitor and Support SES Implementation, but 
        States and Districts Reported Needing Additional Assistance and 
        Flexibility
    Several offices within Education monitor various aspects of SES 
activity across the country and provide support, but states and 
districts reported needing additional assistance and flexibility with 
SES implementation. Education conducts SES monitoring in part through 
reviews of policy issues brought to the department's attention and 
structured compliance reviews of states and districts, and provides SES 
support through guidance, grants, research, and technical assistance. 
The Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) and the Office of 
Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) are primarily responsible for 
monitoring and supporting SES implementation, while the Office of 
Inspector General (OIG), Policy Program and 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.\14\ OESE also monitors SES 
through its oversight of the collection of state NCLBA data, including 
data on SES, through the annual Consolidated State Performance Report 
(CSPR). For the CSPR, each state is required to report the number of 
schools with students receiving SES, the number of students eligible 
for services, and the number that received services.\15\ To support SES 
implementation, OESE funded the Comprehensive Centers Program through 
grants that established technical assistance centers across the country 
to help low-performing schools and districts close achievement gaps and 
meet the goals of NCLBA. Of these, the Center on Innovation and 
Improvement provides support to states and districts on SES and other 
Education programs.
    Given the technical assistance and support Education has already 
provided to states and districts for implementation of SES and school 
choice, and the 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,\16\ Education's SES guidance provides a 
sample that does not clearly specify all of the key elements required 
by SES law and regulations. Furthermore, a few state and district 
officials commented that, when followed, the SES regulations yield a 
letter that is unreasonably long and complex, which may be difficult 
for parents to understand.
    Many states and districts expressed interest in the flexibility 
offered through two pilot programs that Education implemented during 
2005-2006. The department designed these pilots to increase the number 
of eligible students receiving SES and to generate additional 
information about the effect of SES on student academic achievement. 
For example, several state and district SES coordinators expressed 
interest in Education's pilot program that allowed two districts in 
needs improvement status to act as SES providers in exchange for their 
expansion of student access to SES providers and collection of 
achievement data to determine SES program effectiveness. Through both 
our surveys and site visits, officials suggested that allowing 
districts to act as providers may ease student access to SES for rural 
districts that do not have providers located nearby, allow more 
students to participate in SES because district costs to provide 
services are sometimes lower than other providers' costs, and enable 
districts to continue their existing tutoring programs that they feel 
are effective and meet the same goals as SES.
    The other SES pilot allowed four districts in Virginia to offer SES 
instead of school choice in schools that have missed state performance 
goals for 2 years and are in their first year of needs improvement. 
During our site visits and through our surveys, many states and 
districts expressed interest in adjusting the order of the SES and 
school choice interventions. Specifically, half of states and over 60 
percent of districts suggested that SES should be made available before 
school choice (see table 5). In line with interest in increased 
flexibility with these interventions, in May 2006, Education announced 
that due to the positive results in Virginia districts under the pilot, 
the department would extend and expand this pilot in 2006-2007.

  TABLE 5.--STATE AND DISTRICT OPINION ON THE ORDERING OF SCHOOL CHOICE
                                 AND SES
                              [In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Order of school choice and SES              States  District
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SES should precede school choice.....................       48        62
Both school choice and SES should be offered at the         27        15
 same time...........................................
School choice should precede SES.....................       15        23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO.

Note: 10 percent of states did not respond or were not sure. In
  addition, district percentages are estimates.

Prior Recommendations
    Our August report recommended that Education clarify guidance and 
provide additional assistance to states and districts to help them 
comply with the federal requirements for parental notification letters 
and ensure that letters are easy for parents to understand, collect and 
disseminate information on promising practices used by districts to 
attract providers for certain areas and groups, and collaborate with 
school officials to coordinate local SES implementation. In addition, 
we recommended that Education consider expanding its current SES pilot 
program allowing selected districts in need of improvement to serve as 
providers and clarify state authority to set parameters around service 
design and costs. Finally, we also recommended that Education require 
states to collect and submit information on the amount spent by 
districts to provide SES and the percentage of districts' Title I funds 
that this amount represents and provide states with technical 
assistance and additional guidance on how to evaluate the effect of SES 
on student academic achievement.
    Education expressed appreciation for our recommendations and cited 
actions the department had taken or planned to take to address them. 
Specifically, Education outlined several projects under development 
that may provide more assistance to states related to parental 
notification, attracting providers for certain areas and groups, and 
involving schools in SES implementation. Further, after commenting on 
our report, Education expanded the pilot allowing districts in need of 
improvement to apply to become SES providers. The department also 
stated that it will consider further clarifying state authority to set 
program parameters in the next update of the SES guidance. Regarding 
federal and state monitoring of SES, Education said it will propose 
that districts report their SES expenditures to the department and 
provide more SES evaluation assistance to states through an updated 
issue brief as well as technical assistance provided by the 
Comprehensive Center on Innovation and Improvement and at a conference 
this fall.
    Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be 
happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee 
may have.

                                ENDNOTES

    \1\ GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to 
Improve Local Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental 
Educational Services, GAO-06-758 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2006).
    \2\ In this report, we refer to Title I, Part A of ESEA as ``Title 
I.'' Other Parts of Title I (Parts B, C, and D) are targeted at 
specific populations or purposes and are commonly referred to by their 
program names, such as Even Start.
    \3\ A state or each of its districts calculates the Title I per 
pupil allocation by dividing the district's total Title I, Part A 
allocation by the number of children residing within the district aged 
5-17 who are from families below the poverty level, as determined by 
the most recent Census Bureau estimates from the Department of 
Commerce.
    \4\ Certain states did not submit SES recipient information to 
Education through their NCLBA Consolidated State Performance Reports 
for all years. Specifically, 2002-2003 data from Kansas and North 
Dakota, 2003-2004 data from Pennsylvania, and 2004-2005 data from New 
Jersey are not included in figure 1. In addition, 2002-2003 data from 
New York only include information from New York City. Further, 
Education did not collect data on the number of students eligible for 
SES in 2002-2003, and therefore, an estimate of the SES participation 
rate is unavailable for that year.
    \5\ This district estimate has a margin of error that exceeds plus 
or minus 8 percentage points. See table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 
for more information.
    \6\ We did not review the academic achievement records of students 
receiving SES or independently verify this information obtained through 
the district survey.
    \7\ Many of the district estimates included in this paragraph have 
a margin of error that exceeds plus or minus 8 percentage points. See 
table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 for more information.
    \8\ In addition to our analysis, the Center on Education Policy 
reported that that as of August 2005, more than half of approved SES 
providers were private, for-profit entities. See the Center on 
Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom, Year 4 of the No 
Child Left Behind Act (Washington, D.C.: March 2006), for more 
information.
    \9\ GAO previously reported that some states have difficulty 
notifying schools of their status in meeting proficiency goals in a 
timely fashion in part because of the time involved in identifying and 
correcting errors in student assessment data. See GAO, No Child Left 
Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process for Tracking 
States' Implementation of Key Provisions, GAO-04-734 (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 30, 2004), for more information.
    \10\ This district estimate has a margin of error that exceeds plus 
or minus 8 percentage points. See table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 
for more information.
    \11\ GAO previously reported that geographic isolation created 
difficulties for rural districts in implementing SES. Specifically, 
rural district officials stated that traveling long distances to meet 
providers was not a viable option and use of online providers was 
challenging in some small rural districts where it was difficult to 
establish and maintain Internet service. See GAO, No Child Left Behind 
Act: Additional Assistance and Research on Effective Strategies Would 
Help Small Rural Districts, GAO-04-909 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 
2004), for more details.
    \12\ In addition to our analysis, the Center on Education Policy 
case studies also found that in some cases, approved providers that 
initially expressed interest in serving a certain district later 
decided not to provide services because too few students enrolled. See 
the Center on Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom, Year 
4 of the No Child Left Behind Act (Washington, D.C.: March 2006), for 
more information.
    \13\ Only one state reported withdrawing approval from one of its 
providers because that provider's program was generally ineffective. 
However, this provider's program was found to be ineffective because 
the provider did not deliver services to all of the students it 
enrolled. This state also indicated that it had not yet completed an 
evaluation of SES's effect on student academic achievement.
    \14\ The federal government has direct responsibility for the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) school system, and BIA schools depend 
almost entirely on federal funds. Similar to public schools, BIA 
schools are eligible to receive Title I funds.
    \15\ States have only reported the number of students eligible for 
SES since the 2003-2004 CSPR. Also, starting with the 2003-2004 CSPR, 
Education gave states the option to report the number of students who 
applied for SES.
    \16\ OIG found all six of the states it visited during its audits 
of state SES implementation to be deficient with respect to parent 
notifications. In addition, in our analysis of the 40 OESE Title I 
state monitoring reports publicly issued as of June 2006, we found that 
OESE cited 9 of the states it had visited for SES non-compliance with 
respect to district parent notifications.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Barr?

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BARR, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTER FOR 
        SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

    Mr. Barr. Chairman McKeon, members of the committee, I wish 
to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding 
supplemental services. I am here on behalf of Dr. Susan Zelman, 
superintendent of public instruction for the Ohio Department of 
Education.
    Today I would like to address three issues. One is our 
initial efforts to implement No Child Left Behind, specifically 
supplemental services; efforts to solve administrative issues 
that we met; and third, continuing concerns that we still have 
in implementing No Child Left Behind.
    The Ohio department took a very aggressive approach in 
systems monitoring approach to implementing this landmark 
legislation, including the SES provisions. We developed an 
online supplemental educational services provider application 
that is available year-round for acceptance or rejection. 
Outside reviewers is typically completed within 2 weeks. And we 
currently have about 384 providers statewide.
    We post the approved-provider list on the Web site where 
parents access their local lists by selecting their county from 
a map or from a drop-down box and then selecting their district 
of residence. The list is always up-to-date, includes the name 
of the providers, their qualifications, descriptions of 
services delivered, group sizes, locations, hourly rates and 
contact information.
    Our Title I committee was instrumental in developing the 
state SES provider effectiveness report to help evaluate the 
effectiveness of providers. This is another online performance 
report. And the indicators we use are achievement outcomes, 
communications with parents and teachers, instructional 
alignment, staff qualifications and current satisfaction, to 
name just a few.
    In order to check compliance the SES is being implemented, 
the state includes it as part of a very sophisticated tiered 
Federal monitoring process, including self-evaluation, onsite 
monitoring, telephone monitoring and desk audits.
    We, in addition, require all districts to submit letters, 
SES letters, to the state to verify both the content of the 
letter and the date of mailing. Then we also require that they 
submit an electronic verification that letters came from all 
buildings within their district in addition to the mailing 
time.
    Additional administrative issues that we have had: Some 
where providers were offering enticements to encourage 
selection. And to help head off this potential problem, which 
did not surface very much in Ohio, we adopted the industry 
guidelines for professional conduct, which were developed by 
the education industry association.
    To identify and resolve other potential issues, our agency, 
the education industry association, which represents many SES 
providers, and Ohio's major urban districts met. Districts and 
providers shared some best practices, such as provider fairs 
and parent SES booklets.
    They also addressed some very difficult issues. And results 
of these discussions include plans to implement improved 
communications, development of suggested guidelines for SES 
administration, policies to help ensure providers stay true to 
their commitments and a process to withdraw nonparticipating 
providers. Issues not so easily solved are facilities cost and 
access to eligible families for the providers.
    Finally, we recognize that, at this point in time, not all 
eligible students choose to participate, and we are trying to 
take steps to improve on that. However, districts in our state 
we find, by and large, are attempting to comply with the law. 
So they are meeting the compliance of notification and making 
the services available.
    The hard part is getting districts going beyond what is 
required under the law in the compliance arena. And some of the 
strategies that we have heard from Chicago and all we will take 
back with us and try to recommend to our districts.
    Other areas that might reasonably be reviewed as part of 
SES is the administrative burden that this causes. This is a 
contractual process that has many, many difficult areas in it 
and could be looked at for streamlining.
    The other area is difficulty of attributing success or 
failure by virtue of SES services. It is a half-an-hour to an 
hour a week that could occur 20 weeks, 30 weeks out of the 
school year. And because it is individual-goals-oriented, it is 
very difficult for us to develop assessments that really can go 
back and say, because of the implementation of these services, 
this child succeeded in this way.
    Finally, NCLB does focus on highly qualified teachers in 
the classroom, and we would suggest a review of the minimal 
qualifications and standards for SES providers or minimal 
training requirements pushed into the law.
    Again, I want to thank you and the members of the committee 
for your responsiveness and for inviting us to participate.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Barr follows:]

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

    I want to thank Chairman McKeon and members of the House Committee 
on Education and the Workforce for the opportunity to provide testimony 
on increasing parental awareness of Supplemental Educational Services 
(SES) under No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
    I am here on behalf of Dr. Susan Zelman, Superintendent of Public 
Instruction for the Ohio Department of Education. I am Stephen Barr, 
Associate Superintendent in the Center for School Improvement at the 
Ohio Department of Education. The Center for School Improvement 
administers many No Child Left Behind programs and oversees 
accountability and district/school improvement efforts.
    No Child Left Behind confers on the State Educational Agency (SEA) 
many responsibilities. These responsibilities include: promoting 
maximum participation by providers to ensure parents have choices; 
developing and applying objective criteria to the SEA provider 
selection process; maintaining an updated list of approved providers 
across the state, by school district, from which parents may select; 
developing, implementing and publicly reporting on standards and 
techniques for monitoring the quality and effectiveness of provider 
services; and withdrawing from approval providers that fail to 
contribute to increasing the academic proficiency of students served.
    Under Superintendent Zelman's leadership, the Ohio Department of 
Education (ODE) took an aggressive approach to implementing the 
landmark NCLB legislation. In keeping with the spirit of the 
legislation, we attempted to integrate a systems-thinking process 
rather than a fragmented implementation approach. To prepare for 
successful implementation of SES, ODE has woven together many of the 
service delivery processes: the provider application process; the 
updated state approved provider list; the provider effectiveness report 
(used to evaluate providers); and the identification of school 
buildings required to provide SES services. Through this process, ODE 
has linked a Title I building eligibility section to the statewide 
Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan (CCIP). The CCIP is the 
automated system for district planning and funds application. The 
linkage allows our consultants to know which buildings must provide SES 
and budget for professional development.
    The Ohio Department of Education developed an on-line Supplemental 
Educational Services application to provide parents with the 
opportunity to review the full array of available choices. The 
application is available year round. The standard for application 
review and recommendation by outside reviewers is two weeks or less. 
Rejected applicants may re-submit. Ohio currently has around 384 
providers statewide.
    To facilitate parent and district access to the Ohio list of 
approved providers, ODE posts the list on its web-site. Districts and 
parents can see the state approved providers available to serve 
eligible students in their district. Districts and parents can access 
their local list by selecting their county from a map or from a drop 
down box and then selecting their district of residence. The listing is 
always up-to-date and includes the name of the providers, their 
qualifications, description of services delivered, group sizes and 
locations, hourly rates and contact information.
    Evaluating the effectiveness of SES providers was an especially 
difficult issue to confront. Many problems were evident from the very 
beginning. For instance, the State is not permitted to have individual 
student test data, thus making it difficult to view changes in 
proficiency by student. This restriction on student data also precludes 
the State agency from knowing which students were selected for SES 
services or who their providers may have been. NCLB requires the 
district to develop in collaboration with parents and the selected 
provider, a statement of specific achievement goals for the student, 
how the student's achievement will be measured, and a timetable for 
improvement. Individualized measures complicate the development and 
administration of a set of valid and reliable assessments over the 
range of possible grade spans. Additionally, many participating 
students are in kindergarten through second grade where no statewide 
assessments aligned to the State curricula exist.
    Given these and other difficulties, we asked and received help from 
the Title I Committee of Practitioners to develop a SES Effectiveness 
report. The Committee of Practitioners represents parents, teachers, 
administrators, local boards of education, pupil personnel services, 
higher education and private schools as described in NCLB. Our 
committee is chaired by a representative of the Parents Teachers 
Association.
    The Committee responded with the Supplemental Educational Services 
Effectiveness Report which requires districts to reflect on and report 
on-line the performance of SES providers to students in their district. 
Performance indicators include achievement outcomes, communication with 
parents and teachers, instructional alignment, staff qualifications, 
and parent satisfaction to name a few. The on-line reporting allows our 
State agency to aggregate scores from across the state and arrive at a 
fair provider evaluation. Providers are informed if their score does 
not meet quality standards. If they miss the standards for two 
consecutive years, the provider will be withdrawn from the State 
approved list. A contractor trains the districts and providers about 
the evaluation process and the documentation required. The contractor 
also evaluates any district or public school building providing SES 
services.
    To ensure compliance with the law, SES is included as part of the 
state's tiered federal programs monitoring process. The process 
includes a self-evaluation, on-site monitoring and/or telephone 
monitoring and desk audit. Annually, districts are required to send 
copies of their SES letters to the State to verify the content of the 
letters and the date of mailing. Districts also submit an electronic 
report to verify that each required building sent parent notifications 
along with documentation of the mailing date.
    ODE has made several efforts to increase participation of SES 
programs. Most recently Superintendent Zelman wrote a guest column in 
the Ohio PTA's May newsletter, encouraging more grassroots support of 
SES programs.
    While Ohio's implementation was relatively smooth, anecdotally, ODE 
had received word from other states related to providers targeting 
parents with enticements to encourage their selection. To help head off 
this potential problem, ODE adopted the Industry Guidelines for the 
Professional Conduct of Members of the Education Industry Association.
    All of the state processes described above were in place by the end 
of the first year of NCLB. Modifications to these processes continue. 
Even with the efforts of State agency and district personnel and the 
Committee of Practitioners, some problems still surfaced. In an effort 
to address the issues, our agency and the Education Industry 
Association co-hosted a discussion meeting with representatives from 
the Ohio 8--the eight largest urban districts in Ohio. In addition to 
identifying some problems, districts and providers shared some 
successful practices such as parent booklets and provider fairs. Use of 
facilities, scheduling, transportation and parent information continue 
to be issues. However, the EIA and the districts discussed some ideas 
for mutually addressing some of these issues. Ultimately, the local 
district and the provider must agree to work together if progress 
around these issues is to be made.
    The cooperative meeting with the EIA also identified that some 
providers lack understanding of the Family Education Rights and Privacy 
Act (FERPA). The EIA and the State will work together to do a better 
job of informing. Districts also had problems with having too many 
providers who finally determine they lack sufficient clients to make 
tutoring financially feasible in some districts. These types of on 
again/off again business decisions are essential for providers. 
However, the district is left with the job of communicating to parents 
why their choice of providers is no longer available. This may create 
tension, mistrust and administrative overload.
    The Title I, Committee of Practitioners and the State are moving 
forward with recommendations to allow providers to specify a minimum 
child count. If the number of participants meets the provider standard, 
we will expect the provider to provide services. Ohio is also 
considering removing providers from the state list if they have not 
provided any services for two successive years. This strategy will help 
reduce the number of contacts the districts needs to make to create 
meaningful preliminary information for parents.
    Another result of the cooperative meeting with districts and the 
EIA was the development of a recommended timeline for parent 
notification, student selection, and services initiation. The 
guidelines are a joint initiative between the districts and the State. 
The timeline is being used this year in many districts.
    The reauthorization of NCLB provides us with an opportunity to make 
improvements to the SES program. We offer these thoughts and concerns 
for your consideration.
    The law requires district to notify parents and make services 
available. However, most districts go beyond the requirements of the 
law to help encourage parents to participate in SES. Many districts 
host or co-host provider fairs and develop SES booklets to better 
inform parents of the providers and the services available. The fact 
that parents do not always choose to participate in SES should not be 
viewed as a failure of the districts. There are legitimate reasons some 
parents choose not to participate or are hesitant to participate. For 
example, some parents are concerned about turning their children over 
to strangers. This may be more worrisome if the services are provided 
at non-district sites. Some parents have trouble providing or arranging 
for transportation for their child after school--even if the tutoring 
occurs on school grounds. Other parents do not want strangers coming to 
their homes to provide services or are upset if they must rearrange 
family schedules to accommodate the provider.
    Many students are involved in other after school activities. Some 
of these activities occur at the school and others at other locations 
in the community. SES is just one more thing to add to a busy schedule. 
Because students are often busy and not all students can be tutored 
during the first hour after school, it make some sense to better 
connect SES to other after school programs such as 21st Century to 
ensure someone is watching out for the child. Schools should not be 
asked to find funds to provide after-school child care for students 
awaiting tutoring services or to establish additional transportation 
opportunities. The costs of each of the types of activities are 
prohibitive in today's tight school budgets.
    Finally, it must be recognized that the law determines eligibility 
based on poverty status of students. Some economically disadvantaged 
students are performing at or above grade level. Parents often see no 
purpose in additional tutoring.
    It should be understood that the SES process in the law is very 
administratively burdensome to districts. Districts are often required 
to add additional administrative staff to contact parents and 
providers, create schedules, write contracts, identify student learning 
objectives, verify and process invoices, hold provider fairs, etc. 
Adding administrative staff reasonably redirects funds away from the 
classroom.
    The problems we confronted with trying to attribute student result 
to a half-hour or more of tutoring per week still exists. Several 
models have been tried by other states but none seem to have the 
validity and reliability required by the law. Other problems such as 
connecting provider services to students, lack of state tests for K-2 
students, trying to cover individualized objectives with State 
achievement test results, and State access to individualized student 
data are all real and should be acknowledged as part of the 
reauthorization.
    NCLB focuses on highly qualified teachers in the classroom and 
research based practices for public schools yet does not provide 
minimal quality standards for providers. If SES is to meet its 
potential and the expectations of parents and the public, quality 
standards for tutors working with students needs some attention. This 
committee might want to think about requiring successful completion of 
some basic training in tutoring and curriculum content for anyone 
employed as a provider.
    Again, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and the members of this 
committee for inviting the Ohio Department of Education to discuss 
Supplemental Educational Services. I appreciate having the opportunity 
to represent Superintendent Zelman and the Ohio State Board of 
Education and the Ohio Department of Education. Ohio looks forward to 
working with the committee as discussions continue on the 
reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
    Ms. Harris?

   STATEMENT OF ERICA HARRIS, MANAGER, ACADEMIC AFTER-SCHOOL 
                PROGRAMS, CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS

    Ms. Harris. Thank you, Chairman McKeon and members of the 
committee. I am the manager of Academic After-School Programs 
for the Chicago Public Schools. And thank you for the 
opportunity to speak to you today about supplemental services.
    I also want to thank you for acknowledging the significance 
of this issue and for your work to ensure that all students 
should receive the highest quality services that they deserve.
    I also would like to thank our Illinois representation for 
their continued support of Chicago Public Schools.
    My testimony today will focus on the assets of CPS, Chicago 
Public Schools, that this has made. To ensure the effective 
delivery of tutoring services to our students, I will discuss 
the successful parent outreach strategies that we have 
implemented and also offer an update regarding the status of 
the pilot program that was negotiated between Chicago and the 
U.S. Department of Education.
    Chicago Public Schools is the third-largest school district 
in the country, serving over 430,000 students in 600 schools. 
Over 80 percent of our students are low-income, and 50 percent 
of the poor children in Illinois attend Chicago Public Schools.
    CPS established the Office of After-School Community School 
Programs in 2001 with the purpose of enabling and supporting 
schools and offering a variety of high-quality programs in 
after-school to support academic instruction and enrich the 
development of the whole child. We offer five major initiatives 
in 500 schools, serving over 250,000 students.
    Expanding student learning opportunities, including the 
creation and expansion of after-school programs, is one of the 
district's three core strategies. As part of the strategy, CPS 
strongly embraces free-market innovations and competition. 
Given CPS's commitment to choice, innovation and quality after-
school, SES was seen as an opportunity to support and enhance 
the district's vision for its students and families.
    CPS has embraced the spirit of No Child Left Behind for SES 
by allowing providers to utilize our buildings to render 
services. In 2005-2006, over 75,000 students did register to 
receive SES at 300 schools. And we did spend $50 million to 
offer these services.
    In addition, we partnered with over 40 providers, 32 of 
whom wanted to use our buildings. The district fundamentally 
believes it to be in the best interest of our students to do 
this because it improves the attendance for tutoring but also 
ensures the students are in a safe place in the critical hours 
from 3 to 6:00, when they are most likely to become engaged in 
negative behaviors.
    While CPS has embraced the use of district facilities, 
there are significant challenges in doing so. One of the most 
challenging aspects of implementing SES is to ensure parent 
choice but to do so in a way that is manageable for the schools 
that must work with the providers to deliver services. In a 
recent survey of providers, even the majority of providers 
agreed that fewer competing interests at the school level would 
be preferable.
    So to address this, CPS has established a fair, transparent 
method to match providers wishing to serve onsite with eligible 
SES schools. The process is approved by ISBE, our state and the 
Department of Education, and involves gathering the preference 
of each SES school principal and that of the preferences of SES 
providers.
    SES schools have been matched with no more than five onsite 
provider options, and parents have the opportunity to choose 
between those five options onsite and the online and offsite 
programs available. The result is parent choice which is also 
manageable at the school level.
    CPS has made significant efforts to refine its parent 
notification strategy. And, to this point, we have been quite 
successful. Last year we were able to fulfill the amount of 
demand for SES, but 30,000 students were unfortunately placed 
on a wait-list. I should say we were not able to fill the 
demand due to a lack of funds.
    Our goal is to raise parent awareness. And to do that, we 
have mentioned some strategies here for how we will accomplish 
this.
    We sent an initial notification letter in April to parents 
to inform them about the opportunity to receive free tutoring. 
We also empower schools to promote registration as all 
registration occurs at the local school level and not centrally 
from our office. A parent handbook was sent home. Each SES 
school is mandated to do a local school provider fair. And we 
also do a massive campaign with public service announcements 
and a flyer campaign as well.
    We are proud of our district's efforts to promote SES and 
look forward to another outstanding showing of parent support 
for the program.
    As part of NCLB, a district in need of improvement, like 
CPS, is supposed to be prevented from providing supplemental 
services. Yet this past year we were part of the pilot with the 
Department of Education which allowed the district to serve our 
students. And we are confident that this program is positively 
impacting student achievement and achieving results.
    Our curriculum is aligned to what is happening in the 
regular school day. We tailor our program to accommodate 
special education and English language learner needs. In 2004-
2005, our evaluation showed that students of CPS program had a 
positive impact on student achievement and showed the CPS was 
as effective, if not more effective, than other private 
tutoring programs.
    Finally, we serve a great number of students because the 
cost-efficiency is great. We cost about one-fourth of that of 
private providers. As has been mentioned, several evaluations 
are being done. It will be concluded by the end of the year. 
And we expect these studies will prove that Aim High has been 
successful.
    Finally, we are thankful for the flexibility agreement with 
the Department of Education, believe it was the right thing to 
do, as it gave another high-quality option to parents and 
allowed thousands of students to be served. We estimate that 
without Aim High or the district's program, over 80,000 
students would not have been served this past year.
    I would be happy to answer any questions as they arise. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Harris follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Erica L. Harris, Manager, Academic After School 
Programs, Office of After School and Community School Programs, Chicago 
                             Public Schools

