Supplemental Education Services

A provision in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) authorizes funds to provide extra academic assistance to eligible children in schools that receive Title I federal funding. Teaching services, such as tutoring and homework assistance, are offered beyond the regular school day, usually in after-school, weekend or summer programs. Providers of Supplemental Education Services (SES) may be public or private (non-profit or for-profit) entities that meet each State's standards for authorization. To be approved, SES providers are to deliver services that are high in quality, based on research and created to increase student educational success. Families of eligible students are invited, but not required, to select SES for their children. Since NCLB was signed into law, hundreds of millions of dollars have been allocated to SES. States are responsible for overseeing the use of federal funds for SES; however, many feel that additional funds are needed to more closely monitor SES providers and to evaluate whether the programs are effective in increasing student achievement.

Keywords Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); Local Educational Agency (LEA); No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); School Improvement; SES Provider; State Educational Agency (SEA); Supplemental Educational Services (SES); Title I

Overview

Supplemental educational services (SES) are a portion of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) that allow for additional academic assistance for young students who are eligible for such help. NCLB, signed into law by President Bush in January of 2002, covers Title I, the federal government support program for disadvantaged students. At the core of NCLB are a number of measures intended to improve student achievement and to hold states and schools more accountable in using federal funds to accomplish student progress.

Under the NCLB laws, states are required to submit annual "report cards" showing a range of information related to the performance of school districts in promoting student achievement. Based on a formula spelled out in the law, individual schools must meet state-mandated Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) levels. Schools that stop meeting AYP three consecutive years are assigned to the school improvement category and are mandated to use a part of their Title I funds to offer more options for educational services to students who qualify.

Supplemental educational services include tutoring, remediation, and other educational interventions that are related to the state's academic content standards and are given beyond the normal school day through after-school, weekend or summer programs. The law requires that services be very good quality, based on research, and created to improve student educational success.

It is worth noting that a study of Baltimore public schools found that “students who attended schools that showed AYP, particularly elementary schools, had significantly more total hours of participation in SES than their counterparts who attended schools that did not make AYP” (Harding, Harrison-Jones, & Rebach, 2012, p. 63). Their study also found that “students' level of participation in SES programs seems to be better in schools that attained AYP. In fact, higher levels of participation may be associated with higher scores on the [Maryland Schools Assessment], which then allows schools to make AYP. Schools that did not make AYP had lower participation rates in SES programs” (Harding et al., 2012, p. 63).

The state educational agency (SEA) is required to identify organizations that are public and private and that meet the standards as providers of SES. Parents of students who qualify are advised by the local educational agency (LEA) that supplemental educational services are available for their child. Parents, having ultimate decision-making responsibility for their children, are invited (not required), to select from the list of SES providers that have been approved by the state and that are available at their child's LEA or within a reasonable geographic distance. The LEA signs a service agreement with the SES provider that the parent chooses, services are provided, and a account of the student's performance is given to parents and the LEA (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).

Using Title I Funds

Ascher (2006) explains that although low-performing Title I schools lose command of where their Title I dollars are being spent for SES, they are still obligated to reach AYP levels. She suggests that, “despite four years of supplemental services and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on out-of-school tutoring, little is known about the effects of tutoring on student achievement which is the single goal of the federal SES program.” Ascher contends that “the nation's most fragile children deserve a better education than is generally available to them, it is hard to fathom that another few hours of disconnected English or math will meet that need” (Ascher, 2006, p. 140).

Ascher also points out that many “after-school programs had already begun to expand before NCLB as a result of the Clinton Administration's 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative. With about $2.6 billion of the $13 billion in Title I funds potentially usable for supplemental services, the NCLB requirement for SES has been a boon to the private tutoring industry” (2006, p. 137). Private companies, such as Sylvan, Kaplan, Educate, and Princeton Review, have had a history of providing educational services to families who could afford their programs. These and other companies have been quick to seek significant additional revenue opportunities by becoming state-approved to deliver federally funded SES.

In a 2006 report, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) found that “12 percent of all Title I districts--including more than 50,000 schools enrolling 12.5 million students--were required to offer supplemental services in 2005- 06, and 15 percent of students (,,000 students) in those districts were eligible to receive the extra support” (Ascher, 2006, p. 137). CEP also reported “that the average number of SES providers in districts had grown from an average of four providers in 2002-03 to twenty in 2004-05. States reported that as of August 2005, more than half of providers (54%) were for-profit entities, while 21% were nonprofit entities, and 9% were school districts” (Center on Education Policy, 2006, xii).

