No Child Left Behind Act
Education Actions Needed to Improve Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services Gao ID: GAO-06-1121T September 21, 2006The 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.
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.
GAO-06-1121T, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-1121T
entitled 'No Child left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve
Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services'
which was released on September 21, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
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 Behind Act:
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:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-1121T, a report to Committee on Education and the
Workforce, House of Representatives
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.
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.
[Hyperlink, http://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.
[End of Section]
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).[Footnote 1] In school year 2005-2006, Title I of NCLBA--the
most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA)--provided $12.7 billion in federal funds to nearly all
school districts and approximately half of the public schools
nationwide in order to improve the education of low-income students.
When a school receiving Title I funds does not meet state performance
goals designated under NCLBA for 2 years, the district must offer
students the choice of transferring to another school in the district
that is not in improvement status. When a school receiving Title I
funds does not meet state NCLBA performance goals for 3 or more years,
the district must offer SES to all of the low-income students enrolled
in the school. SES includes tutoring and remediation that are provided
outside of the regular school day by a state-approved provider, such as
a for-profit company or a community-based organization. Districts with
schools required to offer school choice and SES must set aside an
amount equal to 20 percent of their Title I funds to provide choice-
related transportation and SES for eligible students in these schools.
While states set NCLBA performance goals and schools are judged on the
performance of their students, responsibility for SES implementation is
primarily shared by states and school districts under the law.
Specifically, states are responsible for reviewing provider
applications to assess each provider's record of effectiveness and
program design, approving providers to serve students in their states,
and monitoring and evaluating SES providers and their services.
Districts are responsible for notifying parents of their child's
eligibility for SES and contracting with the state-approved providers
that parents select for services. At the federal level, the U.S.
Department of Education (Education) oversees SES implementation
nationwide and provides guidance and technical assistance.
Although some districts were first required to offer SES in school year
2002-2003, others did not have to offer SES until 2003-2004 or after,
and therefore, states and districts are at different stages of
implementing the SES provisions. My testimony today will focus on early
implementation of SES. Specifically, I will discuss (1) how the
proportion of eligible students receiving services has changed in
recent years, and actions that have been taken to increase
participation; (2) how providers are working with districts and schools
to provide services that increase student achievement; (3) to what
extent states are monitoring and evaluating SES; and (4) how Education
monitors state SES implementation and assists state and district
efforts.
In summary, the SES participation rate increased from 12 to 19 percent
of eligible students between school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.
While districts have provided written information notifying parents of
SES and taken other actions to encourage participation, challenges
remain, such as notifying parents in a timely and effective manner.
Regarding service delivery, providers aligned their curriculum with
district instruction primarily by hiring district teachers and
communicating with the teachers of participating students in order to
promote improved student academic achievement. However, both providers
and districts experienced contracting and coordination difficulties. In
part because SES is often delivered in school facilities, providers as
well as district and school officials reported that involvement of
school administrators and teachers can improve SES delivery and
coordination. At the state level, while monitoring of SES had been
limited--at the time of our review, more states reported taking or
planning to take steps to monitor district and provider efforts to
implement SES in school year 2005-2006. However monitoring continues to
be a challenge, and states also continue to struggle to develop
meaningful evaluations of SES providers. At the time of our review, no
state had yet to produce a report providing a conclusive assessment of
SES providers' effect on student academic achievement. Regarding
federal oversight of SES implementation, although several Education
offices monitor various aspects of SES activity across the country and
provide support, states and districts reported needing additional
assistance and flexibility with program implementation.
To help states and districts implement SES more effectively, our recent
report recommended that Education collect and disseminate information
on promising practices used by states and districts to attract more
providers for certain areas and groups and involve school officials in
SES implementation, and examples of sample parental notification
letters that meet federal requirements and are easy for parents to
understand. Further, to improve states' and districts' ability to
provide services to the maximum number of students, we recommended that
Education consider expanding its current SES pilot program allowing
selected districts in need of improvement to serve as providers and
clarify state authority to set parameters around service design and
costs. To improve federal and state monitoring of SES, we recommended
that Education require states to collect and submit information on the
amount and percent of Title I funds spent on SES by districts and
provide states with technical assistance and additional guidance on how
to evaluate the effect of SES on student academic achievement. In its
comments on the report, Education expressed appreciation for the
report's recommendations and cited actions the department had already
initiated or planned to take in addressing them.