    My name is Erica Harris and I am the Manager of Academic After 
School Programs for the Chicago Public Schools. I thank you for the 
opportunity to speak to you today about the supplemental services 
provision in No Child Left Behind. I also want to thank you for 
acknowledging the significance of this issue--and for your work to 
ensure that all students receive the high-quality supplemental 
educational services that they deserve.
    My testimony today will focus on the efforts Chicago Public Schools 
has made to ensure the effective delivery of tutoring services to our 
students. I will discuss the successful parent outreach strategies 
Chicago Public Schools has implemented. I will also offer an update to 
the committee regarding the status of the pilot program that was 
negotiated between the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) and the US 
Department of Education (USDOE).
Strategies Toward Making SES an Effective Program
    The Chicago Public Schools is the third largest school district in 
the country, serving over 430,000 students in 600 schools. Over 80% of 
students are low income (over 90% in Elementary Schools), and 50% of 
the poor children in the state of Illinois attend CPS.
    Chicago Public Schools established the Office of After School and 
Community School Programs (2001), which provides the overall leadership 
and guidance to ensure that every CPS student has access to quality 
programs beyond the regular school day. We offer 5 major initiatives, 
in over 500 schools, serving 250,000 students. The mission of our 
Office is to enable and support schools in offering a variety of high-
quality programs that support academic instruction and enrich the 
development of the whole child. Expanding student learning 
opportunities, including the creation of new schools and the expansion 
of after-school programs, is one of the District's three core 
strategies to becoming the premier urban school district in the nation. 
As a part of this strategy, CPS strongly embraces free market 
innovations and competition.
    Given CPS' commitment to choice, innovation and quality after-
school programs, SES was seen as an opportunity to support and enhance 
the District vision for its students and families. CPS has embraced the 
spirit of the NCLB provision for SES by allowing providers to utilize 
our building facilities to render services. In 2005-2006, over 75,000 
students registered to receive supplemental services at 300 schools, 
and we spent $50 million dollars to offer these services. In addition, 
the district partnered with over 40 providers, 32 of whom used CPS 
buildings. The district fundamentally believes it to be in the best 
interest of our students to make tutoring available at the school. Not 
only does this ensure improved attendance for tutoring, but it also 
ensures that students are in a safe place during the critical hours of 
3-6 pm, when students are most likely to become engaged in negative 
behaviors.
    While CPS has embraced the use of district facilities, significant 
challenges arise when a district opens its doors. One of the most 
challenging aspects of implementing the SES program is to ensure parent 
choice, but to do so in a way which is manageable for the school 
personnel that work with providers to deliver services. Schools have a 
difficult time managing 4-5 programs, let alone managing the activity 
of the nearly 60 providers that would like to use CPS buildings. In a 
recent survey of providers administered by our office, even the 
majority of providers agreed that fewer competing interests offered at 
the school level would be preferable.
    To address this issue, CPS has established a fair and transparent 
method to match providers wishing to serve onsite, with eligible SES 
schools. This process has been approved by the Illinois State Board of 
Education (ISBE) and the USDOE and involves gathering the preferences 
of each SES school principal, and the preferences of the SES providers. 
Using this data, all SES schools are matched with no more than 5 onsite 
provider options. Parents have an opportunity to choose between these 5 
onsite programs, and the online and offsite programs which are 
available. The result is a parent choice model, which is also 
manageable at the school level.
    CPS has adopted the philosophy that the school is the critical unit 
of change with the most potential to impact student achievement. On a 
daily basis our principals are challenged to identify the unique needs 
of their student population, and are given the authority to deploy 
strategies to accommodate those needs. While the CPS model encourages 
creativity and customization, The SES model dictates a more ``One size 
fits all'' approach. The balance between the two methodologies is not 
easy to reconcile. The district has tried to do so by allowing some 
decisions within the parameters of the law to be made at the school 
level, and by allowing for principal input. Empowering schools in this 
way has facilitated the successful implementation of SES at the school 
level. In the same regard, we have surveyed providers and have asked 
for their input. Their feedback was integrated within the program 
design and implementation and fosters a sense of partnership between 
the LEA and vendors.
Effective Parent Notification Strategies
    CPS has made significant efforts to refine its parent notification 
strategy and up till this point, we have been quite successful in 
engaging parents. So successful in fact, that last year, CPS was unable 
to fulfill the amount of demand for the SES program, and over 30,000 
students were unfortunately placed on a waitlist, due to a lack of 
funds.
    Our goal is to raise parent awareness about SES, to ensure that 
individuals are equipped with the information which would allow them to 
make informed decisions as they select their child's provider and to 
provide all service providers with an equal opportunity to market their 
program to parents. To that end, CPS has incorporated the following 
successful outreach strategies:
     An initial notification letter was distributed to parents 
in April to inform them that their student could be eligible to receive 
free tutoring
     Schools are empowered to encourage parent registration as 
all registration occurs at the local school level.
     A SES Parent Handbook, which is a how to guide on how to 
register and choose a provider was created by the Office of After 
School and Community School Programs, and is disseminated by the 
schools to parents.
     Each eligible SES school is mandated to host a local 
school open house for parents and providers
     Public Service Announcements, advertisements are published 
in local print media and air on seven major local radio stations
     Over 30,000 flyers were distributed through schools and in 
a door-to-door outreach campaign
     SES hotline was created for parents (English, Spanish, and 
Polish) to answer all program questions
    We are proud of our district's efforts to promote SES, and look 
forward to another outstanding showing of parent support for the 
program.
An Update on the Pilot Program with the US Department of Education
    As part of the NCLB Act, a district ``in need of improvement,'' 
like CPS is prevented from providing supplemental services. However, 
CPS was part of a pilot program with the US Department of Education 
last year, which allowed the district to serve our own students. We are 
confidant that the district's program is positively impacting student 
achievement and achieving results.
    Our curriculum is aligned to what's happening during the regular 
school day. We are able to tailor our program to accommodate the needs 
of Special Education and English Language Learners, (groups that are 
typically underserved by providers). A 2004-2005 evaluation of provider 
effectiveness indicated that the CPS program did have a positive impact 
on student achievement and showed that CPS' program was as effective if 
not more effective, than many other private tutoring programs. Finally, 
we can serve a great number of students because of the cost efficiency 
as we cost about 1/4 of that of the private providers.
    The Illinois State Board of Education is in the process of 
evaluating the performance of Aim High and private providers for 2005-
2006 which will be completed later this year. In addition, the USDOE 
will complete its own evaluation of Aim High by January 2007. Finally 
CPS will do its own internal evaluation as we did in 2004-2005, which 
looks at the impact that all providers have had on student achievement. 
We expect that these studies will all prove that Aim High has been 
successful.
    We are thankful for The Flexibility Agreement with the USDOE and 
believe it was the right thing to do for students. It gave another high 
quality option to parents, and allowed thousands of more students to be 
served by the program. Our estimates show that without Aim High in the 
pool, over 8,000 additional students would not have been served.
    I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have and 
thank you again for this opportunity to provide a perspective on behalf 
of the local educational authority.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
    Dr. Anderson?

  STATEMENT OF BARBARA ANDERSON, VICE PRESIDENT OF EDUCATION, 
      KNOWLEDGE LEARNING CORPORATION, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS

    Ms. Anderson. Thank you, Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Miller, for inviting me to testify today. I am the vice 
president of Education for the Knowledge Learning Corporation, 
School Partnerships Division, KLC-SP. And we are a supplemental 
educational services provider.
    I bring more than 30 years of experience in public 
education to my role and responsibilities with the Knowledge 
Learning Corporation. I began my career as a teacher in an 
urban school district and have served as a school and district 
administrator, a county superintendent of schools and assistant 
commissioner for the New Jersey Department of Education, 
working with the 30 poorest districts, known as the Abbott 
Special Needs Districts. My children have also attended public 
schools.
    KLC-SP, a division of Knowledge Learning Corporation, is 
the largest national education company delivering unique, in-
school solutions for educational enrichment. Recently, KLC-SP 
acquired Education Station, bringing together two of the 
nation's leading education companies with decades of experience 
and expertise in partnering with schools to deliver high-
quality, proven-effective supplemental instruction and 
educational enrichment programs.
    In the SES arena, we are now approved in 36 states and have 
served more than 33,000 children. We are also an active member 
of the Education Industry Association, which is very active in 
supporting SES goals.
    I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide testimony 
on the issue that represents the cornerstone of supplemental 
educational services: how to best empower parents to choose the 
provider and programs best suited to their child's tutoring 
needs.
    Parent awareness, education and information are essential 
to a parent's ability to make an informed choice for their 
child. Our company's experience indicates that when local 
school districts and providers work in concert, parents and 
students benefit and parents are willing partners. This 
partnership role was underscored in the recent GAO report on 
SES.
    In districts where we worked directly with the central 
administration and building principals, we have forged a better 
understanding of the types of communication that work best for 
parents and the most effective ways to support their attendance 
at school functions and special events.
    As examples of our effective school partnerships, we sent 
home bi-monthly parent newsletters providing information, 
helpful tips on working at home with their children improving 
reading and math skills, and articles on NCLB and SES. We also 
continue to offer free parent and teacher workshops. We provide 
all of our parent information in English and Spanish.
    We have also found that community-based organizations, 
CBOs, are effective partners in working with parents to 
heighten their awareness and emphasize their involvement in 
making informed choices for their children.
    Our experience also indicates, however, that too many 
parents remain unaware of supplemental educational services, 
and the processes and procedures to gain access are often too 
complex, too confusing and too inconvenient to permit many 
parents to take full advantage of them.
    To improve parent participation and involvement we have 
four recommendations.
    One, rolling enrollments to keep open year-round the window 
for parents to sign up their children or at least two very 
large windows of opportunity.
    Two, coordination with providers and districts to work 
together to boost enrollment. Rather than districts prohibiting 
providers from marketing to parents, Federal Government or the 
state should create a regulatory framework to define necessary 
requirements to promote this.
    Third, there should be better involvement of CBOs. They 
have close ties to the communities we wish to serve. There 
should be some seed funding to these organizations to assist 
them with promoting SES in a systemic way.
    And finally, we should standardize the enrollment process 
and the forms. The Federal Government should send out guidance 
which should be available through CBOs as well as providers and 
school districts.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify 
today. And I would be happy to answer any questions you or 
other members of the committee may have. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Dr. Barbara Anderson, Vice President of 
     Education, Knowledge Learning Corporation-School Partnerships

    Thank you Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Miller for inviting me 
to testify today. My name is Dr. Barbara Anderson and I am the Vice 
President of Education for Knowledge Learning Corporation-School 
Partnerships (KLC-SP) Division, and we are a Supplemental Educational 
Services provider. I bring more that 30 years of experience in public 
education to my role and responsibilities with the Knowledge Learning 
Corporation. I began my career as a teacher in an urban school district 
and have served as a school and district administrator, a county 
superintendent of schools, and assistant commissioner for the New 
Jersey Department of Education, working with the 30 poorest districts 
known as the Abbott Special Needs districts. My children have also 
attended public schools.
    KLC-SP, a division of Knowledge Learning Corporation, is the 
largest national education company delivering unique, in-school 
solutions for educational enrichment. Recently, KLC-SP acquired 
Education Station bringing together two of the nation's leading 
education companies with decades of expertise in partnering with 
schools to deliver high quality, proven-effective supplemental 
instruction and educational enrichment programs. The KLC family also 
includes KinderCare, Children's World Learning Centers and other 
trusted and well-known names in childcare and education. Company-wide, 
KLC last year served more than 200,000 children in 38 states and the 
District of Columbia. In the SES arena we are now approved in 36 states 
and have served more than 33,000 children. We are also an active member 
of the Education Industry Association (EIA) which is very active in 
supporting the goals of SES.
    I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide testimony on the 
issue that represents the cornerstone of Supplemental Educational 
Services--how to best empower parents to choose the provider and 
programs best suited to their child's tutoring needs. Parental 
awareness, education and information are essential to a parent's 
ability to make an informed choice for their child.
    Our company's experience indicates that when local school districts 
and providers work in concert, parents and students benefit. This 
partnership role was underscored in the recent GAO report on SES. In 
districts where we have worked directly with the central administration 
and building principals we have forged a better understanding of the 
types of communication that work best for parents and the most 
effective ways to support their attendance at school functions and 
special events. Working with school officials is essential for 
providers to gain access to student records and enrollment forms. 
Providers also need direct communication with principals, often by cell 
phone or email, to trouble shoot parent and student issues as they 
arise. As a national provider with talent and resources available to 
us, we continue to offer our services to districts and schools to 
partner with us to offer and market special parent events, create 
parent educational materials and to encourage parent participation on 
parent advisory groups and at parent resource conferences. As part of 
our Champions tutoring programs, we send home a bi-monthly parent 
newsletter updating parents on current information about our programs, 
offering helpful tips on working with their children at home, and 
providing articles on important topics related to NCLB and SES 
tutoring. We continue to offer free parent workshops and to-date we 
have facilitated more that 21 workshops to more that 300 parents in 6 
states. Through our Education Station programs we provide ``Home 
Connection'', our parent outreach curriculum that reinforces essential 
learning concepts in a fun and exciting way that parents can do at home 
with their children. We provide all of our parent information and 
materials in both English and Spanish.
    We have also found that Community Based Organizations (CBOs) are 
effective partners in working with parents to heighten their awareness 
and emphasize their involvement in making informed choices for their 
children. CBOs can provide direct contact with parents and parent 
groups to allow providers to share information, attend community fairs, 
and distribute flyers in such places as county and city recreation 
facilities and housing authority communities.
    As an SES provider, we have customized our parent outreach to 
address parent needs in the communities we serve. For example, we have 
partnered with bus companies to distribute flyers at bus stops. We have 
also attended back-to-school events, open houses and parent fairs 
designed to provide information to parents about the content and 
quality of our program offerings. Knowledge Learning Corporation-School 
Partnerships has provided free parent workshops in all of our SES 
markets along with receiving an invitation to present at the Colorado 
Statewide Parent Conference in May of this year.
    I am pleased that the GAO report, ``NCLB-Education Actions Needed 
to Improve Local Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental 
Educational Services'', highlights the need to better educate parents 
about the availability of free tutoring and their right to make 
informed choices to select the provider, programs and services that 
best meet the needs of their children. We also agree that more work and 
direction are needed to address the needs of English Language Learners 
and Special Needs students. We make every effort to provide ESL or 
Bilingual teachers when they are available. We work with schools to 
gain access to student IEPs to ensure appropriate program 
considerations and accommodations. We also work with principals, 
teachers, and parents to describe our tutoring programs to ensure that 
student's needs are addressed.
    Our company's experience indicates that too many parents remain 
unaware of Supplemental Educational Services and the process and 
procedure to gain access to services. Unfortunately, in too many 
places, parent notification letters are full of legal terms and long 
complex explanations that only serve to confuse parents. All 
communications should be written with parents in mind, they should be 
``parent friendly'' and in a language they can understand. Parent 
representatives should be invited to assist with composing them to 
ensure their clarity and appeal. Once parents understand that free 
tutoring is available to help their children improve their academic 
achievement in reading and math, they are willing partners. Districts, 
schools and providers need to educate parents about NCLB throughout the 
school year in a variety of ways including but not limited to: working 
with the PTAs, parent meetings, local school councils and NCLB parent 
groups or by hosting parent meetings.
    To improve parent participation and involvement we offer the 
following recommendations for consideration by the Committee:
    1. Rolling Enrollments--If our ultimate goal is to boost enrollment 
in SES, districts need to keep open year round the window of 
opportunity for parents to sign up their children in SES, similar to 
the way the consumer marketplace works and spend their entire set-
aside. Short of a rolling enrollment, they should provide at least two 
very large windows of opportunity for parents to learn about SES and 
enroll their children in SES at once. Also, the enrollment process 
should take place in the communities where the families live and during 
the hours that parents are not at work, such as evenings and weekends.
    2. Coordination with providers--If the goal of SES is to boost 
student achievement and remove schools from the needs improvement 
status, we must find a way to work closely together to boost 
enrollment. We and other private sector partners have the resources and 
the know-how to market to low-income communities and help districts 
meet their goals. The Federal government or the states may even 
consider creating a regulatory framework similar to the way the FCC 
currently regulates advertising. Instead of prohibiting us from doing 
any advertising to parents which is the case in many school districts, 
school districts and providers should partner to produce high quality 
parent information and materials and allow providers to play a role in 
enrolling students in SES.
    3. Better involvement of Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and 
other local leaders--These entities have close ties to the communities 
we wish to serve and they are currently not a part of the SES parent 
recruitment equation in a significant way. This needs to change and the 
best way to do so is by offering some seed funding to these 
organizations to assist with promoting SES in a systemic way. Parent 
Information Resource Centers (PIRCs) also need to play a larger role in 
educating parents.
    4. Standardized Enrollment process and forms--The Federal 
government should consider standardizing the enrollment process and 
forms and make them available through CBOs and the providers as well as 
the districts.
    As most educators can attest, it takes hard work and more time on 
task to raise student achievement. SES can only help in this task if it 
is used by the student population it is intended to serve. Otherwise, 
its true effectiveness will never be realized.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I 
would be happy to answer any questions you or other committee members 
may have.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
    Ms. Dollonne?

    STATEMENT OF MONIQUE DOLLONNE, PARENT OF A SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   EDUCATION SERVICES STUDENT

    Ms. Dollonne. Good morning, Chairman McKeon. Good morning, 
Congressman Miller, my fellow Californian. My name is Monique 
Dollonne. I am coming to see you today to testify as a mother 
of a child who was a recipient of supplemental education 
services and also as a parent advocate representing the 
millions of parents whose children are eligible for SES and 
unfortunately could not fit in my suitcase today.
    I am honored to be here to testify today before this 
committee to provide the views of parents, stakeholders in 
education who are many times not invited to forum such as this. 
Thank you again for the opportunity.
    Now the burden is on me to be as clear and concise as I can 
be to let you hear their voices.
    First of all, as my own experience, I want you to know that 
SES tutoring works. I have watched it with my own child. Her 
increase in reading comprehension level by one grade in less 
than 5 weeks was phenomenal. Her math skills improved as well.
    The one-to-one attention from her tutor that she received 
built her confidence and increased her interest level in both 
subjects. She was able to go back to her classroom teacher with 
stronger skills and help the other children who did not get the 
chance to access the services. It was all around a very 
positive and helpful experience.
    As I watched the results amongst her peers at her school 
site and listened to the other parents, it became evident that, 
for a lot of the Title I children, the tutoring program was not 
just an academic support program; it was a safe haven as well. 
It became a place where students were looking forward to come 
and get help.
    After 2 weeks of efforts, their respective teachers at 
school noticed a difference. Out of the tutoring effort, we saw 
friendships grow with the tutors, attitude toward studying 
change, confidence build and test scores go up.
    SES, to a lot of children, represents extra support that 
will help them achieve. In most cases, it is a life preserver 
thrown at them when they are drowning in the school system.
    With all the evidence of the obvious benefits, the question 
remains, why can't many more parents access SES?
    The data that was presented to us today, we are talking 
about 19 percent of the children. Working with parents and 
advocacy groups, I can tell you, in California, for example, we 
are finding areas where only 1 to 3 percent of the children are 
being served. And this is not acceptable. And I am coming here 
to you to tell you, please, we need to take a look at that 
access part of the program.
    Notification letters. How does the information come to the 
parents? Notification letters are very confusing. A lot of 
times I have received notification letters that have three 
deadlines, for example. Deadlines that I receive--you are 
supposed to tell your district if your child needs services 
when you don't even receive the AYP results. Then you have to 
give another deadline for choice.
    From what I am understanding, we have a choice; we are 
supposed to be choosing the providers. Why do we parents have 
to go and give three choices and have the district prevent the 
choices? Clarification needs to be put into the law. Apparently 
this is not helping the parent access.
    Marketing. Marketing should be--or the enrollment should be 
total collaboration. We are finding districts that are spending 
a lot of money sending out letters, but they are not reaching 
the parents. The parents are not understanding what it is they 
are supposed to be doing.
    They are invited to go to fairs and meet the providers. But 
they have no information about the providers. The states are 
supposed to be giving a list. How many parents in Title I 
schools have a computer to access the providers list and 
actually make a judgment call when the schools are not allowed 
to give them the information?
    So we need to have information access to the parents, 
accurate information on the quality of the tutors as well, the 
quality of the information. But as well, we need to put in the 
provider, for example, professional development, the teachers, 
the staff, the school should understand what NCLB really meant 
with offering the SES providing services.
    The parents. NCLB offers a 1 percent training to train the 
parents to understand how to implement the NCLB provision. 
Maybe we should have a provision into the SES program that 1 
percent or maybe a certain percentage can be for the parent 
development so parents can understand how to access SES 
providers.
    Any time as a parent I try to find out how an SES provider 
is doing, we have had no problem trying to get an evaluation. 
And, yes, we do want the providers to be qualified. We do want 
the programs to offer good programs.
    But a lot of times what we are finding out is SES comes in 
conflict with the school district. Why is it that schools 
recognize that the SES providers are not working in 
collaboration? We need to open the doors and finding out what 
the problems are.
    Funding. Twenty percent goes to the SES providers or 
actually allocated for SES. But it is not 20 percent. It is 
only we have a certain percentage, certain districts says 15 
percent goes to choice. Well, then we have 5 percent left. So 
that becomes very confusing.
    People don't know if they are eligible or not. And the 
district cannot explain you are supposed to send an 
application. But you don't know if you are going to be eligible 
or not.
    So we need clarification at 20 percent. How much of that 20 
percent should be going to transit to a better school? How much 
is actually going to SES?
    And if you are in a failing school, you should be entitled. 
The law says you are entitled to SES. So why do we have to go 
through all those barriers to access a service that is supposed 
to help our children succeed and achieve and help the school do 
better? This is one of my main questions.
    I am sorry. I forgot to read now. I will go back to my 
statement.
    Implementing SES properly and giving it its full force is a 
civil rights issue. SES is an answer to an SOS scream from our 
children. All the E.L. students are minority students, our most 
vulnerable children.
    SES is giving failing children a second chance or access to 
success when children have been in failing schools for the 4th 
year. Parents would like to see an earlier implementation of 
SES. Most parents would prefer to have SES access before being 
given transferring options to a better school.
    I am coming to you to proclaim that SES in the parents book 
is more like an answer to the SOS scream of our children. Of 
course, it can no longer be ignored, unwelcomed and mistreated 
by our school system. It should be embraced, welcomed and given 
the red carpet treatment no later than the very first day of 
school.
    All eligible students should be entitled to access SES 
support at the beginning of the year--not in December, not in 
January, not in May, like we are finding out in some of the 
areas in California.
    A stronger accountability process should be required for 
school districts and states are enforced. Funding distribution 
on SES should be strengthened. And districts not spending 20 
percent allocation should be required to roll over the 
remaining funds into the next year allocation, increasing SES 
impact on students achievement for the following year.
    Parents and committee organization should be openly 
welcomed to build connections between their children, the 
tutoring centers and welcome to distribute applications and SES 
information to the community. Right now some applications are 
kept hostage at the district office. An SES application should 
not be kept hostage by school districts, but freely distributed 
at times of need without deadlines.
    The law doesn't have a deadline. Why do the parents get a 
deadline? The district receives the funding in August. Why 
should we have a deadline? And why should we be given 2 weeks 
to decide which SES provider we should be getting? We should 
have until June if our child is failing in June.
    It is imperative to give SES a full pledge of support from 
this committee in the reauthorization process. Our children 
need the SES provision to be fully implemented. Its funding 
needs to be sustained and dispersed until all children are 
fully served.
    Its accountability must be preserved under the law. SES is 
giving parents hope and paving the road to our children's 
success. Please, repair the broken toe of NCLB and transform it 
into the strong pillar as it was originally intended.
    Our children need a strong law to achieve strong results. 
Please do the right thing and help the SES provision save our 
children, our treasures, our nation's most precious assets. 
Please help us, the parents, be proud of our American kids. We, 
the parents, know that our children can shine again in 
tomorrow's world. With your help, they will shine.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Dollonne follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Monique Dollonne, Ventura, CA