Criteria for Provider Approval

In a survey conducted in 2006, CEP found that the majority of states used five criteria developed by the Department of Education to review SES providers. The criteria include:

• A demonstrated record of effectiveness in increasing student achievement;

• Use of research-based strategies;

• Consistency with in-school instructional programs;

• Being financially stable; and

• Being compliant with federal, state and local health, safety and civil rights laws.

Although most states had used criteria mandated by NCLB to research and approve applications from eligible SES providers, there was great variation in policies. Providers in some states, for example, were required to reapply every year, while providers in other areas were never required to officially apply a second time ("States lack funds and staff," 2007).

Jack Jennings, CEP director, pointed out that forty-one states and about half (51%) of school districts reported that the greatest challenge to implementing SES was related to supervising the value and efficiency of SES providers. He concluded from the CEP studies that “states need more federal support to effectively carry out their duties in overseeing supplemental education service providers” ("Supplemental education services shortchanged," 2007).

Applications

The Supplemental Educational Services Quality Center (SESQ Center) was established with a grant from the U.S. Department of Education in 2003 to help families understand how to get extra-academic help for their children at no charge. “SESQ Center worked to increase the number of eligible children receiving free tutoring, to expand the number and range of high-quality tutoring services offered, and to improve district, state, and national coordination of the program” (Supplemental Educational Services Quality Center, p. 8). The SESQ website (www.tutorsforkids.org) makes available tools and resources that facilitate the selection and implementation of SES required by NCLB (Supplemental Educational Services Quality Center, n.d.).

In the "Who Does What" section of their website, SESQ Center presents a half-page chart simplifying the complexities of the law for states, SES providers, schools, and families:

States

• Identify schools that must offer SES

• Request and review provider applications

• Maintain a list of approved providers

• Monitor provider performance and report results.

SES Providers

• Apply to the state

• Connect with schools, districts, and families

• Contract with districts

• Offer clear details about their services

• Measure student progress and inform families and schools.

School Districts

• Identify eligible students

• Notify families about provider options

• Contract with and pay providers

• Work with providers, schools, and families to set goals for each student

• Provide data to the state.

Families

• Choose a provider from the state list

• Support their child's progress and attendance

• Arrange transportation, if not offered by the provider

• Receive information about the child's progress from the SES provider (SESQC, "Who Does What" n.d.).

In the "For Providers" section of their website, SESQ Center makes available "The Providers' Toolkit for Supplemental Educational Services" for download. The guide includes a summary checklist for launching and managing an SES program:

Submitting an Application

• Review the application requirements for the state(s)

• Know the application deadline

• Prepare and submit the application.

Reaching Out

• Identify the district(s) for SES services

• Contact the SES administrator in the district

• Introduce the SES program

• Ask questions about the district's instructional program

• Provide marketing materials to the district

• Learn which schools have students eligible for SES

• Contact principals, SES coordinators, and teachers at identified schools

• Discuss the integration of the SES program with the school curriculum and instruction

• Learn dates for events, such as back-to-school nights

• Provide marketing materials to the schools

• Identify and reach out to organizations doing similar or complementary work

• Talk to families and students about the program.

Contracting With Districts and Ongoing Operations

• Enter into district contracts

• Hire staff or consultants

• Meet with the district and parents to develop learning goals for students

• Provide services to students

• Monitor and report progress to parents, schools, districts, and states (SESQC, "For Providers," n.d.).

In the "Resources for Policymakers" section of their website, SESQ provides "Evaluating Supplemental Educational Service Providers: Suggested Strategies for States" for download. The document recommends that states create their own system for offering valid and proper data to assess the affect of every SES provider’s services in three key areas:

• Effectiveness-indicate that the provider did/did not increase student achievement

• Customer satisfaction-indicate whether parents and students who received SES are/are not satisfied

• Service delivery-indicate that the provider did/did not follow applicable state and district laws and contracts that were related to the delivery of SES.

The document suggests also that states keep an eye on SES providers' educational programs to decide if delivered services agree with those detailed in the provider’s applications in relation to:

• Experience and qualifications of the tutors

• Amount of tutoring time received by students

• Teaching strategies used

• Instructional grouping and student-instructor ratios

• Communication with teachers and parents (SESQC, "Resources for Policymakers," n.d.).

Viewpoints

Do Supplemental Education Services Help?