Our review was based on a Web-based survey of SES coordinators in all
50 states, the District of Columbia (D.C.), and Puerto Rico, and a mail
survey of SES coordinators in a nationally representative sample of
districts with schools required to offer SES. Our district survey
sample included all 21 districts required to offer SES with 100,000 or
more total enrolled students. In addition, we conducted site visits to
one school district in each of four states (Woodburn, Ore; Newark, N.J;
Chicago, Ill; and Hamilton County, Tenn.) during which we interviewed
state, district, and school officials. We also conducted interviews
with 22 SES providers in our site visit districts and others. In
addition, we spoke with staff at Education involved in SES oversight
and implementation and reviewed Education's data on SES. In our surveys
and other data collection efforts, we asked questions about SES
implementation during specific school years; therefore, all years cited
refer to school years.
Background:
Enactment of NCLBA strengthened accountability by requiring states and
schools to improve the academic performance of their students so that
all students are proficient in reading and math by 2014. Under NCLBA,
each state creates its own content standards, academic achievement
tests, and proficiency levels, and establishes and implements adequate
yearly progress (AYP) goals for districts and schools. Students in
specified grades are tested annually to determine whether districts and
schools are making AYP.
Title I[Footnote 2] authorizes federal funds to help elementary and
secondary schools establish and maintain programs that will improve the
educational opportunities of economically disadvantaged children. Under
NCLBA, schools receiving federal Title I funds are required to
implement specific interventions when they do not meet state AYP goals
(see table 1). Students from low-income families who attend schools
receiving Title I funds that have missed AYP goals for 3 consecutive
years are eligible for SES. Because some schools had not met state
goals set under ESEA before the enactment of NCLBA, some schools
receiving Title I funds were first required to offer SES in 2002-2003,
the first year of NCLBA implementation.
Table 1: NCLBA Interventions for Schools Not Meeting Yearly Performance
Goals over Time:
Number of years school misses performance goals: First year missed;
School status in the next year: N/A;
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: None.
Number of years school misses performance goals: Second year missed;
School status in the next year: Needs Improvement - First Year;
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Required to offer school
choice.
Number of years school misses performance goals: Third year missed;
School status in the next year: Needs Improvement - Second Year;
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Required to offer school
choice and SES[A].
Number of years school misses performance goals: Fourth year missed;
School status in the next year: Corrective Action[B];
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Required to offer school
choice and SES[A].
Number of years school misses performance goals: Fifth year missed;
School status in the next year: Planning for Restructuring[C];
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Required to offer school
choice and SES[A].
Number of years school misses performance goals: Sixth year missed;
School status in the next year: Implementation of Restructuring;
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Required to offer school
choice and SES.
Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA.
Note: N/A = not applicable.
[A] Students that opt to transfer to another school in the district
that is not in improvement status are not eligible to receive SES, as
they are no longer in a school required to offer these services to its
students.
[B] Corrective action is a significant intervention in a school that is
designed to remedy the school's persistent inability to make adequate
progress toward all students becoming proficient in reading and
mathematics.
[C] Restructuring is a major reorganization of a school, involving
fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school's
staffing and governance. For example, some schools may be converted to
charter schools during restructuring.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 3]
Education oversees SES implementation by monitoring states and
providing technical assistance and support. NCLBA, the Title I
regulations, and SES guidance outline the roles and responsibilities
states, school districts, service providers, and parents have in
ensuring that eligible students receive additional academic assistance
through SES (see table 2).