    Good morning, Chairman McKeon, and members of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce. My name is Monique Dollonne, I am coming 
to you to testify as a mother of a child who was the recipient of 
Supplemental Educational Services and as a Parent Advocate, 
representing the Millions of parents whose children are eligible for 
SES and unfortunately could not fit in my suitcase to join us at this 
table today. I am honored to be here to testify today before this 
Committee to provide the views of Parents, the stakeholders in 
education who are many times not invited to forum such as this. Thank 
you for this opportunity. Now the burden is on me to be as clear and 
concise and let you hear their voices.
    First of all, I would like to thank all of the players who will 
have an important role in the NCLB reauthorization and specifically in 
the reauthorization of one of the important pillars of NCLB: The 
tutoring previsions of the Law so called SES.
    I watched my child increase her reading and comprehension levels by 
one grade in less than 5 weeks. Her math skills improved as well as her 
confidence in computing the numbers at her 4th grade level. The one on 
one attention that she received built her confidence and increased her 
interest level in both subjects. She was able to go back to her 
classroom teacher with stronger skills and help the other children who 
did not get the chance to access the services. It was all around a very 
positive and helpful experience.
    As I watched the results amongst her peers at her PI (Program 
Improvement) 2 level school and listen to the other parents, it became 
evident that for a lot of the Title I children, the tutoring program 
was more than a support and help in improving results and test scores, 
it was a safe heaven. It became a place where students were looking 
forward to come and get help. After 2 weeks of efforts, their 
respective teachers at school noticed a difference. For the first time, 
some of those students were given a desk to study at, their own books, 
and one on one mentoring attention from their tutors. Out of the 
tutoring effort, we saw friendships grow, attitude towards studying 
change, confidence build, and test scores go up. SES, to a lot of 
children, represents extra support that will help them achieve; 
however, to most children, SES is also an opportunity for emotional 
support that might not be available at home. In most cases, it is a 
life preserver thrown at them when they are drowning in the system.
    With all the evidence of the obvious benefits, the question 
remains: Why can't all parents access SES? Why are we serving only 19% 
of our eligible children (Nationwide Data)?
    This is what my experience has been in the field after working with 
many parents;
    1) Access to Services
    a) Notification letter. Letters are confusing, contradictory at 
times, poorly translated in a foreign language, not sent in a timely 
manner, full of deadlines
    Ex: Tutor (having a different meaning in the Spanish Language
    Ex: One letter has 3 deadlines in one paragraph.
    The access to SES needs to be free of deadlines. (The Law does not 
have a deadline, the funding does not have a dead line, why are the 
Notification letters full of deadlines?)
    b) How do parents receive the information of their rights to SES?
    One notification letter sent anytime is not sufficient. In some 
cases notification letters were received a month prior to receiving the 
PI Status information of the school attended.
    The SES provisions need much more clarification so there is no room 
for confusion. Information about SES under NCLB is crucial for its 
proper implementation. It can be received under training provided by 
Schools. The same as the teachers receive Professional Development; the 
parents should be entitled to Professional development access. May be 
through the 1% minimum allocation or may be through another allocation 
within the 20% allocation for the SES. Districts receive administrative 
allocations, the marketing of SES should also be a budget allocated for 
a better outreach campaign for parents.
    c) Eligibility
    Even though the funding clearly comes to Districts and States pre 
calculated, parents are given a blurry picture and have a difficult 
time knowing whether or not their child is eligible, and for how much, 
creating more confusion. Parents who are intimidated by the process do 
not follow up, thinking that their children are not eligible.
    d) Choice of SES provider:
    A lot of parents in need of SES providers do not have access to 
computers. They therefore rely on school personnel to help them choose 
a provider. As we know the Law is clear: the School cannot choose the 
provider and therefore cannot not get involved in that process. Parents 
complain they do not know how to find the tutors. Teachers are often 
times uninformed about SES and about NCLB altogether. A provision put 
into the Law making it part of the Professional development curriculum 
for teachers would help tremendously.
    Parents say it is hard to get the information from the District. 
There are definitely feelings of conflict of interest coming through 
during the information process. Districts often times organize a 
Providers Fair, though these are not well attended. The Fairs are in 
the middle of the afternoon, not convenient for working parents or 
parents with large families. They are located in County's Office quite 
a distance form the school sites.
    Suggestions for changes:
    SES Provider information should be freely accessible at the School 
Site. Districts and School personnel could very easily have an 
abundance of information on School Sites without divulging opinions or 
forcing a choice on the parents.
    SES Fairs could be taking place at the school sites. Every provider 
we have spoken with has had no problem in being available for a school 
visit or a Community Expo giving them an opportunity to explain their 
services to the parents. All providers should feel welcome at failing 
school sites and should be encouraged to engage in communication with 
parents as early as possible.
    e) Timing process:
    Because Schools do not have open door policies for SES Providers, 
the timing process between the time Notification letters are sent and 
the time fairs are organized and contracts get signed is very lengthy. 
As a result, the children do not have access to tutoring until December 
or January in many cases. We have found School Districts starting 
tutoring programs in May, which of course defeats the purpose. This 
process needs better and clearer regulations and some attention in the 
reauthorization process.
    SES provider Selection from the State: SES providers have to go 
through an elaborate process to apply and become an SES Provider and 
get on the approved list. The approved list should be made readily 
available to all parents via media campaign or mailing Distribution. 
Right now, Districts are not diffusing the information as profusely as 
they could. At times, we find that they exclude certain providers or 
include providers who do not have the profile mandated by NCLB. 
Example: Parents have complained of being given one choice of tutoring 
services; their children's failing school site. It would be very 
helpful to see reinforcement in the Law not allowing for this type of 
practice to continue.
    Suggestions: A massive mailer coming from the State and distributed 
by the District to all eligible families as soon as the PI Status of 
schools is determined would be very helpful.
    Accountability of SES Providers:
    Many Districts complain they cannot measure the performance 
increase delivered by SES providers and therefore question the 
efficiency of the SES Providers.
    As a parent, it seems totally inconceivable that a system based on 
Data Research analysis cannot come up with a consistent and fair 
evaluation system of the process. Without Data analysis, parents can't 
tell whether their children are improving. Why can't districts find a 
way to put the obvious into a reliable Data Format? May be the issue 
can be addressed and put into the Law.
    Implementing SES properly and giving it its full force is a Civil 
rights Issue for all of our most vulnerable children. SES is giving 
failing children a second chance of access to success when children 
have been in a failing school for the 4th year. Parents would like to 
see an earlier implementation of SES, most parents would prefer to have 
SES access before being given transferring options to a better school. 
I am coming to you to proclaim that SES in the parents' books is more 
like an answer to the SOS scream from our children (maybe we can change 
the names (Save Our Schools Program). SES reaching out to very few 
children is like a broken toe of NCLB. It can no longer be ignored, 
unwelcome and mistreated by our school systems; it should be embraced, 
welcome and given the red carpet treatment no later than the very first 
day of school. All eligible students should be entitled to access SES 
support at the beginning of the year, not in December, January or May. 
A stronger accountability process should be required from School 
Districts and States and enforced. Funding distribution on SES should 
also be strengthened. Districts not spending their 20% allocations 
should be required to roll over their remaining balance into the 
following year allocation increasing their SES impact on students' 
achievement for the following year. Parents and Community Organization 
should be openly welcome to build connections between their children 
and the tutoring centers and welcome to distribute applications and SES 
information to the Community. An SES application should not be kept 
hostage by School Districts but freely distributed at times of need 
without deadlines.
    It is imperative to give SES a full pledge of support from this 
Committee in the reauthorization process. Our children need the SES 
provision to be fully implemented. Its funding needs to be sustained 
and dispersed until all children are fully served. Its accountability 
MUST be preserved under the Law. SES is giving parents hope and paving 
the road to our children's success. Please, repair the broken toe of 
NCLB and transform it into the strong pillar as originally intended. 
Our children need a strong Law to achieve strong results. Please do the 
right thing and help the SES provision save our children, our 
treasures, our Nation's most precious assets!
    Please help us be proud of our American kids!
    We, the parents know that our children can shine again in 
tomorrow's World!
    With your help they will shine!
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Ashby, in visiting school districts, in gathering the 
information, did you get the feeling that there is resistance 
on embracing the program? Or does it just take time to do it? 
Or is there competition? Do they look at it this is 
competition? Did you feel that there was acceptance of the 
program? What are some of the responses to that?
    Ms. Ashby. I think, as Mr. Brown said earlier, it is sort 
of all the above. There certainly is acceptance of supplemental 
educational services. And this certainly is a learning curve or 
a period of time that is needed in order for there to be 
increased acceptance and increased participation on the part of 
students and encouragement from their parents.
    The same thing with respect to school districts and 
principals and teachers. Certainly, as with any human endeavor, 
there has to be a period of time where people get used to the 
idea of change and adapt and participate and can shape it to 
fit their needs. There is some of that, too.
    There probably is some resistance and some competition from 
teachers and schools. But overall, the indications I get are 
that it is accepted. It is the law of the land. And people are 
trying to implement it.
    Chairman Mckeon. So you would be optimistic that it is----
    Ms. Ashby. I would be optimistic, yes.
    Chairman Mckeon. I am glad to hear that.
    Dr. Barr, you said you had 384 providers?
    Mr. Barr. On the approved list, yes.
    Chairman Mckeon. On the approved list, 384? Would that go 
to like one person that signs up to provide tutoring to 
national companies? What is the range?
    Mr. Barr. We have the whole gamut. We have very localized 
providers who only want to provide at one school. We have 
national providers who do statewide or a few districts or 
regions of the state. So it covers the whole gamut.
    Chairman Mckeon. Ms. Harris, you said in the Chicago 
schools that 80 percent of your children come from low-income 
families. Is that just the way income is in Chicago? Or are 
students going to other schools?
    Ms. Harris. I think you find that the majority of students 
who live in Chicago who are low-income students attend the 
public school system. And those that are perhaps of a higher-
income status are attending the parochial and private schools 
in the city.
    Chairman Mckeon. Dr. Anderson, your company is approved in 
several states.
    Ms. Anderson. Yes.
    Chairman Mckeon. So do you find different acceptance 
levels, some states easier to work with than others?
    Ms. Anderson. Absolutely, yes.
    Chairman Mckeon. And could we get a list of those that 
are--you probably wouldn't want to give that.
    Ms. Anderson. Well, I think what I would be happy to do is 
to provide you with information about types of situations that 
have occurred that have been both positive and not so positive.
    Where we have seen good collaboration, it has happened 
because you have leadership at the top or you have a school 
superintendent who embraces the concept, where you have a 
principal as an educational leader who believes in SES, who 
supports it, the teachers then support it. Parents are then 
involved. Then you have strong programs.
    So, yes, there are certainly other circumstances where we 
are present where we have found that school districts do not 
embrace supplemental educational services. And in those 
situations, it is difficult to get information to parents. It 
is difficult to get support. It is difficult to get 
participation. Oftentimes we are barred from schools and from 
speaking directly to parents.
    So I think there are a lot of ways for us to work to 
improve SES. We believe in it. We support it, and we certainly 
think it ought to continue.
    Chairman Mckeon. It seems to me that teamwork is vital in 
this effort because if you have a football team, you have got 
an offense, you have got a defense. And if one of them feels 
like they are doing the job and the other one isn't, they feel 
like they are doing the job and they are not. You know, they 
all are part of one team. But if they don't accept that and 
work together as a team, then, again, we forget what the 
ultimate goal is. And that is the child.
    Ms. Dollonne, have you found in some of the students that 
need this extra help--probably some of them come from families 
where there isn't a lot of parental support. And it would be if 
you could reach those families, maybe they are not in tune to 
reach out for that extra help. And that would be one of the 
problems with trying to get this service implemented.
    Ms. Dollonne. Absolutely. One of the examples that we have 
found out, for example, in Latino community, the word ``tutor'' 
means different things. And we have come to the homes of 
parents when the mother would say, well, you want to give me 
another husband. Because, you know, a tutor in Spanish means 
somebody who has custody of your child. And we said, no, no, 
no, this is not what it means.
    And the parents do not understand the test scores. That is 
another piece of information. They are not being explained at 
the beginning. Schools have a problem admitting that they are 
in school improvement or failing schools. They don't want to 
tell the parents. So that comes in the way.
    Chairman Mckeon. You know what one thing? I have heard the 
word several times today: failing school. And what I would like 
to do is eliminate that from our vocabulary. We have schools 
that need improvement. And that is what we need to focus on, 
because I don't think any school, any individual is totaling 
failing.
    You know, you might have problems in a subject. And I think 
then we paint a cloud over their head that I would like to see 
us just eliminate that from our vocabulary and focus on 
improvement, trying to bring improvement.
    Ms. Dollonne. That is right. And SES is part of the 
improvement. Therefore, it should be a celebration, a 
collaboration at the beginning of the year and say, let's 
address the issue and let's all work together and get it out.
    Chairman Mckeon. Make it part of the team.
    Ms. Dollonne. And be part of the team.
    And the families receiving a very bureaucratic written 
letter is not going to do the access and the marketing. So we 
need to have a different approach.
    And I haven't found one family that said, no, I don't want 
to access $1,200 of free tutoring if they are explained 
properly. They all want to help their children. All those 
families care, and they love their children. They want to see 
them succeed. But they don't understand where they are at, in 
terms of their level. And they understand where they need the 
help.
    So this is where the teachers need to be pushing for that 
and be open to have a open conversation with a tutor. And if 
everybody talks together, there is no competition, no fear. We 
are all going to get better, everyone will benefit from it, 
including the children, who we are trying to serve.
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, Ms. Dollonne, my wife will probably sign up for 
supplemental services if she thought she would get a different 
husband. But let's see.
    [Laughter.]
    I want to thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. 
Dollonne, because you rattle off a series of questions. I hope 
the reporter was able to get all of this down. But when you 
left your formal testimony and rattled off all the questions 
that a practical person might have about engaging this program, 
I think it will be helpful to us.
    Ms. Dollonne. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Ms. Harris, Ms. Ashby in her report raises a 
question about the adequacy of acceptability for English 
learners and for students with disabilities. Obviously, you 
have this huge cohort of students who are engaged in these 
supplemental services.
    How are you addressing that? And have you been able to find 
providers with the quality of services for those students that 
you desire?
    Ms. Harris. Yes, I think it is an excellent question and 
certainly one that I think the state is trying to address, 
trying to bring in providers or approve providers on the front 
end that actually do service those populations.
    Currently I believe there are 12 out of 60 in our district 
that do serve special-education and ESL students. And so, we 
are excited to be able to work with those. And we, you know, 
certainly have parents gravitate to those programs because they 
accommodate special student needs.
    I should also mention that----
    Mr. Miller. Is that sufficient? I mean, you have a really 
substantial extreme population.
    Ms. Harris. We do. And, yes, it is a significant challenge.
    And, in fact, what I was going to mention is that, 
actually, our program, Aim High, does have a special program 
specifically for our English language learners and also have 
special accommodations for our special-education students.
    And so, even as another argument for why the district's 
program should exist, we actually are always available to 
service those students and make a very strong effort to reach 
out to parents to let them know that we do exist to fill that 
void, because there is one.
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Barr, what is your situation in Ohio?
    Mr. Barr. Congressman, thus far we have not had any 
complaints about limited-English students or IET. I think as 
the program does increase, however, we will confront those 
issues of not having sufficient resources in the provider area, 
particularly as we get out to more of the rural areas. And 
while we are not a very populous state with languages, that is 
increasing in certain areas of the state.
    Mr. Miller. Ms. Anderson, as a national provider, how do 
you look at this issue? I mean, obviously in some cases it can 
be an isolated population or can be certainly students with 
special needs, individual special needs. How do you look at 
addressing that?
    Ms. Anderson. Just to give you some statistics, in the 
2005-2006 school year, our company served 14 percent students 
who were limited English proficient. That was about 3,988 
students. And we also served 5.3 percent students with special 
needs. And that was about 1,500 students in those categories.
    I think there does need to be better coordination in terms 
of identification of students, particularly those with 
disabilities. Oftentimes those students come into our programs 
and we are not aware that that student has an IEP, therefore 
not aware to specifically identify the areas of disability. We 
will pre-test those students as we will all others in the 
program. And sometimes it is during that process that we are 
able to determine, in making sure we are identifying the 
individual goals of each student, that this student has a 
disability or that the student is significantly lower than the 
other students in terms of ability. Therefore, then we start 
asking questions.
    But, in our view, there needs to be much better 
coordination with teachers, with schools in terms of 
identifying students so that we can ensure that our programs 
are, in fact, meeting their needs.
    Mr. Miller. Are these services more expensive?
    Ms. Anderson. That is on a case-by-case basis. And 
individually they certainly can be, yes. Not always, though.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you.
    Ms. Ashby, I want to thank you very much for your, GAO's, 
attention to the issues that we raised in our letter and the 
response that you have given back. I think this has really been 
very helpful to tease out a whole range of concerns that we are 
going to have to deal with. And I really want to appreciate you 
and your colleagues at GAO for the work you did on your report.
    Ms. Ashby. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Appreciate it.
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
    The chair recognizes Ms. Davis.
    Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to all of you for being here.
    If I could go back, Dr. Barr, I may have not heard you 
quite correctly, but I think you questioned whether or not it 
was possible to determine the effects of the program, whether 
or not, you know, there were other intervening programs that 
might have made a difference in the success of a student or the 
progress, et cetera.
    Did you feel that there is really a question of how do we 
evaluate these programs and, in fact, whether we can attribute 
the SES program to the progress or lack thereof of the student?
    Mr. Barr. I think we find, just from an assessment process 
from the state, that it is very difficult for us to use any 
type of state assessments to make any judgments regarding 
whether a child has improved or not.
    Understand, all we have are an assessment that is given 
once a year. We would have to look at gains from 1 year to the 
next. And there would have to be some way to tease out what was 
the effect attributed by the SES, what was the effect 
attributed by the regular classroom teacher. And we find that 
very difficult to do.
    Mrs. Davis of California. Yes.
    Mr. Barr. And that does not say that the SES program is or 
is not effective. We are just saying we are having trouble 
accounting for attribution.
    Mrs. Davis of California. Yes. Well, what kind of validity, 
then, can we put into programs?
    I don't know. Dr. Anderson, I would assume that the 
organizations that you work with do have an evaluation, they 
have a pre-test, post, et cetera.
    Ms. Anderson. Right.
    Mrs. Davis of California. I think part of what I am trying 
to get at here, too, is, is this the right model? Clearly, 
students need assistance. And exceptional tutoring is always 
better than nothing. It has to be the right kind of tutoring.
    But I am wondering, in your look at this, can you offer 
whether, you know, this the right direction that we should be 
taking as we look at reauthorization? What should be done 
differently? I am concerned that it is difficult to tell 
whether it is having an effect or not.
    Mr. Barr. Well, if we are trying to get some attribution or 
really be able to tell the effects of SES--and I am not sure 
how important that is. I mean, the importance really is, is the 
child learning from 1 year to the next with all the additional 
types of supports? And we would have the same thing as if this 
classroom teacher or the additional supports coming in from 
IDEA or other things. So it is very difficult.
    Our important issue is, is the child doing better and what 
are all the supports that are getting there? And so, we do 
spend a lot of time, more on how do we help the school become a 
more effective school, how do we help teachers become more 
effective teachers, and trying to build systems behind all of 
those folks that provide the necessary support and push on the 
quality issues of professional development, frequent 
assessment, looking at the data constantly to see how children 
are doing.
    Mrs. Davis of California. OK. Thank you.
    Ms. Ashby, did you have any other thoughts?
    And I really wanted to ask you, Ms. Dollonne, as well about 
that.
    Ms. Ashby. Just to say that really we are dealing with this 
issue on two levels, I think. Supplemental educational services 
are directed to individual students on the micro level. And 
they are coming out of a system that is in need of improvement. 
That is the macro level.
    There are no evaluations of the effect of SES on the school 
or certainly on school districts or anything beyond that. But I 
do think that there could be measurements and outcomes for 
individual students: pre-, post-test or some other way of doing 
it.
    And in terms of evaluations, I think, at least for a long, 
long time, that has to be the focus, because there aren't 
enough students participating to have any impact on the macro 
level. It has to be on the micro.
    Mrs. Davis of California. I would certainly suggest, as a 
parent--and I am sure that you would agree--I mean, a parent 
knows whether a child is feeling better about their learning 
and how excited they are to go to school, all those kinds of 
measures. But I am also hoping that we are able to try and 
discern how, whether it is the Education Department or schools, 
how we can better evaluate this, in a way.
    Because one of the things that has been mentioned is, even 
though we are talking about 20 percent of the funding, Title I 
funding, that can go to this, as you pointed out very ably, 5 
percent is going toward choice. Another quite a few percentage 
points are going toward transportation, to allow a child to go 
to a different school. That is a struggle, I know, in San 
Diego. And so, realistically, maybe 5 percent is going toward 
SES programs for children. And clearly, schools are not able to 
meet the need then.
    We also have children that, as you mentioned, come into 
school after the deadlines. They are not there. We know that we 
have children constantly coming into school, 150 percent 
turnover in some schools.
    So there are so many children that I am afraid are, you 
know, falling through the cracks or we just haven't been able 
to create the kind of program that really is able to do what we 
would all hope is that children get assistance when they need 
it at the right time in the most perfect way possible.
    And so, it is a complicated issue. And I think we took it 
on and yet are looking for ways that we can make it work 
better. And so, I just appreciate your being here.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Payne.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
    In your, Ms. Ashby, report, of all the recommendations that 
the GAO has in the report, which would you think would have the 
greatest impact on improving access to after-school tutoring 
programs?
    Ms. Ashby. Well, there was a lot of discussion in our 
report because there has been a lot of discussion, among the 
people that we have talked to and the data we have gathered, on 
the notification letter itself. That is one way of informing 
parents of the supplemental educational services program.
    Our recommendation is that states or districts be helped in 
clarifying the language for that letter, that notification. I 
read of one example of a letter, for example, that was 15, 20 
pages long, that perhaps technically included the information 
it should have, but I doubt very many parents would have 
understood it, would have had the time to read it. So getting 
clear information to parents.
    As our parent at the end of the table said, all parents 
care about their children, even parents that have substantial 
problems: unemployed, homeless. They care about their children. 
They want the best for their children.
    But they need help in understanding what that is. And this 
is a resource that is available. It doesn't cost them anything. 
They just need to understand what it is and how to access it. 
And that, I think, would make a big difference.
    Mr. Payne. OK. In the discussion about onsite and offsite, 
you know, in some areas in some of our urban cities, safety is 
a real problem. Children are reluctant to go home after the 
group goes home. And I guess staying after school is one thing. 
Going to another site out of your local area, there is a lot of 
turf problems and so forth.
    Do you find that the in-school programs have a better 
success or neighborhood-type facilities?
    Ms. Ashby. Well, certainly, the participation rates would 
be greater. Parents and students are certainly more likely to 
take advantage of a program that is in the school building.
    There have been cases where there is public housing, and 
somewhere on the facility of the public housing there is a 
facility. Certainly, in those instances there would be more 
participation.
    Mr. Payne. Do you find any reluctance for providers, when 
they have preferences, you know, more reluctant to go, say, to 
a housing development to do the programs or in schools?
    Ms. Ashby. I don't know the specific example, but I would 
be surprised if there weren't reluctance.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you.
    Let me just ask Ms. Harris, in Chicago, the public schools 
are under the office of the mayor. You don't have the board of 
education. What is the situation there now?
    Ms. Harris. Our superintendent, our CEO, is appointed by 
the mayor. So we are under the mayor's, I guess, umbrella, you 
could say. But we also have, of course, a board of education 
that operates and works in collaboration with our 
superintendent or CEO, Arne Duncan.
    Mr. Payne. Are they appointed or elected?
    Ms. Harris. They are appointed.
    Mr. Payne. OK. Because in so many instances, you know, the 
direction from the board of education or whoever is in charge 
of the school district has a lot to do with it having been a 
product of local politics and so forth and so on. The question 
of who should have control, the elected officials feel they 
have got to come up with the money, and the board of education 
spends it.
    And they don't have control in Chicago, though, if the 
mayor's office--and I am not saying which one is better. But I 
am just wondering if it impacts.
    Ms. Harris. Certainly. I think we have certainly seen in 
Chicago that leadership does have a lot to do with how it is 
embraced by administrative, which, I think, was your point 
earlier. Our principals have seen our CEO embrace SES, embrace 
competition in general through charter schools and our 
Renaissance 2010 program and things of that nature. And so, in 
doing so, I think from the top down we have also embraced the 
spirit of SES. We have invited them into our buildings.
    We certainly have continued to make the argument that we 
believe that the CPS version of SES is just as good and can 
have a positive impact on student achievement as well and that 
there are positive benefits to that. But we certainly encourage 
and welcome our providers.
    And I think, over the years, we have developed very strong 
relationships with many of them. We have asked for their 
feedback. We have actually used their feedback in the 
implementation.
    And that all really, I think, certainly is directed by, you 
know, our CEO and his motivation of wanting to welcome the 
competition and welcome the services because our students need 
them.
    Mr. Payne. OK. Since my time has almost expired, let me 
just ask a quick question. I am color blind, you know.
    [Laughter.]
    Chairman Mckeon. Almost.
    Mr. Payne. I don't know what that red--is that red?
    Chairman Mckeon. Quick question, quick answer.
    Mr. Payne. Dr. Anderson, seeing that you have been a part 
of New Jersey and the Abbott school districts, do you--Abbott 
in our state, for those who don't know, means that there is 
level funding for the poor districts, state constitutional 
agreement.
    Let me move it right from there to the state-appointed 
districts. Do you find that, if you have had that experience, 
finding it easier to work with state-appointed superintendents 
under the Abbott, you know, the failing school districts in 
Jersey? And is there a uniformity? Or do you find that, even 
under the state take-over, that individual superintendents 
operate their own way?
    Ms. Anderson. I would tend to say both are true. Each of 
the superintendents in the state-operated districts very 
talented individuals, all of whom come from an educational 
philosophy and pedagogy who have clear goals and ideas about 
how they expect students to be successful in their districts. 
And I think that is why they are there.
    I think that one of the biggest challenges in state-
operated school districts is getting the community to be 
supportive of the school district. Because it is, once again, a 
school district in need of improvement. And moving it from 
where it has been and all of the different issues that have 
caused it to be there and the challenges that it has had to 
face, to recognizing success, accepting resources to support it 
and then being willing to move forward and then recognizing 
that when that happens, control is returned to the local 
communities.
    And I think it is that process and that transition that, 
just as with supplemental educational services, the community 
has to be a partner in that relationship. Otherwise, they see 
themselves as disenfranchised. And as our parent has already 
indicated, when that happens, parents are the ones who are not 
benefiting from the services as we intended.
    So I think it is that partnership, the clear communication. 
In New Jersey, the state clearly played a very significant role 
precedent-setting across the country. But if you don't bring 
the partners along, then the initiative cannot be successful.
    Chairman Mckeon. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The chair recognizes Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Dollonne, have you put any thought into what if those 
services that your child, your student received had been made 
available in the classroom and why not? I mean, why aren't our 
schools doing all that Dr. Anderson has talked about?
    Ms. Dollonne. I thought this was a question I could ask you 
guys.
    Ms. Woolsey. Well, good. I mean, because the question is, 
why doesn't every school, every classroom, every child that 
needs help, and kids who are doing better that need to be kept 
interested, I mean, why aren't we investing our resources at 
the school site instead of in transportation and negotiating 
with providers for that extra help?
    Ms. Dollonne. OK, OK. I agree. I understand the question. 
And I agree totally with you. And from an outside point of 
view, an outside investigation, I could tell you that our 
school in improvement unfortunately do not get the services and 
the resources. It is almost like it has a cork somewhere. You 
know, the money comes from the U.S. Department, and it goes to 
the state, and it comes to the district. And then somewhere in 
between the district and the schools, there is something going 
on.
    Ms. Woolsey. Well, my question would be, if we are willing 
to increase the budget by 20 percent so that every child can 
succeed, which we must, that ought to go to the sites and the 
classrooms and the districts that need it.
    Dr. Anderson, can you discuss the qualifications required 
of your tutors, both in terms of their education, their 
knowledge, the subject knowledge and how you measure success?
    Ms. Anderson. We use highly qualified teachers, because 
many of our tutors come from school districts, so they are, in 
fact, certified teachers. And I would say I am talking about 95 
percent of the tutors that we employ.
    I would also urge you, however, to recognize that in some 
situations you will have a college professor or individuals who 
come to Teach for America who may not be certified but are 
subject-area experts. We also think those types of individuals 
are important to keep in the process, because they bring a 
level of expertise to the circumstance that is important to 
help students, particularly in areas of math, in working with 
students to help them really understand things. When you see 
that light go on in the classroom because that tutor has 
connected with that child in that area.
    Ms. Woolsey. So can I ask you, don't you think that 
shouldn't be the exception, that the schools themselves ought 
to be allowed to hire that person and not----
    Ms. Anderson. Well, there are mechanisms----
    Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. Count their value because----
    Ms. Anderson. There are mechanisms in place for that to 
happen. But I would mention one other thing.
    The reason we are in the schools is because parents choose 
us and because we bring to the table an area of expertise that 
is supportive of what schools are doing. We are not trying to 
replace what schools do. We are trying to be supportive 
partners.
    We have experience in the area of tutoring. We can offer 
smaller teacher-student ratios. We can offer specialized 
training to teachers that they may not have in the school 
district during the school day.
    So we are there as their partners. We want to be part of 
the solution and are, not part of the problem.
    Ms. Woolsey. Well, no, and I respect you for that. But I 
also believe that what you provide ought to be onsite. I don't 
think we should be spending money on transportation. We 
shouldn't be, you know, making it more difficult. We should 
make it easier by bringing all----
    Ms. Anderson. We agree it should be onsite.
    Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. That you bring to the school 
site.
    Ms. Anderson. We agree it should be on the school site. And 
in every instance where it is, we have seen that students 
participate in larger numbers. We are certainly supportive of 
that opinion, yes.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Mckeon. And thank you for being here and for your 
patience.
    We have another series of votes. I think this has been a 
very good hearing.
    If you think of something that you would like to add that 
you didn't get to say today, again, the hearing record will be 
held open for 14 days.
    And I hope you will stay involved as we go through this 
reauthorization process and continue to help us with your 
expertise. Thank you very much.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
    [Additional material submitted by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota 
follows:]

TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND
    SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2004 AT THE FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2004 GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Estimated FY2004 grant
               State                LEA code      LEA name        Actual FY2004 grant       at full authorized
                                                                                                  level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota.........................   2700001  MOUNTAIN IRON-                   $156,900                 $209,900
                                               BUHL
  Do..............................   2700005  UNITED SOUTH                     $174,400                 $235,300
                                               CENTRAL
  Do..............................   2700006  MAPLE RIVER                      $145,300                 $208,800
  Do..............................   2700007  KINGSLAND                        $112,500                 $142,200
  Do..............................   2700008  ST. LOUIS COUNTY                 $580,800                 $737,900
  Do..............................   2700013  WATERVILLE-                      $121,500                 $160,200
                                               ELYSIAN-
                                               MORRISTOWN
  Do..............................   2700017  CHISAGO LAKES                    $226,400                 $319,100
  Do..............................   2700019  MINNEWASKA                       $196,000                 $271,900
  Do..............................   2700021  EVELETH-GILBERT                  $220,200                 $283,700
  Do..............................   2700022  WADENA-DEER                      $293,800                 $406,800
                                               CREEK
  Do..............................   2700023  BUFFALO LAKE-                     $83,400                 $116,600
                                               HECTOR
  Do..............................   2700024  WARREN-ALVARADO-                  $83,200                 $112,000
                                               OSLO
  Do..............................   2700088  LAKEVIEW                          $43,700                  $58,600
  Do..............................   2700089  N.R.H.E.G.                        $86,100                 $121,800
  Do..............................   2700090  MURRAY COUNTY                    $121,900                 $172,500
  Do..............................   2700091  M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.                    $98,200                 $136,300
  Do..............................   2700099  YELLOW MEDICINE                  $136,400                 $193,900
                                               EAST
  Do..............................   2700100  FILLMORE CENTRAL                 $196,600                 $271,800
  Do..............................   2700101  NORMAN COUNTY                     $75,100                  $95,400
                                               EAST
  Do..............................   2700102  SIBLEY EAST                      $157,000                 $227,200
  Do..............................   2700103  CLEARBROOK-                       $90,800                 $125,800
                                               GONVICK
  Do..............................   2700104  WEST CENTRAL                     $143,300                 $181,000
                                               AREA
  Do..............................   2700105  BELGRADE-BROOTEN-                $211,400                 $287,200
                                               ELROSA
  Do..............................   2700106  A.C.G.C.                         $185,800                 $245,800
  Do..............................   2700107  GREENBUSH-MIDDLE                  $91,500                 $109,400
                                               RIVER
  Do..............................   2700108  PIPESTONE-JASPER                 $180,100                 $253,900
  Do..............................   2700109  LONG PRAIRIE-                    $346,900                 $479,200
                                               GREY EAGLE
  Do..............................   2700110  CEDAR MOUNTAIN                    $34,900                  $50,100
  Do..............................   2700111  REDWOOD FALLS                    $158,300                 $215,800
  Do..............................   2700112  EAGLE VALLEY                     $128,500                 $155,100
  Do..............................   2700123  HOWARD LAKE-                     $115,300                 $163,900
                                               WAVERLY-WINSTED
  Do..............................   2700124  FAIRMONT AREA                    $476,700                 $634,900
                                               SCHOOLS
  Do..............................   2700125  LAC QUI PARLE                    $147,300                 $203,800
                                               VALLEY
  Do..............................   2700126  ADA-BORUP                         $63,500                  $90,800
  Do..............................   2700127  STEPHEN-ARGYLE                    $66,500                  $91,800
                                               CENTRAL SCHOOLS
  Do..............................   2700128  GLENCOE-SILVER                   $153,300                 $211,800
                                               LAKE
  Do..............................   2700130  BLUE EARTH AREA                  $230,700                 $313,400
                                               PUBLIC SCHOOLS
  Do..............................   2700131  JACKSON COUNTY                   $177,700                 $251,500
                                               CENTRAL
  Do..............................   2700132  RED ROCK CENTRAL                 $121,900                 $155,100
  Do..............................   2700148  GLENVILLE-EMMONS                  $57,400                  $77,200
  Do..............................   2700149  MCLEOD WEST                       $60,100                  $78,400
                                               SCHOOLS
  Do..............................   2700150  CLINTON-                         $150,700                 $199,100
                                               GRACEVILLE-
                                               BEARDSLEY
  Do..............................   2700162  LAKE PARK-                       $121,800                 $161,000
                                               AUDUBON
  Do..............................   2700163  RENVILLE COUNTY                  $205,100                 $240,700
                                               WEST
  Do..............................   2700183  WESTBROOK-WALNUT                  $61,000                  $84,800
                                               GROVE
  Do..............................   2702640  LESTER PRAIRIE                    $62,300                  $90,200
  Do..............................   2702720  SOUTHLAND                         $70,500                  $90,300
  Do..............................   2702730  ADRIAN                           $104,500                 $144,700
  Do..............................   2702760  AITKIN                           $203,400                 $267,800
  Do..............................   2702910  WALKER-                          $250,300                 $346,400
                                               HACKENSACK-
                                               AKELEY
  Do..............................   2702930  ALBANY                           $181,500                 $250,400
  Do..............................   2702970  ALBERT LEA                       $462,000                 $661,500
  Do..............................   2703030  ALDEN                              $9,000                   $9,000
  Do..............................   2703060  ALEXANDRIA                       $407,300                 $578,800
  Do..............................   2703150  ANNANDALE                        $183,600                 $262,200
  Do..............................   2703180  ANOKA-HENNEPIN                 $1,685,100               $1,685,100
  Do..............................   2703300  ASHBY                             $24,200                  $35,100
  Do..............................   2703450  AUSTIN                           $627,200                 $893,700
  Do..............................   2703540  BADGER                            $33,500                  $48,400
  Do..............................   2703570  BAGLEY                           $368,400                 $484,300
  Do..............................   2703600  BALATON                           $38,700                  $47,700
  Do..............................   2703660  BARNESVILLE                       $58,600                  $58,600
  Do..............................   2703690  BARNUM                            $72,500                 $101,700
  Do..............................   2703750  BATTLE LAKE                      $136,000                 $172,600
  Do..............................   2703870  BECKER                            $69,800                  $71,500
  Do..............................   2704050  BELLE PLAINE                      $58,600                  $58,600
  Do..............................   2704080  BELLINGHAM                        $45,200                  $57,900
  Do..............................   2704440  BEMIDJI                        $1,188,300               $1,556,800
  Do..............................   2704470  BENSON                           $110,300                 $143,000
  Do..............................   2705430  BERTHA-HEWITT                    $165,800                 $195,800
  Do..............................   2705460  BIG LAKE                          $95,700                  $95,700
  Do..............................   2705660  BIRD ISLAND-                     $115,400                 $162,900
                                               OLIVIA-LAKE
                                               LILLIA
  Do..............................   2705730  BLACKDUCK                        $159,100                 $215,600
  Do..............................   2705760  BLOOMING PRAIRIE                 $156,100                 $186,400
  Do..............................   2705790  BLOOMINGTON                      $372,300                 $372,300
  Do..............................   2706060  BRAHAM                           $117,800                 $164,400
  Do..............................   2706090  BRAINERD                       $1,109,600               $1,491,500
  Do..............................   2706120  BRANDON                           $48,400                  $68,800
  Do..............................   2706150  BRECKENRIDGE                     $148,700                 $193,800
  Do..............................   2706180  BREWSTER                          $37,300                  $45,100
  Do..............................   2706240  BROOKLYN CENTER                  $240,100                 $324,800
  Do..............................   2706300  BROWERVILLE                       $96,100                 $133,200
  Do..............................   2707110  BROWNS VALLEY                     $64,000                  $74,000
  Do..............................   2707200  BUFFALO                          $227,000                 $227,000
  Do..............................   2707290  BURNSVILLE                       $883,800               $1,249,800
  Do..............................   2707320  BUTTERFIELD                       $31,200                  $45,100
  Do..............................   2707350  BYRON                             $45,800                  $45,800
  Do..............................   2707380  CALEDONIA                        $131,800                 $190,400
  Do..............................   2707410  CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI                 $382,200                 $552,900
  Do..............................   2707450  CAMPBELL-TINTAH                   $29,800                  $36,300
  Do..............................   2707470  CANBY                            $100,500                 $145,300
  Do..............................   2707500  CANNON FALLS                      $64,300                  $64,300
  Do..............................   2707590  CARLTON                           $86,600                 $122,300
  Do..............................   2708070  CASS LAKE                        $431,600                 $648,700
  Do..............................   2708100  CENTENNIAL                       $201,100                 $201,100
  Do..............................   2708190  CHASKA                           $252,900                 $252,900
  Do..............................   2708220  CHATFIELD                         $37,200                  $37,200
  Do..............................   2708880  FRANCONIA                              $0                       $0
  Do..............................   2708910  CHISHOLM                         $124,900                 $175,000
  Do..............................   2708940  CHOKIO-ALBERTA                    $40,000                  $52,900
  Do..............................   2709330  CLEVELAND                         $29,300                  $29,300
  Do..............................   2709360  CLIMAX                            $61,400                  $82,100
  Do..............................   2709420  CLOQUET                          $365,000                 $484,400
  Do..............................   2709440  COLD SPRING                      $154,700                 $223,800
  Do..............................   2709480  GREENWAY                         $288,300                 $397,700
  Do..............................   2709510  COLUMBIA HEIGHTS                 $383,100                 $538,700
  Do..............................   2709540  COMFREY                           $44,800                  $51,200
  Do..............................   2709690  CROMWELL                          $61,200                  $81,500
  Do..............................   2709720  CROOKSTON                        $263,400                 $371,900
  Do..............................   2709750  CROSBY-IRONTON                   $288,200                 $400,700
  Do..............................   2709960  CYRUS                             $27,100                  $36,000
  Do..............................   2710060  DASSEL-COKATO                    $193,700                 $271,500
  Do..............................   2710090  DAWSON-BOYD                       $50,700                  $69,000
  Do..............................   2710140  DEER RIVER                       $387,600                 $565,300
  Do..............................   2710170  DELANO                            $88,400                  $88,400
  Do..............................   2710230  DETROIT LAKES                    $618,800                 $847,700
  Do..............................   2710260  DILWORTH-GLYNDON-                $226,900                 $307,700
                                               FELTON
  Do..............................   2711010  DOVER-EYOTA                       $72,200                  $72,200
  Do..............................   2711040  DULUTH                         $2,502,100               $3,579,900
  Do..............................   2711085  EAST CENTRAL                     $266,400                 $373,200
  Do..............................   2711130  EAST GRAND FORKS                 $310,500                 $399,200
  Do..............................   2711190  EDEN VALLEY                       $87,200                 $122,900
  Do..............................   2711220  EDGERTON                          $46,400                  $63,700
  Do..............................   2711250  EDINA                            $151,300                 $151,300
  Do..............................   2711340  ELGIN-MILLVILLE                   $40,300                  $40,300
  Do..............................   2711370  ELK RIVER                        $317,600                 $317,600
  Do..............................   2711460  ELLSWORTH                         $30,100                  $39,000
  Do..............................   2711520  ELY                              $106,700                 $130,500
  Do..............................   2711610  EVANSVILLE                        $31,500                  $42,900
  Do..............................   2711670  MINNETONKA                             $0                       $0
  Do..............................   2711760  FARIBAULT                        $371,800                 $537,900
  Do..............................   2711820  FARMINGTON                       $206,400                 $206,400
  Do..............................   2711880  FERGUS FALLS                     $380,000                 $529,100
  Do..............................   2711910  FERTILE-BELTRAMI                 $115,300                 $149,500
  Do..............................   2712180  FISHER                            $21,800                  $30,700
  Do..............................   2712210  FLOODWOOD                         $63,200                  $87,400
  Do..............................   2712240  FOLEY                            $220,100                 $289,500
  Do..............................   2712270  FOREST LAKE                      $288,300                 $288,300
  Do..............................   2712300  FOSSTON                          $161,400                 $205,000
  Do..............................   2712360  FRAZEE                           $209,400                 $257,000
  Do..............................   2712420  FRIDLEY                          $282,500                 $399,000
  Do..............................   2712480  FULDA                             $58,400                  $82,200
  Do..............................   2712580  G.F.W.                           $163,000                 $204,600
  Do..............................   2712900  GOODHUE                           $42,700                  $57,500
  Do..............................   2713020  GOODRIDGE                         $64,300                  $91,100
  Do..............................   2713040  GRANADA HUNTLEY-                  $48,600                  $63,000
                                               EAST CHAIN
  Do..............................   2713110  COOK COUNTY                       $80,800                 $116,900
  Do..............................   2713140  GRAND MEADOW                      $14,600                  $14,600
  Do..............................   2713170  GRAND RAPIDS                     $755,400                 $994,300
  Do..............................   2713380  HANCOCK                           $28,600                  $28,600
  Do..............................   2713530  HASTINGS                         $253,200                 $253,200
  Do..............................   2713560  HAWLEY                            $77,100                 $108,900
  Do..............................   2713590  HAYFIELD                          $59,600                  $59,600
  Do..............................   2713680  HENDRICKS                         $32,100                  $45,000
  Do..............................   2713860  HENNING                          $101,700                 $129,400
  Do..............................   2713890  HERMAN-NORCROSS                   $55,000                  $64,600
  Do..............................   2713920  HERMANTOWN                        $57,000                  $57,000
  Do..............................   2713930  HERON LAKE-                       $36,300                  $46,200
                                               OKABENA
  Do..............................   2713980  HIBBING                          $414,400                 $583,400
  Do..............................   2714010  HILL CITY                        $130,600                 $170,100
  Do..............................   2714040  HILLS-BEAVER                      $32,300                  $42,200
                                               CREEK
  Do..............................   2714070  HINCKLEY-                        $319,500                 $430,100
                                               FINLAYSON
  Do..............................   2714190  HOLDINGFORD                      $120,200                 $156,900
  Do..............................   2714220  EDEN PRAIRIE                     $280,700                 $280,700
  Do..............................   2714260  HOPKINS                          $324,500                 $324,500
  Do..............................   2714280  HOUSTON                           $81,900                 $109,700
  Do..............................   2714970  HUTCHINSON                       $285,200                 $412,600
  Do..............................   2715000  INTERNATIONAL                    $312,300                 $422,300
                                               FALLS
  Do..............................   2715030  INVER GROVE                      $374,300                 $501,200
  Do..............................   2715510  ISLE                              $71,300                  $92,600
  Do..............................   2715540  IVANHOE                           $47,700                  $65,000
  Do..............................   2715750  JORDAN                            $95,200                  $95,200
  Do..............................   2716830  PRINSBURG                         $20,500                  $26,800
  Do..............................   2716980  KASSON-                           $72,200                  $72,200
                                               MANTORVILLE
  Do..............................   2717010  KELLIHER                         $164,000                 $265,500
  Do..............................   2717100  KENYON-WANAMINGO                  $74,200                 $103,000
  Do..............................   2717120  KERKHOVEN-                        $86,900                 $120,000
                                               MURDOCK-SUNBURG
  Do..............................   2717220  KIMBALL                          $125,100                 $155,900
  Do..............................   2717250  LACRESCENT-HOKAH                  $86,900                  $86,800
  Do..............................   2717460  LAKE BENTON                       $27,300                  $38,700
  Do..............................   2717520  LAKE CITY                        $137,100                 $197,100
  Do..............................   2717570  LAKE OF THE                       $83,000                 $117,200
                                               WOODS
  Do..............................   2717780  LAKEVILLE                              $0                       $0
  Do..............................   2717880  LANCASTER                         $45,100                  $62,900
  Do..............................   2717910  LANESBORO                         $71,100                  $91,900
  Do..............................   2717940  LAPORTE                           $98,500                 $140,800
  Do..............................   2718030  LECENTER                          $44,500                  $44,500
  Do..............................   2718060  LEROY                             $43,800                  $57,200
  Do..............................   2718070  LESUEUR-                         $167,500                 $234,900
                                               HENDERSON
  Do..............................   2718090  LEWISTON                         $132,900                 $173,600
  Do..............................   2718210  LITCHFIELD                       $169,900                 $235,300
  Do..............................   2718240  LITTLE FALLS                     $502,900                 $675,400
  Do..............................   2718270  LITTLEFORK-BIG                    $62,900                  $87,100
                                               FALLS
  Do..............................   2718330  LUVERNE                          $162,800                 $235,500
  Do..............................   2718360  LYLE                              $48,100                  $56,600
  Do..............................   2718390  LYND                                   $0                       $0
  Do..............................   2718540  MABEL-CANTON                     $145,300                 $192,800
  Do..............................   2718570  MADELIA                          $100,900                 $139,000
  Do..............................   2718660  MAHNOMEN                         $265,600                 $373,900
  Do..............................   2718750  MAHTOMEDI                         $81,000                  $81,000
  Do..............................   2718780  MANKATO                          $744,500               $1,055,300
  Do..............................   2718810  MAPLE LAKE                        $33,500                  $33,500
  Do..............................   2718920  GRYGLA                            $36,100                  $46,500
  Do..............................   2718940  MARSHALL                         $221,600                 $306,900
  Do..............................   2718960  MARTIN COUNTY                    $140,500                 $160,800
                                               WEST
  Do..............................   2719170  MCGREGOR                         $201,200                 $282,600
  Do..............................   2719320  MEDFORD                           $24,600                  $24,600
  Do..............................   2720550  MELROSE                          $255,800                 $328,100
  Do..............................   2720580  MENAHGA                          $166,200                 $222,500
  Do..............................   2720670  MILACA                           $240,200                 $347,400
  Do..............................   2721210  MILROY                            $19,500                  $27,400
  Do..............................   2721240  MINNEAPOLIS                   $20,163,000              $31,457,900
  Do..............................   2721270  MINNEOTA                          $68,900                  $97,100
  Do..............................   2721320  MONTEVIDEO                       $168,800                 $239,100
  Do..............................   2721360  MONTGOMERY-                      $126,600                 $177,200
                                               LONSDALE
  Do..............................   2721390  MONTICELLO                       $189,900                 $189,900
  Do..............................   2721420  MOORHEAD                         $870,800               $1,159,800
  Do..............................   2721450  MOOSE LAKE                        $82,400                 $107,700
  Do..............................   2721480  MORA                             $285,400                 $382,600
  Do..............................   2721540  MORRIS                            $93,900                 $129,100
  Do..............................   2722920  WESTONKA                               $0                       $0
  Do..............................   2722950  MOUNDS VIEW                      $372,300                 $372,300
  Do..............................   2723010  MOUNTAIN LAKE                    $207,200                 $289,200
  Do..............................   2723310  NASHWAUK-                        $113,200                 $163,700
                                               KEEWATIN
  Do..............................   2723370  NEVIS                             $68,600                  $95,500
  Do..............................   2723400  NEW LONDON-                      $109,900                 $109,900
                                               SPICER
  Do..............................   2723430  NEW PRAGUE                        $72,300                  $72,300
  Do..............................   2723490  NEW ULM                          $262,100                 $379,200
  Do..............................   2723520  NEW YORK MILLS                   $170,600                 $238,000
  Do..............................   2723550  NEWFOLDEN                         $68,100                  $85,400
  Do..............................   2723580  NICOLLET                          $35,600                  $50,500
  Do..............................   2723820  NORTH BRANCH                     $254,000                 $367,500
  Do..............................   2723850  NORTH ST. PAUL-                  $598,500                 $598,500
                                               MAPLEWOOD
  Do..............................   2723880  NORTHFIELD                       $226,500                 $226,500
  Do..............................   2723910  NORWOOD                           $78,000                  $78,000
  Do..............................   2723970  OGILVIE                          $170,700                 $236,600
  Do..............................   2724030  OKLEE                             $30,700                  $41,600
  Do..............................   2725050  ONAMIA                           $346,000                 $469,700
  Do..............................   2725080  ORONO                                  $0                       $0
  Do..............................   2725110  ORTONVILLE                        $67,300                  $86,100
  Do..............................   2725140  OSAKIS                           $117,300                 $144,500
  Do..............................   2725200  OSSEO                            $816,200                 $816,200
  Do..............................   2728050  OWATONNA                         $408,600                 $584,600
  Do..............................   2728080  PARK RAPIDS                      $352,300                 $489,500
  Do..............................   2728110  PARKERS PRAIRIE                   $82,900                 $113,200
  Do..............................   2728140  PAYNESVILLE                      $178,600                 $217,800
  Do..............................   2728170  PELICAN RAPIDS                   $213,600                 $309,000
  Do..............................   2728200  PEQUOT LAKES                     $148,900                 $215,500
  Do..............................   2728230  PERHAM                           $219,400                 $317,400
  Do..............................   2728290  RUSHFORD-                         $67,000                  $96,900
                                               PETERSON
  Do..............................   2728320  PIERZ                            $196,700                 $255,200
  Do..............................   2728350  PILLAGER                         $100,900                 $140,100
  Do..............................   2728380  PINE CITY                        $300,000                 $396,200
  Do..............................   2728950  PINE ISLAND                       $72,800                 $103,100
  Do..............................   2728960  PINE POINT                        $64,200                  $94,200
  Do..............................   2728970  PINE RIVER-                      $308,500                 $418,000
                                               BACKUS
  Do..............................   2729040  PLAINVIEW                         $52,300                  $52,300
  Do..............................   2729070  PLUMMER                           $33,800                  $41,200
  Do..............................   2730030  PRINCETON                        $167,900                 $167,900
  Do..............................   2730060  PRIOR LAKE                       $170,600                 $174,500
  Do..............................   2730090  PROCTOR                          $118,800                 $118,800
  Do..............................   2730150  RANDOLPH                          $17,800                  $17,800
  Do..............................   2730450  RED LAKE FALLS                    $64,900                  $83,200
  Do..............................   2730480  RED WING                         $266,100                 $377,100
  Do..............................   2730510  RED LAKE                       $1,193,100               $1,921,000
  Do..............................   2730870  REMER                            $291,600                 $440,100
  Do..............................   2731750  RICHFIELD                        $426,200                 $601,200
  Do..............................   2731780  ROBBINSDALE                      $758,600                 $758,600
  Do..............................   2731800  ROCHESTER                      $1,546,100               $2,247,500
  Do..............................   2732070  ROCKFORD                          $49,100                  $49,100
  Do..............................   2732250  ROSEAU                            $56,000                  $56,000
  Do..............................   2732390  ROSEMOUNT-APPLE                  $719,400                 $719,400
                                               VALLEY-EAGAN
  Do..............................   2732430  ROSEVILLE                        $251,700                 $251,700
  Do..............................   2732460  ROTHSAY                           $27,700                  $40,100
  Do..............................   2732490  ROUND LAKE                        $24,900                  $30,900
  Do..............................   2732520  ROYALTON                         $133,900                 $172,500
  Do..............................   2732550  RUSH CITY                        $113,200                 $163,700
  Do..............................   2732640  RUSSELL                           $18,600                  $24,500
  Do..............................   2732670  RUTHTON                           $45,600                  $57,500
  Do..............................   2732700  SOUTH                             $90,300                 $126,500
                                               KOOCHICHING
  Do..............................   2732820  SARTELL                          $192,800                 $279,000
  Do..............................   2732850  SAUK CENTRE                      $176,000                 $176,000
  Do..............................   2732880  SAUK RAPIDS                      $300,200                 $434,300
  Do..............................   2732970  SEBEKA                           $143,600                 $181,800
  Do..............................   2733000  SHAKOPEE                         $155,300                 $156,600
  Do..............................   2733210  SLEEPY EYE                       $118,700                 $168,200
  Do..............................   2733270  SOUTH ST. PAUL                   $300,300                 $300,300
  Do..............................   2733300  SPRING GROVE                      $33,200                  $46,000
  Do..............................   2733330  SPRING LAKE PARK                 $263,700                 $263,700
  Do..............................   2733390  SPRINGFIELD                       $49,200                  $49,200
  Do..............................   2733420  ST. ANTHONY-NEW                   $47,100                  $47,100
                                               BRIGHTON
  Do..............................   2733450  ST. CHARLES                      $183,000                 $251,400
  Do..............................   2733480  ST. CLAIR                         $22,500                  $22,500
  Do..............................   2733510  ST. CLOUD                      $1,134,700               $1,608,700
  Do..............................   2733540  ST. FRANCIS                      $215,000                 $215,000
  Do..............................   2733600  ST. JAMES                        $221,200                 $308,400
  Do..............................   2733720  NETT LAKE                         $40,600                  $55,600
  Do..............................   2733780  ST. LOUIS PARK                   $211,900                 $211,900
  Do..............................   2733790  ST. MICHAEL-                      $64,400                  $64,400
                                               ALBERTVILLE
  Do..............................   2733810  SOUTH WASHINGTON                 $353,200                 $353,200
                                               COUNTY
  Do..............................   2733840  ST. PAUL                      $16,931,300              $26,927,700
  Do..............................   2733870  ST. PETER                        $252,100                 $307,200
  Do..............................   2733900  STAPLES-MOTLEY                   $419,100                 $558,400
  Do..............................   2738160  STEWARTVILLE                      $72,700                  $72,700
  Do..............................   2738190  STILLWATER                       $327,200                 $327,200
  Do..............................   2738280  SWANVILLE                         $61,200                  $88,500
  Do..............................   2738850  THIEF RIVER                      $281,400                 $393,400
                                               FALLS
  Do..............................   2738880  ESKO                              $83,700                 $120,300
  Do..............................   2740590  TRACY                            $149,600                 $202,100
  Do..............................   2740665  TRITON                           $134,800                 $192,100
  Do..............................   2740680  TRUMAN                            $64,300                  $91,900
  Do..............................   2740740  LAKE SUPERIOR                    $206,700                 $299,000
  Do..............................   2740770  TYLER                             $65,900                  $81,700
  Do..............................   2740810  ULEN-HITTERDAL                   $167,700                 $185,500
  Do..............................   2740830  UNDERWOOD                         $59,800                  $59,800
  Do..............................   2740860  UPSALA                            $63,700                  $86,000
  Do..............................   2740920  VERNDALE                         $100,800                 $107,900
  Do..............................   2741040  VIRGINIA                         $213,600                 $300,800
  Do..............................   2741060  WABASHA-KELLOGG                   $93,600                 $124,900
  Do..............................   2741430  WABASSO                          $100,500                 $140,200
  Do..............................   2741460  WACONIA                           $64,800                  $66,400
  Do..............................   2741850  WARROAD                          $138,600                 $200,400
  Do..............................   2741880  WASECA                           $261,000                 $371,000
  Do..............................   2741910  WATERTOWN-MAYER                   $63,100                  $64,700
  Do..............................   2742120  WAUBUN                           $272,900                 $383,400
  Do..............................   2742160  WAYZATA                                $0                       $0
  Do..............................   2742270  WEST ST. PAUL-                   $232,800                 $232,800
                                               MENDOTA HTS.
  Do..............................   2742330  WHEATON                           $51,800                  $72,100
  Do..............................   2742360  WHITE BEAR LAKE                  $357,300                 $365,900
  Do..............................   2742720  WILLMAR                          $809,700               $1,102,200
  Do..............................   2742750  WILLOW RIVER                     $150,800                 $214,100
  Do..............................   2742780  WINDOM                           $168,600                 $214,700
  Do..............................   2744070  WINONA                           $510,300                 $726,600
  Do..............................   2744160  WORTHINGTON                      $367,200                 $531,200
  Do..............................   2744190  WRENSHALL                         $36,000                  $45,400
  Do..............................   2745735  ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA                 $106,800                 $153,700
  Do..............................   2781053  Balance of                             $0                       $0
                                               Hennepin County
  Do..............................   2781097  Balance of                             $0                       $0
                                               Morrison County
  Do..............................   2791445  LAKE CRYSTAL-                     $96,300                 $127,500
                                               WELLCOME
                                               MEMORIAL
  Do..............................   2791446  TRI-COUNTY                        $96,400                 $124,200
  Do..............................   2791447  KITTSON CENTRAL                   $41,800                  $57,600
  Do..............................   2791448  HALSTAD-HENDRUM                   $68,900                  $86,100
  Do..............................   2791449  WIN-E-MAC                        $161,300                 $192,000
  Do..............................   2791450  MESABI EAST                      $256,000                 $342,800
  Do..............................   2791451  JANESVILLE-                      $135,000                 $159,800
                                               WALDORF-
                                               PEMBERTON
  Do..............................   2799998  ................                       $0                       $0
  Do..............................   2799999  PART D SUBPART 2               $2,036,000               $2,948,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important limitations:
A. Each of these amounts may be reduced by approximately 3% for state administration and school improvement
  activities.
B. These amounts may also be reduced to account for grants to charter schools or recent local educational agency
  (LEA) boundary changes.
C. States are also authorized to adjust these amounts for all LEAs serving localities with total population
  below 20,000 persons (currently 8 states exercise this authority).

