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. 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. 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. 1). For example, districts reported that most students receiving services were  among the lower achieving students in school. Some districts collaborated with providers to notify  parents. Specifically, providers aligned their curriculum with  district instruction primarily by hiring district teachers and  communicating with the teachers of participating students. While providers have taken steps to deliver quality services and establish  positive relationships with districts, both providers and districts  experienced contracting and coordination difficulties. 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. 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. 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. Further, we  found that no state had produced a report that provided a conclusive  assessment of this effect. 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. 3). 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. 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. 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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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 Found

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.