Table 2: SES Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities:
Stakeholder: State;
Roles and responsibilities:
Set criteria and standards for approving providers;
Identify, approve, and maintain public list of providers;
Ensure that the list of approved providers includes organizations that
are able to serve students with disabilities and limited English
proficiency;
Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of provider services;
Monitor district SES implementation;
Develop and use policy criteria for withdrawing providers from state-
approved list, including if;
* provider fails for 2 consecutive years to increase student
proficiency relative to state academic content and achievement
standards;
* provider fails to adhere to applicable health, safety, and civil
rights requirements.
Stakeholder: School district;
Roles and responsibilities:
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.
Stakeholder: Providers;
Roles and responsibilities:
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.
Stakeholder: Parents;
Roles and responsibilities:
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.
[End of table]
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).[Footnote 4] This increase may be due in
part to the increase in the number of schools required to offer SES
over that time period.
Figure 1: Number of Students Receiving SES Nationwide (2002-2003 to
2004-2005):
[See PDF for image]
Source: Education's NCLBA Consolidated State Performance Reports and
GAO state survey.
[End of figure]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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,[Footnote 5]
others reported that the full set-aside amount was not sufficient to
fund SES for all eligible students whose parents requested services in
2004-2005. Similarly, according to Chicago, Ill., district officials,
the district budgeted the entire 20 percent Title I set-aside to fund
SES in 2005-2006, and because parents' demand for services
significantly exceeded the amount of funding available, the district
also allocated $5 million in local funds to provide SES.
Many students receiving SES in 2004-2005 shared certain
characteristics. For example, districts reported that most students
receiving services were among the lower achieving students in school.
Specifically, an estimated 91 percent of the districts that reviewed
the academic records of students receiving SES classified most or all
of the students receiving SES as academically low achieving.[Footnote
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 8] The number of providers delivering services in
the 21 districts with more than 100,000 total enrolled students ranged
from 4 to 45, and averaged 15 providers per district in 2004-2005.
Districts Used Several Methods to Notify Parents and Offered Services
on School Campuses and at Various Times to Increase Participation:
Districts have taken multiple actions to encourage participation, as
shown in table 3. In line with the federal statutory requirement that
districts notify parents in an understandable format of the
availability of SES, over 90 percent of districts provided written
information in English, held individual meetings with parents, and
encouraged school staff to talk with parents about SES. Some districts
collaborated with providers to notify parents. For example, during our
site visit, Illinois state officials described a provider and district
sharing administrative resources to increase participation, which
involved the provider printing promotional materials and the district
addressing and mailing the materials to parents. In addition, we
estimate that over 70 percent of districts lengthened the period of
time for parents to turn in SES applications, held informational events
for parents to learn about providers, and provided written information
to parents in languages other than English. For example, during our
site visit to Woodburn, Ore., district officials reported extending the
time parents had to sign up their children for SES and hosting an event
where providers presented their programs to parents in English and
Spanish. Further, Newark, N.J., district officials told us during our
site visit that the district provided transportation for parents to
attend informational events and worked with a local community
organization to increase awareness of SES, a method we estimate was
also used by about 40 percent of all districts. Specifically, Newark
district officials collaborated with a local organization to inform
parents and students living in public housing and homeless shelters
about SES. Also to encourage participation, an estimated 90 percent of
districts offered services at locations easily accessible to students,
such as on or near the school campus, and almost 80 percent of
districts offered services at a variety of times, such as before and
after school or on weekends.
Table 3: District Actions Taken to Encourage SES Participation (2005-
2006):
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Provided written
information in English to parents;
Estimated percentage of districts: 99.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Held individual meetings
and/or phone conversations with interested parents;
Estimated percentage of districts: 95.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Encouraged principals,
teachers, or other school staff to talk with parents;
Estimated percentage of districts: 93.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Offered supplemental
services in locations that are easily accessible to students after
school (e.g., on or near the school campus);
Estimated percentage of districts: 90.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Offered SES at a variety
of times (e.g., after school, weekends, summer break);
Estimated percentage of districts: 79.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Lengthened the period of
time parents have to submit applications for SES;
Estimated percentage of districts: 79.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Held events where
parents of eligible students can learn about providers;
Estimated percentage of districts: 78.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Provided written
information in language(s) other than English about SES to parents;
Estimated percentage of districts: 72.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Made public
announcements (e.g., television, billboards, newspaper ads, school
newsletters);
Estimated percentage of districts: 67.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Worked with a local
community partner to raise awareness of SES (e.g., Parent Information
Resource Center);
Estimated percentage of districts: 39.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Provided or arranged for
transportation of students receiving SES to off-site providers;
Estimated percentage of districts: 33.