Notice: these are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the
  relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended
  to predict specific amounts which states or LEAs will receive. Estimates are based on FY2004 program data.
  Estimates prepared by CRS.


TABLE 2.--ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND
    SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2005 AT THE FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2005 GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Estimated FY2005 grant
               State                LEA code      LEA name        Actual FY2005 grant       at full authorized
                                                                                                  level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota.........................   2700001  MOUNTAIN IRON-                   $152,000                 $216,700
                                               BUHL
  Do..............................   2700005  UNITED SOUTH                     $161,300                 $248,200
                                               CENTRAL
  Do..............................   2700006  MAPLE RIVER                      $155,200                 $231,300
  Do..............................   2700007  KINGSLAND                         $96,900                 $137,600
  Do..............................   2700008  ST. LOUIS COUNTY                 $519,000                 $715,600
  Do..............................   2700013  WATERVILLE-                      $109,500                 $157,900
                                               ELYSIAN-
                                               MORRISTOWN
  Do..............................   2700017  CHISAGO LAKES                    $226,700                 $346,100
  Do..............................   2700019  MINNEWASKA                       $174,000                 $283,200
  Do..............................   2700021  EVELETH-GILBERT                  $198,200                 $276,800
  Do..............................   2700022  WADENA-DEER                      $307,200                 $440,100
                                               CREEK
  Do..............................   2700023  BUFFALO LAKE-                     $83,800                 $124,000
                                               HECTOR
  Do..............................   2700024  WARREN-ALVARADO-                  $72,300                 $111,400
                                               OSLO
  Do..............................   2700088  LAKEVIEW                          $38,800                  $58,200
  Do..............................   2700089  N.R.H.E.G.                        $84,900                 $133,300
  Do..............................   2700090  MURRAY COUNTY                    $112,800                 $188,800
  Do..............................   2700091  M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.                    $89,400                 $142,500
  Do..............................   2700099  YELLOW MEDICINE                  $119,500                 $214,700
                                               EAST
  Do..............................   2700100  FILLMORE CENTRAL                 $176,800                 $294,000
  Do..............................   2700101  NORMAN COUNTY                     $65,400                  $92,600
                                               EAST
  Do..............................   2700102  SIBLEY EAST                      $162,000                 $251,700
  Do..............................   2700103  CLEARBROOK-                       $85,200                 $136,300
                                               GONVICK
  Do..............................   2700104  WEST CENTRAL                     $126,000                 $175,000
                                               AREA
  Do..............................   2700105  BELGRADE-BROOTEN-                $221,800                 $311,700
                                               ELROSA
  Do..............................   2700106  A.C.G.C.                         $175,400                 $246,300
  Do..............................   2700107  GREENBUSH-MIDDLE                  $79,100                 $103,300
                                               RIVER
  Do..............................   2700108  PIPESTONE-JASPER                 $167,500                 $275,800
  Do..............................   2700109  LONG PRAIRIE-                    $334,600                 $527,200
                                               GREY EAGLE
  Do..............................   2700110  CEDAR MOUNTAIN                    $36,900                  $55,500
  Do..............................   2700111  REDWOOD FALLS                    $110,200                 $215,800
  Do..............................   2700112  EAGLE VALLEY                     $121,700                 $147,700
  Do..............................   2700123  HOWARD LAKE-                     $420,000                 $181,400
                                               WAVERLY-WINSTED
  Do..............................   2700124  FAIRMONT AREA                    $137,400                 $657,000
                                               SCHOOLS
  Do..............................   2700125  LAC QUI PARLE                     $52,300                 $211,000
                                               VALLEY
  Do..............................   2700126  ADA-BORUP                         $56,800                 $100,100
  Do..............................   2700127  STEPHEN-ARGYLE                   $158,600                  $94,400
                                               CENTRAL SCHOOLS
  Do..............................   2700128  GLENCOE-SILVER                   $217,900                 $218,400
                                               LAKE
  Do..............................   2700130  BLUE EARTH AREA                  $108,600                 $334,900
                                               PUBLIC SCHOOLS
  Do..............................   2700131  JACKSON COUNTY                    $51,700                 $275,800
                                               CENTRAL
  Do..............................   2700132  RED ROCK CENTRAL                  $55,800                 $150,600
  Do..............................   2700148  GLENVILLE-EMMONS                 $135,600                  $76,800
  Do..............................   2700149  MCLEOD WEST                      $108,900                  $77,000
                                               SCHOOLS
  Do..............................   2700150  CLINTON-                         $180,800                 $203,700
                                               GRACEVILLE-
                                               BEARDSLEY
  Do..............................   2700162  LAKE PARK-                       $147,400                 $160,900
                                               AUDUBON
  Do..............................   2700163  RENVILLE COUNTY                   $55,800                 $225,300
                                               WEST
  Do..............................   2700183  WESTBROOK-WALNUT                 $154,900                  $88,800
                                               GROVE
  Do..............................   2702640  LESTER PRAIRIE                    $78,200                  $99,900
  Do..............................   2702720  SOUTHLAND                         $63,400                  $87,900
  Do..............................   2702730  ADRIAN                            $97,200                 $156,600
  Do..............................   2702760  AITKIN                           $179,400                 $265,200
  Do..............................   2702910  WALKER-                          $231,100                 $381,300
                                               HACKENSACK-
                                               AKELEY
  Do..............................   2702930  ALBANY                           $167,500                 $257,200
  Do..............................   2702970  ALBERT LEA                       $498,100                 $732,900
  Do..............................   2703030  ALDEN                              $7,700                   $7,700
  Do..............................   2703060  ALEXANDRIA                       $384,200                 $640,300
  Do..............................   2703150  ANNANDALE                        $188,800                 $290,600
  Do..............................   2703180  ANOKA-HENNEPIN                 $1,763,600               $1,643,200
  Do..............................   2703300  ASHBY                             $22,300                  $38,900
  Do..............................   2703450  AUSTIN                           $647,800                 $990,100
  Do..............................   2703540  BADGER                            $32,400                  $53,700
  Do..............................   2703570  BAGLEY                           $335,600                 $491,500
  Do..............................   2703600  BALATON                           $32,900                  $45,500
  Do..............................   2703660  BARNESVILLE                       $49,800                  $49,800
  Do..............................   2703690  BARNUM                            $65,900                 $109,200
  Do..............................   2703750  BATTLE LAKE                      $120,600                 $167,400
  Do..............................   2703870  BECKER                            $74,000                  $73,500
  Do..............................   2704050  BELLE PLAINE                      $58,200                  $58,700
  Do..............................   2704080  BELLINGHAM                        $42,700                  $58,500
  Do..............................   2704440  BEMIDJI                        $1,075,500               $1,530,600
  Do..............................   2704470  BENSON                           $100,700                 $140,000
  Do..............................   2705430  BERTHA-HEWITT                    $142,200                 $186,000
  Do..............................   2705460  BIG LAKE                          $99,900                  $98,000
  Do..............................   2705660  BIRD ISLAND-                     $118,400                 $177,700
                                               OLIVIA-LAKE
                                               LILLIA
  Do..............................   2705730  BLACKDUCK                        $155,400                 $229,600
  Do..............................   2705760  BLOOMING PRAIRIE                 $137,600                 $176,000
  Do..............................   2705790  BLOOMINGTON                      $404,500                 $364,200
  Do..............................   2706060  BRAHAM                           $107,200                 $174,000
  Do..............................   2706090  BRAINERD                       $1,014,600               $1,534,000
  Do..............................   2706120  BRANDON                           $45,800                  $75,900
  Do..............................   2706150  BRECKENRIDGE                     $127,400                 $190,100
  Do..............................   2706180  BREWSTER                          $31,800                  $42,800
  Do..............................   2706240  BROOKLYN CENTER                  $248,400                 $346,000
  Do..............................   2706300  BROWERVILLE                       $92,800                 $144,300
  Do..............................   2707110  BROWNS VALLEY                     $57,600                  $73,200
  Do..............................   2707200  BUFFALO                          $319,400                 $231,100
  Do..............................   2707290  BURNSVILLE                     $1,030,700               $1,356,000
  Do..............................   2707320  BUTTERFIELD                       $27,000                  $50,000
  Do..............................   2707350  BYRON                             $44,900                  $44,600
  Do..............................   2707380  CALEDONIA                        $122,900                 $211,000
  Do..............................   2707410  CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI                 $394,300                 $612,600
  Do..............................   2707450  CAMPBELL-TINTAH                   $26,400                  $34,400
  Do..............................   2707470  CANBY                             $92,700                 $161,000
  Do..............................   2707500  CANNON FALLS                      $54,700                  $54,700
  Do..............................   2707590  CARLTON                           $75,300                 $133,300
  Do..............................   2708070  CASS LAKE                        $405,500                 $724,100
  Do..............................   2708100  CENTENNIAL                       $218,800                 $201,400
  Do..............................   2708190  CHASKA                           $262,900                 $253,900
  Do..............................   2708220  CHATFIELD                         $34,600                  $35,900
  Do..............................   2708880  FRANCONIA                              $0                       $0
  Do..............................   2708910  CHISHOLM                         $120,600                 $186,900
  Do..............................   2708940  CHOKIO-ALBERTA                    $34,100                  $52,200
  Do..............................   2709330  CLEVELAND                         $24,900                  $24,900
  Do..............................   2709360  CLIMAX                            $56,700                  $85,100
  Do..............................   2709420  CLOQUET                          $321,800                 $489,800
  Do..............................   2709440  COLD SPRING                      $165,300                 $248,000
  Do..............................   2709480  GREENWAY                         $302,400                 $430,300
  Do..............................   2709510  COLUMBIA HEIGHTS                 $405,400                 $581,100
  Do..............................   2709540  COMFREY                           $38,300                  $47,700
  Do..............................   2709690  CROMWELL                          $54,300                  $83,200
  Do..............................   2709720  CROOKSTON                        $258,000                 $405,300
  Do..............................   2709750  CROSBY-IRONTON                   $282,300                 $434,500
  Do..............................   2709960  CYRUS                             $23,700                  $36,400
  Do..............................   2710060  DASSEL-COKATO                    $185,400                 $290,600
  Do..............................   2710090  DAWSON-BOYD                       $46,900                  $69,000
  Do..............................   2710140  DEER RIVER                       $356,100                 $627,800
  Do..............................   2710170  DELANO                            $75,200                  $75,200
  Do..............................   2710230  DETROIT LAKES                    $613,700                 $932,100
  Do..............................   2710260  DILWORTH-GLYNDON-                $213,200                 $329,500
                                               FELTON
  Do..............................   2711010  DOVER-EYOTA                       $61,400                  $61,400
  Do..............................   2711040  DULUTH                         $2,496,300               $3,863,600
  Do..............................   2711085  EAST CENTRAL                     $257,500                 $411,600
  Do..............................   2711130  EAST GRAND FORKS                 $277,000                 $389,200
  Do..............................   2711190  EDEN VALLEY                       $89,400                 $133,300
  Do..............................   2711220  EDGERTON                          $41,000                  $64,800
  Do..............................   2711250  EDINA                            $161,300                 $143,600
  Do..............................   2711340  ELGIN-MILLVILLE                   $34,200                  $34,200
  Do..............................   2711370  ELK RIVER                        $275,400                 $269,900
  Do..............................   2711460  ELLSWORTH                         $26,500                  $38,200
  Do..............................   2711520  ELY                               $94,700                 $124,300
  Do..............................   2711610  EVANSVILLE                        $28,000                  $42,900
  Do..............................   2711670  MINNETONKA                             $0                       $0
  Do..............................   2711760  FARIBAULT                        $428,900                 $595,900
  Do..............................   2711820  FARMINGTON                       $315,000                 $201,400
  Do..............................   2711880  FERGUS FALLS                     $349,600                 $557,100
  Do..............................   2711910  FERTILE-BELTRAMI                 $102,100                 $146,300
  Do..............................   2712180  FISHER                            $20,100                  $33,300
  Do..............................   2712210  FLOODWOOD                         $67,500                  $94,600
  Do..............................   2712240  FOLEY                            $202,600                 $285,100
  Do..............................   2712270  FOREST LAKE                      $250,300                 $246,900
  Do..............................   2712300  FOSSTON                          $150,900                 $198,800
  Do..............................   2712360  FRAZEE                           $185,200                 $245,200
  Do..............................   2712420  FRIDLEY                          $308,300                 $434,900
  Do..............................   2712480  FULDA                             $51,600                  $88,800
  Do..............................   2712580  G.F.W.                           $144,500                 $197,400
  Do..............................   2712900  GOODHUE                           $38,600                  $57,300
  Do..............................   2713020  GOODRIDGE                         $57,900                  $98,000
  Do..............................   2713040  GRANADA HUNTLEY-                  $43,300                  $61,700
                                               EAST CHAIN
  Do..............................   2713110  COOK COUNTY                       $68,700                 $129,600
  Do..............................   2713140  GRAND MEADOW                      $20,100                  $13,100
  Do..............................   2713170  GRAND RAPIDS                     $672,800                 $983,500
  Do..............................   2713530  HASTINGS                         $215,200                 $215,200
  Do..............................   2713560  HAWLEY                            $71,500                 $118,400
  Do..............................   2713590  HAYFIELD                          $50,700                  $50,700
  Do..............................   2713680  HENDRICKS                         $27,300                  $49,000
  Do..............................   2713860  HENNING                           $90,800                 $125,700
  Do..............................   2713890  HERMAN-NORCROSS                   $47,300                  $60,800
  Do..............................   2713920  HERMANTOWN                        $54,300                  $54,300
  Do..............................   2713930  HERON LAKE-                       $31,000                  $44,900
                                               OKABENA
  Do..............................   2713980  HIBBING                          $394,300                 $631,100
  Do..............................   2714010  HILL CITY                        $126,600                 $172,100
  Do..............................   2714040  HILLS-BEAVER                      $21,900                  $41,400
                                               CREEK
  Do..............................   2714070  HINCKLEY-                        $310,300                 $461,300
                                               FINLAYSON
  Do..............................   2714190  HOLDINGFORD                      $109,500                 $154,000
  Do..............................   2714220  EDEN PRAIRIE                     $310,900                 $271,400
  Do..............................   2714260  HOPKINS                          $358,900                 $310,800
  Do..............................   2714280  HOUSTON                           $71,700                 $113,400
  Do..............................   2714970  HUTCHINSON                       $338,400                 $457,100
  Do..............................   2715000  INTERNATIONAL                    $273,300                 $447,500
                                               FALLS
  Do..............................   2715030  INVER GROVE                      $351,800                 $497,400
  Do..............................   2715510  ISLE                              $64,600                  $90,700
  Do..............................   2715540  IVANHOE                           $40,600                  $70,300
  Do..............................   2715750  JORDAN                            $80,900                  $80,900
  Do..............................   2716830  PRINSBURG                         $18,700                  $26,400
  Do..............................   2716980  KASSON-                           $61,400                  $61,400
                                               MANTORVILLE
  Do..............................   2717010  KELLIHER                         $194,000                 $298,600
  Do..............................   2717100  KENYON-WANAMINGO                  $69,200                 $107,300
  Do..............................   2717120  KERKHOVEN-                        $86,800                 $130,000
                                               MURDOCK-SUNBURG
  Do..............................   2717220  KIMBALL                          $113,700                 $149,800
  Do..............................   2717250  LACRESCENT-HOKAH                  $73,800                  $73,800
  Do..............................   2717460  LAKE BENTON                       $23,300                  $42,600
  Do..............................   2717520  LAKE CITY                        $132,900                 $218,400
  Do..............................   2717570  LAKE OF THE                       $70,900                 $127,700
                                               WOODS
  Do..............................   2717880  LANCASTER                         $38,300                  $69,300
  Do..............................   2717910  LANESBORO                         $61,800                  $89,900
  Do..............................   2717940  LAPORTE                           $88,700                 $155,800
  Do..............................   2718030  LECENTER                          $37,800                  $37,800
  Do..............................   2718060  LEROY                             $39,700                  $56,100
  Do..............................   2718070  LESUEUR-                         $151,900                 $251,700
                                               HENDERSON
  Do..............................   2718090  LEWISTON                         $118,800                 $170,400
  Do..............................   2718210  LITCHFIELD                       $170,900                 $244,300
  Do..............................   2718240  LITTLE FALLS                     $471,700                 $703,600
  Do..............................   2718270  LITTLEFORK-BIG                    $53,700                  $94,300
                                               FALLS
  Do..............................   2718330  LUVERNE                          $146,300                 $261,000
  Do..............................   2718360  LYLE                              $42,200                  $53,200
  Do..............................   2718390  LYND                                   $0                       $0
  Do..............................   2718540  MABEL-CANTON                     $132,900                 $198,100
  Do..............................   2718570  MADELIA                           $91,000                 $150,500
  Do..............................   2718660  MAHNOMEN                         $295,100                 $402,900
  Do..............................   2718750  MAHTOMEDI                         $83,400                  $75,300
  Do..............................   2718780  MANKATO                          $789,700               $1,160,400
  Do..............................   2718810  MAPLE LAKE                        $28,500                  $28,500
  Do..............................   2718920  GRYGLA                            $30,700                  $45,400
  Do..............................   2718940  MARSHALL                         $199,800                 $318,300
  Do..............................   2718960  MARTIN COUNTY                    $120,300                 $149,500
                                               WEST
  Do..............................   2719170  MCGREGOR                         $195,200                 $311,900
  Do..............................   2719320  MEDFORD                           $20,900                  $20,900
  Do..............................   2720550  MELROSE                          $231,000                 $319,600
  Do..............................   2720580  MENAHGA                          $160,000                 $231,300
  Do..............................   2720670  MILACA                           $226,700                 $384,900
  Do..............................   2721210  MILROY                            $20,100                  $29,600
  Do..............................   2721240  MINNEAPOLIS                   $23,256,300              $33,958,900
  Do..............................   2721270  MINNEOTA                          $70,400                 $105,500
  Do..............................   2721320  MONTEVIDEO                       $162,000                 $262,800
  Do..............................   2721360  MONTGOMERY-                      $115,000                 $188,800
                                               LONSDALE
  Do..............................   2721390  MONTICELLO                       $161,400                 $161,400
  Do..............................   2721420  MOORHEAD                         $771,500               $1,189,600
  Do..............................   2721450  MOOSE LAKE                        $71,500                 $105,800
  Do..............................   2721480  MORA                             $255,000                 $396,600
  Do..............................   2721540  MORRIS                            $80,200                 $131,400
  Do..............................   2722950  MOUNDS VIEW                      $391,900                 $381,700
  Do..............................   2723010  MOUNTAIN LAKE                    $189,600                 $315,800
  Do..............................   2723310  NASHWAUK-                        $100,500                 $181,400
                                               KEEWATIN
  Do..............................   2723370  NEVIS                             $59,200                 $103,600
  Do..............................   2723400  NEW LONDON-                       $93,400                  $93,400
                                               SPICER
  Do..............................   2723430  NEW PRAGUE                        $72,400                  $70,900
  Do..............................   2723490  NEW ULM                          $254,700                 $420,100
  Do..............................   2723520  NEW YORK MILLS                   $173,500                 $262,200
  Do..............................   2723550  NEWFOLDEN                         $58,000                  $82,400
  Do..............................   2723580  NICOLLET                          $40,200                  $55,500
  Do..............................   2723820  NORTH BRANCH                     $251,300                 $407,200
  Do..............................   2723850  NORTH ST. PAUL-                  $539,100                 $533,100
                                               MAPLEWOOD
  Do..............................   2723880  NORTHFIELD                       $273,100                 $192,600
  Do..............................   2723910  NORWOOD                           $66,300                  $66,300
  Do..............................   2723970  OGILVIE                          $166,200                 $260,500
  Do..............................   2724030  OKLEE                             $26,900                  $41,500
  Do..............................   2725050  ONAMIA                           $320,600                 $492,200
  Do..............................   2725080  ORONO                                  $0                       $0
  Do..............................   2725110  ORTONVILLE                        $59,600                  $83,800
  Do..............................   2725140  OSAKIS                           $102,700                 $138,200
  Do..............................   2725200  OSSEO                            $701,200                 $693,700
  Do..............................   2728050  OWATONNA                         $425,500                 $647,800
  Do..............................   2728080  PARK RAPIDS                      $321,000                 $530,700
  Do..............................   2728110  PARKERS PRAIRIE                   $81,100                 $122,500
  Do..............................   2728140  PAYNESVILLE                      $158,500                 $207,100
  Do..............................   2728170  PELICAN RAPIDS                   $220,000                 $342,400
  Do..............................   2728200  PEQUOT LAKES                     $141,800                 $238,700
  Do..............................   2728230  PERHAM                           $226,700                 $351,600
  Do..............................   2728290  RUSHFORD-                         $63,700                 $107,300
                                               PETERSON
  Do..............................   2728320  PIERZ                            $175,600                 $251,300
  Do..............................   2728350  PILLAGER                          $91,600                 $151,800
  Do..............................   2728380  PINE CITY                        $267,000                 $395,200
  Do..............................   2728950  PINE ISLAND                       $73,700                 $112,900
  Do..............................   2728960  PINE POINT                        $64,300                 $101,400
  Do..............................   2728970  PINE RIVER-                      $286,400                 $451,500
                                               BACKUS
  Do..............................   2729040  PLAINVIEW                         $63,000                  $44,600
  Do..............................   2729070  PLUMMER                           $28,900                  $39,200
  Do..............................   2730030  PRINCETON                        $142,800                 $142,800
  Do..............................   2730060  PRIOR LAKE                       $177,900                 $179,500
  Do..............................   2730090  PROCTOR                          $100,900                 $100,900
  Do..............................   2730150  RANDOLPH                          $15,100                  $15,100
  Do..............................   2730450  RED LAKE FALLS                    $55,300                  $81,100
  Do..............................   2730480  RED WING                         $264,700                 $414,600
  Do..............................   2730510  RED LAKE                       $1,295,100               $2,146,400
  Do..............................   2730870  REMER                            $285,500                 $492,000
  Do..............................   2731750  RICHFIELD                        $490,300                 $653,300
  Do..............................   2731780  ROBBINSDALE                    $1,158,900                 $689,000
  Do..............................   2731800  ROCHESTER                      $1,658,800               $2,410,600
  Do..............................   2732070  ROCKFORD                          $49,600                  $49,000
  Do..............................   2732250  ROSEAU                            $49,600                  $51,700
  Do..............................   2732390  ROSEMOUNT-APPLE                  $790,100                 $711,700
                                               VALLEY-EAGAN
  Do..............................   2732430  ROSEVILLE                        $213,900                 $213,900
  Do..............................   2732460  ROTHSAY                           $26,800                  $44,400
  Do..............................   2732490  ROUND LAKE                        $21,500                  $29,600
  Do..............................   2732520  ROYALTON                         $119,100                 $168,400
  Do..............................   2732550  RUSH CITY                        $112,800                 $181,400
  Do..............................   2732640  RUSSELL                           $16,400                  $24,200
  Do..............................   2732670  RUTHTON                           $40,100                  $55,600
  Do..............................   2732700  SOUTH                             $81,600                 $139,100
                                               KOOCHICHING
  Do..............................   2732820  SARTELL                          $210,000                 $309,100
  Do..............................   2732850  SAUK CENTRE                      $173,700                 $149,600
  Do..............................   2732880  SAUK RAPIDS                      $334,000                 $481,200
  Do..............................   2732970  SEBEKA                           $127,000                 $176,000
  Do..............................   2733000  SHAKOPEE                         $161,300                 $161,100
  Do..............................   2733210  SLEEPY EYE                       $108,300                 $185,100
  Do..............................   2733270  SOUTH ST. PAUL                   $328,500                 $255,300
  Do..............................   2733300  SPRING GROVE                      $29,300                  $48,100
  Do..............................   2733330  SPRING LAKE PARK                 $224,100                 $224,100
  Do..............................   2733390  SPRINGFIELD                       $53,400                  $41,800
  Do..............................   2733420  ST. ANTHONY-NEW                   $75,900                  $45,500
                                               BRIGHTON
  Do..............................   2733450  ST. CHARLES                      $177,800                 $272,700
  Do..............................   2733480  ST. CLAIR                         $19,100                  $19,100
  Do..............................   2733510  ST. CLOUD                      $1,153,800               $1,692,700
  Do..............................   2733540  ST. FRANCIS                      $209,300                 $206,600
  Do..............................   2733600  ST. JAMES                        $190,700                 $335,000
  Do..............................   2733720  NETT LAKE                         $37,700                  $57,600
  Do..............................   2733780  ST. LOUIS PARK                   $293,700                 $181,200
  Do..............................   2733790  ST. MICHAEL-                      $62,200                  $61,300
                                               ALBERTVILLE
  Do..............................   2733810  SOUTH WASHINGTON                 $348,600                 $348,400
                                               COUNTY
  Do..............................   2733840  ST. PAUL                      $18,258,100              $29,969,200
  Do..............................   2733870  ST. PETER                        $221,400                 $292,000
  Do..............................   2733900  STAPLES-MOTLEY                   $393,200                 $576,400
  Do..............................   2738160  STEWARTVILLE                      $61,800                  $61,800
  Do..............................   2738190  STILLWATER                       $340,800                 $333,500
  Do..............................   2738280  SWANVILLE                         $62,500                  $98,100
  Do..............................   2738850  THIEF RIVER                      $250,900                 $418,300
                                               FALLS
  Do..............................   2738880  ESKO                              $79,300                 $133,300
  Do..............................   2740590  TRACY                            $141,300                 $214,600
  Do..............................   2740665  TRITON                           $126,200                 $212,800
  Do..............................   2740680  TRUMAN                            $59,200                 $101,800
  Do..............................   2740740  LAKE SUPERIOR                    $201,000                 $331,300
  Do..............................   2740770  TYLER                             $56,000                  $78,400
  Do..............................   2740810  ULEN-HITTERDAL                    $42,600                 $168,500
  Do..............................   2740830  UNDERWOOD                         $50,900                  $50,900
  Do..............................   2740860  UPSALA                            $60,000                  $90,800
  Do..............................   2740920  VERNDALE                          $85,600                  $99,800
  Do..............................   2741040  VIRGINIA                         $210,000                 $325,700
  Do..............................   2741060  WABASHA-KELLOGG                   $86,700                 $123,700
  Do..............................   2741430  WABASSO                          $114,100                 $152,300
  Do..............................   2741460  WACONIA                           $69,300                  $68,300
  Do..............................   2741850  WARROAD                          $129,600                 $222,100
  Do..............................   2741880  WASECA                           $273,600                 $410,900
  Do..............................   2741910  WATERTOWN-MAYER                   $63,700                  $66,500
  Do..............................   2742120  WAUBUN                           $269,200                 $404,000
  Do..............................   2742160  WAYZATA                                $0                       $0
  Do..............................   2742270  WEST ST. PAUL-                   $254,200                 $228,500
                                               MENDOTA HTS.
  Do..............................   2742330  WHEATON                           $46,200                  $75,900
  Do..............................   2742360  WHITE BEAR LAKE                  $380,900                 $376,400
  Do..............................   2742720  WILLMAR                          $830,500               $1,190,800
  Do..............................   2742750  WILLOW RIVER                     $147,000                 $236,700
  Do..............................   2742780  WINDOM                           $149,100                 $208,400
  Do..............................   2744070  WINONA                           $512,700                 $805,100
  Do..............................   2744160  WORTHINGTON                      $339,500                 $588,500
  Do..............................   2744190  WRENSHALL                         $25,300                  $43,900
  Do..............................   2745735  ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA                 $109,500                 $170,300
  Do..............................   2781037  Balance of                             $0                       $0
                                               Dakota County
  Do..............................   2781053  Balance of                             $0                       $0
                                               Hennepin County
  Do..............................   2781097  Balance of                             $0                       $0
                                               Morrison County
  Do..............................   2791445  LAKE CRYSTAL-                     $86,600                 $125,900
                                               WELLCOME
                                               MEMORIAL
  Do..............................   2791446  TRI-COUNTY                        $82,000                 $121,200
  Do..............................   2791447  KITTSON CENTRAL                   $35,500                  $59,200
  Do..............................   2791448  HALSTAD-HENDRUM                   $59,300                  $82,900
  Do..............................   2791449  WIN-E-MAC                        $138,900                 $181,900
  Do..............................   2791450  MESABI EAST                      $260,200                 $359,200
  Do..............................   2791451  JANESVILLE-                      $117,800                 $150,000
                                               WALDORF-
                                               PEMBERTON
  Do..............................   2799999  PART D SUBPART 2               $1,947,800               $3,270,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important limitations:
A. Each of these amounts may be reduced by approximately 5% for state administration and school improvement
  activities.
B. These amounts may also be reduced to account for grants to charter schools or recent local educational agency
  (LEA) boundary changes.
C. States are also authorized to adjust these amounts for all LEAs serving localities with total population
  below 20,000 persons (currently 8 states exercise this authority).

