ABOUT WCER NEWS Events Cover Stories Research News International Research Press WHAT'S THE RESEARCH ON...? PROJECTS All Active Projects All Completed Projects PUBLICATIONS LECTURE SERIES PEOPLE Staff Directory Project Leaders ERG - EVALUATION RESOURCES GROUP RESOURCES Conference Rooms Equipment GRANT SERVICES GRADUATE TRAINING SERVICE UNITS Director's Office Business Office Technical Services Printing & Mail EMPLOYMENT CONTACT INFO MyWCER WORKSPACE LOGIN

Supplemental Educational Services under NCLB: Emerging Evidence and Policy Issues

November 2007

Market-based reforms in education are part of a larger neo-liberal movement in economic and political discourse. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but market-based education reforms are sometimes promoted at a rate outpacing evidence of their effectiveness, according to UW-Madison education professor Patricia Burch.

The supplemental educational services (SES) provision of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act enjoys popularity, substantial support from the business community, and increased funding. In a recent study of SES programs in 30 states, Burch and colleagues asked: But how well do they work?

Supplemental educational services include additional instruction designed to increase the academic achievement of students attending schools in need of improvement. Services may include tutoring and remediation. SES must be provided outside of the regular school day, and they are to be “high quality, research-based, and specifically designed to increase student academic achievement” (Title I, Section 1116(e)(12)(C)).

Students eligible for SES are largely non-White and poor. They attend schools that serve significant numbers of English language learners (ELLs) and special education students. Although NCLB affords these students school choice privileges, Burch finds that appropriate services for these ELL and special education students are limited. These limitations exist even as available revenues for SES increase. Service providers do not seem eager to engage in special programming for high-need, high-cost students.

Thus far, few efforts have been undertaken to evaluate SES programs. Burch finds low participation rates, limited services available for ELLs and special education students, and limited state and district capacity to implement the law and monitor program quality.

Participation rates. Most estimates suggest that at most 15% of eligible students receive SES. This figure has grown slightly since 2003–2004, the first year of mandated services. Little is known about which eligible students are not participating in SES. Based on a 2005–2006 study, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 20% of districts required to offer SES had no students receiving the services.

Services and providers. Although demand is low, federal funds available for SES are increasing. The funds available for SES increased from $1.75 billion in fiscal year 2001 to approximately $2.55 billion in FY 2005. The potential for sizeable profit has contributed to increasing numbers of national service providers. Yet while the supply side of the SES market grows, research on providers’ instructional practices remains scarce. To date, virtually nothing is known about what students are being taught in SES after-school settings, beyond what SES firms report on their Web sites and in their marketing materials.

Although NCLB requires classroom teachers to be highly qualified (as the law defines the term), it sets no requirements for SES instructors. While most are certified teachers, some are high school students and college graduates without teaching experience. Under current regulations, SES providers are not required to provide services to students with disabilities or ELLs.

Local concerns. The SES program imposes many responsibilities on school districts but allocates no additional resources to fund them. For example, districts must establish and manage contracts with service providers and must give timely information to parents of eligible students. In addition, problems at the district level may in fact originate at the state level. For example, the process of notifying parents and enrolling students is delayed because states do not release test scores and school improvement data until the academic year is nearly over.

State concerns. Like districts, states have many responsibilities under SES but limited capacity to execute them. In the GAO study, 37 of 49 states reported that determining the effectiveness and quality of SES providers was a serious or moderate challenge. Nested within the new SES responsibilities for states and school districts are many activities requiring significant time and effort.

Effects on student achievement. There is little research on how SES affects student performance. The only relevant studies were conducted by two urban school districts, Minneapolis and Chicago.

Issues and implications
Strengthening SES will require addressing a complicated mix of legislative, organizational, instructional, and technical issues, Burch says. The system for holding SES providers accountable for academic outcomes is less rigorous and more ambiguous than that for imposing AYP requirements on schools. Fifteen of 30 states surveyed reported they did not use test score data to monitor the quality of SES programs; they relied instead on annual site visits.

States will be hard pressed to effectively monitor SES programs without additional funds. Districts are likely to lose funds to third-party providers, who are not held accountable for outcomes with the same rigor and consistency as districts.

Because the law provides no new funds to match new requirements, Title I funds must be used, leaving less available for other important Title I programs. Burch says that analysis of SES cost-effectiveness and fiscal stewardship must be rigorous. It must ensure that private financial interests do not supersede the interests of Title I students.

Recommendations
Some version of SES likely will be retained in the NCLB reauthorization. More students become eligible for SES with each passing year, and more public funds will be dedicated to the policy.

Burch recommends amending the law to provide local administrators more fiscal resources and expertise to administer SES programs. Federally funded, comprehensive evaluations should be commissioned to determine the ways in which SES affects student achievement and the extent to which at-risk student populations have access to SES.

And, finally, policymakers should examine the apparent tension between the high-stakes accountability NCLB imposes on schools and the more limited accountability it imposes on SES providers for their contributions to student achievement.