You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.

www.HFRP.org

The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.

Terms of Use ▼

Program Description

Overview The U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 requires low-performing schools to offer Supplemental Educational Services (SES) to students from low-income families. These services are defined to include academic instruction (e.g., tutoring, remediation) that is provided outside of the regular school day. The program’s goal is to improve youth’s academic achievement. SES providers may include nonprofit, for-profit, and faith-based organizations, charter schools, private schools, and public and private colleges and universities. Local school districts can provide services, but only if they have not been identified as low performing.
Start Date Fall 2002
Scope national
Type after school, summer/vacation, before school, weekend
Location urban, suburban, rural
Setting public school, private school, community-based organization, religious institution, private facility, recreation center
Participants elementary through high school students
Number of Sites/Grantees 1,890 providers nationwide (spring 2004)
Number Served 430,000 youth in 2004–2005
Components All youth from low-income families (e.g., those who qualify for the free or reduced price meal [FRPM] program) who attend Title I schools that are not meeting their state’s adequate yearly progress goals are eligible to receive SES or be transferred to another school. Each state is required to develop provider selection criteria, approve or deny provider applications, and provide school districts with a list of available providers in their area. Districts must inform parents of SES availability and provide them with information to select providers for their children, collect parent applications or signatures, coordinate provider activities with schools, estimate per-pupil expenditures, contract with providers to provide SES, manage provider activity, and develop specific educational goals for each student in consultation with parents and providers. Parents may select any approved provider in the area served by the district or within a reasonable distance of the district. Providers must measure and report on youth’s progress regularly to teachers and parents. Schools are not required to play a role in SES implementation. Services are required to be consistent with state academic content standards and district instruction.
Funding Level NCLB requires districts to set aside 20% of their Title I, Part A allocation for school choice-related transportation and SES. Districts must spend at least 5% of this Title I, Part A allocation on SES unless demand is less than estimated.
Funding Sources U.S. Department of Education


Evaluation

Overview The DOE commissioned a multiyear study aimed at gaining insights from the early efforts of particular states and districts that could assist others in improving SES implementation. In addition, the Civil Rights Project conducted a study to examine the ability of districts to implement the requirement that schools offer SES to students attending poorly performing schools.
Evaluators Policy Studies Associates, Inc. and the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University (now at the University of California–Los Angeles)
Evaluations Profiled Early Implementation of Supplemental Educational Services Under the No Child Left Behind Act: Year One Report

Case Studies of Supplemental Services under the No Child Left Behind Act: Findings From 2003–04

Increasing Bureaucracy or Increasing Opportunities? School District Experience With Supplemental Educational Services
Evaluations Planned Many states have commissioned evaluations.
Report Availability U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2004). Early implementation of supplemental educational services under the No Child Left Behind Act: Year one report. Washington, DC: Author. Available at: www.policystudies.com/studies/school/nclb.html

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2005). Case studies of supplemental services under the No Child Left Behind Act: Findings from 2003–04. Washington, DC: Author. Available at: www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/supplementalyear2/index.html

Sunderman, G. L., & Kim, J. (2004). Increasing bureaucracy or increasing opportunities? School district experience with supplemental educational services. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Available at: www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/esea/increasing_bureaucracy.pdf


Contacts

Evaluation Katrina G. Laguarda
Senior Research Associate
Policy Studies Associates, Inc.
Suite 400
1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Tel: 202-939-5321
Fax: 202-939-5732
Email: laguarda@policystudies.com

Gail L. Sunderman
Senior Research Associate
The Civil Rights Project
8370 Math Sciences
Los Angeles, CA 90034
Tel: 310-267-5562
Fax: 310-206-6293
Email: glsunderman@yahoo.com
Program Jackie Jackson
Director
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
400 Maryland Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20202
Tel: 202-260-0826
Fax: 202-205-0310
Profile Updated May 31, 2007

Evaluation 1: Early Implementation of Supplemental Educational Services Under the No Child Left Behind Act: Year One Report