Notice: these are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the
  relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended
  to predict specific amounts which states or LEAs will receive. Estimates are based on FY2005 program data.
  Estimates prepared by CRS.


TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND
 SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2006 AT THE FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2006 GRANTS AT THE
                                                 LEVEL PROVIDED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Estimated FY2006 grant
                State                  LEA code       LEA name          Actual FY2006       at full authorized
                                                                            grant                 level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota............................   2700001  MOUNTAIN IRON-BUHL            $142,300                 $230,100
  Do.................................   2700005  UNITED SOUTH                  $138,900                 $222,100
                                                  CENTRAL
  Do.................................   2700006  MAPLE RIVER                   $157,800                 $257,600
  Do.................................   2700007  KINGSLAND                      $84,400                 $118,900
  Do.................................   2700008  ST. LOUIS COUNTY              $451,600                 $687,100
  Do.................................   2700013  WATERVILLE-ELYSIAN-            $98,700                 $157,100
                                                  MORRISTOWN
  Do.................................   2700017  CHISAGO LAKES                 $229,300                 $400,100
  Do.................................   2700019  MINNEWASKA                    $151,000                 $246,600
  Do.................................   2700021  EVELETH-GILBERT               $175,400                 $275,500
  Do.................................   2700022  WADENA-DEER CREEK             $265,700                 $410,300
  Do.................................   2700023  BUFFALO LAKE-                  $81,700                 $133,400
                                                  HECTOR
  Do.................................   2700024  WARREN-ALVARADO-               $64,700                 $104,300
                                                  OSLO
  Do.................................   2700088  LAKEVIEW                       $34,200                  $54,000
  Do.................................   2700089  N.R.H.E.G.                     $87,400                 $144,300
  Do.................................   2700090  MURRAY COUNTY                  $97,600                 $157,100
                                                  CENTRAL
  Do.................................   2700091  M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.                 $86,300                 $142,500
  Do.................................   2700099  YELLOW MEDICINE               $104,400                 $177,200
                                                  EAST
  Do.................................   2700100  FILLMORE CENTRAL              $164,300                 $252,200
  Do.................................   2700101  NORMAN COUNTY EAST             $58,000                  $88,300
  Do.................................   2700102  SIBLEY EAST                   $163,400                 $270,400
  Do.................................   2700103  CLEARBROOK-GONVICK             $74,700                 $124,000
  Do.................................   2700104  WEST CENTRAL AREA             $109,800                 $158,800
  Do.................................   2700105  BELGRADE-BROOTEN-             $234,100                 $372,000
                                                  ELROSA
  Do.................................   2700106  A.C.G.C.                      $163,200                 $273,000
  Do.................................   2700107  GREENBUSH-MIDDLE               $68,400                  $91,600
                                                  RIVER
  Do.................................   2700108  PIPESTONE AREA                $148,700                 $248,500
                                                  SCHOOLS
  Do.................................   2700109  LONG PRAIRIE-GREY             $302,400                 $459,600
                                                  EAGLE
  Do.................................   2700110  CEDAR MOUNTAIN                 $32,900                  $54,800
  Do.................................   2700112  EAGLE VALLEY                   $95,100                 $128,000
  Do.................................   2700123  HOWARD LAKE-                  $131,700                 $219,200
                                                  WAVERLY-WINSTED
  Do.................................   2700124  FAIRMONT AREA                 $403,300                 $646,600
                                                  SCHOOLS
  Do.................................   2700125  LAC QUI PARLE                 $131,700                 $215,600
                                                  VALLEY
  Do.................................   2700126  ADA-BORUP                      $53,300                  $89,500
  Do.................................   2700127  STEPHEN-ARGYLE                 $51,500                  $84,000
                                                  CENTRAL SCHOOLS
  Do.................................   2700128  GLENCOE-SILVER                $133,800                 $248,500
                                                  LAKE
  Do.................................   2700130  BLUE EARTH AREA               $182,400                 $305,100
                                                  PUBLIC SCHOOL
  Do.................................   2700132  RED ROCK CENTRAL               $94,700                 $141,300
  Do.................................   2700148  GLENVILLE-EMMONS               $45,800                  $73,100
  Do.................................   2700149  MCLEOD WEST                    $47,800                  $78,600
                                                  SCHOOLS
  Do.................................   2700150  CLINTON-GRACEVILLE-           $116,200                 $167,200
                                                  BEARDSLEY
  Do.................................   2700162  LAKE PARK-AUDUBON             $102,100                 $156,800
                                                  DISTRICT
  Do.................................   2700163  RENVILLE COUNTY               $157,200                 $213,200
                                                  WEST
  Do.................................   2700182  REDWOOD FALLS AREA            $124,300                 $226,500
                                                  SCHOOLS
  Do.................................   2700183  WESTBROOK-WALNUT               $53,300                  $89,500
                                                  GROVE SCHOOLS
  Do.................................   2700231  JACKSON COUNTY                $153,200                 $252,100
                                                  CENTRAL
  Do.................................   2702640  LESTER PRAIRIE                 $76,000                 $129,700
  Do.................................   2702720  SOUTHLAND                      $57,000                  $88,200
  Do.................................   2702730  ADRIAN                         $89,900                 $140,200
  Do.................................   2702760  AITKIN                        $157,000                 $251,100
  Do.................................   2702910  WALKER-HACKENSACK-            $201,800                 $326,300
                                                  AKELEY
  Do.................................   2702930  ALBANY                        $170,200                 $277,700
  Do.................................   2702970  ALBERT LEA                    $451,700                 $783,800
  Do.................................   2703030  ALDEN                           $6,500                   $6,500
  Do.................................   2703060  ALEXANDRIA                    $367,700                 $626,700
  Do.................................   2703150  ANNANDALE                     $219,000                 $361,700
  Do.................................   2703180  ANOKA-HENNEPIN              $1,727,900               $5,384,500
  Do.................................   2703300  ASHBY                          $22,700                  $36,500
  Do.................................   2703450  AUSTIN                        $668,500               $1,114,500
  Do.................................   2703540  BADGER                         $31,800                  $51,200
  Do.................................   2703570  BAGLEY                        $303,000                 $440,500
  Do.................................   2703600  BALATON                        $24,100                  $33,800
  Do.................................   2703660  BARNESVILLE                    $42,300                  $42,300
  Do.................................   2703690  BARNUM                         $54,600                 $106,000
  Do.................................   2703750  BATTLE LAKE                   $101,900                 $149,800
  Do.................................   2703870  BECKER                         $77,700                  $86,200
  Do.................................   2704050  BELLE PLAINE                  $106,700                 $182,700
  Do.................................   2704080  BELLINGHAM                     $38,500                  $54,800
  Do.................................   2704440  BEMIDJI                       $912,600               $1,511,400
  Do.................................   2704470  BENSON                         $83,600                 $135,200
  Do.................................   2705430  BERTHA-HEWITT                 $120,800                 $159,900
  Do.................................   2705460  BIG LAKE                      $102,200                 $117,100
  Do.................................   2705660  BIRD ISLAND-OLIVIA-           $113,500                 $188,200
                                                  LAKE LILLIAN
  Do.................................   2705730  BLACKDUCK                     $138,200                 $227,600
  Do.................................   2705760  BLOOMING PRAIRIE              $120,600                 $169,300
  Do.................................   2705790  BLOOMINGTON                   $406,600                 $445,800
  Do.................................   2706060  BRAHAM                        $111,200                 $191,800
  Do.................................   2706090  BRAINERD                      $907,600               $1,551,400
  Do.................................   2706120  BRANDON                        $46,500                  $74,900
  Do.................................   2706150  BRECKENRIDGE                  $111,100                 $172,300
  Do.................................   2706180  BREWSTER                       $27,500                  $36,300
  Do.................................   2706240  BROOKLYN CENTER               $223,700                 $418,300
  Do.................................   2706300  BROWERVILLE                    $81,700                 $128,300
  Do.................................   2707110  BROWNS VALLEY                  $51,400                  $69,400
  Do.................................   2707200  BUFFALO                       $342,800                 $595,600
  Do.................................   2707290  BURNSVILLE                  $1,249,300               $2,189,000
  Do.................................   2707320  BUTTERFIELD                    $25,000                  $40,200
  Do.................................   2707350  BYRON                          $49,100                  $52,100
  Do.................................   2707380  CALEDONIA                     $121,400                 $204,600
  Do.................................   2707410  CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI              $373,400                 $668,700
  Do.................................   2707450  CAMPBELL-TINTAH                $23,600                  $35,700
  Do.................................   2707470  CANBY                          $78,400                 $131,500
  Do.................................   2707500  CANNON FALLS                   $46,500                  $48,800
  Do.................................   2707590  CARLTON                        $64,900                 $118,800
  Do.................................   2708070  CASS LAKE-BENA                $343,900                 $593,900
                                                  SCHOOLS
  Do.................................   2708100  CENTENNIAL                    $218,000                 $243,200
  Do.................................   2708190  CHASKA                        $283,800                 $309,900
  Do.................................   2708220  CHATFIELD                      $33,300                  $82,200
  Do.................................   2708880  FRANCONIA                           $0                       $0
  Do.................................   2708910  CHISHOLM                      $116,900                 $193,700
  Do.................................   2708940  CHOKIO-ALBERTA                 $30,700                  $46,100
  Do.................................   2709330  CLEVELAND                      $21,200                  $21,200
  Do.................................   2709360  CLIMAX                         $51,000                  $74,500
  Do.................................   2709420  CLOQUET                       $278,900                 $475,700
  Do.................................   2709440  ROCORI                        $162,300                 $270,400
  Do.................................   2709480  GREENWAY                      $258,400                 $453,600
  Do.................................   2709510  COLUMBIA HEIGHTS              $465,300                 $760,000
  Do.................................   2709540  COMFREY                        $33,200                  $43,300
  Do.................................   2709690  CROMWELL-WRIGHT                $58,600                  $99,300
  Do.................................   2709720  CROOKSTON                     $233,800                 $425,700
  Do.................................   2709750  CROSBY-IRONTON                $263,600                 $432,000
  Do.................................   2709960  CYRUS                          $20,800                  $31,900
  Do.................................   2710060  DASSEL-COKATO                 $177,100                 $328,900
  Do.................................   2710090  DAWSON-BOYD                    $39,600                  $73,100
  Do.................................   2710140  DEER RIVER                    $309,800                 $534,600
  Do.................................   2710170  DELANO                         $63,900                  $63,900
  Do.................................   2710230  DETROIT LAKES                 $552,800                 $898,500
  Do.................................   2710260  DILWORTH-GLYNDON-             $214,300                 $339,700
                                                  FELTON
  Do.................................   2711010  DOVER-EYOTA                    $52,200                  $52,200
  Do.................................   2711040  DULUTH                      $2,137,600               $4,072,600
  Do.................................   2711085  EAST CENTRAL                  $231,700                 $381,000
  Do.................................   2711130  EAST GRAND FORKS              $243,400                 $381,700
  Do.................................   2711190  EDEN VALLEY-                   $90,800                 $148,000
                                                  WATKINS
  Do.................................   2711220  EDGERTON                       $35,600                  $58,500
  Do.................................   2711250  EDINA                         $174,400                 $179,000
  Do.................................   2711340  ELGIN-MILLVILLE                $29,100                  $29,100
  Do.................................   2711370  ELK RIVER                     $275,800                 $308,300
  Do.................................   2711460  ELLSWORTH                      $23,300                  $34,700
  Do.................................   2711520  ELY                            $81,600                 $118,600
  Do.................................   2711610  EVANSVILLE                     $27,200                  $43,800
  Do.................................   2711670  MINNETONKA                          $0                       $0
  Do.................................   2711760  FARIBAULT                     $390,400                 $681,500
  Do.................................   2711820  FARMINGTON                    $377,900                 $613,900
  Do.................................   2711880  FERGUS FALLS                  $299,400                 $511,600
  Do.................................   2711910  FERTILE-BELTRAMI               $90,400                 $137,400
  Do.................................   2712180  FISHER                         $21,600                  $34,700
  Do.................................   2712210  FLOODWOOD                      $57,100                 $104,000
  Do.................................   2712240  FOLEY                         $180,300                 $292,300
  Do.................................   2712270  FOREST LAKE                   $301,200                 $322,100
  Do.................................   2712300  FOSSTON                       $131,800                 $201,900
  Do.................................   2712360  FRAZEE                        $161,400                 $229,200
  Do.................................   2712420  FRIDLEY                       $350,700                 $590,100
  Do.................................   2712480  FULDA                          $44,300                  $73,100
  Do.................................   2712580  G.F.W.                        $127,600                 $185,300
  Do.................................   2712900  GOODHUE                        $39,700                  $63,900
  Do.................................   2713020  GOODRIDGE                      $50,800                  $74,900
  Do.................................   2713040  GRANADA HUNTLEY-               $37,900                  $58,800
                                                  EAST CHAIN
  Do.................................   2713110  COOK COUNTY                    $63,600                 $102,300
  Do.................................   2713140  GRAND MEADOW                   $12,700                  $34,700
  Do.................................   2713170  GRAND RAPIDS                  $567,300                 $954,700
  Do.................................   2713530  HASTINGS                      $196,600                 $235,900
  Do.................................   2713560  HAWLEY                         $71,500                 $122,400
  Do.................................   2713590  HAYFIELD                       $43,100                  $43,100
  Do.................................   2713680  HENDRICKS                      $23,500                  $35,600
  Do.................................   2713860  HENNING                        $77,500                 $113,800
  Do.................................   2713890  HERMAN-NORCROSS                $41,100                  $54,500
  Do.................................   2713920  HERMANTOWN                     $46,200                  $55,300
  Do.................................   2713930  HERON LAKE-OKABENA             $27,400                  $38,800
  Do.................................   2713980  HIBBING                       $382,500                 $634,000
  Do.................................   2714010  HILL CITY                     $111,600                 $174,000
  Do.................................   2714040  HILLS-BEAVER CREEK             $24,800                  $36,900
  Do.................................   2714070  HINCKLEY-FINLAYSON            $263,900                 $424,400
  Do.................................   2714190  HOLDINGFORD                    $98,000                 $154,700
  Do.................................   2714220  EDEN PRAIRIE                  $326,600                 $344,100
  Do.................................   2714260  HOPKINS                       $540,200                 $889,700
  Do.................................   2714280  HOUSTON                        $71,800                 $112,400
  Do.................................   2714970  HUTCHINSON                    $285,700                 $535,300
  Do.................................   2715000  INTERNATIONAL                 $250,200                 $413,000
                                                  FALLS
  Do.................................   2715030  INVER GROVE                   $423,300                 $703,400
  Do.................................   2715510  ISLE                           $56,200                  $98,800
  Do.................................   2715540  IVANHOE                        $35,200                  $52,600
  Do.................................   2715750  JORDAN                         $68,800                  $68,800
  Do.................................   2716830  PRINSBURG                      $16,500                  $25,900
  Do.................................   2716980  KASSON-MANTORVILLE             $52,200                  $54,500
  Do.................................   2717010  KELLIHER                      $168,600                 $294,900
  Do.................................   2717100  KENYON-WANAMINGO               $73,800                 $124,200
  Do.................................   2717120  KERKHOVEN-MURDOCK-             $83,200                 $130,700
                                                  SUNBURG
  Do.................................   2717220  KIMBALL                        $98,500                 $151,900
  Do.................................   2717250  LACRESCENT-HOKAH               $62,700                  $62,700
  Do.................................   2717460  LAKE BENTON                    $20,200                  $31,600
  Do.................................   2717520  LAKE CITY                     $131,700                 $221,100
  Do.................................   2717570  LAKE OF THE WOODS              $62,000                 $100,500
  Do.................................   2717880  LANCASTER                      $32,200                  $46,800
  Do.................................   2717910  LANESBORO                      $53,500                  $78,000
  Do.................................   2717940  LAPORTE                        $76,900                 $123,100
  Do.................................   2718030  LECENTER                       $32,100                  $70,600
  Do.................................   2718060  LEROY                          $35,900                  $56,700
  Do.................................   2718070  LESUEUR-HENDERSON             $163,400                 $266,700
  Do.................................   2718090  LEWISTON-ALTURA               $112,500                 $174,600
  Do.................................   2718210  LITCHFIELD                    $160,000                 $266,700
  Do.................................   2718240  LITTLE FALLS                  $402,200                 $627,900
  Do.................................   2718270  LITTLEFORK-BIG                 $47,100                  $77,500
                                                  FALLS
  Do.................................   2718330  LUVERNE                       $135,100                 $230,200
  Do.................................   2718360  LYLE                           $36,100                  $49,500
  Do.................................   2718390  LYND                                $0                       $0
  Do.................................   2718540  MABEL-CANTON                  $120,400                 $173,800
  Do.................................   2718570  MADELIA                        $77,600                 $130,500
  Do.................................   2718660  MAHNOMEN                      $251,000                 $407,200
  Do.................................   2718750  MAHTOMEDI                      $93,500                 $104,900
  Do.................................   2718780  MANKATO                       $794,700               $1,355,800
  Do.................................   2718810  MAPLE LAKE                     $25,400                  $30,900
  Do.................................   2718920  GRYGLA                         $27,600                  $40,400
  Do.................................   2718940  MARSHALL                      $202,000                 $343,500
  Do.................................   2718960  MARTIN COUNTY WEST            $103,200                 $134,500
  Do.................................   2719170  MCGREGOR                      $185,900                 $295,200
  Do.................................   2719320  MEDFORD                        $17,800                  $17,900
  Do.................................   2720550  MELROSE                       $212,000                 $328,500
  Do.................................   2720580  MENAHGA                       $149,400                 $231,300
  Do.................................   2720670  MILACA                        $211,100                 $376,400
  Do.................................   2721210  MILROY                         $19,300                  $31,100
  Do.................................   2721240  MINNEAPOLIS                $24,532,900              $48,341,400
  Do.................................   2721270  MINNEOTA                       $65,800                 $118,800
  Do.................................   2721320  MONTEVIDEO                    $161,200                 $270,400
  Do.................................   2721360  MONTGOMERY-                   $119,200                 $197,300
                                                  LONSDALE
  Do.................................   2721390  MONTICELLO                    $137,200                 $142,400
  Do.................................   2721420  MOORHEAD                      $750,000               $1,203,000
  Do.................................   2721450  MOOSE LAKE                     $62,300                  $95,300
  Do.................................   2721480  MORA                          $218,400                 $357,700
  Do.................................   2721540  MORRIS                         $71,800                 $115,100
  Do.................................   2722950  MOUNDS VIEW                   $369,400                 $395,400
  Do.................................   2723010  MOUNTAIN LAKE                 $169,600                 $257,200
  Do.................................   2723310  NASHWAUK-KEEWATIN              $85,900                 $158,900
  Do.................................   2723370  NEVIS                          $51,600                  $83,000
  Do.................................   2723400  NEW LONDON-SPICER              $79,400                  $79,400
  Do.................................   2723430  NEW PRAGUE AREA                $74,500                  $81,300
                                                  SCHOOLS
  Do.................................   2723490  NEW ULM                       $254,200                 $433,000
  Do.................................   2723520  NEW YORK MILLS                $154,900                 $232,600
  Do.................................   2723550  MARSHALL COUNTY                $50,900                  $72,400
                                                  CENTRAL SCHOOLS
  Do.................................   2723580  NICOLLET                       $35,200                  $67,600
  Do.................................   2723820  NORTH BRANCH                  $247,400                 $442,100
  Do.................................   2723850  NORTH ST PAUL-                $841,700               $1,502,800
                                                  MAPLEWOOD
  Do.................................   2723880  NORTHFIELD                    $255,400                 $429,300
  Do.................................   2723910  NORWOOD                        $56,300                  $56,300
  Do.................................   2723970  OGILVIE                       $150,600                 $229,600
  Do.................................   2724030  OKLEE                          $25,000                  $42,000
  Do.................................   2725050  ONAMIA                        $287,700                 $476,700
  Do.................................   2725080  ORONO                          $45,200                  $48,000
  Do.................................   2725110  ORTONVILLE                     $51,000                  $75,200
  Do.................................   2725140  OSAKIS                         $90,400                 $126,600
  Do.................................   2725200  OSSEO                         $699,100                 $772,000
  Do.................................   2728050  OWATONNA                      $414,300                 $719,800
  Do.................................   2728080  PARK RAPIDS                   $286,900                 $460,200
  Do.................................   2728110  PARKERS PRAIRIE                $75,200                 $119,600
  Do.................................   2728140  PAYNESVILLE                   $140,700                 $200,800
  Do.................................   2728170  PELICAN RAPIDS                $190,700                 $314,200
  Do.................................   2728200  PEQUOT LAKES                  $135,100                 $226,500
  Do.................................   2728230  PERHAM                        $195,200                 $328,900
  Do.................................   2728290  RUSHFORD-PETERSON              $55,600                  $98,700
  Do.................................   2728320  PIERZ                         $149,800                 $223,500
  Do.................................   2728350  PILLAGER                       $79,900                 $131,900
  Do.................................   2728380  PINE CITY                     $225,500                 $376,100
  Do.................................   2728950  PINE ISLAND                    $86,300                 $138,900
  Do.................................   2728960  PINE POINT                     $50,600                  $61,800
  Do.................................   2728970  PINE RIVER-BACKUS             $245,600                 $389,000
  Do.................................   2729040  PLAINVIEW                      $38,800                  $42,300
  Do.................................   2729070  PLUMMER                        $26,100                  $36,100
  Do.................................   2730030  PRINCETON                     $123,600                 $310,600
  Do.................................   2730060  PRIOR LAKE                    $192,600                 $217,200
  Do.................................   2730090  PROCTOR                        $85,800                  $85,800
  Do.................................   2730150  RANDOLPH                       $12,900                  $12,900
  Do.................................   2730450  RED LAKE FALLS                 $50,600                  $74,700
  Do.................................   2730480  RED WING                      $283,700                 $478,700
  Do.................................   2730510  RED LAKE                    $1,154,400               $2,048,300
  Do.................................   2730870  NORTHLAND                     $233,600                 $429,000
                                                  COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
  Do.................................   2731750  RICHFIELD                     $508,500                 $855,000
  Do.................................   2731780  ROBBINSDALE                 $1,207,500               $2,121,300
  Do.................................   2731800  ROCHESTER                   $1,873,600               $3,351,200
  Do.................................   2732070  ROCKFORD                       $54,700                  $59,400
  Do.................................   2732250  ROSEAU                         $42,100                  $47,200
  Do.................................   2732390  ROSEMOUNT-APPLE               $848,900                 $913,500
                                                  VALLEY-EAGAN
  Do.................................   2732430  ROSEVILLE                     $181,800                 $181,800
  Do.................................   2732460  ROTHSAY                        $25,000                  $43,800
  Do.................................   2732490  ROUND LAKE                     $19,000                  $26,400
  Do.................................   2732520  ROYALTON                      $101,800                 $151,500
  Do.................................   2732550  RUSH CITY                     $109,000                 $195,500
  Do.................................   2732640  RUSSELL                        $15,000                  $23,800
  Do.................................   2732670  RUTHTON                        $35,600                  $51,700
  Do.................................   2732700  SOUTH KOOCHICHING              $73,000                 $114,300
  Do.................................   2732820  SARTELL                       $204,300                 $345,300
  Do.................................   2732850  SAUK CENTRE                   $127,200                 $127,200
  Do.................................   2732880  SAUK RAPIDS                   $304,200                 $520,700
  Do.................................   2732970  SEBEKA                        $108,000                 $155,700
  Do.................................   2733000  SHAKOPEE                      $187,900                 $203,400
  Do.................................   2733210  SLEEPY EYE                    $113,500                 $186,400
  Do.................................   2733270  SOUTH ST. PAUL                $304,300                 $489,600
  Do.................................   2733300  SPRING GROVE                   $27,200                  $45,700
  Do.................................   2733330  SPRING LAKE PARK              $190,500                 $190,500
  Do.................................   2733390  SPRINGFIELD                    $35,500                  $69,000
  Do.................................   2733420  ST. ANTHONY-NEW                $86,300                 $149,800
                                                  BRIGHTON
  Do.................................   2733450  ST. CHARLES                   $172,900                 $284,900
  Do.................................   2733480  ST. CLAIR                      $16,300                  $17,900
  Do.................................   2733510  ST. CLOUD                   $1,032,400               $2,062,900
  Do.................................   2733540  ST. FRANCIS                   $200,500                 $231,000
  Do.................................   2733600  ST. JAMES                     $170,900                 $267,300
  Do.................................   2733720  NETT LAKE                      $32,700                  $47,000
  Do.................................   2733780  ST. LOUIS PARK                $306,400                 $513,400
  Do.................................   2733790  ST. MICHAEL-                   $59,400                  $65,900
                                                  ALBERTVILLE
  Do.................................   2733810  SOUTH WASHINGTON              $392,300                 $440,100
                                                  COUNTY
  Do.................................   2733840  ST. PAUL                   $16,870,100              $33,054,800
  Do.................................   2733870  ST. PETER                     $196,300                 $278,800
  Do.................................   2733900  STAPLES-MOTLEY                $356,800                 $531,500
  Do.................................   2738160  STEWARTVILLE                   $52,500                  $52,500
  Do.................................   2738190  STILLWATER                    $410,600                 $992,100
  Do.................................   2738280  SWANVILLE                      $53,600                  $93,200
  Do.................................   2738850  THIEF RIVER FALLS             $238,300                 $422,000
  Do.................................   2738880  ESKO                           $78,300                 $127,900
  Do.................................   2740590  TRACY                         $140,500                 $233,700
  Do.................................   2740665  TRITON                        $129,400                 $237,500
  Do.................................   2740680  TRUMAN                         $57,900                  $96,800
  Do.................................   2740740  LAKE SUPERIOR                 $195,200                 $325,200
  Do.................................   2740770  TYLER                          $48,300                  $64,400
  Do.................................   2740810  ULEN-HITTERDAL                 $43,100                  $69,400
  Do.................................   2740830  UNDERWOOD                      $43,200                  $43,200
  Do.................................   2740860  UPSALA                         $50,900                  $77,600
  Do.................................   2740920  VERNDALE                       $72,100                  $93,200
  Do.................................   2741040  VIRGINIA                      $206,600                 $338,000
  Do.................................   2741060  WABASHA-KELLOGG                $74,100                 $131,500
  Do.................................   2741430  WABASSO                       $110,700                 $173,200
  Do.................................   2741460  WACONIA                        $69,800                  $78,900
  Do.................................   2741850  WARROAD                       $119,200                 $191,800
  Do.................................   2741880  WASECA                        $256,500                 $442,100
  Do.................................   2741910  WATERTOWN-MAYER                $97,600                 $169,900
  Do.................................   2742120  WAUBUN                        $230,100                 $373,100
  Do.................................   2742160  WAYZATA                             $0                       $0
  Do.................................   2742270  WEST ST. PAUL-                $280,600                 $670,500
                                                  MENDOTA HTS.-
                                                  EAGAN
  Do.................................   2742330  WHEATON AREA                   $43,100                  $74,900
                                                  SCHOOL
  Do.................................   2742360  WHITE BEAR LAKE               $334,500                 $390,500
  Do.................................   2742720  WILLMAR                       $737,800               $1,236,900
  Do.................................   2742750  WILLOW RIVER                  $131,700                 $209,000
  Do.................................   2742780  WINDOM                        $127,800                 $194,300
  Do.................................   2744070  WINONA AREA PUBLIC            $493,700                 $851,400
                                                  SCHOOLS
  Do.................................   2744160  WORTHINGTON                   $316,700                 $520,700
  Do.................................   2744190  WRENSHALL                      $21,500                  $21,500
  Do.................................   2745735  ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA              $115,800                 $191,800
  Do.................................   2781037  BALANCE OF DAKOTA                   $0                       $0
                                                  COUNTY
  Do.................................   2781053  BALANCE OF                          $0                       $0
                                                  HENNEPIN COUNTY
  Do.................................   2781097  BALANCE OF                          $0                       $0
                                                  MORRISON COUNTY
  Do.................................   2791445  LAKE CRYSTAL-                  $76,700                 $126,100
                                                  WELLCOME MEMORIAL
  Do.................................   2791446  TRI-COUNTY                     $70,300                  $99,200
  Do.................................   2791447  KITTSON CENTRAL                $22,700                  $22,700
  Do.................................   2791448  NORMAN COUNTY WEST             $53,100                  $76,900
  Do.................................   2791449  WIN-E-MAC                     $120,700                 $167,000
  Do.................................   2791450  MESABI EAST                   $251,100                 $397,000
  Do.................................   2791451  JANESVILLE-WALDORF-           $103,400                 $140,000
                                                  PEMBERTON
  Do.................................   2799999  PART D SUBPART 2            $1,850,400               $3,096,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important limitations:
A. Each of these amounts may be reduced by approximately 5% for state administration and school improvement
  activities.
B. These amounts may also be reduced to account for grants to charter schools or recent local educational agency
  (LEA) boundary changes.
C. States are also authorized to adjust these amounts for all LEAs serving localities with total population
  below 20,000 persons (currently 8 states exercise this authority).

