No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve
Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational
Services (21-SEP-06, GAO-06-1121T).
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires districts with
schools receiving Title I funds that have not met state
performance goals for 3 consecutive years to offer low-income
students enrolled in these schools supplemental educational
services (SES), such as tutoring. This testimony discusses early
implementation of SES, including (1) how SES participation
changed in recent years; (2) how providers work with districts to
deliver services; (3) how states monitor and evaluate SES; and
(4) how the Department of Education (Education) monitors and
supports SES implementation. This testimony is based on an August
2006 report (GAO-06-758). For this report, GAO used the best
available data on participation and obtained more recent
information on other SES implementation issues through a state
survey and a district survey, as well as visits to four school
districts and interviews with providers.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-1121T
ACCNO: A61246
TITLE: No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to
Improve Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational
Services
DATE: 09/21/2006
SUBJECT: Academic achievement
Aid for education
Education program evaluation
Elementary school students
Elementary schools
Evaluation methods
Federal/state relations
Monitoring
Parents
School districts
State-administered programs
State/local relations
Students
Teachers
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-1121T
* Background
* SES Participation Has Increased As Districts Have Taken Step
* The SES Participation Rate Increased from 12 to 19 Percent b
* Districts Used Several Methods to Notify Parents and Offered
* Notifying Parents in a Timely and Effective Manner and Attra
* Providers Have Taken Steps to Deliver Quality Services, but
* States are Increasing SES Monitoring though it Remains A Cha
* Several Education Offices Monitor and Support SES Implementa
* Prior Recommendations
* GAO Contacts
* GAO's Mission
* Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* Order by Mail or Phone
* To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* Congressional Relations
* Public Affairs
Testimony
Before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:30 a.m. EDT
Thursday, September 21, 2006
NO CHILD LEFT BEHINDACT
Education Actions Needed to Improve Implementation and Evaluation of
Supplemental Educational Services
Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues
GAO-06-1121T
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.
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).
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 I2 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 School status in the NCLBA interventions for
misses performance goals next year Title I schools
First year missed N/A None
Second year missed Needs Improvement - Required to offer school
First Year choice
Third year missed Needs Improvement - Required to offer school
Second Year choice and SESa
Fourth year missed Corrective Actionb Required to offer school
choice and SESa
Fifth year missed Planning for Required to offer school
Restructuringc choice and SESa
Sixth year missed Implementation of Required to offer school
Restructuring choice and SES
Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA.
Note: N/A = not applicable.
aStudents 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.
bCorrective 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.
cRestructuring 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.
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.
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).
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.
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
o provider fails for 2 consecutive years to increase
student proficiency relative to state academic content
and achievement standards
o 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.
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.
Figure 1: Number of Students Receiving SES Nationwide (2002-2003 to
2004-2005)
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.
Figure 2: School Districts Required to Offer SES in 2004-2005
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.
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.
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.
6We 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.
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 percentageof
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year districts
Provided written information in English to parents 99
Held individual meetings and/or phone conversations 95
with interested parents
Encouraged principals, teachers, or other school 93
staff to talk with parents
Offered supplemental services in locations that are 90
easily accessible to students after school (e.g.,
on or near the school campus)
Offered SES at a variety of times (e.g., after 79
school, weekends, summer break)
Lengthened the period of time parents have to 79
submit applications for SES
Held events where parents of eligible students can 78
learn about providers
Provided written information in language(s) other 72
than English about SES to parents
Made public announcements (e.g., television, 67
billboards, newspaper ads, school newsletters)
Worked with a local community partner to raise 39
awareness of 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Table 4: Percentage of States and Districts That Reviewed Specified
Program Elements to Monitor Providers in 2005-2006
Estimated percentage of
Percentage of states districts
Monitored Monitored
or or
Planned planned Planned planned
to to to to
Program element Monitored monitor monitor Monitored monitor monitor
Parent/student
satisfaction with
a provider 27 67 94 34 57 91
Provider
communication
with teachers and
parents 37 56 92 46 43 89
Extent to which a
provider's
program, as
enacted, reflects
its program
design, as
outlined in its
application to
your state 19 73 92 30 41 70
Evidence of
meeting academic
achievement goals
as stated on
student learning
plan 23 65 88 28 60 88
Evidence of
improved student
achievement based
on any statewide
assessment 15 71 87 26 65 91
Alignment of
provider
curriculum with
district/school
curriculum or
instruction 25 62 87 35 39 74
Student
attendance
records 27 56 83 67 25 93
Evidence of
improved student
achievement based
on provider
assessments 27 56 83 39 52 91
Protection of
student privacy 33 50 83 55 28 82
Adherence to
applicable
health, safety,
and civil rights
laws 29 48 77 48 26 74
Provider
financial
stability (e.g.,
audits, financial
statements) 31 42 73 N/A N/A N/A
Evidence of
improved student
achievement based
on grades,
promotion, and/or
graduation 12 58 69 23 57 80
Billing and
payment for
services N/A N/A N/A 72 21 93
Source: GAO.