Though tutoring institutions create rosy reports, not many states and school districts are able to detect whether or not the tutoring is improving the students’ performance in school. Green (2007) discussed two school districts that studied their SES programs and found results that were less than encouraging. “A 2006 study by the Los Angeles Unified School District found that SES programs improved test scores minimally for students attending a district-provided program that no longer exists. The Chicago public schools study, conducted in August 2005, found similar results-tutored students showed reading score gains of just 1.09 points, compared with an average 1.06 points gained citywide; students' math scores grew less than a full year's expected gain, and less than the citywide average. Both of the studied programs were expensive. Chicago set aside $50 million to pay for the tutoring programs and Los Angeles set aside $56 million” (Green, 2007, ¶ 4).

According to the districts' SES coordinators, Green explains, “each SES provider used the money differently, setting the hours it would serve each student according to the fees it would charge the district. While one company might charge under $20 per student and provide 80 hours of service, another will charge nearly $80/student and provide 21 hours of service. The Chicago study found that expensive and inexpensive tutoring companies generated about the same gains”; (Green, 2007, ¶ 8).

In a study drawing on 40 months of ethnographic research and utilizing actor–network theory, Koyama discovered that “school principals often co-opt the SES provisions to do what they determine is required for their schools, even in defiance of NCLB” (Koyama, 2011, p. 20). She demonstrates how, “within an increasingly centralized governance of public schools and heightened private intervention, principals have emerged as powerful policy actors” (Koyama, 2011, p. 20).

Monitoring Program Effectiveness

While private companies claim widespread satisfaction, the law requires states--not SES providers--to monitor program effectiveness. Over two-thirds of states made clear to CEP that they have had troubles supervising SES programs and determining their value, success, and efficiency. Reasons for their inability to monitor SES programs include insufficient staff and inadequate federal funding ("States lack funds and staff," 2007).

Respondents to the CEP survey suggested several possible improvements for the delivery of supplemental educational services. Their first recommendation was to present districts identified for improvement with the chance to provide SES if they are offering quality tutor programs. For the 2005-06 school year, some schools districts were permitted to continue their own SES, “as long as they closely monitored the effectiveness of their own programs and those of outside providers. The decline in the number of districts that are approved SES providers may be depriving students of tutoring options-possibly the most cost effective option” ("States lack funds and staff," 2007, p. 7). For example, the Chicago Public School study found that costs ranged from $6/hour for the district's SES to $27/hour for SES from some of the tutoring companies.

Second, CEP respondents “recommended providing states and schools with the resources and staff to oversee supplemental educational service providers to ensure these services are of high quality and relevant to students needs. The CEP survey and case studies indicated that the majority of states and districts did not have the information they needed to determine whether individual providers were effective. Some districts even had difficulty determining whether services had been delivered as promised” ("States lack funds and staff," 2007, p. 7).

Recommendations for the Future

In a policy brief prepared for the Education Policy Research Unit, Burch (2007) identified a number of issues to be considered when NCLB is reauthorized:

• The lack of state and district capacity to implement and monitor SES effectively,

• Increased costs by SES providers despite the lack of reliable evidence of effectiveness,

• Insufficient accountability for SES providers,

• Alignment of SES services with school curriculum,

• Impact on extracurricular activities,

• Impact on other proven Title I programs, and

• Issues of access and quality for high need students (Burch, 2007, p. 19).

Since it is likely that more students will become eligible for SES each year and the program will require greater public funds, Burch (2007) concludes with these recommendations to policy makers involved in the reauthorization of NCLB:

• “Redesign the law to address the core problem of local administrators lacking fiscal resources and expertise to successfully administer SES programs.

• Commission federally-funded, comprehensive evaluations to determine to what degree SES may affect student achievement, and to what extent at-risk student populations have access to SES services.

• Investigate the feasibility and desirability of reallocating Title I funds from SES programs to existing successful state and local reform efforts.

• Examine and reconsider NCLB's apparent tension between the high-stakes accountability imposed on schools and the more limited measures for holding SES providers accountable for their contributions to student achievement” (Burch, 2007, p. 19).

In 2011, a Rand Corporation report recommended the following changes to NCLB:

• Promote more uniform academic standards to eliminate inconsistency across states.

• Promote more uniform teacher qualification requirements so that states will set high standards for teachers.

• Set more appropriate student improvement targets that incorporate growth.

• Broaden the areas of student learning that incorporate problem solving and higher level thinking and include more subject areas.

• Provide incentives for teachers to teach in low-performing schools such as higher salaries and lower class loads.

• Allow for a more flexible system of interventions that enables districts to prioritize the schools most in need and design consequences to address particular needs.