Notice: these are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the
  relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended
  to predict specific amounts which states or LEAs will receive. Estimates are based on preliminary FY2006
  program data on school-age children poor families and state expenditure factors, FY2005 data otherwise.
  Estimates prepared by CRS.


              TABLE 4.--ESTIMATED `NEW MONEY' FOR MINNESOTA LEAs UNDER IDEA PART B GRANTS TO STATES
                  [dollars rounded to nearest $100; totals may differ slightly due to rounding]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Estimated
                                                        Estimated `New      Estimated `New    Difference Between
           Local Educational Agency (LEA)               Money' Based on     Money' Based on     Authorized and
                                                         FY2006 Grant      FY2006 Authorized     Appropriated
                                                                                Amount              Amounts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.C.G.C.............................................            $126,400            $207,800             $81,400
ADA-BORUP...........................................             $51,600             $84,900             $33,200
ADRIAN..............................................             $63,800            $104,800             $41,000
AITKIN..............................................            $141,700            $232,900             $91,200
ALBANY..............................................            $179,400            $294,900            $115,500
ALBERT LEA..........................................            $425,700            $699,700            $274,000
ALDEN...............................................             $23,700             $38,900             $15,200
ALEXANDRIA..........................................            $460,600            $757,100            $296,500
ANNANDALE...........................................            $235,600            $387,200            $151,600
ANOKA-HENNEPIN......................................          $4,696,600          $7,719,600          $3,023,000
ASHBY...............................................             $24,200             $39,700             $15,600
AUSTIN..............................................            $523,700            $860,800            $337,100
BADGER..............................................             $26,600             $43,800             $17,100
BAGLEY..............................................            $129,600            $213,000             $83,400
BALATON.............................................             $19,300             $31,700             $12,400
BARNESVILLE.........................................             $75,900            $124,700             $48,800
BARNUM..............................................             $65,900            $108,200             $42,400
BATTLE LAKE.........................................             $61,000            $100,300             $39,300
BECKER..............................................            $230,200            $378,400            $148,200
BELGRADE-BROOTEN-ELROSA.............................            $116,000            $190,600             $74,600
BELLE PLAINE........................................            $161,700            $265,700            $104,100
BELLINGHAM..........................................             $16,700             $27,400             $10,700
BEMIDJI.............................................            $677,100          $1,112,900            $435,800
BENSON..............................................            $103,400            $170,000             $66,600
BERTHA-HEWITT.......................................             $52,200             $85,700             $33,600
BIG LAKE............................................            $297,300            $488,600            $191,400
BIRD ISLAND-OLIVIA-LAKE LILLIAN.....................            $113,600            $186,700             $73,100
BLACKDUCK...........................................             $89,600            $147,300             $57,700
BLOOMING PRAIRIE....................................             $96,800            $159,200             $62,300
BLOOMINGTON.........................................          $1,247,100          $2,049,800            $802,700
BLUE EARTH AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL.......................            $159,300            $261,800            $102,500
BRAHAM..............................................            $118,100            $194,100             $76,000
BRAINERD............................................            $789,600          $1,297,900            $508,200
BRANDON.............................................             $38,400             $63,100             $24,700
BRECKENRIDGE........................................            $104,600            $171,900             $67,300
BREWSTER............................................             $19,200             $31,600             $12,400
BROOKLYN CENTER.....................................            $153,200            $251,800             $98,600
BROWERVILLE.........................................             $52,500             $86,300             $33,800
BROWNS VALLEY.......................................             $17,100             $28,200             $11,000
BUFFALO.............................................            $573,800            $943,100            $369,300
BUFFALO LAKE-HECTOR.................................             $68,000            $111,800             $43,800
BURNSVILLE..........................................          $1,479,400          $2,431,600            $952,200
BUTTERFIELD.........................................             $25,800             $42,300             $16,600
BYRON...............................................            $145,500            $239,100             $93,600
CALEDONIA...........................................            $137,700            $226,300             $88,600
CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI....................................            $524,900            $862,800            $337,900
CAMPBELL-TINTAH.....................................             $18,800             $31,000             $12,100
CANBY...............................................             $71,800            $118,000             $46,200
CANNON FALLS........................................            $151,900            $249,700             $97,800
CARLTON.............................................             $80,200            $131,700             $51,600
CASS LAKE-BENA SCHOOLS..............................            $129,000            $212,000             $83,000
CEDAR MOUNTAIN......................................             $46,800             $76,900             $30,100
CENTENNIAL..........................................            $725,900          $1,193,100            $467,200
CHASKA..............................................            $935,100          $1,537,100            $601,900
CHATFIELD...........................................             $89,400            $147,000             $57,600
CHISAGO LAKES.......................................            $352,800            $579,900            $227,100
CHISHOLM............................................             $99,900            $164,200             $64,300
CHOKIO-ALBERTA......................................             $27,500             $45,200             $17,700
CLEARBROOK-GONVICK..................................             $54,300             $89,300             $35,000
CLEVELAND...........................................             $45,100             $74,200             $29,000
CLIMAX..............................................             $22,100             $36,400             $14,200
CLINTON-GRACEVILLE-BEARDSLEY........................             $62,400            $102,600             $40,200
CLOQUET.............................................            $260,600            $428,400            $167,700
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS....................................            $419,900            $690,200            $270,300
COMFREY.............................................             $20,900             $34,300             $13,400
COOK COUNTY.........................................             $81,000            $133,100             $52,100
CROMWELL-WRIGHT.....................................             $34,500             $56,800             $22,200
CROOKSTON...........................................            $196,400            $322,900            $126,400
CROSBY-IRONTON......................................            $200,100            $328,800            $128,800
CYRUS...............................................             $15,000             $24,600              $9,600
DASSEL-COKATO.......................................            $240,800            $395,900            $155,000
DAWSON-BOYD.........................................             $54,200             $89,100             $34,900
DEER RIVER..........................................            $134,000            $220,300             $86,300
DELANO..............................................            $210,400            $345,900            $135,400
DETROIT LAKES.......................................            $330,200            $542,700            $212,500
DILWORTH-GLYNDON-FELTON.............................            $149,500            $245,700             $96,200
DOVER-EYOTA.........................................             $77,000            $126,600             $49,600
DULUTH..............................................          $1,563,700          $2,570,200          $1,006,500
EAGLE VALLEY........................................             $57,100             $93,900             $36,800
EAST CENTRAL........................................            $132,600            $217,900             $85,300
EAST GRAND FORKS....................................            $198,100            $325,600            $127,500
EDEN PRAIRIE........................................          $1,104,500          $1,815,400            $710,900
EDEN VALLEY-WATKINS.................................             $95,600            $157,200             $61,600
EDGERTON............................................             $44,000             $72,300             $28,300
EDINA...............................................            $703,600          $1,156,500            $452,900
ELGIN-MILLVILLE.....................................             $54,000             $88,800             $34,800
ELK RIVER...........................................          $1,073,100          $1,763,800            $690,700
ELLSWORTH...........................................             $21,900             $36,000             $14,100
ELY.................................................             $72,800            $119,600             $46,800
ESKO................................................            $100,300            $164,800             $64,500
EVANSVILLE..........................................             $29,800             $49,100             $19,200
EVELETH-GILBERT.....................................            $150,900            $248,100             $97,100
FAIRMONT AREA SCHOOLS...............................            $255,800            $420,500            $164,700
FARIBAULT...........................................            $555,900            $913,700            $357,800
FARMINGTON..........................................            $519,200            $853,400            $334,200
FERGUS FALLS........................................            $356,500            $586,000            $229,500
FERTILE-BELTRAMI....................................             $57,200             $93,900             $36,800
FILLMORE CENTRAL....................................            $113,100            $186,000             $72,800
FISHER..............................................             $22,600             $37,100             $14,500
FLOODWOOD...........................................             $34,700             $57,100             $22,300
FOLEY...............................................            $199,100            $327,300            $128,200
FOREST LAKE.........................................            $853,600          $1,403,100            $549,400
FOSSTON.............................................             $72,900            $119,800             $46,900
FRANCONIA...........................................              $3,800              $6,300              $2,500
FRAZEE..............................................            $133,300            $219,100             $85,800
FRIDLEY.............................................            $296,500            $487,400            $190,800
FULDA...............................................             $56,300             $92,500             $36,200
G.F.W...............................................            $124,000            $203,700             $79,800
GLENCOE-SILVER LAKE.................................            $225,700            $370,900            $145,300
GLENVILLE-EMMONS....................................             $49,800             $81,900             $32,100
GOODHUE.............................................             $56,700             $93,200             $36,500
GOODRIDGE...........................................             $20,200             $33,200             $13,000
GRANADA HUNTLEY-EAST CHAIN..........................             $38,700             $63,600             $24,900
GRAND MEADOW........................................             $34,200             $56,300             $22,000
GRAND RAPIDS........................................            $479,900            $788,800            $308,900
GREENBUSH-MIDDLE RIVER..............................             $49,100             $80,700             $31,600
GREENWAY............................................            $160,300            $263,500            $103,200
GRYGLA..............................................             $20,500             $33,800             $13,200
HANCOCK.............................................             $23,000             $37,700             $14,800
HASTINGS............................................            $593,300            $975,200            $381,900
HAWLEY..............................................             $83,800            $137,800             $54,000
HAYFIELD............................................            $105,300            $173,100             $67,800
HENDRICKS...........................................             $20,400             $33,600             $13,200
HENNING.............................................             $47,100             $77,400             $30,300
HERMAN-NORCROSS.....................................             $19,100             $31,300             $12,300
HERMANTOWN..........................................            $167,000            $274,500            $107,500
HERON LAKE-OKABENA..................................             $33,000             $54,300             $21,300
HIBBING.............................................            $322,600            $530,200            $207,600
HILL CITY...........................................             $39,500             $64,900             $25,400
HILLS-BEAVER CREEK..................................             $36,400             $59,800             $23,400
HINCKLEY-FINLAYSON..................................            $147,900            $243,200             $95,200
HOLDINGFORD.........................................            $111,900            $183,900             $72,000
HOPKINS.............................................            $948,200          $1,558,500            $610,300
HOUSTON.............................................             $59,600             $97,900             $38,300
HOWARD LAKE-WAVERLY-WINSTED.........................            $182,100            $299,400            $117,200
HUTCHINSON..........................................            $354,600            $582,800            $228,200
INTERNATIONAL FALLS.................................            $192,600            $316,600            $124,000
INVER GROVE.........................................            $533,000            $876,000            $343,000
ISLE................................................             $55,000             $90,400             $35,400
IVANHOE.............................................             $26,000             $42,700             $16,700
JACKSON COUNTY CENTRAL..............................            $152,900            $251,300             $98,400
JANESVILLE-WALDORF-PEMBERTON........................             $94,200            $154,900             $60,600
JORDAN..............................................            $202,600            $333,000            $130,400
KASSON-MANTORVILLE..................................            $178,800            $293,800            $115,100
KELLIHER............................................             $37,100             $60,900             $23,900
KENYON-WANAMINGO....................................            $106,200            $174,500             $68,300
KERKHOVEN-MURDOCK-SUNBURG...........................             $61,800            $101,500             $39,800
KIMBALL.............................................             $95,100            $156,300             $61,200
KINGSLAND...........................................             $97,000            $159,400             $62,400
KITTSON CENTRAL.....................................             $45,500             $74,800             $29,300
LAC QUI PARLE VALLEY................................            $129,400            $212,600             $83,300
LACRESCENT-HOKAH....................................            $162,100            $266,500            $104,400
LAKE BENTON.........................................             $24,100             $39,700             $15,500
LAKE CITY...........................................            $161,900            $266,100            $104,200
LAKE CRYSTAL-WELLCOME MEMORIAL......................            $112,900            $185,500             $72,600
LAKE OF THE WOODS...................................             $73,400            $120,600             $47,200
LAKE PARK-AUDUBON DISTRICT..........................             $82,700            $136,000             $53,300
LAKE SUPERIOR.......................................            $225,200            $370,200            $145,000
LAKEVIEW............................................             $51,500             $84,600             $33,100
LAKEVILLE...........................................          $1,006,800          $1,654,800            $648,000
LANCASTER...........................................             $21,100             $34,700             $13,600
LANESBORO...........................................             $33,000             $54,200             $21,200
LAPORTE.............................................             $36,100             $59,400             $23,300
LECENTER............................................             $74,500            $122,500             $48,000
LEROY...............................................             $42,200             $69,400             $27,200
LESTER PRAIRIE......................................             $64,000            $105,200             $41,200
LESUEUR-HENDERSON...................................            $167,000            $274,600            $107,500
LEWISTON-ALTURA.....................................             $93,200            $153,200             $60,000
LITCHFIELD..........................................            $216,300            $355,600            $139,300
LITTLE FALLS........................................            $367,300            $603,700            $236,400
LITTLEFORK-BIG FALLS................................             $34,500             $56,700             $22,200
LONG PRAIRIE-GREY EAGLE.............................            $180,600            $296,900            $116,300
LUVERNE.............................................            $135,100            $222,100             $87,000
LYLE................................................             $26,000             $42,700             $16,700
LYND................................................             $19,400             $31,900             $12,500
M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.......................................             $99,400            $163,400             $64,000
MABEL-CANTON........................................             $61,100            $100,500             $39,400
MADELIA.............................................             $71,900            $118,200             $46,300
MAHNOMEN............................................             $97,300            $159,800             $62,600
MAHTOMEDI...........................................            $338,800            $556,900            $218,100
MANKATO.............................................            $813,200          $1,336,600            $523,400
MAPLE LAKE..........................................            $108,400            $178,200             $69,800
MAPLE RIVER.........................................            $135,900            $223,300             $87,400
MARSHALL............................................            $253,900            $417,300            $163,400
MARSHALL COUNTY CENTRAL SCHOOLS.....................             $34,500             $56,700             $22,200
MARTIN COUNTY WEST..................................             $80,700            $132,600             $51,900
MCGREGOR............................................             $84,000            $138,000             $54,100
MCLEOD WEST SCHOOLS.................................             $60,200             $98,900             $38,700
MEDFORD.............................................             $57,200             $94,000             $36,800
MELROSE.............................................            $193,000            $317,200            $124,200
MENAHGA.............................................             $82,600            $135,800             $53,200
MESABI EAST.........................................            $140,600            $231,000             $90,500
MILACA..............................................            $218,600            $359,400            $140,700
MILROY..............................................             $18,100             $29,800             $11,700
MINNEAPOLIS.........................................          $7,832,500         $12,874,000          $5,041,400
MINNEOTA............................................             $56,900             $93,500             $36,600
MINNETONKA..........................................            $876,300          $1,440,400            $564,100
MINNEWASKA..........................................            $164,900            $271,100            $106,100
MONTEVIDEO..........................................            $147,900            $243,100             $95,200
MONTGOMERY-LONSDALE.................................            $150,500            $247,400             $96,900
MONTICELLO..........................................            $390,300            $641,500            $251,200
MOORHEAD............................................            $662,300          $1,088,700            $426,300
MOOSE LAKE..........................................             $72,100            $118,500             $46,400
MORA................................................            $211,300            $347,200            $136,000
MORRIS..............................................             $94,500            $155,300             $60,800
MOUNDS VIEW.........................................          $1,280,800          $2,105,100            $824,400
MOUNTAIN IRON-BUHL..................................             $91,700            $150,700             $59,000
MOUNTAIN LAKE.......................................             $81,600            $134,200             $52,500
MURRAY COUNTY CENTRAL...............................             $94,500            $155,300             $60,800
N.R.H.E.G...........................................            $105,300            $173,200             $67,800
NASHWAUK-KEEWATIN...................................             $71,200            $117,000             $45,800
NETT LAKE...........................................             $10,700             $17,600              $6,900
NEVIS...............................................             $37,600             $61,800             $24,200
NEW LONDON-SPICER...................................            $153,000            $251,500             $98,500
NEW PRAGUE AREA SCHOOLS.............................            $325,500            $535,000            $209,500
NEW ULM.............................................            $345,800            $568,400            $222,600
NEW YORK MILLS......................................             $83,300            $136,800             $53,600
NICOLLET............................................             $50,400             $82,800             $32,400
NORMAN COUNTY EAST..................................             $47,400             $77,900             $30,500
NORMAN COUNTY WEST..................................             $35,400             $58,200             $22,800
NORTH BRANCH........................................            $391,500            $643,500            $252,000
NORTH ST PAUL-MAPLEWOOD.............................          $1,410,200          $2,317,800            $907,700
NORTHFIELD..........................................            $411,900            $677,000            $265,100
NORTHLAND COMMUNITY SCHOOLS.........................             $79,500            $130,600             $51,200
NORWOOD.............................................            $171,100            $281,200            $110,100
OGILVIE.............................................             $90,300            $148,500             $58,100
OKLEE...............................................             $23,100             $37,900             $14,800
ONAMIA..............................................            $133,200            $218,900             $85,700
ORONO...............................................            $262,700            $431,800            $169,100
ORTONVILLE..........................................             $50,300             $82,700             $32,400
OSAKIS..............................................             $67,300            $110,500             $43,300
OSSEO...............................................          $2,337,800          $3,842,500          $1,504,700
OWATONNA............................................            $556,100            $914,000            $357,900
PARK RAPIDS.........................................            $214,500            $352,500            $138,000
PARKERS PRAIRIE.....................................             $60,800             $99,900             $39,100
PAYNESVILLE.........................................            $122,500            $201,300             $78,800
PELICAN RAPIDS......................................            $154,700            $254,300             $99,600
PEQUOT LAKES........................................            $130,400            $214,400             $83,900
PERHAM..............................................            $191,500            $314,700            $123,200
PIERZ...............................................            $110,200            $181,100             $70,900
PILLAGER............................................             $82,600            $135,800             $53,200
PINE CITY...........................................            $188,700            $310,200            $121,500
PINE ISLAND.........................................            $113,600            $186,700             $73,100
PINE POINT..........................................             $12,600             $20,700              $8,100
PINE RIVER-BACKUS...................................            $151,800            $249,500             $97,700
PIPESTONE AREA SCHOOLS..............................            $151,900            $249,700             $97,800
PLAINVIEW...........................................            $107,400            $176,500             $69,100
PLUMMER.............................................             $15,200             $25,000              $9,800
PRINCETON...........................................            $339,400            $557,900            $218,500
PRINSBURG...........................................             $17,000             $27,900             $10,900
PRIOR LAKE..........................................            $698,400          $1,147,900            $449,500
PROCTOR.............................................            $170,700            $280,500            $109,900
RANDOLPH............................................             $44,500             $73,100             $28,600
RED LAKE............................................            $267,600            $439,800            $172,200
RED LAKE FALLS......................................             $45,400             $74,700             $29,200
RED ROCK CENTRAL....................................             $69,800            $114,800             $45,000
RED WING............................................            $353,800            $581,600            $227,700
REDWOOD FALLS AREA SCHOOLS..........................            $156,400            $257,100            $100,700
RENVILLE COUNTY WEST................................             $93,100            $153,100             $59,900
RICHFIELD...........................................            $533,800            $877,400            $343,600
ROBBINSDALE.........................................          $1,648,600          $2,709,700          $1,061,100
ROCHESTER...........................................          $2,090,500          $3,436,100          $1,345,600
ROCKFORD............................................            $203,300            $334,100            $130,800
ROCORI..............................................            $254,300            $418,000            $163,700
ROSEAU..............................................            $141,000            $231,800             $90,800
ROSEMOUNT-APPLE VALLEY-EAGAN........................          $3,047,400          $5,008,900          $1,961,500
ROSEVILLE...........................................            $737,100          $1,211,500            $474,400
ROTHSAY.............................................             $21,700             $35,600             $14,000
ROUND LAKE..........................................             $15,000             $24,700              $9,700
ROYALTON............................................             $75,900            $124,700             $48,800
RUSH CITY...........................................            $115,000            $189,100             $74,000
RUSHFORD-PETERSON...................................             $71,700            $117,800             $46,100
RUSSELL.............................................             $18,000             $29,600             $11,600
RUTHTON.............................................             $19,600             $32,100             $12,600
SARTELL.............................................            $285,600            $469,500            $183,800
SAUK CENTRE.........................................            $141,200            $232,100             $90,900
SAUK RAPIDS.........................................            $438,300            $720,500            $282,100
SEBEKA..............................................             $60,000             $98,600             $38,600
SHAKOPEE............................................            $568,100            $933,800            $365,700
SIBLEY EAST.........................................            $154,100            $253,200             $99,200
SLEEPY EYE..........................................            $119,200            $196,000             $76,800
SOUTH KOOCHICHING...................................             $34,900             $57,300             $22,400
SOUTH ST. PAUL......................................            $387,400            $636,800            $249,400
SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY.............................          $1,724,200          $2,834,000          $1,109,800
SOUTHLAND...........................................             $77,200            $126,900             $49,700
SPRING GROVE........................................             $39,700             $65,200             $25,500
SPRING LAKE PARK....................................            $442,100            $726,600            $284,500
SPRINGFIELD.........................................             $66,500            $109,400             $42,800
ST. ANTHONY-NEW BRIGHTON............................            $127,700            $209,900             $82,200
ST. CHARLES.........................................            $125,700            $206,700             $80,900
ST. CLAIR...........................................             $50,200             $82,500             $32,300
ST. CLOUD...........................................          $1,415,200          $2,326,000            $910,900
ST. FRANCIS.........................................            $675,000          $1,109,500            $434,500
ST. JAMES...........................................            $139,000            $228,400             $89,400
ST. LOUIS COUNTY....................................            $329,200            $541,200            $211,900
ST. LOUIS PARK......................................            $530,000            $871,100            $341,100
ST. MICHAEL-ALBERTVILLE.............................            $292,000            $479,900            $187,900
ST. PAUL............................................          $6,697,800         $11,008,900          $4,311,100
ST. PETER...........................................            $201,600            $331,400            $129,800
STAPLES-MOTLEY......................................            $206,900            $340,100            $133,200
STEPHEN-ARGYLE CENTRAL SCHOOLS......................             $45,900             $75,400             $29,500
STEWARTVILLE........................................            $172,900            $284,200            $111,300
STILLWATER..........................................          $1,079,500          $1,774,300            $694,800
SWANVILLE...........................................             $42,800             $70,400             $27,600
THIEF RIVER FALLS...................................            $234,700            $385,700            $151,000
TRACY...............................................             $90,300            $148,400             $58,100
TRI-COUNTY..........................................             $41,800             $68,800             $26,900
TRITON..............................................            $153,700            $252,700             $99,000
TRUMAN..............................................             $51,700             $85,100             $33,300
TYLER...............................................             $33,100             $54,400             $21,300
ULEN-HITTERDAL......................................             $38,400             $63,100             $24,700
UNDERWOOD...........................................             $35,800             $58,800             $23,000
UNITED SOUTH CENTRAL................................            $124,900            $205,200             $80,400
UPSALA..............................................             $44,600             $73,300             $28,700
VERNDALE............................................             $34,900             $57,300             $22,400
VIRGINIA............................................            $178,100            $292,700            $114,600
WABASHA-KELLOGG.....................................             $94,700            $155,600             $60,900
WABASSO.............................................             $64,700            $106,300             $41,600
WACONIA.............................................            $282,200            $463,900            $181,700
WADENA-DEER CREEK...................................            $172,800            $284,100            $111,300
WALKER-HACKENSACK-AKELEY............................            $127,500            $209,600             $82,100
WARREN-ALVARADO-OSLO................................             $69,200            $113,700             $44,500
WARROAD.............................................            $150,000            $246,500             $96,500
WASECA..............................................            $241,100            $396,300            $155,200
WATERTOWN-MAYER.....................................            $174,600            $287,000            $112,400
WATERVILLE-ELYSIAN-MORRISTOWN.......................            $122,200            $200,800             $78,600
WAUBUN..............................................             $91,200            $149,900             $58,700
WAYZATA.............................................            $977,900          $1,607,300            $629,400
WEST CENTRAL AREA...................................             $93,100            $153,100             $60,000
WEST ST. PAUL-MENDOTA HTS.-EAGAN....................            $732,500          $1,204,000            $471,500
WESTBROOK-WALNUT GROVE SCHOOLS......................             $49,100             $80,700             $31,600
WESTONKA............................................            $288,300            $473,800            $185,500
WHEATON AREA SCHOOL.................................             $44,000             $72,200             $28,300
WHITE BEAR LAKE.....................................          $1,023,500          $1,682,300            $658,800
WILLMAR.............................................            $513,100            $843,400            $330,300
WILLOW RIVER........................................             $62,900            $103,400             $40,500
WINDOM..............................................            $111,000            $182,500             $71,500
WIN-E-MAC...........................................             $57,600             $94,700             $37,100
WINONA AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS..........................            $575,100            $945,300            $370,200
WORTHINGTON.........................................            $278,800            $458,200            $179,400
WRENSHALL...........................................             $32,300             $53,000             $20,800
YELLOW MEDICINE EAST................................            $130,500            $214,500             $84,000
ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA....................................            $133,600            $219,600             $86,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These are estimates provided for the purpose of policy discussion only and do not necessarily represent
  what LEAs will acturally receive

