No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions May Help Improve	 
Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational	 
Services (18-APR-07, GAO-07-738T).				 
                                                                 
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires districts with	 
schools that receive Title I funds and that have not met state	 
performance goals for 3 consecutive years to offer low-income	 
students supplemental educational services (SES), such as	 
tutoring. This testimony discusses early implementation of SES,  
including how (1) SES participation changed in recent years; (2) 
providers work with districts to deliver services; (3) states	 
monitor and evaluate SES; and (4) the U.S. Department of	 
Education (Education) monitors and supports SES implementation.  
This testimony is based on an August 2006 report (GAO-06-758) and
also provides information on actions Education has taken that	 
respond to our recommendations. For the report, GAO surveyed all 
states and a nationally representative sample of districts with  
schools required to offer SES, visited four school districts, and
interviewed SES providers.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-738T					        
    ACCNO:   A68384						        
  TITLE:     No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions May Help     
Improve Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational
Services							 
     DATE:   04/18/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Academic achievement				 
	     Aid for education					 
	     Education						 
	     Education program evaluation			 
	     Elementary school students 			 
	     Elementary schools 				 
	     Evaluation methods 				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Monitoring 					 
	     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-07-738T

   

     * [1]Background
     * [2]SES Participation Has Increased as Districts Have Taken Acti
     * [3]Providers Have Taken Steps to Deliver Quality Services, but
     * [4]State and District SES Monitoring Is Increasing Though It Re
     * [5]Several Education Offices Oversee SES Implementation, but St
     * [6]Prior Recommendations
     * [7]GAO Contacts
     * [8]Related GAO Products

          * [9]Order by Mail or Phone

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT
Wednesday, April 18, 2007

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

Education Actions May Help Improve Implementation and Evaluation of
Supplemental Educational Services

Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

GAO-07-738T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

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 While our
September testimony before the full committee provided an overview of that
report, ^2 at your request, today I will expand on SES access and
delivery; state and federal oversight of SES implementation and quality;
and recent U.S. Department of Education (Education) actions to improve SES
implementation.

In school year 2006-2007, Title I of NCLBA--the most recent
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA)--provided $12.7 billion in federal funds to more than 50,000 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. Specifically, states are
responsible for reviewing provider applications to assess each provider's
record of effectiveness and program design and approving, monitoring, and
evaluating providers. 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.

^1 GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve
Local Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational
Services, [10]GAO-06-758 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2006).

^2 GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve
Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services,
GAO-06-1121T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2006).

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) the extent to which states and districts 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 local SES
implementation, while providers took steps to align their curriculum with
district instruction and communicate with teachers and parents to promote
improved student academic achievement, 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. Further, while state
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 than had done so in
2004-2005. However, monitoring continues to be a challenge, and states
also continue to struggle to develop meaningful evaluations of SES
providers. 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.

Our August report made several recommendations to Education to help states
and districts implement SES more effectively and use SES funding to
provide services to the maximum number of students and to improve federal
and state monitoring of SES. Education expressed appreciation for the
report's recommendations and has made significant progress toward
addressing some of them.

Our prior report 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. Seventy-seven percent of district SES coordinators,
including all coordinators from districts with 100,000 or more enrolled
students, and all state SES coordinators responded to the surveys. 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. We conducted the review
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

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^3 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,
districts are required to implement specific interventions in schools
receiving federal Title I funds 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 receiving Title I funds had not met
state goals set under ESEA before the enactment of NCLBA, these schools
were first required to offer SES in 2002-2003, the first year of NCLBA
implementation.

^3 In this testimony, 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.

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 SES^a         
Fourth year missed           Corrective Action^b  Also required to offer   
                                                     school choice and SES^a  
Fifth year missed            Planning for         Also required to offer   
                                Restructuring^c      school choice and SES^a  
Sixth year missed            Implementation of    Also required to offer   
                                Restructuring        school choice and SES    

Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA.

Note: N/A = not applicable.

aStudents who 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.

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.^4

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).

^4 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 to17 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 Actions to Ease Access,
but Challenges Remain

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 at
the time of our work.^5 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. 1). Further, about 20 percent of the districts
required to offer SES in 2004-2005 had no students receiving services. A
majority of these districts were rural or had a total enrollment of fewer
than 2,500 students.

^5 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
our estimates. 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: School Districts Required to Offer SES in 2004-2005

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. 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.^6 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.

^6 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 [11]GAO-06-758 for more information.

In order to increase SES participation, districts have taken multiple
actions. For example, 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 and/or phone conversations with parents,
and encouraged school staff to talk with parents about SES. See table 3
for a list of district actions taken to encourage participation.

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.

Despite these 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.^7 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 addresses with
districts. In addition, some providers we interviewed indicated that
parental notification letters are confusing and poorly written or not
accompanied by additional outreach.

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.^8 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.

Providers Have Taken Steps to Deliver Quality Services, but Local Implementation
Challenges Include Contracting and Coordination

To promote improved student academic achievement and service delivery,
providers took steps to gather information on district curriculum and
student needs. 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 these communication challenges, an estimated 90 percent
of districts indicated that their working relationships with providers
during 2004-2005 were good, very good, or excellent. In addition, many of
the providers we interviewed during our site visits also reported having
positive working relationships with district officials.

^7 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, [12]GAO-04-734 (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
30, 2004).

^8 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,
[13]GAO-04-909 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2004).

While providers have taken some 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, limited the marketing they could
do to parents and students, or restricted the use of school facilities.
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. Specifically, Chicago, Ill., district officials
expressed concern about the variation among providers in the hours of
instruction and cost of services because the district does not have
sufficient funds to serve all eligible students, and officials would like
to maximize the number of students they can serve.

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.^9 Coordination difficulties also occurred
during the enrollment process. Though districts are responsible for
arranging SES for eligible students, in two districts we visited, both the
district and providers sent enrollment forms to parents, which caused
confusion among parents as well as additional work for the district staff
processing the forms.

^9 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).

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.

State and District SES Monitoring Is Increasing Though It Remains a Challenge,
and Many States Continue to Struggle with Developing Evaluations

While 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.

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). For example, 94 percent of states
monitored or planned to monitor parent or student satisfaction with
providers, and 93 percent of districts monitored or planned to monitor
billing and payment for services and student attendance records. 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

                                                    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                                                             
the 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.

Although states are beginning to increase monitoring of SES
implementation, many 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 New Mexico and Tennessee had drafted or completed evaluation reports
assessing how all SES providers serving students in their states impacted
student academic achievement. ^10 However, because of the limitations of
these two evaluations, neither provided a conclusive assessment of SES
providers' effect on student academic achievement.

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.^11 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 Oversee 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. 2).

^10 At the time of our survey, several additional states, including
Louisiana and Pennsylvania, were in the process of drafting an SES
evaluation report that would assess the impact of SES providers serving
students in their states, but the reports were not yet available to the
public.

^11 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 2: 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 until its grant period ended in
December 2005. 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.

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 these visits,
OESE issues reports to each state outlining any instances of Title I
noncompliance, including those related to SES, and actions needed to
comply with regulations. OESE also monitors SES through its oversight of
the collection of state NCLBA data, including data on SES, in the annual
Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). 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.

Through its SES monitoring efforts, Education has found that
implementation of the SES provisions has been uneven throughout the
country. Consequently, in May 2006, the department issued a policy letter
announcing plans to take significant enforcement actions, such as
withholding federal funds, placing conditions on Title I grants, or
entering into compliance agreements with states. Related to this, an
Education official reported that the department placed conditions on
California's Title I grant because of compliance issues with SES and
school choice implementation. In addition, to gather more information that
will allow the department to take future enforcement actions, the
department revised its Title I monitoring protocols and added additional
monitoring related to SES and school choice. Beginning in the spring of
2007, the department is conducting additional Title I monitoring visits to
states and districts targeted at assessing SES and school choice
implementation efforts. Seven states were selected for the targeted
monitoring based on Education's previous monitoring findings and high
percentages of schools in need of improvement. In addition to the seven
selected states, beginning this year, all states that Education visits as
part of its regular Title I monitoring cycle will receive additional SES-
and school choice-specific monitoring. Specifically, the department plans
to visit additional districts in each state and interview SES providers to
obtain greater detail on SES and school choice implementation.

While Education's policy letter and monitoring actions reflect the
department's concern that SES implementation has been uneven throughout
the country, many states and districts reported needing clearer guidance
or additional assistance with certain SES provisions to improve
implementation. Specifically, 85 percent of states and an estimated 70
percent of districts needed additional assistance with methods for
evaluating SES, and over 60 percent of both groups 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, at the time of our report, Education had not yet
provided 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,^12 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.

^12 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 noncompliance 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. As a condition of the pilot, these districts agreed to
expand student access to SES and collect achievement data to determine SES
program effectiveness. 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 (see table 5). In line with interest in
increased flexibility with the order of these interventions, Education
announced in May 2006 that it was expanding this pilot for 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.

In written comments on the report, Education expressed appreciation for
our recommendations, and the department has since made significant
progress toward addressing some of them. Specifically, Education has taken
a variety of steps that address our recommendations focused on increased
dissemination of promising practices related to parental notification,
attracting providers for certain areas and student groups, and improved
local coordination. For example, between November 2006 and March 2007,
Education staff conducted an outreach tour focused on school choice and
SES during which they met with state and district officials, providers,
and parents in 14 large school districts around the country. Education
staff met with these groups in each district, and participants discussed
issues including parental outreach, parental notification, serving special
student populations, and local coordination. The department plans to
disseminate information collected through the outreach tour by publishing
a handbook that shares strategies on informing parents and implementing
SES and school choice. In addition, officials indicated that they plan to
convene a national meeting during the summer of 2007 to share the handbook
with state and district SES and school choice coordinators and discuss
effective implementation. In addition to the tour, Education directed the
Center on Innovation and Improvement to focus on providing assistance
related to parental outreach during school year 2006-2007. Consequently,
in the fall of 2006, the center began providing examples of related
materials, such as documents that states and districts have used to notify
parents of services, through its Web site. The center also plans to
provide assistance and guidance on parental outreach to four states that
requested assistance starting before the end of the current school year
and continuing into school year 2007-2008.