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To answer the following questions about SES in its 1st year: How are states and districts implementing SES? How do states select providers? How do districts reach out to and involve parents in SES? What SES are provided? What types of providers offer and provide SES? What are the implementation challenges and successes?
Evaluation Design Non-Experimental: A sample of 6 states and 9 school districts that seemed to be relatively far along in implementing SES and that varied in location, size, and student population were selected. Interviews were conducted with state administrators responsible for administering SES, district staff involved in SES planning/implementation, and up to 3 principals and SES providers in each district. In up to 3 schools in each district, teachers participated in focus groups, and parents of SES-eligible children participated in interviews or focus groups.
Data Collection Methods Interviews/Focus Groups: Interviews and focus groups asked about SES implementation.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected between January and March 2003, during the 1st school year (2002–2003) that SES were offered to students.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation SES activities tended to range from 1 to 1.5 hours twice a week for approximately one semester, most of which focused on reading instruction, using approaches ranging from detailed diagnosis and scripted lessons to homework help; some consisted mostly of academic instruction while others included various other activities. Some providers offered snacks and allowed youth to choose between reading or math activities; several offered incentives for attendance, work completion, and engagement; and others offered “creative,” enrichment, or artistic activities.

Some parents felt that the amount of time that elapsed between SES being offered and actually provided was too long; they were concerned that their child would not receive optimal benefits.
Costs/Revenues The amount of tutoring time that SES dollars bought varied within and across districts. Providers’ hourly costs ranged from $5 to $40 for 1 hour of tutoring per youth. Eight districts determined per pupil SES expenditures, which ranged from $370 to $1,136.

Several districts expressed concern about the administrative costs of SES implementation, especially the costs of mailing parent letters.

Some districts expressed frustration at having untapped SES funds tied up as a result of low SES participation. Several administrators expected decreased SES funding the next year due to increased school choice participation as more schools were identified for improvement.

Providers often had to adapt their services to district funding allocations, which usually entailed increasing the youth-to-tutor ratio and decreasing the number of sessions provided. Several providers described adjusting their program’s structure to reduce costs.
Parent/Community Involvement Providers reported making efforts to communicate with parents, sometimes hosting family nights to discuss youth’s progress. However, providers explained that parents did not usually attend these types of events and that parents’ work schedules and family responsibilities often limited communication. Providers admitted that they were usually most in touch with parents who actively sought them out and had little or no contact with those who did not.

Providers felt that language was often a barrier to communication with parents; only 3 states required providers to communicate with parents in their native language. In several districts, administrators worried that as SES expanded into schools where lesser-spoken languages were prevalent and translators were lacking, parent communication could become more problematic.
Program Context/Infrastructure Administrators and school staff in 2 districts raised safety and liability concerns in allowing outside providers to use school facilities. One principal said that she had no way to identify tutors who came into her school. In addition, before she made an issue of it, tutors would go home at the end of sessions, leaving youth unsupervised while waiting to be picked up. Two provider executives raised concerns that providers rarely took responsibility for youth and that schools did not always have staff to ensure that youth left safely and that the building was secure.

Most providers had not yet fully defined procedures to monitor and report youth progress.

The majority of each state’s providers were private for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Public schools and districts were also well represented. All 6 states had online providers, but they represented a small number of providers. Four states had faith-based providers. Many providers had worked with school-age youth, but few had served mostly low-income youth.

Online providers targeted youth who were willing to seek out facilities with Internet access, resulting in a focus on older (at least 10 years old) and highly motivated youth. Several school staff felt that online SES were inappropriate for youth most in need of help, who often lacked the discipline for such services and needed more hands-on, one-on-one help. Online providers did not necessarily result in limited district or school involvement. For example, one online provider planned to have youth work in the school’s computer lab.

Most districts believed that they had to collect data to ensure that providers honored their contracts and pledged to have an accountability system in place the next year. One district used report card grades as a temporary standard to measure provider performance. Providers disliked this provision, feeling that reports cards were subjective and did not reflect their efforts.

Provider contracts varied widely in scope and purpose. Some laid out details on issues from parent involvement to anticipated student achievement. Others were less detailed.

Only one district seemed to be aware of the need to track SES participants and was working on developing a system to do so.
Program–School Linkages Six districts enlisted schools to help implement SES, including assistance in coordinating service delivery, providing program space, notifying parents of SES, recruiting youth, and aiding parents in distinguishing between after school options. In the other 3 districts, districts did not want to burden schools with SES, though 2 of these were ultimately forced to ask schools for help.

Most school staff recognized that schools played a major role in SES implementation. Teachers in almost every district expressed interest in helping promote SES to parents—as many explained, teachers tended to be best known to parents and found it easiest to contact them— and several teachers expressed a willingness to communicate with providers about youth’s progress. School staff in several districts, however, were uncertain of their role in SES.

Many parents said that they relied on schools to help decipher provider information and that they were strongly influenced by teachers about the need for SES and in selecting providers.

Some school staff had strong reservations about SES in at least 4 districts. Some school staff felt current faculty could do the tutoring with the extra resources or that funds would be better spent on another teacher. Many teachers took a “wait and see” attitude; some expressed neutrality or even resentment, which sometimes led to hostile relationships with providers.

At least one district had a system to manage the SES available to schools and to prevent multiple providers from vying for school space. Schools were divided into geographic zones and clusters within each zone. Parents could select any provider serving a school in their cluster, but if they chose a provider at a school their child did not attend, they had to provide transportation. This system, however, had its critics; for example, one provider complained that whenever he asked a question, the district had to check with the state, which had to check with the DOE.

Only 4 states required providers to produce evidence of service alignment with state academic standards. One state required provider alignment with school curricula but not state standards.

Though providers claimed that their curricula aligned with state and district standards, they typically seemed to make only minor changes to their existing services and gave little evidence of alignment. Some providers said that their curriculum aligned with the school curriculum or that it aimed to prepare youth for state assessments, while a few mentioned referencing standards in their work. Several providers said that their SES consisted only of homework help. Several providers administered their own assessments, which they used to gauge learning needs and to place youth in learning groups or provide them with appropriate learning materials.

In several districts, school staff pointed out that youth worked from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. without much of a break in their academic schedule. Some teachers expressed concern that to plunge these youth into more academic tutoring after school could be detrimental. Provider efforts to communicate with teachers tended to be left to individual tutors’ judgment.

Most states required SES applicants to produce evidence of effectiveness in raising student achievement, although the type of required evidence varied. Some sought evidence of teacher quality. Others required school grades, independent test data, and referral letters from families.
Recruitment/Participation The proportion of eligible youth SES served in year 1 ranged from under 1% to 42% per district.

Some districts faced challenges in communicating with parents about SES. In some districts where many parent letters were returned due to incorrect addresses, letters were often sent home with youth, which risked inconsistent distribution. Other challenges included letters that were hard to understand, ineffective methods of communicating with parents, and that some parents were ill-equipped to negotiate the SES system.

The degree to which parents knew about SES and provider options largely hinged on school and district efforts to inform them. Some parents worked with schools to select providers, while others were simply given providers’ names. Some parents said they heard about providers and SES in the media; many parents chose a particular provider based on that provider’s TV ads. Further, language barriers kept some parents from fully understanding their SES options. Many English language learner (ELL) parents said that they only received a letter in English. Some parents were not literate in English or their native language; some also said that there was no one at the school with whom they could communicate.

Districts’ follow-up with parents who expressed interest in SES varied tremendously. Some relied on schools to follow up while others gave parents additional written information. Some parents were told that they would soon receive more forms to complete, but none had yet received the forms at the time of the site visit. One school had a large drop in the number of SES participants (from 50–60 to 15–20) since several weeks passed from the time parents were notified of eligibility to the time SES began.

For most parents, transportation was the deciding factor in choosing providers; they preferred programs that provided transportation or those offered at their child’s school.

Most parents chose SES rather than a school transfer. Parents were often uncomfortable or uninterested in sending their child to an unfamiliar neighborhood or school.

In 6 districts, SES was targeted based on poverty and achievement levels. Before determining if SES needed to be targeted, several districts considered the number of youth attending identified schools and the funds available. In at least 3 districts, all eligible youth regardless of achievement were allowed to participate due to low interest. Two districts only accepted low-performing youth, despite the fact that they likely had funds to serve many more eligible youth.