                                ------                                

    [Material submitted by the Education Industry Association 
follows:]

    Education Industry Association Code of Professional Conduct and 
    Business Ethics for Supplemental Educational Services Providers

                       amended november 15, 2005
    This revised code of ethics, as adopted by the EIA Board of 
Directors on November 15, 2005, shall become effective November 15, 
2005.
    SES Providers (and other education service providers) operate in an 
environment that touches communities, school officials, parents, 
students and other providers. The importance of the activities and 
complexity of the interactions make it paramount that EIA member 
organizations adhere to the highest standards of professional conduct 
and business ethics. In its role of providing critical leadership to 
the education industry, both public and private, EIA has adopted this 
voluntary code to describe key organizational behaviors and policies 
that will guide its member companies.
    High quality educational programs delivered by trained 
professionals represent the core value that is to be reflected 
throughout all of our partnerships with schools, parents and students. 
The following structure represents the collective judgment of what 
constitutes ethical behavior. EIA members are committed to using it to 
guide to decision-making and performance at all levels of their 
organizations-from the CEO to the employee in the classroom. 
Accountability for achieving desired results consistent with these 
guidelines and standards is the ultimate benchmark upon which EIA 
member service providers will be judged.
    We encourage States and Local School Districts to adopt these 
guidelines into their governance, contractual and oversight systems and 
apply all appropriate sanctions when the guidelines have been breached.
General Guidelines
    In the conduct of business and discharge of responsibilities, 
Providers commit to:
    1. Conduct business honestly, openly, fairly, and with integrity.
    2. Comply with applicable laws, statutes, regulations and 
ordinances.
    3. Avoid known conflict of interest situations.
    4. Never offer or accept illegal payments for services rendered.
    5. Apply these guidelines and standards throughout the company by 
insuring all employees understand them and act accordingly.
    6. Refrain from publicly criticizing or disparaging other 
providers.
    7. In the case of any conflict, first attempt resolution directly 
with each other. However, the parties involved may ask EIA to help 
mediate potential disputes.
    8. Comply with the confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions of 
all applicable federal, state and local laws, including those relating 
to student identity, records, reports, data, scores and other sensitive 
information.
    9. Be factual and forthright in reporting and documenting 
attendance rates, effectiveness of their programs, and in explaining 
the theoretical/empirical rationale behind major elements of its 
program, as well as the link between research and program design.
    10. Take appropriate corrective action against provider employees, 
consultants or contractors who act in a manner detrimental to the 
letter or spirit of this code.
    11. Take immediate steps to correct any actions on its part that 
willfully or inadvertently violate of the letter or spirit of this 
code.
Standards Specific to SES
    EIA Members will consistently implement the NCLB Supplemental 
Services provisions and promote full access to SES services. To that 
end,
    Providers will NOT:
    1. Compensate school district employees personally in exchange for 
access to facilities, to obtain student lists, to assist with marketing 
or student recruitment, to promote enrollment in a provider's program 
at the exclusion of other providers, to obtain other similar benefits 
for their SES program, or for any illegal purpose.
    2. Employ any district employees who currently serve the districts 
in the capacity of Principal, Assistant Principal, or school or 
district SES Coordinator.
    3. Employ any individuals, including teachers, parents or community 
leaders, who have any governing authority over a school district or 
school site.
    4. Hire school-employed personnel for any purpose other than 
instruction-related services or program coordination, as described in 
item #3 in the next section below.
    5. Make payments or in-kind contributions to schools or school 
personnel, exclusive of customary fees for facility utilization in 
exchange for access to facilities, to obtain student lists, to increase 
student enrollment, to obtain other similar benefits for their SES 
program or for any illegal purpose.
    6. Misrepresent to anyone, including parents (during student 
recruitment), the location of a provider's program, principal/district 
or state's approval of a provider, or the likelihood of becoming so 
approved.
    7. Offer a student any form of incentive for signing-up with a 
provider.
    8. Employ any District-enrolled student.
    9. Use a district enrollment form that has the selected provider's 
name pre-printed as part of the form.
    10. Encourage students/parents to switch providers once enrolled. A 
student is considered enrolled once the District has issued the formal 
student / Provider selection list.
    Providers MAY:
    1. Provide simple door prizes of a nominal value (approximately $5 
per prize) and refreshments to potential students and their families, 
while attending informational sessions
    2. Offer enrolled students performance rewards with a maximum value 
of 5% of the district's PPA that are directly linked to documented 
meaningful attendance benchmarks and/or the completion of assessment 
and program objectives.
    3. Employ school district employees (subject to items #2, #3 and #4 
in the previous section above) for instruction-related services or 
program coordination purposes as long as the person does not restrict 
the marketing or enrollment opportunities of other providers, subject 
to District policies governing conflict of interests and other 
District-imposed requirements.
    4. Include in tutor compensation, incentives for student 
achievement consistent with a company's written policy.
                                 ______
                                 

        Education Industry Association Analysis of GAO SES Study

    The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on 
Supplemental Education Services (SES) generally finds what we have 
known for some time to be true:
    1. Participation in SES is low; the GAO found that participation 
increased from 12% of eligible students receiving services in 2003-04 
to 19% in 2004-05;
    2. Overwhelmingly, most districts (90%) report very positive 
interactions with providers, and there are a great variety and supply 
of providers, except, perhaps in rural districts;
    3. Students receiving services are the most at-risk students;
    4. Many problems remain in the implementation of SES and states, 
districts, schools, providers and the federal government need to 
continue to work to solve the issues, which include communication (with 
parents, between providers and districts, etc.), contracting, hard-to-
serve districts, student enrollment/participation, and student 
attendance;
    5. Providers, districts and schools all believe that a greater role 
for schools would improve SES implementation;
    6. Evaluating the academic impact of SES remains a challenge and 
many states have not taken enough action to address the issue. That 
does not mean, however, that providers are not held accountable for 
academic performance: providers have to pass a high hurdle for state 
provider-approval status, parents are free to choose the best provider 
for their child, providers only get paid for actual services delivered, 
districts have done some evaluation (e.g., CPS), and providers must 
track and report student academic achievement;
    7. When school principals and teachers had maximum information and 
engaged providers in the planning and operation of SES programs in 
their schools, it often resulted in more effective implementation of 
SES services;
    8. Districts in which SES is required to be offered are not fully 
expending their SES set-aside (the report estimates the expenditure at 
5% (of 20%) for 2004-05).
    However, the GAO report also has some serious flaws. The report 
suffers from ``system'' bias and is misleading about: facility access; 
LEP/SPED participation; overall student participation and attendance; 
and provider communication with teachers and parents. There is a 
serious lack of connection between claims and evidence gathered 
regarding state/district desire to control provider program costs/
design; and an incomplete exploration of 20% set-aside issue and 
districts in need of improvement waivers.
    1. To increase participation, the report recommends that more 
districts in need of improvement be given waivers from the U.S. 
Department of Education (USDE) to be able to provide SES. There is no 
evidence to support whether this recommendation would be effective 
other than that was what the survey responses indicated was needed; 
while the federal waivers MAY have this effect, it is unsupported by 
the findings of the report. Before any additional pilots are granted, 
the Department should first complete its own rigorous evaluation;
    2. To increase participation, the report recommends that states be 
given clearer guidance on controlling provider costs and programs. 
Again, there is no evidence to support whether this recommendation 
would be effective other than that was what the survey responses 
indicated was needed;
    3. The report does not address its own findings that districts in 
which SES is required to be offered have spent much less than the 
statutorily required set aside of 20% and why district efforts at 
parental outreach have been ineffective;
    4. The report does not break down its statistics by the large 
districts surveyed (which have over 100,000 students eligible for SES 
(21 districts)) and smaller districts surveyed (less than 100,000 
students eligible (167 districts)). Given that the report found that 
SES recipients are concentrated in a small group of large districts, 
the data can be very misleading since the number of smaller districts 
can mask or change the survey results from the large districts;
    5. Although the GAO study makes numerous references to limited 
English proficient and special education students not being served 
adequately, the report states unequivocally: ``* * * we were unable to 
determine whether certain groups of students were underserved.'' (Page 
17, emphasis added)
    6. GAO estimated that some, most or all providers did not contact 
teachers to align curriculum in 40% of districts and did not contact 
parents in 30% of districts in 04-05. This ``finding'' is essentially 
meaningless because the conclusion is based on the aggregation of 
potential responses to the GAO question. There is no breakdown between 
providers, in which districts, and among each category. For example, 
the breakdown for contacting teachers could be: in 25% of districts, 
some providers did not contact teachers; in 10% of districts, most 
providers did not contact teachers; and in 5% of districts, no 
providers contacted teachers, which is a much different picture than 
that given by the GAO. The report also doesn't indicate which size of 
districts (the 21 large districts and all other smaller ones) and how 
many providers are in each district. For example, in small districts 
with one provider, if that provider doesn't contact teachers, then that 
yields a result of no providers contacting teachers in the district, 
which is a problem, but not of the same nature as that portrayed by the 
report. Finally, this finding is specific to providers contacting 
teachers to align curriculum; it doesn't address other forms of contact 
between providers and teachers that happen everyday on student learning 
plans, achievement and satisfaction.
    7. The report underestimates the importance of providers serving 
students in school facilities; it lumps together services provided in 
school facilities with those near school facilities--that is a major 
difference in physical location for parents and their children. 
Further, the report does not examine the question of location of SES 
and impact on student participation and attendance;
    8. The report is a qualitative analysis that relies on self-
reported surveys of only some of the major actors involved in SES: 
states and districts. Whereas 50 states (and DC and PR) and 188 
districts were given in-depth surveys, only 22 providers were 
``interviewed''. The report suffers from this imbalance as it gives too 
much weight to state and district survey findings and uncritically 
parrots the wants of the states and districts, particularly in its 
recommendations (see points 7 and 8 above). The report states: ``While 
we did not validate specific information that states and districts 
reported through our surveys, we reviewed the information to determine 
that their responses were complete and reasonable and found the 
information to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 
report.'' (Page 2) One method used to determine what was ``reasonable'' 
was to check two reports by the Center on Education Policy, which were 
also surveys of states and various districts.
Conclusion
    The report completely misses some of the biggest drivers of SES 
mis-implementation and doesn't directly address the core problems of 
participation and achievement results. All recommendations solve state/
district/school concerns, and only touch on provider concerns to the 
extent they are the same as the ``systems.' '' Specifically, the report 
does not directly address and recommend solutions to the following:
    1. Unless and until the issue of the use of the 20% set-aside for 
SES (and public school choice) is addressed, it will be impossible for 
SES to reach its potential. There is an overwhelming disincentive for 
districts to encourage SES enrollment since ``unused'' funds revert 
back to the school district that school year for other uses. Most of 
the obstacles to SES implementation and increasing SES enrollments stem 
from this single issue. There are a number of possible solutions to 
this core problem, although the surest way to avoid any perverse 
incentives or conflicts of interest would be to have a third party 
administer the 20% set-aside for the district when the district is a 
provider. Another approach is the ``lock-box'' concept that reserves 
SES/Choice funds just for that purpose at the district and state 
levels. With potentially surplus funds remaining restricted for those 
original purposes, the district would more likely ``use it vs. lose 
it''. We should also study the new approach by the state of Florida 
that sets a high standard of student enrollment or student opt-out 
before unused funds are re-allocated for non-SES purposes.
    2. More widespread facility access must become a reality, as it 
will increase enrollment, parental satisfaction, safety and even 
academic achievement. Many districts use facility access as a 
'backdoor' means to regulate SES, including using it to lower per-pupil 
costs and recapture SES dollars leaving their control. There is a 
simple way to address this issue that puts providers on the same 
footing as other groups seeking access to school facilities after the 
regular school day. Federal law should require districts to select an 
approved provider or providers using a fair, transparent and objective 
process to operate on-site in the school or schools free of charge, or 
for a reasonable fee, on the same basis and terms as are available to 
other groups that seek access to the school building. This process may 
take into account the performance of a provider.
About the Education Industry Association and its SES Coalition
    The Education Industry Association (EIA) works to expand 
educational opportunities and improve student achievement for learners 
of all ages by infusing American education with market-based drivers of 
service, innovation, and results. Founded in 1990, EIA is the leading 
professional association for private providers of education services, 
suppliers, and other private organizations in all sectors of education. 
EIA currently has more than 500 individual and corporate members. 
www.educationindustry.org
    A number of EIA members are state-approved providers of 
supplemental education services (SES) under ``No Child Left Behind,'' 
and have delivered tutoring to hundreds of thousands of economically 
and educationally disadvantaged, SES-eligible students. These EIA 
members have formed the EIA SES Coalition, which sponsors the 
``Campaign to Support Quality Tutoring for America's Students,'' 
launched in February, 2006.
    In addition to managing the Campaign and the SES Coalition, EIA 
provides the framework for entrepreneurs and corporate executives to 
work together to promote public understanding of the education industry 
and develop public-private partnerships to advance better teaching and 
learning. The association also works to advance state and federal 
education policies--such as No Child Left Behind--to the benefit of EIA 
members, children, educators and parents. EIA members include tutoring 
companies, education management organization, charter schools, 
educators, publishers, school suppliers, financial institutions, 
investors, and colleges and universities. More information on the 
Education Industry Association (EIA) may be obtained by calling Steve 
Pines, EIA executive director at 800-252-3280 or visiting 
www.educationindustry.org.
                                 ______
                                 

Education Industry Association Campaign to Support Quality Tutoring for 
                           America's Students

Parents: How to Get Free Tutoring for Your Child?
            10 Questions To Ask Your Local School District
    1. Is free tutoring being offered in my child's school?
    2. Where can I learn more about this program?
    3. Is my child eligible to receive free tutoring?
    4. How do I enroll my child in the tutoring program?
    5. How much time do I have to make up my mind?
    6. Can I ask the principal of my child's school about this program?
    7. Will I be given plenty of information about all the tutoring 
organizations I can choose from?
    8. Will I be able to ask questions of the tutoring organizations I 
am considering?
    9. Will my child be able to receive the tutoring at his or her 
school?
    10. How soon will the program begin?
                                 ______
                                 

    Education Industry Association Guidelines for Accountability in 
                    Supplemental Education Services

                        REVISED FEBRUARY 9, 2006

    Under ``No Child Left Behind,'' state education agencies (SEAs) are 
tasked with developing lists of approved providers of supplemental 
education services (SES) deemed capable of helping students most at 
need--those who are Title 1-eligible, and who attend schools that have 
failed to make adequate yearly progress for two straight years. NCLB 
stipulates that if an SES provider's program fails to demonstrate 
effectiveness for two consecutive years, an SEA may remove that 
organization from its state's approved provider list.
    Four years after NCLB was signed into law, SEAs seem to have 
fulfilled their responsibility of reviewing and approving SES 
providers; as of this writing, there are approximately 1,800 approved 
SES providers nationwide, with about 300,000 educationally and 
economically needy students currently enrolled in programs.
    SEA measurement of SES effectiveness, on the other hand, has proven 
to be much more problematic. Very few SEAs have initiated SES 
evaluation programs, and fewer still have used SES evaluation data to 
improve program content or delivery.
    The Education Industry Association (EIA), representing over 600 
education organizations that serve students, schools and the community, 
including SES providers nationwide, calls on all SEAs to take immediate 
action to develop and implement sound, equitable and effective SES 
evaluation systems. EIA believes that to do any less would be unfair to 
the students currently enrolled in SES programs nationwide, and 
detrimental to the future viability of the SES program under NCLB.
    The Association and its members stand ready to work cooperatively 
with all states and districts nationwide not only to deliver the 
highest-quality SES services, but to ensure those services are helping 
our nation's economically and educationally disadvantaged students.
General Principles of Effective SES Evaluation
    EIA's position on SES evaluation, fully outlined below, follows 
these general principles:
     Providers strongly endorse accountability. The industry 
supports valid and reliable evaluation methods that recognize effective 
programs, while sanctioning programs that fail to produce results.
     The process of accountability starts prior to service 
delivery. During the state review and approval process for providers, 
SEAs should set high benchmarks in the application including: 
demonstrated organizational capacity; a record of prior performance 
with similar programs/student populations; viable financial management 
systems; use of research-based materials/methods; and use of qualified 
staff. SEAs and providers should understand what success looks like 
before the first SES student is enrolled in a program.
     Provider performance can be maximized when providers 
follow industry standards of program quality and business ethics such 
as those endorsed by the EIA. EIA has adopted voluntary codes followed 
by our members, which have been utilized by some state departments of 
education in their provider review process, including those in CT, NY, 
OH, MD, GA, and IL.
     Evaluation designs and their implementation must be fair 
and sensitive enough to record gains of individual students, especially 
students whose achievement level is several grades behind their grade 
level. It's simply not realistic for anyone to expect that an average 
of 40 hours of tutoring can, or should, bring students up to grade-
level performance if they are one, two or three grade levels behind. 
That said, effective tutoring must be able to demonstrate that students 
are making progress toward pre-defined goals.
     Evaluation designs need to account for, and be fair to, 
providers serving larger and smaller populations of students, and using 
varying methods of instruction. Unlike the use of standardized testing 
to measure students' knowledge of state-mandated core content taught in 
the regular classroom, SES evaluation designs should be comprehensive 
enough to assess growth achieved through multiple variables including 
different tutoring pedagogies, ratios, contact hours, and student 
characteristic, etc.
     States should collect qualitative data on parental 
satisfaction in addition to student academic achievement data. From 
their perspective on access, to choices in the selection of SES 
providers, to their views on the influence and impact of tutoring 
programs on their children overall, parents' voices can and should be 
heard as part of the SES evaluation process. States should understand 
this, and use multiple measures of provider success in addition to 
student achievement data, including levels of parental satisfaction and 
attendance rates.
     States should receive support from the federal government 
to conduct proper evaluation of SES. Sound evaluation of SES cannot, 
and should not be achieved on the cheap. EIA advocates that States 
either be permitted to use a portion of Title I funding to conduct SES 
evaluation, or that the federal government provide funding for 
evaluation beyond funding for SES itself.
Specific Recommendations on SES Evaluation
    1. States should closely involve Providers and LEAs early in the 
development of evaluation policies and specific methodologies. 
Providers and districts have ``been in the trenches'' with SES programs 
for nearly four years, and should be consulted on the selection of 
assessment tools and the means for monitoring and data collection.
    2. States should ensure the overall fairness of the system 
especially when the LEA is an approved provider. There are potential 
conflicts of interest that must be openly disclosed and avoided with 
respect to SES evaluation, especially when the local school district is 
also an SES provider and conducts monitoring on behalf of the State. 
EIA urges States to consider the use of third-party outside evaluators 
to mitigate any potential conflicts.
    3. States should isolate the effects of SES from other variables 
that might affect a student's achievement. SES evaluations must be 
designed to detect and measure the specific effects of the tutoring 
intervention, apart and separate from classroom instruction or other 
extracurricular activities that might influence academic achievement. 
Statistical regression models can help project academic growth that 
tutored students may be expected to make and then compare their actual 
performance with these projections.
    4. States should consider the use of control groups for comparison 
purposes. This offers a way to demonstrate whether or not enrollment in 
SES programs enhances performance beyond attendance of regular 
classroom instruction. It will also enable administrators to determine 
whether eligible students who choose not to enroll in SES programs are 
being left behind students who do choose to enroll.
    5. States should factor in the length of time a student is in an 
SES program. If a student does not attend a provider's program for at 
least 75% to 80% of the scheduled time, his or her chronic absences 
should be taken into account at the time the provider is evaluated. 
Overall attendance patterns, however, should be one of several criteria 
that SEAs should include in the performance review of providers.
    6. States should exercise extreme care or avoid using standardized 
testing for purposes other than for which it was originally deemed 
reliable and valid. Measuring a 30-, 40- or even an 80-hour tutoring 
program with an standardized instrument designed to measure year-over-
year growth of students in classrooms full time, may not pick up 
potential change from a short-term tutoring program unless there are 
very large samples and evaluators use sophisticated statistical 
controls that can accurately isolate these effects. Another limitation 
of the use of grade-level standardized testing comes with SES students 
who are frequently achieving well-below grade level. Learning gains 
from SES may not be picked up by these tests. The federal government 
should assist States with the extraordinary costs that may be incurred 
if state-standardized assessments need to be modified for SES purposes.
    7. States should implement a standards-based testing framework that 
is aligned to their core reading and mathematics standards. They should 
then ensure that the provider's curriculum is linked to these standards 
through the upfront provider approval process.
    8. States should include in their overall evaluation of provider 
effectiveness, data from providers' pre- and post-testing of SES 
students. Since individual learning goals are set for each student, 
this approach may better measure those individualized results. This is 
the least costly approach, since the provider pays these costs.
    9. States should include in their evaluation policies the prospect 
of providers demonstrating clear effectiveness in one or more districts 
within a State, and a lack of progress in other district within that 
same State. At the same time, States should also develop an appeals 
process which would allow a provider deemed ineffective to make its 
best case not to be removed from the approved provider list.
    10. States should ensure privacy for all students and their 
families. Information on student performance in SES programs should be 
protected to the same degree that all other student information is 
protected.
    For more information on EIA, please contact Mr. Steve Pines, 
Executive Director, 800-252-3280, or [email protected].

                                 