Note: The percentage of states that did not review or plan to review these
program elements to monitor providers in 2005-2006 and the percentage of
states that did not answer these survey questions are not shown in this
table. In addition, we did not ask states if they monitored billing and
payment for services, and we did not ask districts if they monitored
provider financial stability.
While states are beginning to increase monitoring of SES implementation,
many states continue to struggle with developing evaluations to determine
whether SES providers are improving student achievement. Specifically,
over three-fourths of states reported that determining sufficient academic
progress of students, having the time and knowledge to analyze SES data,
and developing data systems to track SES information have been challenges
to evaluating SES providers. Although states are required to withdraw
approval from providers that fail to increase student academic achievement
for 2 years, at the time of our survey in early 2006, only a few states
had drafted or completed an evaluation report addressing individual SES
provider's effects on student academic achievement. Further, we found that
no state had produced a report that provided a conclusive assessment of
this effect. Likely because of states' struggle to complete SES
evaluations, states did not report that they had withdrawn approval from
providers because their programs were determined to be ineffective at
increasing student academic achievement.13 Rather, although over 40
percent of states reported that they had withdrawn approval from some
providers, they most frequently reported withdrawing provider approval
because the provider was a school or district that had entered needs
improvement status, the provider asked to be removed from the
state-approved provider list, or because of provider financial
impropriety.
Several Education Offices Monitor and Support SES Implementation, but States and
Districts Reported Needing Additional Assistance and Flexibility
Several offices within Education monitor various aspects of SES activity
across the country and provide support, but states and districts reported
needing additional assistance and flexibility with SES implementation.
Education conducts SES monitoring in part through reviews of policy issues
brought to the department's attention and structured compliance reviews of
states and districts, and provides SES support through guidance, grants,
research, and technical assistance. The Office of Innovation and
Improvement (OII) and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
(OESE) are primarily responsible for monitoring and supporting SES
implementation, while the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Policy
Program and Studies Service, and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
also contribute to these efforts (see fig. 3).
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.
Figure 3: U.S. Department of Education Offices Monitoring and Supporting
SES
Note: This figure reflects the coordination of Education's offices rather
than the statutory reporting relationships.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Many states and districts expressed interest in the flexibility offered
through two pilot programs that Education implemented during 2005-2006.
The department designed these pilots to increase the number of eligible
students receiving SES and to generate additional information about the
effect of SES on student academic achievement. For example, several state
and district SES coordinators expressed interest in Education's pilot
program that allowed two districts in needs improvement status to act as
SES providers in exchange for their expansion of student access to SES
providers and collection of achievement data to determine SES program
effectiveness. Through both our surveys and site visits, officials
suggested that allowing districts to act as providers may ease student
access to SES for rural districts that do not have providers located
nearby, allow more students to participate in SES because district costs
to provide services are sometimes lower than other providers' costs, and
enable districts to continue their existing tutoring programs that they
feel are effective and meet the same goals as SES.
The other SES pilot allowed four districts in Virginia to offer SES
instead of school choice in schools that have missed state performance
goals for 2 years and are in their first year of needs improvement. During
our site visits and through our surveys, many states and districts
expressed interest in adjusting the order of the SES and school choice
interventions. Specifically, half of states and over 60 percent of
districts suggested that SES should be made available before school choice
(see table 5). In line with interest in increased flexibility with these
interventions, in May 2006, Education announced that due to the positive
results in Virginia districts under the pilot, the department would extend
and expand this pilot in 2006-2007.