Source: GAO analysis of district survey results.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 10]
Effectively notifying parents is also a challenge for some districts.
For example, officials in all four districts we visited reported
difficulties contacting parents to inform them about SES in part
because some families frequently move and do not always update their
mailing address with districts. In addition, some providers we
interviewed indicated that parental notification letters do not always
effectively encourage SES participation. For example, some of the
providers we interviewed said some districts use confusing and poorly
written letters to inform parents of SES or send letters to parents of
eligible children but conduct no further outreach to encourage
participation in SES.
Another challenge to increasing SES participation is attracting more
SES providers for certain areas and groups of students. Specifically,
some rural districts surveyed indicated that no students received
services last year because of a lack of providers in the area.[Footnote
11] A few rural districts further explained that it has been difficult
to attract providers to their area because there are few students to
serve or providers have trouble finding staff to serve as tutors.
Ensuring there are providers to serve students with limited English
proficiency or disabilities has also been a challenge for some
districts. We estimate that there were not enough providers to meet the
needs of students with limited English proficiency in one-third of
districts and not enough providers to meet the needs of students with
disabilities in one-quarter of districts.
Encouraging student attendance has also been a challenge, in part
because students may participate in other after-school activities, such
as sports or work. For example, about one-quarter of districts reported
that both competition from other afterschool programs and the
availability of services that are engaging to students were challenges
to implementing SES. To help address this problem, 19 of the 22
providers we interviewed used incentives to encourage student
attendance, such as school supplies and gift certificates.
Providers Have Taken Steps to Deliver Quality Services, but Contracting
and Coordination Remain Challenges to Local Implementation:
To promote improved student academic achievement, providers took steps
to gather information on district curriculum and student needs from
teachers and parents. Specifically, providers aligned their curriculum
with district instruction primarily by hiring district teachers and
communicating with the teachers of participating students. However,
when providers did not hire district teachers, the frequency of contact
between tutors and teachers varied, and we estimate that some providers
did not contact teachers in almost 40 percent of districts in 2004-
2005. Regarding communication with parents, providers reported mailing
information as well as meeting with parents over the phone and in-
person to communicate information on student needs and progress;
however, the frequency of communication with parents also varied.
Specifically, we estimate that some providers did not contact parents
in about 30 percent of districts in 2004-2005.
Despite communication challenges, most districts and providers reported
that they had positive working relationships. Specifically, an
estimated 90 percent of districts indicated that their working
relationships with providers during 2004-2005 were good, very good, or
excellent. Further, 90 percent of districts reported that none or few
of the providers they worked with used incentives prohibited by state
or district SES policy, and 89 percent of districts reported that none
or few of the providers they worked with billed the district for
services not performed. Many of the providers we interviewed during our
site visits also reported having positive working relationships with
district officials.
While providers have taken steps to deliver quality services and
establish positive relationships with districts, both providers and
districts experienced contracting and coordination difficulties.
