Students are eligible for SES if they attend Title I schools that have missed  AYP for 3 consecutive years and are from low-income families. 1). Although nationally SES participation is increasing, some districts  required to offer SES have no students receiving services. 2). Districts Used Several Methods to Contact 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. Providers Have Taken Steps to Deliver Quality Services, but Contracting and Coordination Remain Challenges to Working with Districts and Schools

To promote improved student academic achievement, providers aligned  their curriculum with district instruction primarily by hiring district  teachers and communicating with the teachers of participating students. Providers Worked to Align Curriculum and Communicate with Parents, though the Extent of Their Efforts Varied

In order to increase student academic achievement, providers took steps  to align their curriculum with school instruction by hiring and  communicating with teachers, though the extent of their efforts varied. A  majority of the 22 providers we interviewed hired certified teachers in the  district as tutors. Providers, District and School Officials Reported That a Greater Role for Schools Would Improve Local SES Implementation

In part because SES can be delivered in school facilities, providers and  officials in the districts and schools we visited reported that involvement  of school administrators and other staff improves SES implementation. In addition, districts have taken a direct role in  monitoring providers, and their monitoring activities similarly increased  during this time. Though States and Districts Are Challenged to Monitor Providers, They Are Moving from Limited Monitoring of Providers to a More Active Approach

Although states and districts reported increasing their efforts to monitor  SES providers between 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, over two-thirds of states  reported that on-site monitoring of providers has been a challenge. Many States Struggle to Develop Meaningful Evaluations, and the Few State Evaluations Completed to Date Were Inconclusive

Many states struggle to develop evaluations to determine whether SES  providers are improving student achievement, though states are required  to evaluate and withdraw approval from providers that fail to do so after   2 years. Due to  their limitations, neither evaluation provided a conclusive assessment of  SES providers’ effect on student academic achievement. Several Education Offices Monitor and Support SES Implementation, but States and Districts Cite the Need for 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 program implementation. Other Education offices also provide SES support through various means. 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. 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. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To obtain nationally representative information on supplemental  educational services (SES) participation, state and local implementation,  and federal oversight, we conducted a Web-based survey of state SES  coordinators and a mail survey of district SES coordinators from a  nationally representative sample of districts with schools required to offer  SES. State reports from all 3 years included the  number of students receiving SES and the number of schools those  students attended, and state reports from 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 also  included the number of students eligible for SES. No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on  Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts.
Why GAO Did This Study

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) requires districts with schools that have not met state performance goals for 3 consecutive years to offer their low-income students supplemental educational services (SES), such as tutoring, if these schools receive Title I funds. SES are provided outside of the regular school day by a state-approved provider, with responsibility for implementation shared by states and districts. GAO examined (1) how SES participation changed between school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005; (2) how SES providers are working with districts to deliver SES; (3) how states are monitoring and evaluating SES; and (4) how the Department of Education (Education) monitors and supports state implementation of SES. To collect data on SES, GAO surveyed all states and a nationally representative sample of districts with schools required to offer SES. We also visited 4 school districts, interviewed 22 SES providers, reviewed SES-related research, and interviewed Education staff.

What GAO Found

SES participation among eligible students increased from 12 to 19 percent between school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, and the number of recipients also increased, due in part to a rise in the number of schools required to offer services. Districts have used some promising practices to inform parents and encourage participation, such as offering services on school campuses and at various times. However, challenges remain, including timely and effective notification of parents and attracting providers to serve certain areas and students, such as rural districts or students with disabilities. To promote improved student academic achievement, SES providers took steps to align their curriculum with district instruction and communicate with teachers and parents, though the extent of their efforts varied. A majority of the 22 providers we interviewed worked to align SES and district curriculum by hiring teachers familiar with the district curriculum as tutors. However, at least 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. Providers, districts, and schools reported that greater involvement of schools would improve SES delivery and coordination, as it has in some places where this is occurring. While state monitoring of district and provider efforts to implement SES has been limited in past years, more states reported conducting on-site reviews and other monitoring activities during 2005-2006. In addition, districts have taken a direct role in monitoring providers, and their monitoring efforts have similarly increased. Although states are required to withdraw approval from providers that fail to increase student academic achievement for 2 years, many states struggle to develop meaningful SES evaluations. While a few states have completed evaluations, none provides a conclusive assessment of SES providers' effect on student academic achievement. Several Education offices monitor SES activity across the country and provide SES support to states and districts through written guidance, grants, and technical assistance. However, states and districts reported needing additional SES evaluation support and technical assistance. For example, 85 percent of states reported needing assistance with methods for evaluating SES. Many also voiced interest in Education's pilot programs that increase SES flexibility, including the one that allowed certain districts identified as in need of improvement to act as providers.