1. The providers who had identified themselves as willing to work in one or more of the districts at the time of this study were: A+ Educational Centers, ABC-Learn, Inc., Acadamia.NET, LLP, Baden Street Settlement, Beyond the Bell Learning Centers of LAUSD, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Brainfuse, Club Z! In-Home Tutoring Services, Dial-A-Teacher, Dream Builders, EdSolutions, Educational and Tutorial Services, Educational Enterprises, Failure Free Reading Instant Achievement Center, Fresh Start Academy, Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., Kaplan K-12 Learning Services, Kumon Math and Reading Centers, Learning for Life, Boy Scouts of America, Math*Ability, Monroe #1 BOCES, Nazareth College, Neighborhood Youth Association, New Life Learning Center, Newton Learning, Pacific Metrics Corporation, Paradigm Learning Center, Platform Learning, Princeton Review, Professional Tutors of America, Progressive Learning, Project IMPACT, PSI Affiliates, Inc., Reading Academy of Toledo Public Schools, Reading and Language Arts Centers, Inc., Reading Revolution, San Diego State University, San Diego Unified School District, Say Yes to Life, SCORE! Educational Centers, Smart Kids Tutoring and Learning Center, Inc., SMARTHINKING, Inc., Specialized Student Services, Inc., Sylvan Education Solutions, Sylvan Learning Systems, Inc., The Talking Page Literacy Organization, Tutors Of The Inland Empire, and Ventures Education Systems.

2. Another guide in this series covers creating a strong district school choice program.

3. As explained in the U.S. Department of Education’s Supplemental Educational Services Non-Regulatory Guidance (2003, August 22, p. 17), an LEA might be unable to offer choice within the district if all of its schools at the relevant grade level are in school improvement or it has only a single school at that grade level. Also, choice may be impractical if the district’s other schools are located at a large distance (e.g., 100 miles) from the school in improvement status. In such cases, LEAs must, if possible, enter into cooperative agreements with neighboring LEAs (or with charter or “virtual” schools in the state) that can accept their students as transfers. When such options are not possible or practical, LEAs are encouraged to offer SES to students attending schools in their first year of improvement.

4. This is the range from the lowest 10^th percentile to the highest 90th percentile in district per-pupil funding level in the states in which the five study districts are located. Figures are drawn from the ESEA Title I LEA Allocations, FY 2003, as posted at: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy03/index.html

5. One resource for states as they screen providers is the SEA Toolkit disseminated by the Council of Chief State School Officers. This toolkit provides approval criteria, tools, and advice for state educational agencies to use as they approve supplemental educational service providers. http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/SSPToolkit.pdf

6. One resource for districts in working with service providers is the Guide to Working with Model Providers in comprehensive school reform. This guide advises schools on the stages involved in the development of effective partnerships from the negotiation of a contract, to the end of the contract. http://www.centerforcsri.org/pubs/ModelProviders.pdf

7. U.S. Department of Education. (2003, August 22). Supplemental Educational Services Non-Regulatory Guidance, p. 13.

8. Ibid, p. 5.

9. Ibid, p. 27.