Regarding contracting, some of the providers we interviewed said
certain districts imposed burdensome contract requirements, such as
requiring substantial documentation to be submitted with invoices,
limiting the marketing they could do to parents and students, or
restricting the use of school facilities to deliver services. Districts
also reported that contracting is a challenge. We estimate that
negotiating contracts with providers was a moderate, great, or very
great challenge in about 40 percent of districts nationwide. For
example, district officials at three of the sites we visited expressed
concern about their lack of authority to set parameters in provider
contracts around costs and program design, such as tutor-to-student
ratios and total hours of instruction. Coordination of service delivery
has also been a challenge for providers and districts, and sometimes
these coordination difficulties have resulted in service delays. For
example, services were delayed or withdrawn in certain schools in three
of the districts we visited because not enough students signed up to
meet the providers' enrollment targets and districts were not aware of
these targets.[Footnote 12]
In part because SES is often delivered in school facilities, providers
and officials in the districts and schools we visited reported that
involvement of school administrators and teachers can improve SES
delivery and coordination. Although schools do not have federally
defined responsibilities for administering SES, many officials said SES
implementation is hindered when school officials are not involved. For
example, some providers we interviewed said that a lack of involvement
of school principals can make it difficult for them to coordinate with
schools to encourage student participation. In addition, Illinois and
Oregon school principals told us they found it difficult to manage
afterschool activities because they didn't have sufficient authority to
oversee SES tutors operating in their buildings at that time. While
helping to administer the SES program adds additional administrative
burden on schools, school officials in all four of the districts we
visited said they welcomed a stronger or more clearly defined role.
States are Increasing SES Monitoring though it Remains A Challenge, and
Many Continue to Struggle with Developing Meaningful Evaluations:
While state monitoring of SES had been limited, more states reported
taking steps to monitor both district and provider efforts to implement
SES in 2005-2006. For example, more states conducted or planned to
conduct on-site reviews of districts and providers in 2005-2006 than
had done so in 2004-2005. In addition to state efforts to monitor
providers, districts have also taken a direct oversight role, and their
monitoring activities similarly increased during this time. For
example, while we estimate that less than half of districts collected
information from parents, school staff, on-site reviews, and students
to monitor providers in 2004-2005, 70 percent or more were collecting
or planning to collect information from these sources in 2005-2006. In
addition, states and districts both collected information on several
aspects of SES programs, such as elements related to service delivery
and use of funds, to monitor providers (see table 4). District
assistance with monitoring is likely welcomed by states, as over two-
thirds of states reported that on-site monitoring of providers has been
a challenge. During our site visits, officials explained that both
state and district capacity to implement SES is limited, because there
is typically one staff person at each level coordinating all aspects of
SES implementation, and sometimes that person may also oversee
implementation of additional federal education programs.
Table 4: Percentage of States and Districts That Reviewed Specified
Program Elements to Monitor Providers in 2005-2006:
Program element: Parent/student satisfaction with a provider;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 27;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 67;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 94;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 34;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 57;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 91.
Program element: Provider communication with teachers and parents;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 37;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 56;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 92;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 46;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 43;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 89.
Program element: Extent to which a provider's program, as enacted,
reflects its program design, as outlined in its application to your
state;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 19;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 73;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 92;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 30;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 41;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 70.
Program element: Evidence of meeting academic achievement goals as
stated on student learning plan;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 23;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 65;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 88;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 28;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 60;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 88.
Program element: Evidence of improved student achievement based on any
statewide assessment;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 15;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 71;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 87;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 26;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 65;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 91.
Program element: Alignment of provider curriculum with district/school
curriculum or instruction;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 25;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 62;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 87;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 35;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 39;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 74.
Program element: Student attendance records;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 27;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 56;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 83;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 67;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 25;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 93.
Program element: Evidence of improved student achievement based on
provider assessments; Percentage of states: Monitored: 27; Percentage
of states: Planned to monitor: 56; Percentage of states: Monitored or
planned to monitor: 83; [Empty]; Estimated percentage of districts:
Monitored: 39; Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor:
52; Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor:
91.
Program element: Protection of student privacy;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 33;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 50;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 83;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 55;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 28;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 82.
Program element: Adherence to applicable health, safety, and civil
rights laws;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 29;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 48;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 77;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 48;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 26;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 74.
Program element: Provider financial stability (e.g., audits, financial
statements);
Percentage of states: Monitored: 31;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 42;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 73;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: N/ A;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: N/A;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: N/
A.
Program element: Evidence of improved student achievement based on
grades, promotion, and/or graduation;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 12;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 58;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 69;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 23;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 57;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 80.
Program element: Billing and payment for services;
Percentage of states: Monitored: N/A;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: N/A;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: N/A;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 72;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 21;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 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.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 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).