Table 5: State and District Opinion on the Ordering of School Choice and
SES
In percent
Order of school choice and SES States District
SES should precede school choice 48 62
Both school choice and SES should be offered at the same 27 15
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.
GAO Contacts
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
include Lacinda Ayers and Rachel Frisk.
Related GAO Products
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Local
Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services.
GAO-06-758 . Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States
Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency.
GAO-06-815 . Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic Growth
That Education's Initiatives May Help Address. GAO-06-661 . Washington,
D.C.: July 17, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated in
Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved. GAO-05-618
. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional Technical
Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School Choice Provision.
GAO-05-7 . Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process for
Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734 .
Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on Effective
Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909 . Washington,
D.C.: September 23, 2004.
Disadvantaged Students: Fiscal Oversight of Title I Could Be Improved.
GAO-03-377 . Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2003.
Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit Though Funding Per Poor Child
Differs. GAO-02-242 . Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2002.
(130611)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
transparent illustrator graphic
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1121T.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202) 512-7215 or
ashbyc@gao.gov.
Highlights of GAO-06-1121T, a report to Committee on Education and the
Workforce, House of Representatives
September 21, 2006
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT
Education Actions Needed to Improve Implementation and Evaluation of
Supplemental Educational Services
SES participation increased from 12 to 19 percent between school years
2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Most students receiving services were among the
lower-achieving students in school. District actions to increase
participation have included greater efforts to notify parents and offering
services on school campuses and at various times. However, timely and
effective notification of parents remains a challenge, as well as
attracting providers to serve certain areas and students, such as rural
districts or students with disabilities.
SES providers took steps to align their curriculum with district
instruction and communicate with teachers and parents, though the extent
of their efforts varied. For example, providers reported their efforts to
communicate with the teachers of participating students, but some
providers did not have any contact with teachers in about 40 percent of
districts. Both providers and district officials experienced challenges
related to contracting and coordination of service delivery. In part
because SES is often delivered in school facilities, providers and
officials in the districts and schools GAO visited reported that
involvement of school administrators and teachers can improve SES
delivery.
State monitoring of district and provider efforts to implement SES had
been limited in past years; however, more states reported conducting
on-site reviews and other monitoring activities during 2005-2006.
Districts have also increased their oversight role. While oversight has
increased, many states struggle with how to evaluate whether SES providers
are improving student achievement. While a few states have completed
evaluations, none provides a conclusive assessment of SES providers'
effect on student academic achievement.
Education conducts SES monitoring in part through policy oversight and
compliance reviews of states and districts, and provides SES support
through written guidance, grants, and technical assistance. Education
monitoring found uneven implementation and compliance with SES provisions,
and states and districts reported needing SES policy clarification and
assistance in certain areas. For example, 85 percent of states reported
needing assistance with methods for evaluating SES. Many states also
voiced interest in Education's pilot programs that increase SES
flexibility, including the recently expanded pilot allowing certain
districts identified as in need of improvement to act as providers.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires districts with schools
receiving Title I funds that have not met state performance goals for 3
consecutive years to offer low-income students enrolled in these schools
supplemental educational services (SES), such as tutoring. This testimony
discusses early implementation of SES, including (1) how SES participation
changed in recent years; (2) how providers work with districts to deliver
services; (3) how states monitor and evaluate SES; and (4) how the
Department of Education (Education) monitors and supports SES
implementation.
This testimony is based on an August 2006 report (GAO-06-758). For this
report, GAO used the best available data on participation and obtained
more recent information on other SES implementation issues through a state
survey and a district survey, as well as visits to four school districts
and interviews with providers.
What GAO Recommends
The GAO report recommended that Education clarify guidance and disseminate
information on promising practices, consider expanding flexibility and
clarifying state authority over program design, and collect information on
district SES expenditures and provide evaluation assistance. Education
generally supported GAO's recommendations and has taken action to expand
SES flexibility.
*** End of document. ***