SES was more difficult to implement for middle school than elementary school students. At least 2 districts met resistance from middle school students who felt self-conscious about needing help and were embarrassed to admit being in a tutoring program to peers. While absenteeism was somewhat of a problem in elementary programs, it was a major issue in middle school. In addition, since middle school students have multiple teachers, tutors often had trouble identifying school staff who were best able to help address behavior and attendance problems. Competition from sports and other after school activities was also more pronounced in middle schools than in elementary schools, further reducing SES participation.

Districts often did not give providers sufficient notice of how many youth they were expected to serve, which often left providers scrambling to schedule, staff, and structure programs. In several districts, providers had more demand than they could staff. Also, providers said they needed enough participants for SES to be a viable business proposition; several did not offer SES due to low interest. Providers in several districts also had trouble getting final participant lists, which was particularly problematic for providers that did preliminary youth testing.

Three states required providers to produce evidence of capacity to serve special populations of youth (e.g., special education, ELL).

Several administrators expected greater SES participation the following year, due to increased word-of-mouth communication.
Satisfaction Most parents of SES-eligible children were pleased to have the opportunity to enroll their child. However, many parents did not see a difference between SES and other after school programs offered. In parents’ eyes, SES was another form of tutoring that schools already had available.
Staffing/Training Most providers offered group instruction with youth-to-tutor ratios ranging from 3:1 to 8:1.

States required providers to produce evidence that their staff were qualified (all 6 states) and had undergone background checks (4 states). However, providers had varied staffing practices: some hired only certified teachers, many of whom were or had been schoolteachers; others hired graduate students. Several principals raised concerns about providers hiring teachers from low-performing schools, and some also worried that teachers who taught all day then tutored after school might burn out. Some principals, though, preferred having their own teachers in the building after hours.

Most district administrators felt that the amount of staff time required to implement SES was vastly underestimated. Several districts said they were forced to provide additional staff out of their overhead budgets or to assign existing staff additional duties.
Systemic Infrastructure District administrators suggested that SES legislation and guidance caused confusion and consternation in targeting SES. For example, one district thought they could only serve youth who were both high poverty and low achieving.

Due to limited staff capacity, state efforts to encourage provider applications were meager. Five states posted applications on their website or placed newspaper ads. Only 1 state, with the most applicants, went beyond these measures to send districts letters encouraging them to apply or seek providers to apply; they also directly contacted many providers to encourage them to apply.

States received between 20 and 288 provider applications; half had fewer than 50. Of the applicants, 86% were accepted in 2 states, 65% in 2 states, 58% in 1 state, and 56% in 1 state.

All 6 states generally followed the requirements to establish provider selection criteria and some included additional criteria to address local needs and program quality. For example, 2 states required that providers give evidence of linkages between research and program design.

States varied in the extent to which they applied provider selection criteria. Some used reviewers and scoring rubrics to evaluate applicants. Others selected providers based on their subjective notion of whether they “appeared to be sound” or whether the state had worked with a provider before. Most states pledged to improve their criteria for the year 2 application process.

The range of approved providers did not adequately match local need. States learned that providers often could not serve rural areas, special education students, or ELL youth. In addition, since few states required providers to specify the number of contact hours and costs offered in applications, districts often found that services were too expensive.

District management and oversight of providers was limited in several districts, a situation some providers found frustrated their efforts to provide SES. Of districts with multiple providers, only one district’s Title I director said he was in frequent phone contact with providers. In other districts, providers said that they had little interaction with the district.

Entering into provider contracts was new territory for most districts and proved to be very time-consuming. Some districts turned to the state for sample contracts, but that did not necessarily solve their problems if contracts were confusing to district personnel or if they were for other purposes than SES. Several districts struggled to define contract terms.

Most states had begun considering how to monitor provider performance. Two states planned to have external organizations develop an instrument for this purpose, one of which planned to use the instrument to determine if providers would be invited to continue offering SES. The majority of states, however, had not yet developed criteria to remove providers, though most agreed that those who failed to show student achievement gains for 2 consecutive years would be removed.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic Although too early to report program impacts, parents in one district said that their children were reading better and/or getting better grades. In another district, several teachers commented on youth’s increased confidence.

© 2016 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by Harvard Family Research Project