Figure 3: U.S. Department of Education Offices Monitoring and
Supporting SES:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: This figure reflects the coordination of Education's offices
rather than the statutory reporting relationships.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 15] To support SES implementation, OESE funded the
Comprehensive Centers Program through grants that established technical
assistance centers across the country to help low-performing schools
and districts close achievement gaps and meet the goals of NCLBA. Of
these, the Center on Innovation and Improvement provides support to
states and districts on SES and other Education programs.
Given the technical assistance and support Education has already
provided to states and districts for implementation of SES and school
choice, and the department's view that implementation of these
provisions has been uneven throughout the country, in May 2006,
Education issued a policy letter announcing the department's plans to
take significant enforcement action. Specifically, Education plans to
use the data collected through its monitoring and evaluation efforts to
take enforcement actions such as placing conditions on state Title I
grants, withholding federal funds, or entering into compliance
agreements. In the letter, the department noted that its various
monitoring activities have identified several areas of noncompliance
with SES requirements. For example, because some states failed to
adequately monitor their districts for compliance, some districts
failed to include the required key components in parental notification
letters or budget sufficient funding for services.
While three-fourths of states reported that the most recent version of
Education's SES non-regulatory guidance has been very or extremely
useful, many states and districts reported needing clearer guidance or
additional assistance with certain SES provisions. Specifically, 85
percent of states and an estimated 70 percent of districts needed
additional assistance with methods for evaluating SES, and over 60
percent also needed assistance with developing data systems. Many
districts also needed more information on provider quality and
effectiveness. Although OESE and OIG monitoring results have also
continually indicated that states and districts struggle with SES
evaluation, Education has yet to provide comprehensive assistance in
this area, and during our site visits, officials mentioned that they
have been relying on other states, organizations, or individuals for
evaluation assistance. In addition, several states commented through
our survey that they also needed additional guidance on managing costs
and fees, implementing SES in rural areas, and handling provider
complaints. During three of our site visits, officials also expressed
some concern about the lack of clarity in the SES guidance with regard
to student eligibility requirements and how to craft a parental SES
notification letter that is both complete and easy for parents to
understand. Specifically, though Education's monitoring reports have
found many states and districts to be non-compliant with the federal
requirement that district SES parental notification letters include
several specific elements,[Footnote 16] Education's SES guidance
provides a sample that does not clearly specify all of the key elements
required by SES law and regulations. Furthermore, a few state and
district officials commented that, when followed, the SES regulations
yield a letter that is unreasonably long and complex, which may be
difficult for parents to understand.
Many states and districts expressed interest in the flexibility offered
through two pilot programs that Education implemented during 2005-2006.
The department designed these pilots to increase the number of eligible
students receiving SES and to generate additional information about the
effect of SES on student academic achievement. For example, several
state and district SES coordinators expressed interest in Education's
pilot program that allowed two districts in needs improvement status to
act as SES providers in exchange for their expansion of student access
to SES providers and collection of achievement data to determine SES
program effectiveness. Through both our surveys and site visits,
officials suggested that allowing districts to act as providers may
ease student access to SES for rural districts that do not have
providers located nearby, allow more students to participate in SES
because district costs to provide services are sometimes lower than
other providers' costs, and enable districts to continue their existing
tutoring programs that they feel are effective and meet the same goals
as SES.
The other SES pilot allowed four districts in Virginia to offer SES
instead of school choice in schools that have missed state performance
goals for 2 years and are in their first year of needs improvement.
During our site visits and through our surveys, many states and
districts expressed interest in adjusting the order of the SES and
school choice interventions. Specifically, half of states and over 60
percent of districts suggested that SES should be made available before
school choice (see table 5). In line with interest in increased
flexibility with these interventions, in May 2006, Education announced
that due to the positive results in Virginia districts under the pilot,
the department would extend and expand this pilot in 2006-2007.
Table 5: State and District Opinion on the Ordering of School Choice
and SES:
In percent: Order of school choice and SES: SES should precede school
choice;
States: 48;
District: 62.
In percent: Order of school choice and SES: Both school choice and SES
should be offered at the same time;
States: 27;
District: 15.