• Broaden staff development to include approaches to problem solving, the development of interventions geared to identified problems, and tools and practices for effective implementation of interventions.

• Commit more resources to developmental activities such as experimentation to find better instructional methods and programs.

• Since few parents have taken advantage of the option to move their children from a school identified for improvement, enhance school choice (Recommendations for the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, 2011. For the complete Rand report, visit http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND%5FMG977.pdf).

Terms & Concepts

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Under NCLB, this is the calculation of how much proficiency students demonstrate in their schools in regards to reading, writing, and mathematics.

Local Educational Agency (LEA): This term describes a school or district that administers public education in a geographic region of a state; the term is especially used in association with federally-funded initiatives.

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): A 2001 law that reauthorized several federal programs that were established to improve the success, performance, and quality of education of American school systems by adding to the standards of responsibility for states and districts.

School Improvement: This term describes a category for schools that have not accomplished AYP for 2 consecutive years. When a school achieves school improvement status, it must meet the demands of AYP for two years in a row before it exits.

SES Provider: This term describes a “public or private (non-profit or for-profit) entity that meets the State's criteria for approval; potential providers include public schools (including charter schools), private schools, LEAs, educational service agencies, institutions of higher education, faith- and community-based organizations, and private businesses; a public school or an LEA that is in School Improvement status may not be a provider” (Supplemental education services shortchanged by funds and staff, 2007, p. 12).

State Educational Agency (SEA): This is the department in a state that administers public education; the term is especially used in association with the state's responsibility for use of federal funds throughout public schools in the state.

Supplemental Educational Services (SES): Tutoring and other educational assistance that is provided beyond the regular school day; the federal government funds these services to improve the academic success of students who come from low-income backgrounds.

Title I: This term describes special federal funds for public schools in which over 40% of students have low-income backgrounds. Schools that are funded by Title I aid are regulated by federal government, including the No Child Left Behind Act.

Bibliography

Ascher, C., (2006). NCLB's Supplemental educational services: Is this what our students need? Phi Delta Kappan, 88 , 136-141. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22650657&site=ehost-live

Burch, P., (2007). Supplemental education services under NCLB: Emerging evidence and policy issues. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from Arizona State University Education Policy Research Unit, http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/documents/EPSL-0705-232-EPRU.pdf

http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/documents/EPSL-0705-232-EPRU.pdf

Center on Education Policy. (2006). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from Common Good website http://cgood.org/assets/attachments/CEP-NCLB-Report-4.pdf

Green, E., (2007). States lax in overseeing NCLB tutoring [Electronic version]. U.S. News & World Report, March 15, 2007. Retrieved November 28, 2007 from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070314/14nclb.htm

Harding, H. R., Harrison-Jones, L., & Rebach, H. M. (2012). A study of the effectiveness of Supplemental Educational Services for Title I students in Baltimore city public schools. Journal of Negro Education, 81, 52-66. Retrieved December 27, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=75324759&site=ehost-live

Koyama, J. (2011). Principals, power, and policy: Enacting “Supplemental Educational Services.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 42, 20-36. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2010.01108.x. Retrieved December 27, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=58467849&site=ehost-live

Recommendations for the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. (2011). Gifted Child Today, 34, 7. Retrieved December 27, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=56631543&site=ehost-live

States lack funds and staff to monitor supplemental ed services. (2007). Electronic Education Report, 14 , 6-7. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24619947&site=ehost-live

Supplemental education services shortchanged by funds and staff. (2007). American School Board Journal 194 , p 12. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24690801&site=ehost-live

Supplemental Educational Services Quality Center (n.d.). SES Resources. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from http://www.tutorsforkids.org/resources.asp

U.S. Department of Education (2005). Supplemental educational services: Non- Regulatory Guidance. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsvcsguid.doc

Suggested Reading

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2006). SEA toolkit on supplemental education services in the no child left behind act of 2001 (Draft). Retrieved November 20, 2007 from CCSSO website http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/SSPToolkit.pdf

Education Industry Association. (2005). Code of professional conduct and business ethics for supplemental educational services providers. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from EIA website http://www.educationindustry.org/EIA/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000066/Code%5fof%5fStandards%5fand%5fEthics%5ffinal%20rev%2011-10-05.pdf

Holliday, T. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of tutoring: An easier way. Learning Assistance Review (TLAR), 17, 21-32 Retrieved December 27, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=82603433&site=ehost-live

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Extra help for student success. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/parents/academic/involve/suppservices/services.pdf