Education has also taken some actions that address our recommendations
targeted at improving state and district use of SES funding to provide
services to the maximum number of students. Specifically, the department
extended and expanded its pilot program to allow four districts in need of
improvement to serve as SES providers for the 2006-2007 school year. As we
noted in our report, allowing districts to act as providers may ease
student access to SES for rural districts that do not have providers
located nearby and allow more students to participate in SES because
district costs to provide services are sometimes lower than other
providers' costs. While we suggested in our other recommendation that
Education could clarify how states can set parameters around provider
program design and costs by providing written guidance on these issues,
according to department officials, Education has instead addressed state
questions on these issues on a case-by-case basis.

Concerning our recommendations to improve federal and state monitoring of
SES, Education officials reported that beginning with the 2006-2007 school
year all states are required to submit information to the department on
the amount of funds spent by districts to provide SES. The department has
also taken action to provide states with technical assistance and guidance
on how to evaluate the effect of SES on student academic achievement.
Specifically, Education directed the Center on Innovation and Improvement
to focus on SES evaluation assistance during school year 2006-2007. To
that end, the center issued an updated version of the guidebook on SES
evaluation in November 2006, and it plans to provide technical assistance
before the end of the current school year to sixteen states that requested
such assistance.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee 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 Bryon Gordon, Rachel Frisk, and David Perkins.

Related GAO Products

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Assistance Could Help States Better
Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency.
GAO-07-646T. Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2007.

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve
Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services.
GAO-06-1121T. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2006.

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Local
Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services.
[14]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.
[15]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. [16]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.
[17]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.
[18]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. [19]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. [20]GAO-04-909 . Washington,
D.C.: September 23, 2004.

Disadvantaged Students: Fiscal Oversight of Title I Could Be Improved.
[21]GAO-03-377 . Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2003.

Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit Though Funding Per Poor Child
Differs. [22]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:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-738T .

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
[email protected].

Highlights of [31]GAO-07-738T , a report to Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, Committee on Education and
Labor, House of Representatives

April18, 2007

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

Education Actions May Help Improve Implementation and Evaluation of
Supplemental Educational Services

SES participation increased from 12 to 19 percent between school years
2003-2004 and 2004-2005. District actions to increase participation have
included greater efforts to notify parents. However, timely and effective
notification of parents remains a challenge, as does attracting providers
to serve certain areas and students, such as rural districts and students
with disabilities.

To promote improved student academic achievement and service delivery, SES
providers took steps to align their curriculum with district instruction
and communicate with teachers and parents. However, the extent of these
efforts varied, as some providers did not have any contact with teachers
in almost 40 percent of districts or with parents in about 30 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
district and school officials reported that greater involvement of schools
can improve SES delivery.

While states' monitoring of district and provider efforts to implement SES
had been limited in past years, more states reported conducting on-site
reviews and other monitoring activities during 2005-2006. Districts also
increased their oversight role. However, many states continue to 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, such as 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. Since
GAO's report was published, Education has taken several actions to help
improve SES implementation and monitoring, such as disseminating promising
practices and guidance, and meeting with states, districts, and providers.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires districts with schools that
receive Title I funds and that have not met state performance goals for 3
consecutive years to offer low-income students supplemental educational
services (SES), such as tutoring. This testimony discusses early
implementation of SES, including how (1) SES participation changed in
recent years; (2) providers work with districts to deliver services; (3)
states monitor and evaluate SES; and (4) the U.S. Department of Education
(Education) monitors and supports SES implementation.

This testimony is based on an August 2006 report (GAO-06-758) and also
provides information on actions Education has taken that respond to our
recommendations. For the report, GAO surveyed all states and a nationally
representative sample of districts with schools required to offer SES,
visited four school districts, and interviewed SES providers.

[32]What GAO Recommends

The GAO report recommended that Education clarify guidance and provide
information on promising practices, consider expanding flexibility and
clarifying state authority, and collect information on district SES
expenditures and provide evaluation assistance. Education generally
supported GAO's recommendations.

References

Visible links
  10. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-758
  11. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-758
  12. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-734
  13. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-909
  14. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-758
  15. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-815
  16. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-661
  17. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-618
  18. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-7
  19. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-734
  20. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-909
  21. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-377
  22. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-242
  31. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-738T
*** End of document. ***