In percent: Order of school choice and SES: School choice should
precede SES;
States: 15;
District: 23.
Source: GAO.
Note: 10 percent of states did not respond or were not sure. In
addition, district percentages are estimates.
[End of table]
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.
[End of section]
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve
Local Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational
Services, GAO-06-758 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2006).
[2] In this report, we refer to Title I, Part A of ESEA as "Title I."
Other Parts of Title I (Parts B, C, and D) are targeted at specific
populations or purposes and are commonly referred to by their program
names, such as Even Start.
[3] A state or each of its districts calculates the Title I per pupil
allocation by dividing the district's total Title I, Part A allocation
by the number of children residing within the district aged 5-17 who
are from families below the poverty level, as determined by the most
recent Census Bureau estimates from the Department of Commerce.
[4] Certain states did not submit SES recipient information to
Education through their NCLBA Consolidated State Performance Reports
for all years. Specifically, 2002-2003 data from Kansas and North
Dakota, 2003-2004 data from Pennsylvania, and 2004-2005 data from New
Jersey are not included in figure 1. In addition, 2002-2003 data from
New York only include information from New York City. Further,
Education did not collect data on the number of students eligible for
SES in 2002-2003, and therefore, an estimate of the SES participation
rate is unavailable for that year.
[5] This district estimate has a margin of error that exceeds plus or
minus 8 percentage points. See table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 for
more information.
[6] We did not review the academic achievement records of students
receiving SES or independently verify this information obtained through
the district survey.
[7] Many of the district estimates included in this paragraph have a
margin of error that exceeds plus or minus 8 percentage points. See
table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 for more information.
[8] In addition to our analysis, the Center on Education Policy
reported that that as of August 2005, more than half of approved SES
providers were private, for-profit entities. See the Center on
Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom, Year 4 of the No
Child Left Behind Act (Washington, D.C.: March 2006), for more
information.
[9] GAO previously reported that some states have difficulty notifying
schools of their status in meeting proficiency goals in a timely
fashion in part because of the time involved in identifying and
correcting errors in student assessment data. See GAO, No Child Left
Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process for Tracking
States' Implementation of Key Provisions, GAO-04-734 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 30, 2004), for more information.
[10] This district estimate has a margin of error that exceeds plus or
minus 8 percentage points. See table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 for
more information.
[11] GAO previously reported that geographic isolation created
difficulties for rural districts in implementing SES. Specifically,
rural district officials stated that traveling long distances to meet
providers was not a viable option and use of online providers was
challenging in some small rural districts where it was difficult to
establish and maintain Internet service. See GAO, No Child Left Behind
Act: Additional Assistance and Research on Effective Strategies Would
Help Small Rural Districts, GAO-04-909 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23,
2004), for more details.
[12] In addition to our analysis, the Center on Education Policy case
studies also found that in some cases, approved providers that
initially expressed interest in serving a certain district later
decided not to provide services because too few students enrolled. See
the Center on Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom, Year
4 of the No Child Left Behind Act (Washington, D.C.: March 2006), for
more information.
[13] Only one state reported withdrawing approval from one of its
providers because that provider's program was generally ineffective.
However, this provider's program was found to be ineffective because
the provider did not deliver services to all of the students it
enrolled. This state also indicated that it had not yet completed an
evaluation of SES's effect on student academic achievement.
[14] The federal government has direct responsibility for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) school system, and BIA schools depend almost
entirely on federal funds. Similar to public schools, BIA schools are
eligible to receive Title I funds.
[15] States have only reported the number of students eligible for SES
since the 2003-2004 CSPR. Also, starting with the 2003-2004 CSPR,
Education gave states the option to report the number of students who
applied for SES.
[16] OIG found all six of the states it visited during its audits of
state SES implementation to be deficient with respect to parent
notifications. In addition, in our analysis of the 40 OESE Title I
state monitoring reports publicly issued as of June 2006, we found that
OESE cited 9 of the states it had visited for SES non-compliance with
respect to district parent notifications.
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:
