<DOC> [109th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:29860.wais] NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: HOW CAN WE INCREASE PARENTAL AWARENESS OF SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES? ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ September 21, 2006 __________ Serial No. 109-57 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/ house or Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 29-860 WASHINGTON : 2006 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California, Chairman Ranking Minority Member Michael N. Castle, Delaware Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Sam Johnson, Texas Major R. Owens, New York Mark E. Souder, Indiana Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Charlie Norwood, Georgia Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Robert C. Scott, Virginia Judy Biggert, Illinois Lynn C. Woolsey, California Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Carolyn McCarthy, New York Ric Keller, Florida John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Tom Osborne, Nebraska Ron Kind, Wisconsin Joe Wilson, South Carolina Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Jon C. Porter, Nevada David Wu, Oregon John Kline, Minnesota Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado Susan A. Davis, California Bob Inglis, South Carolina Betty McCollum, Minnesota Cathy McMorris, Washington Danny K. Davis, Illinois Kenny Marchant, Texas Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Tom Price, Georgia Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Tim Ryan, Ohio Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Timothy H. Bishop, New York Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana [Vacancy] Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Thelma D. Drake, Virginia John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New York [Vacancy] Vic Klatt, Staff Director Mark Zuckerman, Minority Staff Director, General Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on September 21, 2006............................... 1 Statement of Members: McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce................................ 1 Prepared statement of.................................... 3 McCollum, Hon. Betty, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota: Article from Minnesota Women's Press, ``Behind 11 Children: A Tutor's Experience With `No Child Left Behind' ''............................................. 28 Table 1: Estimated Allocations to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for FY2004 at the Full Authorized Amount Compared to Actual FY2004 Grants 70 Table 2: Estimated Allocations to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for FY2005 at the Full Authorized Amount Compared to Actual FY2005 Grants 76 Table 3: Estimated Allocations to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for FY2006 at the Full Authorized Amount Compared to Actual FY2006 at the Level Provided......................................... 82 Table 4: Estimated `New Money' for Minnesota LEAs Under IDEA Part B Grants to States........................... 88 Miller, Hon. George, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce................................ 4 Statement of Witnesses: Anderson, Dr. Barbara, Vice President of Education, Knowledge Learning Corporation-School Partnerships................... 52 Prepared statement of.................................... 54 Ashby, Cornelia M., Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office..................................................... 30 Prepared statement of.................................... 32 Barr, Dr. Stephen, Associate Superintendent, Center for School Improvement, Ohio Department of Education........... 44 Prepared statement of.................................... 46 Brown, Morgan S., Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.............. 6 Prepared statement of.................................... 8 Dollonne, Monique, Parent of a Supplemental Education Services Student........................................... 56 Prepared statement of.................................... 58 Harris, Erica L., Manager, Academic After School Programs, Office of After School and Community School Programs, Chicago Public Schools..................................... 48 Prepared statement of.................................... 50 Additional Materials Submitted: Education Industry Association: Code of Professional Conduct and Business Ethics for Supplemental Educational Services Providers............ 94 Analysis of GAO SES Study................................ 96 Campaign to Support Quality Tutoring for America's Students............................................... 98 Guidelines for Accountability in Supplemental Education Services............................................... 98 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: HOW CAN WE INCREASE PARENTAL AWARENESS OF SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES? ---------- Thursday, September 21, 2006 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce Washington, DC ---------- The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:33 a.m., in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard McKeon (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives McKeon, Castle, Biggert, Platts, Osborne, Kline, Inglis, Fortuno, Foxx, Miller, Kildee, Owens, Payne, Scott, Woolsey, McCarthy, Tierney, Kucinich, Wu, Holt, Davis of California, McCollum, and Bishop. Staff present: James Bergeron, Counselor to the Chairman; Kathryn Bruns, Legislative Assistant; Joanna Glaze, Education Policy Counsel; Jessica Gross, Press Assistant; Taylor Hansen, Legislative Assistant; Cameron Hays, Legislative Assistant; Richard Hoar, Professional Staff Member; Lindsey Mask, Press Secretary; Chad Miller, Coalitions Director for Education Policy; Susan Ross, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Deborah L. Emerson Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Rich Stombres, Assistant Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Toyin Alli, Staff Assistant; Alice Cain, Legislative Associate/Education; Denise Forte, Education Coordinator; Lauren Gibbs, Legislative Associate/Education; Lloyd Horwich, Legislative Associate/Education; Thomas Kiley, Communications Director; Joe Novotny, Legislative Assistant/ Education, Clerk; Rachel Racusen, Press Assistant; and Daniel Weiss, Special Assistant to the Ranking Member. Chairman Mckeon [presiding]. A quorum being present, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order. We are holding this hearing today to hear testimony on ``No Child Left Behind: How Can We Increase Parental Awareness of Supplemental Educational Services?'' Under Committee Rule 12-B, opening statements are limited to the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee. Therefore, if other members have statements, they will be included in the hearing record. With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open 14 days to allow member statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. Good morning. I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me here today for the latest in our series of hearings on the No Child Left Behind Act. As always, I would like to express my gratitude to our committee's senior Democrat, Mr. Miller. We planned that entrance. [Laughter.] I would like to thank him for our panel that we held yesterday and for his strong support of No Child Left Behind, as being one of the very strong members in writing the bill. He is a strong advocate. And I am happy to be partnering with him on this. I would also like to welcome Education Reform Subcommittee Chairman Mr. Castle, who will be here, and his ranking member, Ms. Woolsey, who will be here, for working closely with us during this process. These hearings have proven extremely informative and beneficial to me. And I am sure they are to all of the committee. I trust that it will be informative to all who are here today. Today's hearing will focus on an aspect of the No Child Left Behind Act that is of personal concern to me and one that deserves greater scrutiny. We will be examining the challenges and successes of the implementation of the supplemental educational services provisions under the No Child Left Behind Act. Let me be clear. Access to supplemental educational services is vital to the success of the No Child Left Behind Act. And while the number of students benefiting from these services is gradually increasing, I remain concerned with the low overall rate of participation in these important services. Among the most important features of No Child Left Behind is the priority it places on expanding options for parents whose children attend underperforming public schools. Yet more and more evidence has emerged that the SES feature is not being utilized as widely as it should be. This committee has a responsibility to take a thorough and serious look into why and how we can change it, as we work to renew the law next year. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, students attending public schools that do not make adequate yearly progress for 3 consecutive years have the right to take advantage of free supplemental education services such as private tutoring. However, government and media reports have highlighted an apparent lack of parental awareness that these options exist, meaning scores of students are not taking advantage of these unique benefits even though they are eligible for them. For example, a U.S. Department of Education report released earlier this year found that many states do not notify those schools which did not achieve AYP in a timely enough manner. For the 2003 and 2004 academic year, only 15 states provided final AYP results to schools by September of 2004. The report also found that, despite the fact that NCLB requires parents to be informed of a school's AYP status prior to the beginning of the next school year, almost half of all school districts notified parents an average of 5 weeks after school had started. A Government Accountability Office study released even more recently raises similar concerns. It concludes that while districts have taken multiple actions to encourage supplemental services participation, about half of the districts researched did not notify parents of their children's eligibility before the beginning of the current school year, due in part to delays in the receipt of school improvement results from their state. Today we are here to ask why this is occurring. Are some states slow in making test scores available for identifying schools in need of improvement? Are other states late in approving SES providers? Are some local school districts failing to set aside the required amount of funds to implement these options? I am pleased we have officials from the Education Department and from the GAO with us to help explain their findings so we might better answer these questions. The bottom line is this: Parent and student choices have been delayed or, in some cases, even denied. And we need to get to the bottom of why that is the case. Joining us today are stakeholders who will share unique perspectives on this critical matter. And I am eager to hear from each of you. And I thank you for joining us this morning. With that, I now yield to Mr. Miller for his opening statement. [The opening statement of Chairman McKeon follows:] Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce Good morning. I'd like to thank my colleagues for joining me here today for the latest in our series of hearings on the No Child Left Behind Act. As always, I'd like to express my gratitude to our Committee's senior Democrat, Mr. Miller, for joining me in leading this important series of hearings as we head into next year's reauthorization of NCLB. I'd also like to welcome the Education Reform Subcommittee's Chairman, Mr. Castle, and Ranking Democrat, Mrs. Woolsey, for working closely with us during this process. These hearings have proven extremely informative and beneficial to me, and I trust they have been for our Committee colleagues as well. Today's hearing will focus on an aspect of No Child Left Behind that is of personal concern to me and one that deserves greater scrutiny. We will be examining the challenges and successes of the implementation of the supplemental educational services (or SES) provisions under the No Child Left Behind Act. Let me be clear: Access to supplemental educational services is vital to the success of No Child Left Behind. And while the number of students benefiting from these services is gradually increasing, I remain concerned with the low overall rate of participation in these important services. Among the most important features of No Child Left Behind is the priority it places on expanding options for parents whose children attend underperforming public schools. Yet more and more evidence has emerged that the SES feature is not being utilized as widely as it should be. This Committee has a responsibility to take a thorough and serious look into why--and how we can change it--as we work to renew the law next year. Under No Child Left Behind, students attending public schools that do not make adequate yearly progress (or AYP) for three consecutive years have the right to take advantage of free supplemental educational services, such as private tutoring. However, government and media reports have highlighted an apparent lack of parental awareness that these options exist, meaning scores of students are not taking advantage of these unique benefits even though they are eligible for them. For example, a U.S. Department of Education report released earlier this year found that many states do not notify those schools which did not achieve AYP in a timely enough manner. For the 2003-04 academic year, only 15 states provided final AYP results to schools by September 2004. The report also found that despite the fact that NCLB requires parents to be informed of a school's AYP status prior to the beginning of the next school year, almost half of all school districts notified parents an average of five weeks after school had started. A Government Accountability Office study released even more recently raises similar concerns. It concludes that while districts have taken multiple actions to encourage supplemental services participation, about half of the districts researched did not notify parents of their children's eligibility before the beginning of the current school year, due--in part--to delays in the receipt of school improvement results from their state. Today, we're here to ask why this is occurring. Are some states slow in making test scores available or identifying schools in need of improvement? Are other states late in approving SES providers? Are some local school districts failing to set aside the required amount of funds to implement these options? I'm pleased we have officials from the Education Department and from the GAO with us to help explain their findings so we might better answer these questions. The bottom line is this: parent and student choices have been delayed--or, in some cases, denied--and we need to get to the bottom of why that's the case. Joining us today are stakeholders who will share unique perspectives on this critical matter. I'm eager to hear from each of you, and I thank you for joining us this morning. And with that, I now yield to my friend, Mr. Miller, for his opening statement. ______ Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am sorry that I was a couple moments late there. But thank you for the entrance. And thank you also for your participation yesterday in the forum on No Child Left Behind. I am always amazed the extent to which people are amazed or astonished when we say we want to work in a bipartisan fashion in this city. But I think overall people will welcome it. And I thank you for this hearing, one in a series of hearings on No Child Left Behind. It is intended to provide us information that we need as we consider the reauthorization. We are learning what works and what doesn't with the law. And we are learning how it can be strengthened and improved. The purpose of No Child Left Behind is to ensure that every child can read and do math and science at grade level while closing the achievement gap between white and minority children, between low-income and their peers. One way the law sets out to close the achievement gap is through the use of free after-school tutoring of low-income children who attend schools that do not make adequate yearly progress for 3 consecutive years. I have heard this aspect of the law described as a sanction. But in my discussions with parents, they describe it as an opportunity, as a benefit that is afforded their children to try and improve their academic achievement. And I am delighted that we have with us today a parent who is eager to--and I am eager to hear her testimony about her child's experience. I am also looking forward to hearing the testimony from the GAO about the most recent NCLB report. A number of my colleagues and I requested this investigation back in April of 2005 after hearing various reports on what was occurring in our districts and across the country. The GAO apparently found that, more than 4 years after the enactment of No Child Left Behind, only one out of five children eligible for the extra academic help under law is actually receiving it. This is very disappointing. I hope this hearing will help us get to the bottom of this problem and begin to think about the possible solutions that we can incorporate into law during reauthorization next year. The GAO also found that organizations that provide extra academic help to students are not being monitored closely enough, leading to questions about the quality of the tutoring services in some cases. The No Child Left Behind law gives parents the ability to choose from among a range of approved tutoring providers for their children. I am concerned, however, that too often parents are being offered providers that are not necessarily effective or appropriate because the states have not lived up to their monitoring and oversight responsibilities. I am concerned that the Department of Education is encouraging states to err on the side of offering many choices at the expense of ensuring high-quality choices. It is imperative that our precious Federal education dollars be used for the most effective ways possible. This means we must do more to ensure that the organizations that are providing tutoring services are the highest quality possible. I am also interested to hear from the Department of Education. I have some very specific questions for the department. The GAO reported that 85 percent of the states said they needed more help from the Department of Education in evaluating companies and nonprofit organizations that provide tutoring services. My question is, what has the Department of Education done so far and what more does it plan to do to address this concern? Finally, Mr. Chairman, on a separate topic that I have been asked to raise by several of my colleagues, and that is a broader concern with NCLB, concern that has just been brought to our attention. And that is our understanding that the department is considering some changes related to the collection and maintenance of data on students' race and ethnicity. There is concern that these changes could undermine efforts to measure academic process longitudinally by racial sub-groups. I hope the committee will hear more about this before any steps are taken. This aggregated data is one of the cornerstones of No Child Left Behind. And I urge the Department of Education not to do anything that would undermine it in any way and certainly to consult with this committee before they take those steps. I know that is not the subject of this morning's hearing, but my colleagues asked that it be placed on the public record. And I would finally say, Mr. Chairman, that I truly believe that if supplemental services are going to provide the benefit that they promise, that we are going to have to have additional funding. These are schools that are in need of improvement. They are in need of improvement. They have not made adequate progress for 3 years. And there is a lot of effort in these schools to try to improve the quality of that education. And clearly, supplemental service is a part of that. And I think that clearly we go back to the issue of funding. This is the time when additional funding was supposed to be available to these schools as they enter into the process of trying to reconstitute themselves, to improve themselves, to make the kinds of changes necessary, including the access to supplemental services and to choice. And I worry that funding is going to constrain the availability of these services to young people. But I look forward to the witnesses that we have assembled today. And thank you for having this hearing. Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. We have two distinguished panels of witnesses today. And I would like to begin by welcoming our first witness, the Honorable Morgan Brown, who is the assistant deputy secretary for the Office of Innovation and Improvement at the U.S. Department of Education, where he coordinates the implementation of the public school choice and supplemental educational service provisions within the No Child Left Behind Act. I would like to remind members that we will be asking questions of the witness after testimony. In addition, Committee Rule 2 imposes a 5-minute limit on all questions. And we know how that light works. When it's red, you are finished. Thank you very much. You may begin, Mr. Brown. STATEMENT OF MORGAN BROWN, ASSISTANT DEPUTY SECRETARY, OFFICE OF INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I truly appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today on this crucial issue. By including the supplemental educational services, or SES, provisions in the current version of Title I, the Congress recognized that parent options and information are essential to meeting No Child Left Behind's goal of all students achieving academic proficiency by 2013, 2014. The Department of Education is working hard to inform families about SES and ensure that all parents of eligible students are empowered to take advantage of this option and obtain tutoring services that will best meet their children's learning needs in reading and math. I have recently come to the Department of Education from Minnesota, where I headed an office in the state education agency that was responsible for overseeing SES there and was actually modeled after the department's own office of innovation and improvement. The department's interim report on the national assessment of Title I estimated more than a fivefold increase in the number of students receiving SES from the 2002-2003 year to the 2003-2004 year. In addition, a recent GAO report, which you are going to hear more about today, estimates that 19 percent of eligible students received services in the 2004-2005 school year, an increase from the estimated 12 percent of students the year before. This translates to about 430,000 of the 2.25 million eligible students receiving tutoring. However, in spite of this evidence that student participation in SES is increasing, we all know that current participation rates are unacceptably low. Secretary Spellings and I believe strongly that these numbers can and should be higher and that more can be done to get students these tutoring services. As the secretary explained in a May 15th letter to the chief state school officers, the department is taking a two- pronged approach toward improving SES implementation across the country. On the one hand, we are continuing and enhancing our efforts to provide high-quality technical assistance to states and local school districts and to also grant states and districts reasonable flexibility in implementing the requirements of No Child Left Behind in exchange for meaningful results. On the other hand, we are prepared to take significant enforcement action where poor implementation of SES by states and districts require it. Over the past 2 years, the department has provided resources to help states and districts implement SES successfully, issued extensive nonregulatory guidance and identified exemplary practices and remedies for problems where they exist. However, we recognize that some states and districts still need information on how to best communicate with parents. The department has assigned to our comprehensive Center on Innovation and Improvement the task of developing a technical assistance initiative to respond to the needs of states, districts and community-based organizations to conduct effective parent outreach. The department will also continue to collect and disseminate examples of districts that are effectively reaching out to parents and working well with providers to increase SES participation rates. And particularly, we hope there are lessons that can be learned from the states and districts to which the department has granted additional flexibility through its two SES pilot programs. The first program is what we call the flip pilot. And this pilot of select number of districts in a state may reverse, or flip, the ordering of offering public school choice and SES, meaning that SES is offered in schools in their first year of improvement status, and public school choice follows for students in schools in their second year of that status. The second pilot allows districts identified as in need of improvement to offer supplemental services, which is currently prohibited under the department's regulation. In both cases, districts participating in the pilot programs will report to the department on their parent notification materials, activities and results as part of the terms of their pilot agreement. Finally, the department recognizes that, in some cases, ensuring compliance means taking enforcement actions. Through our monitoring and evaluation efforts we know that in the 2003- 2004 year several states did not ensure that districts included all required information in their notices to parents, and some districts failed to offer eligible parents the option to participate in SES at all. We are preparing to strengthen our monitoring efforts on these provisions to determine the extent to which these problems are prevalent across states and districts and how best to address them. However, for those states and districts that persistently fail to meet the requirements of the law, we are ready to take serious enforcement action such as placing conditions on grants, withholding funds and entering into compliance agreements. We know parents want these services for their kids and are receptive to SES when they know it is there. Across the country, hundreds of thousands of families are taking advantage of this free tutoring. And it is clear that parents value SES as a tool to help their children find academic success in school. I will conclude by reiterating that the department is committed to making widespread access to SES a reality and to ensuring that students and families who most dearly need it can get it. Thank you again for the attention and scrutiny you are bringing to this important educational choice issue. And I will be happy to take any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] Prepared Statement of Morgan S. Brown, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, thank you for convening this hearing on increasing parental awareness of Supplemental Educational Services. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today on this important issue. By including the Supplemental Educational Services (or SES) provisions in the current version of Title I, the Congress recognized that parent options and information are essential to meeting No Child Left Behind's goal of all students achieving academic proficiency by 2013-2014. The Department of Education is working hard to inform parents about SES and ensure that all parents of eligible students are empowered to take advantage of this option and obtain the services their child needs to achieve success in school. I have recently come to the Department of Education from the state of Minnesota, where I headed an office in the state's education agency modeled after the Office of Innovation and Improvement, which I now oversee. In Minnesota, we concentrated on ensuring parents had the information and choices necessary to give their children the best education possible. In my new position here in Washington, the needs of families have, for me, acquired even greater focus. As we all know, SES participation rates are low. There is evidence, however, that student participation in SES is increasing. The Department's interim report on the National Assessment of Title I estimates more than a five-fold increase in the number of students receiving SES from the 2002-03 year to the 2003-04 year. A recent GAO report estimates that 19 percent of eligible students received services in the 2004-2005 school year, which is an increase over an estimated 12 percent of students receiving services in 2003-2004, and which translates to about 430,000 of two and a quarter million eligible students. Secretary Spellings and I believe strongly that these numbers can be higher, and that more can be done to get more students these services. As the Secretary explained in a May 15 letter to the Chief State School Officers, the Department is taking a two-pronged approach toward improving SES implementation across the country. On the one hand, we are continuing and enhancing our efforts to provide high-quality technical assistance and resources to States and local school districts, and to grant States and districts flexibility in implementing the requirements of No Child Left Behind in exchange for meaningful results. On the other, we are prepared to take significant enforcement action where poor implementation of SES by States and districts requires it. In both these areas, parental awareness is a crucial ingredient. Over the past few years, the Department has provided States and districts with technical assistance and resources needed to implement SES successfully. We have issued extensive non-regulatory guidance on SES. We also have issued documents identifying exemplary practices and remedies for problems where they exist. For example, as part of our series of ``innovation guides,'' we produced a publication discussing promising practices that States and districts can use to develop strong SES programs. The Department has also provided support and assistance in the area of SES through national conferences and ongoing discussions with States. As part of our technical assistance efforts, and in direct response to the need we saw in the field for more informative and higher-quality parent notification letters about SES, the Department drafted and included in the SES guidance a sample parent letter, which is intended not only to contain all required information, but also to be as ``parent-friendly'' and easy to use as possible. However, we recognize that States and districts need more information on parent outreach and communication. The Department has recently assigned to our Comprehensive Center on Innovation and Improvement the task of developing a technical assistance effort to help respond to the needs of States, districts, and community-based organizations to conduct effective parent outreach on SES issues. The Center will be developing this effort this fall and will implement it in sites around the country during the 2006-07 school year. The Center's effort will include technical assistance in the areas of planning and implementing outreach, as well as providing sample tools for educators to use to reach parents effectively. The Department is also sponsoring a meeting of State SES administrators in October, in conjunction with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the C.S. Mott Foundation, to provide additional technical assistance and guidance to States. Through this forum, we will facilitate further discussion of the issues confronting States and districts and the types of technical assistance that would be most useful in improving parent outreach and communication. The Department will also continue to collect and disseminate examples of districts that are effectively reaching out to parents and working well with providers to increase SES participation rates. In particular, we believe there are lessons to be learned from the States and districts to which we have granted additional flexibility through our two SES pilot programs. The first program is what we call the ``flip pilot.'' In this pilot, a select number of districts in a state may reverse--or flip-- the order of offering public school choice and SES, meaning that SES is offered in schools in year 1 of improvement, and public school choice follows for students in schools in year 2. In 2005-06--the first year for this pilot--four districts in the State of Virginia participated, and each district enrolled more students in SES programs than they had in the previous year and had higher participation rates than the national average. In the May 15 letter to Chief State School Officers, Secretary Spellings invited other states to apply to participate in this pilot on the basis of these positive results. We are excited to see that there are five States and sixteen districts participating in this pilot for the 2006-2007 school year. This year, we will be looking closely at SES implementation in the pilot districts, and are requiring them to report on their parent notification materials and activities as part of the terms of the pilot agreement. The second pilot allows districts identified as ``in need of improvement'' to offer supplemental educational services, which is currently prohibited under the Department's regulations. In 2005-06-- the first year for this pilot also--Boston Public Schools and Chicago Public Schools participated and, again, both districts enrolled more students in SES programs than they had in the previous year. I want to thank Mr. Miller, Mr. Davis and others for their December 2004 letter and for their continued support of Chicago's participation in this pilot project. For the 2006-2007 year, Anchorage School District in Alaska and Hillsborough County Public Schools in Florida have joined Boston and Chicago in the pilot. As with the flip pilot, districts participating in this pilot program will report to the Department on their parent notification materials and activities as part of the terms of their agreement. While we are working to provide enhanced technical assistance and are learning valuable lessons from the States and districts participating in our pilot programs, we recognize that, in some cases, ensuring compliance means taking enforcement actions. Through our monitoring and evaluation of the public school choice and SES provisions, we know that, in the 2003-2004 year, several States did not ensure that LEAs included all required information in their notices to parents. Further, the Department's Office of Inspector General conducted a series of six audits over the past few years that revealed significant findings on State and LEA implementation of these provisions. The audits found that each of the six States failed to monitor adequately their LEAs for compliance. As a result, nearly all of the parent notification letters reviewed failed to include the required elements of the law, and multiple LEAs did not offer eligible parents the option to participate in SES at all. We are preparing to enhance our monitoring efforts on these provisions to determine the extent to which these problems are prevalent across States and districts, and we look forward to continuing to work together to expedite the implementation of improvements. However, for those States and districts that persistently fail to meet the requirements of the law, we are ready to take enforcement action such as placing conditions on grants, withholding funds, and entering into compliance agreements. We know parents want these services for their kids, and are receptive to SES when they know it's there. Across the country, hundreds of thousands of families are taking advantage of these free services, and we know that, in some school districts, demand for SES exceeds the funds the district is required to spend for SES and public school choice. It is clear that parents value SES as a way to help their children find academic success in school. I conclude by reiterating that the Department is committed to making SES a reality, and to ensuring that the students and families who most dearly need it can get it. I'll be happy to take questions. ______ Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much. And thank you for your testimony. Can you explain how the department is preparing to enhance the monitoring efforts of the SES provisions with respect to parental notification and awareness so that these prevalent problems across the states and districts can be eliminated? Mr. Brown. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First, I should point out that, in terms of the current Title I monitoring that is done by our office in elementary and secondary education, monitoring on these issues is fully integrated into that monitoring that is done in the individual states. And I can talk more about that process if you care to have me do so. In addition, I should also point out that the Office of the Inspector General has conducted audits in six states related to these issues. And those findings are presented to the states, and those states have responded. And those reports will be coming forth shortly. So there has been corrective actions asked for in those cases, as there would be in the Title I monitoring case. Furthermore, we have a pretty involved and intense discussion going on in the department currently about how we can enhance efforts to do monitoring that specifically focuses on choice at SES. Obviously with the Title I monitoring, it is part of a larger picture of monitoring that goes on for Title I under No Child Left Behind. But this would be something that would specifically focus on choice in SES and identify particular states and districts that perhaps need that monitoring to the greatest degree. And I hope that we will be able to share some additional details about that with you shortly. Chairman Mckeon. Do you get the feeling that some states or local districts are just resisting this? Or is it just taking them a while to get up to speed? Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I think we have seen a variety of responses. There certainly are some states that have proceeded with good intent and are very serious about trying to as a state, as an SCA, make this information available to parents and then partner well with their school districts to assist them in going forward. Having said that, I think there are certainly some cases that have been raised by some of the reviews that have been done where there is questions that have been raised about whether the district, the local school district, is a willing partner in working with the state even if the state has good intent on getting information out, increasing parent awareness about supplemental education services. And I think one of the things the GAO report points out, which I think is quite accurate, is the importance of the individual schools and the leaders of those schools being involved in doing outreach to families on both school choice and supplemental services. But I think it is also fair to point out that those principles are going to take some direction, some guidance from the leadership of the school district. And so, that message from the leadership of the school district--not only should they provide some training to principals and teachers so that they can be outreach messengers to parents and ask questions of parents, but that there is a strong interest in making sure that parents know about these choices and can avail themselves of them. Chairman Mckeon. You know, I have heard stories of the Federal Government doing certain things when they find people are not carrying out their responsibilities. For instance, it was brought to my attention years ago a university was violating the law in recruiting students. They had caught the practice themselves, corrected it themselves. And by the time it was brought to the attention of the department, they had already put it behind them. But the department was going to fine them something like $9 million. I think this is crazy because I think the purpose of government should be to help. And where you find somebody that is not doing what they are supposed to do, you should inform them, educate them. Then if they persist, then you should go in and fine them. But it shouldn't be a ``game of gotcha'' type thing. But where people don't understand at all or they are having problems implementing, we should be helping them do that. When we find that the resistance is intentional, then we should take strong enforcement action, I believe. So I thank you for what you are doing there. My time is up, and I yield now for 5 minutes to Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I would want to associate myself with the concerns raised by the chairman on the questions of timing and notice to parents about these services and the concern that it raises in terms of the real availability of these services to those students. Let me go to the other question on the other side of this, on the question of quality. What plans do you have or may be under way that I am not aware of to start to monitor the effectiveness of these services? Some services are offered sort of region-wide. Some are very local. Some are part of a national effort, you know, outfit to provide these services. We are now spending billions of dollars in this effort. I just wonder, where we are going on the question of whether or not this is--you know, has this been efficient? Is it helpful? Is it worth the money? And is it the right way to proceed? Mr. Brown. Right. Mr. Miller. I mean, I am a supporter of this. Mr. Brown. Right. Mr. Miller. And I always worry that you can collapse, you know, you can implode on quality if you don't pay attention. And I just wonder where the department is going on this. Mr. Brown. Mr. Miller, I totally agree, particularly as a former state official who was having to build and develop that kind of evaluation as well at the state level. The evaluation issue is incredibly important. And I think, as the GAO report pointed out, that is probably maybe where there is the greatest demand right now from states, for additional technical assistance and guidance. Let me say a couple things about what the department is hoping to do. First of all, with the pilot projects that I mentioned in my opening statement, built into the condition of that pilot project is an evaluation and a yearly evaluation for each year they are in the pilot project. And as we get that information back, that will be an important test case on looking at evaluation, looking at the effectiveness of providers in serving students and what kind of progress those students make. And we may even, out of that, find some effective practices that then we can appropriately disseminate. In addition, there is something we have charged our comprehensive Center for Innovation and Improvement with, as you are aware, the department is identifying giving grants to five comprehensive centers nationally that focus on specific areas of No Child Left Behind. And for the one that is focusing on innovation and improvement, they have been tasked with really honing in on this evaluation issue and how we can disseminate good practices and have backed up on their Web site. Now they have a copy of New Mexico's plan. New Mexico is a little bit ahead of some of the other states. And they have looked at that and feel that that is an appropriate one to share with other states, that they perhaps could model some things on. The department also gave a grant to the American Institutes for Research to put together an issue brief. This was even a year or 2 ago. And that is available online at the TutorsForKids site. And that provides some guidance to states on this. In addition, we have several conferences coming up, one next month, with directors of state education agencies from around the country that we are doing in partnership with the council for chief state school officers and the C.S. Mott Foundation. And a good portion of that is going to focus on evaluation guidance and also hearing from the states about what specific kind of guidance and assistance they are looking for. And then also we have the national Title I meeting in January. This will also be a major portion of that. And then, finally, with the national longitudinal study of No Child Left Behind that a third party is conducting, this is also a crucial part of that study as well. And they will be giving some feedback particularly in some districts that they have selected. Mr. Miller. In terms of our timetable, you really won't have any in-depth evaluation of these services during next year. Mr. Brown. Mr. Miller, we will, perhaps on a state-by-state basis, depending on where the states are--and the states are in a variety of different places for a variety of reasons--we will have reports by the end of the calendar year from the first year of the pilot projects for Boston and Chicago. And that is being done by a third-party evaluator. That should be available by the end of this calendar year. Mr. Miller. I raise this issue because, obviously, given what certainly I believe are the funding problems with this legislation over the last 5 years and the manner in which this money is set up, and certainly a belief in some people's mind that somehow this money can only stay in the school district, it shouldn't be used--there is going to be attention around this money. And I have given this same speech to the providers of these services, that there is not some demonstration of the effectiveness of these programs and the cost-benefits, so to speak, that attention is going to be very lively here. And I think that, you know, some effort really has to be put on the evaluation of what is taking place with these services. It is not just whether the parents are happy they have access to them. Are they happy because they are helping their child achieve the goals that they want? And I think that is a critical question. I have run out of time. But if I can come back to you on the question of--I am really concerned about participation of IDA students and English learners in these services. But I don't know if there will be time in another round, or you can submit that to me. We can talk about that and get it in writing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. Was that this calendar year that you would have that? Mr. Brown. Yes, it is expected by the end of this calendar year, 2006. Chairman Mckeon. So that will help us. The chair recognizes Mr. Kline for 5 minutes. Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you, Mr. Brown, for being here. And I would like to identify myself with the remarks of both the chairman and the ranking member, in terms of making sure that we are getting out of these supplemental services what we want, not just that they are available. I think that Mr. Miller puts his finger right on it. If the students are not better able to achieve their goals, it doesn't make any difference if there is access to it, if it is not working. So I would encourage you to make sure that you are looking at that. And in the interest of being able to eventually get to the second panel, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Chairman Mckeon. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes Mr. Kildee. Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. Thank you for your appearance here this morning. Congress very thoughtfully and carefully provided the provision for supplemental educational services. And we are concerned that these dollars are not being used, in many instances, for these services in a certain school district or they are not being used effectively where the programs are quality programs. What can the department do, first of all, to ensure that these dollars are used for the purpose for which they were authorized and then appropriated? And what can the department do to make sure these programs are effective? Because some of them are much more effective than others; some are maybe not effective at all. Mr. Brown. Thank you, Congressman Kildee. On the first issue of just making sure that the funding is used, this is an issue--and again, discussing the GAO report about the need for more and better data, including about the financial expenditures, as you are aware, there is a 20 percent set-aside out of the Title I, Part A funds for school choice and supplemental services that districts are expected to allot to this area based on demand. And we have not had the kind of data, to date, we would like to have at the school district level regarding the district expenditure of that 20 percent set-aside. However, through our EDFacts, our new EDFacts network, which is going to be gathering additional data from the states, they will be requested to report on a variety of different data at the school district level to relate to supplemental services, including the expenditure of that 20 percent set- aside. And that is going to happen during this school year. So we will know more about whether those funds were expended fully as intended. On the effectiveness side, one additional thing I should mention that I didn't necessarily cover in my response to Congressman Miller is that there really is a responsibility here for the state education department on the front end of this whole process to have the kind of rigorous review process for providers that are seeking approval, which is, of course, the states' responsibility and authority under this law, that they are setting up the kind of rigorous process that is looking at, for established providers, what is their record of effectiveness, what is their record of success. And for new providers, which is sometimes the case with a community-based provider, for instance, a smaller provider, is, what is the model that they are using, what is the demonstrated record of effectiveness. So there should be some things on the front end to deal with that. And then obviously, as I indicated in my remarks to Congressman Miller, on the back end, with the evaluation process, is the need to look at actual results for students in a variety of ways. Mr. Kildee. Well, if they don't spend the dollars for the supplemental education services--of course, they can retain the dollars. And I really don't want to take those dollars away from them, since we are underfunding No Child Left Behind anyway. But is there a stronger administrative role that the United States Department of Education can play here? I know we would like to have the 50 states' departments of education doing a better job in this. But isn't there a role you can play? Or also, should there be a legislative change here to make sure that, first of all, the dollars are spent for that purpose and that they are spent for effective programs? Mr. Brown. Congressman, that is a very good question. I think there is two parts of this. And the focus of this hearing being parent awareness, some of the difficulty now when we see a school district that hasn't spent the 20 percent set-aside is, is it because there is not demand, which is what some districts say, or is it because there hasn't been enough outreach or enough for parent awareness to create that demand? So that is one side of why it is so important to have the kind of outreach that we have certainly advised districts and states through our guidance. On the issue, as you mentioned, obviously now if there are remaining dollars in that set-aside amount, they, districts, can roll them back in to other kinds of Title I expenditures currently under the law. And I know there has been some discussion about whether those funds should be, in the Congress and elsewhere, whether those funds should be preserved and there should be a rollover to a following year so that they are preserved for school choice and supplemental service expenditures. Mr. Kildee. Do you think that, as we reauthorize or starting at least in the next Congress, that we could tighten up in the law itself, rather than waiting for the department, either on the Federal level or state level, to do a better job on monitoring this? Mr. Brown. I think there certainly are chances to make improvements in the statute. And I know the secretary would be very willing to work with you and the other members of the committee to discuss those and decide what those should be. Mr. Kildee. We look forward to that. Thank you very much. Mr. Brown. Thank you, Congressman. Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. The chair recognizes the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Castle. Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brown, let me just focus on the subject of who is providing these services. And you may not be able to give a brief answer. But if you can't, then don't try to go on too long. But who gives those services now? Is it mostly national- type operations with local affiliates who are doing it? Or have corporations or services been formed at the local level? And how many of these entities are there out there, roughly? I know that is a very broad question, but can you give me a short answer on that? Mr. Brown. Congressman, we would be happy to get you a detailed breakdown of that, because we do have some data on that. Again, there is quite a mix. But it does vary from state to state in terms of the mix between national for-profit providers, local community-based providers, and then, of course, school districts and schools themselves that are making adequate yearly progress. Mr. Castle. Right. Well, I want to talk to you about the local school districts. I read in these notes and I had heard otherwise that you have a pilot program. And it says here the department instituted a pilot program allowing certain districts to serve as their own SES providers. And that is certain big cities and Alaska, et cetera. It is on page 5 of our notes here. I am very curious about that, because, you know, it seems to me that just because a school is under review doesn't mean there are not teachers or other people in that school who could perhaps provide these services. And I am playing devil's advocate here, because I am not sure what the right answer is. But if that is the case, should they be able to submit and go under review and whatever? And would there be greater interest because there is already a connection with the teachers and the parents and the kids, et cetera, and we up that level from the 19 percent, I think is the last number we have here, you know, to a higher percentage who are participating and not necessarily exclusively, but perhaps in competition with the outside interests or whatever. I have never quite understood why we didn't provide for that more when we did the bill originally. And I am glad the department is at least looking at it as a pilot. Do you have any conclusions with respect to that, as to where that particular pilot project is going? Or is that just too premature to determine anything? Mr. Brown. Congressman, I think the whole purpose of the pilot is to test some of the issues that you are raising. Now, both of the pilots, both the one that allowed the flip as well as the one that allowed school districts in need of improvement to provide their own supplemental services, both only began last school year. So it is a fairly recent--and then they were both expanded this school year. There are four districts participating in the pilot that were school districts in need of improvement, which are Boston, Chicago, Anchorage, and the Hillsborough County in Florida. And then there are another five states with a variety of districts participating in the flip pilot. But there were some very specific conditions built into that pilot about, well, first of all, the goals of those pilots are, first and foremost, increase participation rates---- Mr. Castle. Right. Mr. Brown [continuing]. And second, to have better data, both better data about participation and all those pieces on the input side, but also better data on the output side in terms of evaluation. And so, under the conditions of those pilots, those districts are required to do a number of things in terms of extended parent outreach, larger windows of time for parents to enroll in the services, committing to expending their 20 percent set-aside, working with providers fairly to make sure that not just they as their own provider, but other providers have access to school facilities. And so, there is a number of pieces we are going to be looking at in these test cases to see did this work, was it effective and, therefore, should it be continued or expanded. Mr. Castle. Well, I think you have answered my question. I mean, you are really monitoring that pilot program to see how it works versus outside providers and making a determination at that point. It is a small pilot, I understand, but you are doing that. Mr. Brown. Absolutely. In fact, we just sent out questions earlier this week. Mr. Castle. You are not just providing the services, but you are monitoring very carefully. Mr. Brown. Yes, yes, absolutely. Mr. Castle. On the money aspect of it, I can't remember the whole formula for this, but isn't this a formula, a takeoff of Title I money or something of that nature, in terms of the money that is used for the supplemental services? Mr. Brown. For both, yes, as we were discussing in response to Congressman Kildee's answer. Right, there is a 20 percent set-aside, equal to a 20 percent set-aside of the Title I part a funds. Mr. Castle. Well, if that is the case--and I am taking up Mr. Miller's question ere. But I don't know if I agree with him yet or not. But if that is the case, is there a lack of funding, as far as this aspect of the program is concerned? I know that, in some cases, there has been a lack of funding. Is that something that we need to be paying a lot more attention to? And we hear about lack of funding for No Child Left Behind in general. But in this specific program, is there a funding issue? I thought that formula would have taken care of that. Mr. Brown. Congressman, there are some instances, and Chicago happens to be one of them, where the district has entirely expended its 20 percent set-aside and not met the demand of all the eligible students who are eligible for choice or supplemental services. So, in that case, those districts have had to decide whether they want to take resources from other areas in addition to the 20 percent set-aside or they want to somehow prioritize which students should get it, such as to the students who have the most need to increase performance on state assessments. Mr. Castle. Right. Mr. Brown. But in other cases, as we are talking about a lot today, because of the inadequacies in terms of outreach and making supplemental services truly accessible to parents, many districts have not gotten to that 20 percent set-aside level. Mr. Castle. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Mckeon. Well, in the instance of Chicago, where they used the whole 20 percent, do we have data on how effective it has been? Mr. Brown. We have data on the increase in the participation rates. And there was an increase, I believe, from about---- Chairman Mckeon. No, I mean---- Mr. Brown. There was an increase from 41,000 to a little over 55,000, the participation rate. But the evaluation on the academic side of it is the one that is scheduled to come by the end of the calendar year. Chairman Mckeon. OK. That is what I was asking for. OK. The chair recognizes Ms. Davis. Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is the department trying to take a look at those school districts that have expended their percentage allotments from Title I and see what is not being accomplished? It is really along with Mr. Castle's question. Mr. Brown. For those that have not met the 20 percent set- aside? Mrs. Davis of California. Well, I guess for those who have met it and have many more students who still could use those services. They obviously, then, are cutting into their Title I programs in the school districts. What is not getting done as a result of that? Mr. Brown. I think that that would be a question you would have to direct to the school districts themselves. I mean, the position of the department is that Title I funding is intended to be Federal assistance for additional help for school districts in servicing economically disadvantaged students. And in the case of the set-aside for supplemental services, it still is doing that. And, in fact, I mean, for parents that have had the outreach and the awareness and get the concept, they very much understand this per-pupil amount is the Federal dollars that is intended to serve my student. And now I have some say in how that happens through the choice of a supplemental service provider. So, in some ways, it is really very directed on the individual student. Mrs. Davis of California. Right. But I guess it seems like there would be a comparison between those districts that are able to fold in the SES requirements into an ongoing program for a student versus those that are essentially adding it on. Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, if I understand the question right, I mean, there are a variety of ways to do supplemental services. And for some districts that are providers, they have folded that in into a broader array of after-school programming. And one thing that the departments focus on, and the upcoming conference will, is how you can create partnerships, for instance, between the 21st-Century Learning Centers program and supplemental services so those are fully integrated. Mrs. Davis of California. How, then, is the department really monitoring that? Mr. Brown. I think that is pretty much in the form of reports that come back to us from the states on that issue, because it is more of a qualitative issue about how are they integrating it into their broader after-school programming. We have heard a fair amount anecdotally, not only from districts, but from community-based providers that often offer wrap-around services in terms of after-school programming and the effectiveness of that, both in terms of their outreach to families, the attractiveness of that to families and in terms of the quality of what they are providing as a whole for the students. Mrs. Davis of California. Is that, then, going into some of these pilots? Are you looking at that issue, as well? Or is that separate? Mr. Brown. This will be an important issue in the pilots, because in the pilots the districts will be getting a special waiver to continue providing supplemental services. And so, how those services are provided, the quality of those services, will be a crucial part of our monitoring and the independent evaluation. Mrs. Davis of California. Is there any way that you could have started these pilots earlier? Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, as a recent arrival at the Federal department, I am not sure how to answer that. The secretary saw this need pretty early on once we started getting reliable data, and stated that this was something we needed to do, to test out in individual areas in a variety of different circumstances whether we could have a substantial impact, first and foremost, on increasing participation rates and parental awareness. So they were planned and were under way last school year. And then we will have 2 years of data at the end of this school year. Mrs. Davis of California. Yes. But I think, like the ranking chair had said, I mean, that doesn't really help us out in the reauthorization as much as we would like. I think the other question is whether the districts that you have looked at or the states that are having some difficulty serving the students who need that assistance were already having difficulty serving students under Title I. Is there some consistency to that? Or have we brought a whole new area into the equation essentially? Mr. Brown. Congressman, that is a good question. And I think that would be something that we could go back and get some information from you from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, because under their Title I monitoring they are looking at both general Title I efforts as well as the supplemental services and choice provisions. Mrs. Davis of California. Yes, because I would certainly be interested in that interplay. It worries me that by virtue of the set-aside that some school districts, even if they are not at the 20 percent, something is not perhaps being accomplished. But it may be that it wasn't accomplished prior to that either. And that would be of concern. Thank you. Do you need additional help in monitoring? Mr. Brown. The monitoring piece, there is a part that can be handled by the department. But a good portion of the monitoring here, we need to emphasize, needs to happen by the states themselves, the state educational agencies. And so, where I think we can be helpful is in providing guidance to the state educational agencies how to do that, both from the department itself and the comprehensive centers. Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you. Mr. Brown. You are welcome. Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brown, I wanted to ask, I guess, a more fundamental question about SES, because it occurs to me if you have identified a school as failing, it might be the school's fault and not the students' fault. And it also seems more appropriate to me that if a student is behind and needs services, it doesn't matter whether the student is at a good school or a failing school, if we are going to leave no child behind, then we need to address all of the students. So, you know, I have always been curious about the actions we take when we identify a school as failing. We give the students help, and then we have this choice thing where I guess a few handful of people can sneak out the backdoor and take care of themselves and leave the other 95 percent stuck in the failing school. Would it make as much sense if we have identified a school as failing to come in with professional development for teachers or bring in new specialized expert teachers or professional development for the principal? Or a principal that has failed 3 years in a row--maybe you want to get rid of the principal or maybe smaller class sizes? Would that make as much sense, if we have extra money, to come in with those kinds of services for the failing school, rather than try to help the students get through the bad education that they have been afflicted with? Mr. Brown. Congressman, I think a couple points to be made here is when we are looking at--first, I want to point out that this is available to students at schools that are just in their second year in needing improvement, as well as at the later stages of corrective action and restructuring. A lot of the things that you suggest, I think, the departments are saying. That is what Title I funding is supposed to be doing, in terms of that additional help for economically disadvantaged students. But in cases where schools, as Congresswoman Davis was discussing, are having difficulty meeting those needs for several years in a row, the belief was and the philosophy behind this was that then that money should be given more directly to the students and their parents to have some choice in how they were going to get additional educational services in that kind of situation. And that is not to say that there shouldn't be additional assistance. And many states do provide this once you get to the area of corrective action, restructuring, et cetera. But I think the philosophy behind it was that the school had already received additional funding under Title I. And that had not, for whatever reason, proven successful to date. And therefore, now there needed to be more direct access for the parents and the families to that funding to improve educational success. Mr. Scott. Well, I mean, if the school hasn't improved, why don't we do more to try to improve the school? Because if it is failing, that means a whole lot of people aren't getting it. And it may be still the school's fault. Mr. Brown. Again, not every school that has students eligible for supplemental services is something that the department would necessarily tag as ``failing.'' They may be in some kind of state-of-improvement status. And there are other things that they need to do when they are in improvement status, such as coming together with a school improvement plan. I mean, it does need to be addressed in a wholistic way beyond just supplemental services. But I think the feeling was, again, that Title I funding was already provided to help the school improve in its services to economically disadvantaged students. And where that does not appear to be happening, some portion of that should be set aside for the families themselves to seek educational improvement for their children. Mr. Scott. In following up with the questions from the subcommittee chairman, I know some teachers get extra money if they coach extracurricular sports and other things. Are there examples where teachers have actually come in to provide these services? Mr. Brown. Congressman, the answer to that is yes, both in terms of school districts that can be providers, hiring their own teachers sometimes under the collective bargaining contract to provide supplemental services. And also there have been cases where other providers, including community-based providers, hire local teachers on an after-school, weekend, summer-school basis to provide services to students. Chairman Mckeon. The chair recognizes Mr. Payne. Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Let me sort of continue that line of questioning. In Leave No Child Behind, it seems like they dealt with most things but left out principles. And it appears to me that probably most important--I am a former teacher a long time ago. But when I taught at a school where we had a principal that was effective, on the ball, really a lot of energy, creative, you know, didn't leave before the teachers and the students, you know, it really set a pretty good tone. Is there any thought of trying to, as we reauthorize it, thinking in terms of dealing with the principals? Because principals are totally left out. And second, superintendents in urban states tend to simply bounce from one school district to the other. I guess you have to have certain qualifications. But someone that fails in one district, after 3 years, a new board comes in. They terminate that person because people are failing, and they end up in another failing school district and stay there. And I know it is local control, and people have a right to hire whomever they want to hire. But it just seems that failing superintendents just go from one place to another. I would imagine the average term is maybe 2.5, 3, 3.5 years in tough urban districts. Is there any way that we could look at that? And, I guess, finally, if you went from 12 percent in 2003- 2004 to 19 percent for 2005 and if your goal is to increase, then how are you going to be able to provide the funding if you are only at 19 percent? I mean, it seems like there is a lot lacking. Mr. Brown. Congressman, let me address the first questions you mentioned initially. The point about principals is very well-taken. And I think you will find in the GAO report, one of the things they emphasize is the importance of partnerships for this to be effective, partnerships not just between providers and the school district administration, but between individual principals, individual leaders at the schools where supplemental services may be taking place, where parents are likely to get their information and become aware of supplemental services. And so, that, to me, is very important. And a lot of the outreach and guidance we have done have emphasized how to engage at the principal level. This also relates, as I referenced earlier, to the issue of the superintendent level, because the tone that the superintendent sets about parent awareness on choice and supplemental services is very much going to probably impact how principals react. And when you have that variation in superintendents, that can be an issue. It is potentially resolved if there are strong district staff who are actually overseeing the supplemental services program who continue. But probably the best way to deal with it is for the state education agency to have very strong consistent guidance and monitoring of the districts. So even if the leadership may fluctuate, as new leadership comes in, it is clear that there is certain expectations in terms of outreach on choice and supplemental services. If I understood your other question correctly, maybe I just need to clarify that there is some confusion. The 20 percent set-aside that I was referring to earlier, the funding set- aside, the 19 percent amount is just about the number of students participating. So there is a lot of room for increase in the number of students participating. Mr. Payne. Yes, that is clear. You were saying that there was 12 percent participation. You worked at it. You moved it up to 19 percent of eligible students participating. Is that correct? Mr. Brown. That is. Mr. Payne. If you moved up then the other 80 percent that might be eligible to participate, how would it be funded? I mean, do you have enough? That is my question. Mr. Brown. I am sorry. Again, as we were discussing, it really would depend on the district. Many districts still have room under that 20 percent set-aside to serve additional students. There are some districts that have completely expended the 20 percent set-aside. And then they have to go through that prioritization process. Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. We have been called to the floor for votes. There will be three votes. So we will recess during those votes and return. And if you can, if you can remain with us. And members that aren't able to return, if they wish, could submit questions to you in writing, and you could get them. Thank you. The committee stands in recess. [Recess.] Chairman Mckeon. The committee will come to order. The chair recognizes Ms. McCarthy. Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for having this hearing. And thank you, Mr. Brown, for your testimony. Mr. Brown, in the second panel we are going to have Ms. Harris from Chicago. And she tells us in her testimony that not only have the Chicago Public Schools engaged students in their SES programs, but they have had to wait-list students for services, which you had brought up in your testimony. Ms. Harris lists several strategies which have been successful: an initial notification letter distributed in April to inform them about the tutoring; registering parents at local level rather than a remote location; providing a handbook for parents holding open house; doing advertising, distributing flyers; and creating a multiple-lingual hotline to answer questions. These all sound like terrific ideas, and obviously they have got it right. Can the department get other districts to do what Chicago is doing, as far as a model goes? And following up on that, hopefully at this time, I mean, how is New York doing? And if you don't know that, you know, if you could get me that information when you have it, I would appreciate it. Because I have several schools, failing schools that have made some good strides but are still struggling, one school being taken over by the state. And I guess I agree with Mr. Payne. The state put the superintendent in there. We had many good programs in there: GEAR UP, Project GRAD. And this particular superintendent came, kicked everybody out, and now we find out that he is $5 million in deficit. And this is controlled by the state. So I have a concern on that, like who is actually watching over these schools that need the most help. Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, thank you for your question. First, let me just take a moment, since you referenced the fact that Chicago did expend its full 20 percent set-aside. One of my colleagues shared with me that in the GAO report you just have a picture of this nationally that nationally about 5 percent of the 20 percent set-aside among all districts has been expended or was expended in the most recent year we have data for. So I just wanted to put that in, because some people have been trying to get a sense of what is the level of available funding on a broader basis. Certainly, many of the outreach practices that you referenced for the Chicago public schools are the kinds of things that we would like to replicate. And I think once we do our monitoring and our site visits at the pilot sites, plus get the third-party evaluation, then we will look at participation, cooperation with providers and academic results. That will give us even more solid data perhaps to share that information through the comprehensive center and through the department itself in some of those conferences to get those kind of practices that have been effective out to other districts and make sure states know about them as well. With regard to the New York City public school system, rather than just kind of comment on things I have heard anecdotally, if we can get back to you with something more comprehensive on whatever data we have about New York and other information we have heard about how their outreach and public awareness program is going. Mrs. McCarthy. I am going to be curious also--and I know with the second panel that is coming up, being that they have done such an outreach program, obviously that took funding. And then to have children on the wait-listing because they have run out of their money, I wonder if that is something that we should be looking at. If a school is doing everything right, reaching everything, making the program which we intended to do to really facilitate for those schools that, you know, do as well as Chicago, should they be getting extra funding? I think that is food for thought there. Mr. Brown. And, Congresswoman, I believe, although you will hear this from the witness in the next panel, that Chicago, actually, since they were going beyond their 20 percent set- aside and still wanted to serve more students, may have even set aside some additional funding from other resources so they could serve more students, because they had such a wait-list, even though they had expended the 20 percent. Mrs. McCarthy. The one thing I didn't understand with, you know, your testimony--and I am sure I am going to hear from the second testimony--why wouldn't schools do this? You know, with Leave No Child Behind, the assessing involved, they would certainly want their students to perform better, to have the test scores, so they are not a school that needs extra help. And I am actually flabbergasted when I saw the reports on how many schools aren't doing it. Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, I think the great point--and I think you have heard the department and the secretary very much appreciate the bipartisan support for supplemental services, because I think the department's position is, if it works well, everyone wins. The child does better. Things work out better for the school in terms of performance and assessments. It is hard to see, even in the long run, though, even in the short run, how there is any losers when supplemental services is done well. Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. The chair recognizes Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Thank you. Mr. Brown, I notice you referenced the state of Minnesota in your statement. And I just want to make sure we keep the record clear. Can you tell me when the state of Minnesota this year gave the list of providers to the school districts? Mr. Brown. I am sorry, Congressman. Are you talking about in previous years or for this year? Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. This year. Mr. Brown. I left the Minnesota Department of Education a couple of months ago, and my understanding is that the school districts do have the current list of approved providers for this school year. Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Yes, and it came out on August 31st. So I just want to--it needs improvement in Minnesota. And I didn't want people to read the testimony and think that we have arrived there. According to the 2004 state auditors report on the Minnesota Department of Education, it needs to do more to carefully monitor the results of the supplemental services, because we don't have any record, according to our state auditor, whether or not they are effective and a way to hold them accountable. Would you agree with the 2004 report of the Minnesota state auditor on that? Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, I would agree with the report at that time, which was looking at the first year that Minnesota had implemented a supplemental education services. Since that time, a number of steps have been taken, both for ongoing monitoring of providers and to put in place an evaluation system for providers. Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Well, that is not totally correct. The state of Minnesota has provided supplemental services for parents provided on a tax credit on their tax forms since the mid-1990's. So the department has had the ability to put certain things in place. I would like to go back to the funding for a second. I just held some hearings in my district, in which many of our school districts right now are having to hold referendum hearings. And all the testimony that I received basically was that, if the Federal Government fully funded IDEA, that the levies mostly in my district--and I think we could extrapolate that out to the state--would disappear. In other words, taxpayers wouldn't have to be picking up to make up for the shortfall just in IDEA from the failure of the Federal Government to fund that program. And, as you mentioned, I believe, in your testimony, the Federal Government still has failed to fund No Child Left Behind. Could you tell me if the Federal Government is fully funding all the Title I dollars that districts have coming to them? Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, if I can just clarify a couple of things. First of all, I don't recollect in my testimony saying that No Child Left Behind had not been fully funded. Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Well, then has it been fully funded? Mr. Brown. I think, as probably has been discussed by the department a number of times---- Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. I think that is a yes or no. Has No Child Left Behind been fully funded by this Congress? And has the administration asked for all the dollars that was originally promised when the bipartisan bill moved forward? Mr. Brown. The administration's position is that funding for Title I and for education funding in general has substantially increased since No Child Left Behind. Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. It is not fully funded. So Title I is not fully funded either right now? Mr. Brown. Actually, my understanding is that Title I funding has gone up $4 billion, or 45 percent, under No Child Left Behind. Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. But it is not fully funded? Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, can you clarify your definition of ``fully funded'' for me? Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. I will get you the numbers of what fully funded would be. So if we are not fully funding Leave No Child Behind, if we are not fully funding IDEA, if we are not fully funding Title I, and then we take 20 percent out of Title I, I don't know how we get ahead in giving the service that the children need, as other people have pointed out, that the students really need to be successful. But the schools need to have all the tools that are available to them. So, you know, when we are passing levy referendums to make up for the shortage in special education and we don't have all the dollars for Title I, when we have a waiting list for Head Start, when Leave No Child Behind is not fully funded, I think the supplemental services is a noble goal. But if we don't do the basics first, if we don't have a good foundation, then putting a fancy layer on top of it, I don't see how it moves our children ahead. And so, I want to know what the Education Department is going to do to make sure that we go back to basics, just like we are asking our schools to do, to implement all the funding that has been promised the state education departments. Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, I may have some differences of opinion with some of the assumptions. But I think the important thing in terms of understanding the set-aside is that funding is not being taken away from the families and children that need it. In fact, it is being allocated to them so they actually have a say in how the educational services are going to be provided that that student needs. So that is very much being directed to economically disadvantaged families. In addition, I think when we look at this more broadly, one of the things I should at least note is that in the president's fiscal year 2007 budget request, there is an additional $200 million requested for schools in need of improvement. So on top of the Title I funding they already get, they would have additional funds for schools in improvement status where students are eligible for supplemental services to focus on curriculum, teacher professional development, et cetera. Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Mr. Chair pointed out-- parliamentary inquiry--that the record is going to be open to submit. I wouldn't begin to tell other school districts around the country, but I will submit the numbers for my school district for the record of the Federal shortfall if the record is going to be open. Could you tell me how many days, sir? Chairman Mckeon. Fourteen days. This hearing is not on IDEA. But just for the record, I will clarify that when I first came here I was in the minority when the IDEA was originally passed in the 1970's. The Federal Government, at that time, said we would put in 40 percent of the funding. They never have done that. I think when I first came here, it was running about 6 or 7 percent. When it was originally passed, $2 billion would have been enough to fully fund it. But the way it has grown, we have not really kept up with that. However, with the additional funding that we have put in since we have become the majority, we are up now to almost 20 percent. Twelve billion dollars is what we put in in 2006. So is there enough money? You know, we could always say we could probably find more ways to spend more money. But just so that we know for the record, it has gone from 6 percent when I first came here to where we are now funding about almost 20 percent. Mr. Miller. Since we are creating a record, Mr. Chairman, I hate to---- Chairman Mckeon. Go right ahead. Mr. Miller. I would just say that the promise that was made and the authorization that was agreed to at the White House was in recognition that these were the most substantial reforms to the system in 30 years. And to quote the president, he said, ``You get me the reforms. I will get you the resources.'' He did for 2 years, and then we have stagnated. And that is the problem that we are having, is we have this mounting deficit of obligation to No Child Left Behind. Chairman Mckeon. I understand that. What I was clarifying for the record was, even though the hearing is not on IDEA, I was trying to clarify the record on that. The chair recognizes Ms. Woolsey. Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I think it is important that we know how the department is ensuring that these supplemental service providers meet the same standards as the educators are required to meet, as far as, you know, their level of education, knowledge of subjects, their state certification. Are we ensuring to the parents that these supplemental services have to live up to the same standards? And how do we ensure that? Mr. Brown. There is a couple of pieces to that, Congresswoman. One is that when states approve supplemental providers on the front end, they absolutely can ask and build into those requirements information about how tutors are selected, what kind of training tutors receive, what kind of ongoing professional development tutors receive. And those all can be taken into account as part of the approval process. In addition, I think one thing that is clear about the intent of the law is that there is an intent that--but I want to make clear that there is just supplemental services--you can't have any provider, any tutor just walk in off the street and do supplemental services. But also a clear intent of the-- -- Ms. Woolsey. Well, could I just, could I just---- Mr. Brown. Yes. Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. Go a little further with that then? Mr. Brown. Sure. Ms. Woolsey. But we aren't ensuring that those supplemental providers and tutors have to have as good or better education than the teachers that they are supplementing? Mr. Brown. The supplemental service providers have to have tutors that are effective for their program and have to demonstrate effectiveness and success when they are applying and when they are being renewed. Ms. Woolsey. Well, OK. I am going to interrupt again, because we are not allowing schools to have teachers that are good and have proven themselves over and over again and over the years. They have to live up to an education standard. They have to live up to certification. They have to know their subject material. Why would we take funds away from the school and give it to a supplemental service that doesn't insist on the same standard? Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, the department, I think, would have a difference of opinion that the funds are being taken away from the children, which is where they are being expended on. Ms. Woolsey. No, I said the school. Mr. Brown. But I think the point here is many providers do hire teachers. And that is absolutely appropriate. But many providers have other means by which they determine what tutors work best for their program. And I think the department recognizes that there perhaps are some different qualifications for a tutor involved in a one-on-one reading tutoring process than for a classroom teacher standing before the classroom for the full school day. Ms. Woolsey. So let me ask you then, with No Child Left Behind, can a school choose to have a program that meets the needs of that child within the school, in the classroom, or do they have to have those providers--in the classroom, teachers have to have a different set of standards. Mr. Brown. Congresswoman, I think you are comparing two pretty different situations here. Ms. Woolsey. No, I am not. Mr. Brown. But the other point that I really feel obligated to mention is the intent of the statute is that there be a wide range of providers available in a wide range of areas for families to choose from. And if you are going to implement the kinds of restrictions I think you are implying, the providers that will likely be shut out initially and most quickly will be the community-based providers, which have had some real interesting successes, both in terms of their doing some of the best work in terms of outreach to parents because they are trusted organizations within the community. They also provide wrap-around services to those families and students. Ms. Woolsey. OK. Well, I understand that. But---- Mr. Brown. And they are available in rural areas. Ms. Woolsey. But then why can't we trust the educators, the teachers that are providing great services also? Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Would the gentlewoman yield? Ms. Woolsey. And I would like to yield to Betty McCollum. Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Thank you. This is from an article Wednesday, May 5, 2004--I will submit the whole article--and a tutor's experience with Leave No Child Behind. This individual had taught in the Minneapolis school district. And I quote: ``Before I began tutoring, I received 15 hours of training, most which revolved around abstract teaching theories rather than the information about the curriculum being taught in the public schools. I received a book to teach phonics but no guide to teach math. At no time did I receive ESL as the second language training, although all of my students were immigrants or children of immigrants and English was their second language.'' I will submit the rest of this into the record. But we do have to do something about making sure that we have highly qualified tutors. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. [The article follows:] [From the Minnesota Women's Press, May 5, 2004] Behind 11 Children: A Tutor's Experience With ``No Child Left Behind'' By Abigail Cerra Reports and political debates have sprung up around the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. A quick search on the net or in newspaper archives will return an abundance of facts and figures regarding the economic costs and benefits of the program. It seems that in public discussions of the act, the best interest of the left-behind children is a distant second to the economics of helping them. I was hired under NCLB to tutor 11 students in inner city Minneapolis. This is a description of my experience. Building a bridge with an eraser Under a provision of the NCLB, some elementary school students qualify to receive one-on-one sessions with a private tutor. The federal government grants participating states one lump sum to finance the NCLB program. Individual school districts then apply to the state for a piece of the pie. Although I taught in the Minneapolis district, I was not an employee of the state, the city or the school district. In December 2003 I was hired by A+ Tutoring Services in Edina, a private company contracted to supply tutors for the NCLB program in Minneapolis. Though promised 30-35 hours a week, I was only assigned 22 hours. A+ paid me $16/hour with no benefits; I don't know how much the government paid A+. Before I began tutoring, I received 15 hours of training, most of which revolved around abstract teaching theories rather than information about the curriculums being taught in public schools. I received a book to teach phonics but no guide to teach math. At no time did I receive ESL (English as a Second Language) training, though all of my students were immigrants or children of immigrants and English was their second language. I was given some cheap supplies: an eraser, some pencils and one pair of child scissors. I dove in. Between 3 and 8 p.m. weekdays and 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. Saturdays, I went to the families' homes (most families had multiple children in the program) and tutored the kids one by one. I was to teach either math or reading to each child for the entirety of the program. This limitation was problematic. Since many of the children could barely form a sentence in English, they had problems in all of their classes. One of my students was 13 and, unlike her younger siblings, entered the American system too late to make up for the years in Mexico where she says she only sporadically attended school. While playing a math game with the entire family, I discovered that she could not add or subtract. Her parents had chosen reading for her, but I could not ignore her blatant math deficiency. I decided to divide the two hours she had per week between math and reading. After 23 sessions, it was evident my tutoring alone was not enough to bring her up to par with her classmates. She had made significant advances, but she'd started out far, far behind. She illustrates how ill-conceived parts of NCLB are; the tutoring facet of the program, at least, overlooks the fact that a child with problems in one academic area will likely have trouble in others as well. Well-funded schools and open libraries Some of my students were more successful academically. One family in particular did quite well: the Xiong/Lee family. Their mother came as a refugee from a camp in Thailand, and the children were all born in the U.S. Though they grew up speaking only Hmong, all five of them attended American schools from the beginning and learned English quickly. In addition to having teachers they adored at Powderhorn Elementary School, the kids attended after-school programs and church activities. They had homework from class nearly every time I had a session with them. More than tutoring, these kids simply needed some individual attention. It seems their teacher and school activities did much more for them academically than the tutoring sessions, though they enjoyed being in the spotlight for at least two hours each week. After 23 sessions each with 11 students, I must say that, as an employee of NCLB, the good I did for their education was minimal. Simply by working for an Edina company rather than one of the many organizations in their neighborhoods (which are equipped to educate at- risk kids), I diverted government funds from Minneapolis to the suburbs. Though tutoring is good, schooling is better. If the money that paid my salary was invested in after-school programs or classroom supplies or lowering class size, I estimate the return would have been 10 times greater. The children who benefited the most from tutoring regularly attended school activities and used resources such as the city library to provide what schools or parents could not. Libraries are cutting their hours of service, nine schools in Minneapolis will close next fall, and many teachers have been laid off. Tutors and the remaining teachers are still expected to bring every child up to national educational standards. We are required to administer more and more standardized tests (I gave each student two, on top of the ones they received at school), but we are given fewer and fewer resources to prepare the children for these tests. I cannot say the mission of NCLB is wrong, but the program provisions are ineffective in light of the budget cuts education has suffered. The children with learning disabilities or poor educational backgrounds certainly need tutoring, but much more than two hours a week. Scrapping the program altogether would hurt many students, but they need more than what NCLB is offering them before they can be expected to move forward. The ABCs of No Child Left Behind President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 into law Jan. 8, 2002, reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which encompasses Title I. Primary objective: Impel progress in student achievement; hold states and schools accountable for such progress. Testing: Annual testing of students in grades 3-8 in math and reading by 2005-6 school year; testing in science at least once in elementary, middle and high school by 2007-8; National Assessment of Educational Progress testing in reading and math for a sample of 4th and 8th graders every other year. Academic progress: States must raise every student to ``proficient'' level on state tests by 2013-14; each school must meet state ``adequate yearly progress'' targets toward this goal for both the student populations as a whole and specific demographic subgroups; students in schools that do not meet these standards for three consecutive years must also be offered supplemental education services, including private tutoring. Nearly 30,000 schools nationwide did not make adequate yearly progress in 2002-2003. Source: Education Week ______ Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. Mr. Brown, I think everyone has had a chance to answer your questions. I appreciate your patience in sitting through our recess. I appreciate your testimony here. And if other members that weren't able to be here had further questions, we will hopefully ask you, if they give you questions in writing if you can respond to those, we would certainly appreciate it. Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much. We will ask the second panel now to take their seats. As soon as they are ready, I will introduce them. Well, thank you for being here with us today. I will introduce our panel. First we will hear from Ms. Cornelia Ashby, director of Education Workforce and Income Securities at the U.S. Government Accountability Office, where she directs studies involving education, child welfare and child support enforcement issues. And then Dr. Stephen Barr, the associate superintendent for the Center for School Improvement at the Ohio Department of Education, where he provides leadership for the offices of education reform, Federal programs, field relations and quality assurance. Then from Ms. Erica Harris, who currently serves as manager of Academic After-School Programs for the Chicago Public Schools, where she has been primarily responsible for the implementation of the supplemental education services. And Dr. Barbara Anderson, vice president of the Knowledge Learning Corporation. Dr. Anderson is responsible for the development and implementation of research-based educational programs and recommending best practices in the development of school programs. And our last panelist is Ms. Monique Dollonne, the mother of an 11-year-old recipient of supplemental educational services in Ventura, California. Ms. Dollonne is also the founder of the Coalition for Accountability in Education, for which her work emphasizes meaningful parental involvement strategies to help underperforming children receive the maximum benefits offered to them by their school districts. I would again remind you how the lights work. The green comes on. When you have 4 minutes, the yellow. When the 5th minute comes up and the red, we would ask you to conclude. Ms. Ashby? STATEMENT OF CORNELIA ASHBY, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE Ms. Ashby. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today to present information from our August 2006 report on implementation of supplemental education services. And I must say it has been gratifying to listen this morning to all the references to our report. Some of what I will say you have heard, but I think it is worth repeating. Our full written testimony statement discusses the eligible student participation rate, service delivery, state and district monitoring and evaluation efforts and Federal oversight and support. This morning I will focus on an important cross-cutting issue: communicating with parents. While school districts have provided written information notifying parents of supplemental educational services and taken other actions to encourage participation, challenges remain, such as notifying parents in a timely and effective manner. We estimate that over 90 percent of districts, sometimes in collaboration with service providers, send parents written information in English, hold individual meeting and/or phone conversations with parents, and encourage school staff to talk with parents about supplemental educational services. We also estimate that over 70 percent of districts held informational events for parents to learn about providers and gave written information to parents in languages other than English. In addition, an estimated 40 percent of districts worked with community organizations to inform students and parents of these services. Despite some districts' promising approaches to notifying parents, as the chairman alluded to earlier, before the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year, an estimated 58 percent of the districts had not notified parents that their children may have been eligible to receive supplemental educational services, which may have been due in part to delays in states reporting which schools were identified for improvement. Further, officials in all four districts we visited reported difficulties contacting parents to inform them about supplemental educational services in part because some families frequently move and do not always update their mailing lists with districts. In addition, some providers we interviewed indicated that parental notification letters do not always effectively encourage participation. For example, some of the providers we interviewed said some districts use confusing and poorly written letters to inform parents of these services or send letters to parents of eligible children but conduct no further outreach to encourage participation. As I indicated previously, providers also play a role in communicating with parents. They reported mailing information to parents as well as talking with parents over the phone and meeting with them in person to communicate information on student needs and progress. However, the frequency of communication with parents varied. We estimate that some providers did not contact parents in about 30 percent of districts in school year 2004-2005. In monitoring supplemental educational services providers, states and districts consider the perspectives of parents. We estimate that 70 percent or more of districts were collecting or planning to collect information from parents, school staff, onsite reviews and students to monitor providers in school year 2005-2006. In addition, in school year 2005-2006, 90 percent or more of states and districts monitored or planned to monitor parent and student satisfaction with providers and provider communication with teachers and parents. Finally, the Department of Education, in its oversight and support role, influences the quality of communication with parents. In May 2006, Education issued a policy letter announcing the department's plans to take significant enforcement action. In the letter, the department noted that its monitoring activities have identified several areas of noncompliance with requirements such as parental notification letters lacking key required components. However, during three of our site visits, officials expressed some concern about the lack of clarity in the department's guidance on how to craft a parental notification letter that is both complete and easy for parents to understand. In addition, Education's guidance provides a sample that does not clearly specify all the key required elements. Further, a few state and district officials commented that following department's regulations would yield a letter that is unreasonably long and complex. Our August report included a recommendation that Education clarify guidance and provide additional assistance to states and districts to help them comply with the Federal requirements for parental notification letters. In response, the department indicated that it would provide more parental notification assistance to states. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you or members of the committee may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ashby follows:] Prepared Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office 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).\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 \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 NCLBA interventions for Title I performance goals School status in the next year schools ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First year missed................ N/A None Second year missed............... Needs Improvement--First Year Required to offer school choice Third year missed................ Needs Improvement--Second Year Required to offer school choice and SES \a\ Fourth year missed............... Corrective Action \b\ Required to offer school choice and SES \a\ Fifth year missed................ Planning for Restructuring \c\ Required to offer school choice and SES \a\ Sixth year missed................ Implementation of Restructuring 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. 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.\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 Roles and responsibilities ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State............................ 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 <bullet> provider fails for 2 consecutive years to increase student proficiency relative to state academic content and achievement standards <bullet> provider fails to adhere to applicable health, safety, and civil rights requirements ------------------------------------------------------------------------ School district.................. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Providers........................ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Parents.......................... 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. 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).\4\ This increase may be due in part to the increase in the number of schools required to offer SES over that time period. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> 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. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> 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,\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.\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.\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.\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) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Estimated percentage Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year of districts ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Provided written information in English to parents99....... Held individual meetings and/or phone conversations with 95 interested parents........................................ Encouraged principals, teachers, or other school staff to 93 talk with parents......................................... Offered supplemental services in locations that are easily 90 accessible to students after school (e.g., on or near the school campus)............................................ Offered SES at a variety of times (e.g., after school, 79 weekends, summer break)................................... Lengthened the period of time parents have to submit 79 applications for SES...................................... Held events where parents of eligible students can learn 78 about providers........................................... Provided written information in language(s) other than 72 English about SES to parents.............................. Made public announcements (e.g., television, billboards, 67 newspaper ads, school newsletters)........................ Worked with a local community partner to raise awareness of 39 SES (e.g., Parent Information Resource Center)............ Provided or arranged for transportation of students 33 receiving SES to off-site providers....................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: GAO analysis of district survey results. 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.\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.\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.\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.\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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage of states Estimated percentage of --------------------------------- districts -------------------------------- Monitored Monitored Program element Planned or Planned or Monitored to planned Monitored to planned monitor to monitor to monitor monitor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parent/student satisfaction with a provider... 27 67 94 34 57 91 Provider communication with teachers and 37 56 92 46 43 89 parents...................................... Extent to which a provider's program, as 19 73 92 30 41 70 enacted, reflects its program design, as outlined in its application to your state.... Evidence of meeting academic achievement goals 23 65 88 28 60 88 as stated on student learning plan........... Evidence of improved student achievement based 15 71 87 26 65 91 on any statewide assessment.................. Alignment of provider curriculum with district/ 25 62 87 35 39 74 school curriculum or instruction............. Student attendance records.................... 27 56 83 67 25 93 Evidence of improved student achievement based 27 56 83 39 52 91 on provider assessments...................... Protection of student privacy................. 33 50 83 55 28 82 Adherence to applicable health, safety, and 29 48 77 48 26 74 civil rights laws............................ Provider financial stability (e.g., audits, 31 42 73 N/A N/A N/A financial statements)........................ Evidence of improved student achievement based 12 58 69 23 57 80 on grades, promotion, and/or graduation...... Billing and payment for services.............. N/A N/A N/A 72 21 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. 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.\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). <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> 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.\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.\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,\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 States District ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SES should precede school choice..................... 48 62 Both school choice and SES should be offered at the 27 15 same time........................................... School choice should precede SES..................... 15 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: GAO. Note: 10 percent of states did not respond or were not sure. In addition, district percentages are estimates. 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. ENDNOTES \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. ______ Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much. Dr. Barr? STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BARR, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTER FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Mr. Barr. Chairman McKeon, members of the committee, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding supplemental services. I am here on behalf of Dr. Susan Zelman, superintendent of public instruction for the Ohio Department of Education. Today I would like to address three issues. One is our initial efforts to implement No Child Left Behind, specifically supplemental services; efforts to solve administrative issues that we met; and third, continuing concerns that we still have in implementing No Child Left Behind. The Ohio department took a very aggressive approach in systems monitoring approach to implementing this landmark legislation, including the SES provisions. We developed an online supplemental educational services provider application that is available year-round for acceptance or rejection. Outside reviewers is typically completed within 2 weeks. And we currently have about 384 providers statewide. We post the approved-provider list on the Web site where parents access their local lists by selecting their county from a map or from a drop-down box and then selecting their district of residence. The list is always up-to-date, includes the name of the providers, their qualifications, descriptions of services delivered, group sizes, locations, hourly rates and contact information. Our Title I committee was instrumental in developing the state SES provider effectiveness report to help evaluate the effectiveness of providers. This is another online performance report. And the indicators we use are achievement outcomes, communications with parents and teachers, instructional alignment, staff qualifications and current satisfaction, to name just a few. In order to check compliance the SES is being implemented, the state includes it as part of a very sophisticated tiered Federal monitoring process, including self-evaluation, onsite monitoring, telephone monitoring and desk audits. We, in addition, require all districts to submit letters, SES letters, to the state to verify both the content of the letter and the date of mailing. Then we also require that they submit an electronic verification that letters came from all buildings within their district in addition to the mailing time. Additional administrative issues that we have had: Some where providers were offering enticements to encourage selection. And to help head off this potential problem, which did not surface very much in Ohio, we adopted the industry guidelines for professional conduct, which were developed by the education industry association. To identify and resolve other potential issues, our agency, the education industry association, which represents many SES providers, and Ohio's major urban districts met. Districts and providers shared some best practices, such as provider fairs and parent SES booklets. They also addressed some very difficult issues. And results of these discussions include plans to implement improved communications, development of suggested guidelines for SES administration, policies to help ensure providers stay true to their commitments and a process to withdraw nonparticipating providers. Issues not so easily solved are facilities cost and access to eligible families for the providers. Finally, we recognize that, at this point in time, not all eligible students choose to participate, and we are trying to take steps to improve on that. However, districts in our state we find, by and large, are attempting to comply with the law. So they are meeting the compliance of notification and making the services available. The hard part is getting districts going beyond what is required under the law in the compliance arena. And some of the strategies that we have heard from Chicago and all we will take back with us and try to recommend to our districts. Other areas that might reasonably be reviewed as part of SES is the administrative burden that this causes. This is a contractual process that has many, many difficult areas in it and could be looked at for streamlining. The other area is difficulty of attributing success or failure by virtue of SES services. It is a half-an-hour to an hour a week that could occur 20 weeks, 30 weeks out of the school year. And because it is individual-goals-oriented, it is very difficult for us to develop assessments that really can go back and say, because of the implementation of these services, this child succeeded in this way. Finally, NCLB does focus on highly qualified teachers in the classroom, and we would suggest a review of the minimal qualifications and standards for SES providers or minimal training requirements pushed into the law. Again, I want to thank you and the members of the committee for your responsiveness and for inviting us to participate. [The prepared statement of Mr. Barr follows:] Prepared Statement of Dr. Stephen Barr, Associate Superintendent, Center for School Improvement, Ohio Department of Education I want to thank Chairman McKeon and members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce for the opportunity to provide testimony on increasing parental awareness of Supplemental Educational Services (SES) under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). I am here on behalf of Dr. Susan Zelman, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the Ohio Department of Education. I am Stephen Barr, Associate Superintendent in the Center for School Improvement at the Ohio Department of Education. The Center for School Improvement administers many No Child Left Behind programs and oversees accountability and district/school improvement efforts. No Child Left Behind confers on the State Educational Agency (SEA) many responsibilities. These responsibilities include: promoting maximum participation by providers to ensure parents have choices; developing and applying objective criteria to the SEA provider selection process; maintaining an updated list of approved providers across the state, by school district, from which parents may select; developing, implementing and publicly reporting on standards and techniques for monitoring the quality and effectiveness of provider services; and withdrawing from approval providers that fail to contribute to increasing the academic proficiency of students served. Under Superintendent Zelman's leadership, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) took an aggressive approach to implementing the landmark NCLB legislation. In keeping with the spirit of the legislation, we attempted to integrate a systems-thinking process rather than a fragmented implementation approach. To prepare for successful implementation of SES, ODE has woven together many of the service delivery processes: the provider application process; the updated state approved provider list; the provider effectiveness report (used to evaluate providers); and the identification of school buildings required to provide SES services. Through this process, ODE has linked a Title I building eligibility section to the statewide Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan (CCIP). The CCIP is the automated system for district planning and funds application. The linkage allows our consultants to know which buildings must provide SES and budget for professional development. The Ohio Department of Education developed an on-line Supplemental Educational Services application to provide parents with the opportunity to review the full array of available choices. The application is available year round. The standard for application review and recommendation by outside reviewers is two weeks or less. Rejected applicants may re-submit. Ohio currently has around 384 providers statewide. To facilitate parent and district access to the Ohio list of approved providers, ODE posts the list on its web-site. Districts and parents can see the state approved providers available to serve eligible students in their district. Districts and parents can access their local list by selecting their county from a map or from a drop down box and then selecting their district of residence. The listing is always up-to-date and includes the name of the providers, their qualifications, description of services delivered, group sizes and locations, hourly rates and contact information. Evaluating the effectiveness of SES providers was an especially difficult issue to confront. Many problems were evident from the very beginning. For instance, the State is not permitted to have individual student test data, thus making it difficult to view changes in proficiency by student. This restriction on student data also precludes the State agency from knowing which students were selected for SES services or who their providers may have been. NCLB requires the district to develop in collaboration with parents and the selected provider, a statement of specific achievement goals for the student, how the student's achievement will be measured, and a timetable for improvement. Individualized measures complicate the development and administration of a set of valid and reliable assessments over the range of possible grade spans. Additionally, many participating students are in kindergarten through second grade where no statewide assessments aligned to the State curricula exist. Given these and other difficulties, we asked and received help from the Title I Committee of Practitioners to develop a SES Effectiveness report. The Committee of Practitioners represents parents, teachers, administrators, local boards of education, pupil personnel services, higher education and private schools as described in NCLB. Our committee is chaired by a representative of the Parents Teachers Association. The Committee responded with the Supplemental Educational Services Effectiveness Report which requires districts to reflect on and report on-line the performance of SES providers to students in their district. Performance indicators include achievement outcomes, communication with parents and teachers, instructional alignment, staff qualifications, and parent satisfaction to name a few. The on-line reporting allows our State agency to aggregate scores from across the state and arrive at a fair provider evaluation. Providers are informed if their score does not meet quality standards. If they miss the standards for two consecutive years, the provider will be withdrawn from the State approved list. A contractor trains the districts and providers about the evaluation process and the documentation required. The contractor also evaluates any district or public school building providing SES services. To ensure compliance with the law, SES is included as part of the state's tiered federal programs monitoring process. The process includes a self-evaluation, on-site monitoring and/or telephone monitoring and desk audit. Annually, districts are required to send copies of their SES letters to the State to verify the content of the letters and the date of mailing. Districts also submit an electronic report to verify that each required building sent parent notifications along with documentation of the mailing date. ODE has made several efforts to increase participation of SES programs. Most recently Superintendent Zelman wrote a guest column in the Ohio PTA's May newsletter, encouraging more grassroots support of SES programs. While Ohio's implementation was relatively smooth, anecdotally, ODE had received word from other states related to providers targeting parents with enticements to encourage their selection. To help head off this potential problem, ODE adopted the Industry Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of Members of the Education Industry Association. All of the state processes described above were in place by the end of the first year of NCLB. Modifications to these processes continue. Even with the efforts of State agency and district personnel and the Committee of Practitioners, some problems still surfaced. In an effort to address the issues, our agency and the Education Industry Association co-hosted a discussion meeting with representatives from the Ohio 8--the eight largest urban districts in Ohio. In addition to identifying some problems, districts and providers shared some successful practices such as parent booklets and provider fairs. Use of facilities, scheduling, transportation and parent information continue to be issues. However, the EIA and the districts discussed some ideas for mutually addressing some of these issues. Ultimately, the local district and the provider must agree to work together if progress around these issues is to be made. The cooperative meeting with the EIA also identified that some providers lack understanding of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The EIA and the State will work together to do a better job of informing. Districts also had problems with having too many providers who finally determine they lack sufficient clients to make tutoring financially feasible in some districts. These types of on again/off again business decisions are essential for providers. However, the district is left with the job of communicating to parents why their choice of providers is no longer available. This may create tension, mistrust and administrative overload. The Title I, Committee of Practitioners and the State are moving forward with recommendations to allow providers to specify a minimum child count. If the number of participants meets the provider standard, we will expect the provider to provide services. Ohio is also considering removing providers from the state list if they have not provided any services for two successive years. This strategy will help reduce the number of contacts the districts needs to make to create meaningful preliminary information for parents. Another result of the cooperative meeting with districts and the EIA was the development of a recommended timeline for parent notification, student selection, and services initiation. The guidelines are a joint initiative between the districts and the State. The timeline is being used this year in many districts. The reauthorization of NCLB provides us with an opportunity to make improvements to the SES program. We offer these thoughts and concerns for your consideration. The law requires district to notify parents and make services available. However, most districts go beyond the requirements of the law to help encourage parents to participate in SES. Many districts host or co-host provider fairs and develop SES booklets to better inform parents of the providers and the services available. The fact that parents do not always choose to participate in SES should not be viewed as a failure of the districts. There are legitimate reasons some parents choose not to participate or are hesitant to participate. For example, some parents are concerned about turning their children over to strangers. This may be more worrisome if the services are provided at non-district sites. Some parents have trouble providing or arranging for transportation for their child after school--even if the tutoring occurs on school grounds. Other parents do not want strangers coming to their homes to provide services or are upset if they must rearrange family schedules to accommodate the provider. Many students are involved in other after school activities. Some of these activities occur at the school and others at other locations in the community. SES is just one more thing to add to a busy schedule. Because students are often busy and not all students can be tutored during the first hour after school, it make some sense to better connect SES to other after school programs such as 21st Century to ensure someone is watching out for the child. Schools should not be asked to find funds to provide after-school child care for students awaiting tutoring services or to establish additional transportation opportunities. The costs of each of the types of activities are prohibitive in today's tight school budgets. Finally, it must be recognized that the law determines eligibility based on poverty status of students. Some economically disadvantaged students are performing at or above grade level. Parents often see no purpose in additional tutoring. It should be understood that the SES process in the law is very administratively burdensome to districts. Districts are often required to add additional administrative staff to contact parents and providers, create schedules, write contracts, identify student learning objectives, verify and process invoices, hold provider fairs, etc. Adding administrative staff reasonably redirects funds away from the classroom. The problems we confronted with trying to attribute student result to a half-hour or more of tutoring per week still exists. Several models have been tried by other states but none seem to have the validity and reliability required by the law. Other problems such as connecting provider services to students, lack of state tests for K-2 students, trying to cover individualized objectives with State achievement test results, and State access to individualized student data are all real and should be acknowledged as part of the reauthorization. NCLB focuses on highly qualified teachers in the classroom and research based practices for public schools yet does not provide minimal quality standards for providers. If SES is to meet its potential and the expectations of parents and the public, quality standards for tutors working with students needs some attention. This committee might want to think about requiring successful completion of some basic training in tutoring and curriculum content for anyone employed as a provider. Again, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and the members of this committee for inviting the Ohio Department of Education to discuss Supplemental Educational Services. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent Superintendent Zelman and the Ohio State Board of Education and the Ohio Department of Education. Ohio looks forward to working with the committee as discussions continue on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. ______ Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. Ms. Harris? STATEMENT OF ERICA HARRIS, MANAGER, ACADEMIC AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS, CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS Ms. Harris. Thank you, Chairman McKeon and members of the committee. I am the manager of Academic After-School Programs for the Chicago Public Schools. And thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about supplemental services. I also want to thank you for acknowledging the significance of this issue and for your work to ensure that all students should receive the highest quality services that they deserve. I also would like to thank our Illinois representation for their continued support of Chicago Public Schools. My testimony today will focus on the assets of CPS, Chicago Public Schools, that this has made. To ensure the effective delivery of tutoring services to our students, I will discuss the successful parent outreach strategies that we have implemented and also offer an update regarding the status of the pilot program that was negotiated between Chicago and the U.S. Department of Education. Chicago Public Schools is the third-largest school district in the country, serving over 430,000 students in 600 schools. Over 80 percent of our students are low-income, and 50 percent of the poor children in Illinois attend Chicago Public Schools. CPS established the Office of After-School Community School Programs in 2001 with the purpose of enabling and supporting schools and offering a variety of high-quality programs in after-school to support academic instruction and enrich the development of the whole child. We offer five major initiatives in 500 schools, serving over 250,000 students. Expanding student learning opportunities, including the creation and expansion of after-school programs, is one of the district's three core strategies. As part of the strategy, CPS strongly embraces free-market innovations and competition. Given CPS's commitment to choice, innovation and quality after- school, SES was seen as an opportunity to support and enhance the district's vision for its students and families. CPS has embraced the spirit of No Child Left Behind for SES by allowing providers to utilize our buildings to render services. In 2005-2006, over 75,000 students did register to receive SES at 300 schools. And we did spend $50 million to offer these services. In addition, we partnered with over 40 providers, 32 of whom wanted to use our buildings. The district fundamentally believes it to be in the best interest of our students to do this because it improves the attendance for tutoring but also ensures the students are in a safe place in the critical hours from 3 to 6:00, when they are most likely to become engaged in negative behaviors. While CPS has embraced the use of district facilities, there are significant challenges in doing so. One of the most challenging aspects of implementing SES is to ensure parent choice but to do so in a way that is manageable for the schools that must work with the providers to deliver services. In a recent survey of providers, even the majority of providers agreed that fewer competing interests at the school level would be preferable. So to address this, CPS has established a fair, transparent method to match providers wishing to serve onsite with eligible SES schools. The process is approved by ISBE, our state and the Department of Education, and involves gathering the preference of each SES school principal and that of the preferences of SES providers. SES schools have been matched with no more than five onsite provider options, and parents have the opportunity to choose between those five options onsite and the online and offsite programs available. The result is parent choice which is also manageable at the school level. CPS has made significant efforts to refine its parent notification strategy. And, to this point, we have been quite successful. Last year we were able to fulfill the amount of demand for SES, but 30,000 students were unfortunately placed on a wait-list. I should say we were not able to fill the demand due to a lack of funds. Our goal is to raise parent awareness. And to do that, we have mentioned some strategies here for how we will accomplish this. We sent an initial notification letter in April to parents to inform them about the opportunity to receive free tutoring. We also empower schools to promote registration as all registration occurs at the local school level and not centrally from our office. A parent handbook was sent home. Each SES school is mandated to do a local school provider fair. And we also do a massive campaign with public service announcements and a flyer campaign as well. We are proud of our district's efforts to promote SES and look forward to another outstanding showing of parent support for the program. As part of NCLB, a district in need of improvement, like CPS, is supposed to be prevented from providing supplemental services. Yet this past year we were part of the pilot with the Department of Education which allowed the district to serve our students. And we are confident that this program is positively impacting student achievement and achieving results. Our curriculum is aligned to what is happening in the regular school day. We tailor our program to accommodate special education and English language learner needs. In 2004- 2005, our evaluation showed that students of CPS program had a positive impact on student achievement and showed the CPS was as effective, if not more effective, than other private tutoring programs. Finally, we serve a great number of students because the cost-efficiency is great. We cost about one-fourth of that of private providers. As has been mentioned, several evaluations are being done. It will be concluded by the end of the year. And we expect these studies will prove that Aim High has been successful. Finally, we are thankful for the flexibility agreement with the Department of Education, believe it was the right thing to do, as it gave another high-quality option to parents and allowed thousands of students to be served. We estimate that without Aim High or the district's program, over 80,000 students would not have been served this past year. I would be happy to answer any questions as they arise. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Harris follows:] Prepared Statement of Erica L. Harris, Manager, Academic After School Programs, Office of After School and Community School Programs, Chicago Public Schools My name is Erica Harris and I am the Manager of Academic After School Programs for the Chicago Public Schools. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the supplemental services provision in No Child Left Behind. I also want to thank you for acknowledging the significance of this issue--and for your work to ensure that all students receive the high-quality supplemental educational services that they deserve. My testimony today will focus on the efforts Chicago Public Schools has made to ensure the effective delivery of tutoring services to our students. I will discuss the successful parent outreach strategies Chicago Public Schools has implemented. I will also offer an update to the committee regarding the status of the pilot program that was negotiated between the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) and the US Department of Education (USDOE). Strategies Toward Making SES an Effective Program The Chicago Public Schools is the third largest school district in the country, serving over 430,000 students in 600 schools. Over 80% of students are low income (over 90% in Elementary Schools), and 50% of the poor children in the state of Illinois attend CPS. Chicago Public Schools established the Office of After School and Community School Programs (2001), which provides the overall leadership and guidance to ensure that every CPS student has access to quality programs beyond the regular school day. We offer 5 major initiatives, in over 500 schools, serving 250,000 students. The mission of our Office is to enable and support schools in offering a variety of high- quality programs that support academic instruction and enrich the development of the whole child. Expanding student learning opportunities, including the creation of new schools and the expansion of after-school programs, is one of the District's three core strategies to becoming the premier urban school district in the nation. As a part of this strategy, CPS strongly embraces free market innovations and competition. Given CPS' commitment to choice, innovation and quality after- school programs, SES was seen as an opportunity to support and enhance the District vision for its students and families. CPS has embraced the spirit of the NCLB provision for SES by allowing providers to utilize our building facilities to render services. In 2005-2006, over 75,000 students registered to receive supplemental services at 300 schools, and we spent $50 million dollars to offer these services. In addition, the district partnered with over 40 providers, 32 of whom used CPS buildings. The district fundamentally believes it to be in the best interest of our students to make tutoring available at the school. Not only does this ensure improved attendance for tutoring, but it also ensures that students are in a safe place during the critical hours of 3-6 pm, when students are most likely to become engaged in negative behaviors. While CPS has embraced the use of district facilities, significant challenges arise when a district opens its doors. One of the most challenging aspects of implementing the SES program is to ensure parent choice, but to do so in a way which is manageable for the school personnel that work with providers to deliver services. Schools have a difficult time managing 4-5 programs, let alone managing the activity of the nearly 60 providers that would like to use CPS buildings. In a recent survey of providers administered by our office, even the majority of providers agreed that fewer competing interests offered at the school level would be preferable. To address this issue, CPS has established a fair and transparent method to match providers wishing to serve onsite, with eligible SES schools. This process has been approved by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and the USDOE and involves gathering the preferences of each SES school principal, and the preferences of the SES providers. Using this data, all SES schools are matched with no more than 5 onsite provider options. Parents have an opportunity to choose between these 5 onsite programs, and the online and offsite programs which are available. The result is a parent choice model, which is also manageable at the school level. CPS has adopted the philosophy that the school is the critical unit of change with the most potential to impact student achievement. On a daily basis our principals are challenged to identify the unique needs of their student population, and are given the authority to deploy strategies to accommodate those needs. While the CPS model encourages creativity and customization, The SES model dictates a more ``One size fits all'' approach. The balance between the two methodologies is not easy to reconcile. The district has tried to do so by allowing some decisions within the parameters of the law to be made at the school level, and by allowing for principal input. Empowering schools in this way has facilitated the successful implementation of SES at the school level. In the same regard, we have surveyed providers and have asked for their input. Their feedback was integrated within the program design and implementation and fosters a sense of partnership between the LEA and vendors. Effective Parent Notification Strategies CPS has made significant efforts to refine its parent notification strategy and up till this point, we have been quite successful in engaging parents. So successful in fact, that last year, CPS was unable to fulfill the amount of demand for the SES program, and over 30,000 students were unfortunately placed on a waitlist, due to a lack of funds. Our goal is to raise parent awareness about SES, to ensure that individuals are equipped with the information which would allow them to make informed decisions as they select their child's provider and to provide all service providers with an equal opportunity to market their program to parents. To that end, CPS has incorporated the following successful outreach strategies: <bullet> An initial notification letter was distributed to parents in April to inform them that their student could be eligible to receive free tutoring <bullet> Schools are empowered to encourage parent registration as all registration occurs at the local school level. <bullet> A SES Parent Handbook, which is a how to guide on how to register and choose a provider was created by the Office of After School and Community School Programs, and is disseminated by the schools to parents. <bullet> Each eligible SES school is mandated to host a local school open house for parents and providers <bullet> Public Service Announcements, advertisements are published in local print media and air on seven major local radio stations <bullet> Over 30,000 flyers were distributed through schools and in a door-to-door outreach campaign <bullet> SES hotline was created for parents (English, Spanish, and Polish) to answer all program questions We are proud of our district's efforts to promote SES, and look forward to another outstanding showing of parent support for the program. An Update on the Pilot Program with the US Department of Education As part of the NCLB Act, a district ``in need of improvement,'' like CPS is prevented from providing supplemental services. However, CPS was part of a pilot program with the US Department of Education last year, which allowed the district to serve our own students. We are confidant that the district's program is positively impacting student achievement and achieving results. Our curriculum is aligned to what's happening during the regular school day. We are able to tailor our program to accommodate the needs of Special Education and English Language Learners, (groups that are typically underserved by providers). A 2004-2005 evaluation of provider effectiveness indicated that the CPS program did have a positive impact on student achievement and showed that CPS' program was as effective if not more effective, than many other private tutoring programs. Finally, we can serve a great number of students because of the cost efficiency as we cost about 1/4 of that of the private providers. The Illinois State Board of Education is in the process of evaluating the performance of Aim High and private providers for 2005- 2006 which will be completed later this year. In addition, the USDOE will complete its own evaluation of Aim High by January 2007. Finally CPS will do its own internal evaluation as we did in 2004-2005, which looks at the impact that all providers have had on student achievement. We expect that these studies will all prove that Aim High has been successful. We are thankful for The Flexibility Agreement with the USDOE and believe it was the right thing to do for students. It gave another high quality option to parents, and allowed thousands of more students to be served by the program. Our estimates show that without Aim High in the pool, over 8,000 additional students would not have been served. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have and thank you again for this opportunity to provide a perspective on behalf of the local educational authority. ______ Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. Dr. Anderson? STATEMENT OF BARBARA ANDERSON, VICE PRESIDENT OF EDUCATION, KNOWLEDGE LEARNING CORPORATION, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS Ms. Anderson. Thank you, Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Miller, for inviting me to testify today. I am the vice president of Education for the Knowledge Learning Corporation, School Partnerships Division, KLC-SP. And we are a supplemental educational services provider. I bring more than 30 years of experience in public education to my role and responsibilities with the Knowledge Learning Corporation. I began my career as a teacher in an urban school district and have served as a school and district administrator, a county superintendent of schools and assistant commissioner for the New Jersey Department of Education, working with the 30 poorest districts, known as the Abbott Special Needs Districts. My children have also attended public schools. KLC-SP, a division of Knowledge Learning Corporation, is the largest national education company delivering unique, in- school solutions for educational enrichment. Recently, KLC-SP acquired Education Station, bringing together two of the nation's leading education companies with decades of experience and expertise in partnering with schools to deliver high- quality, proven-effective supplemental instruction and educational enrichment programs. In the SES arena, we are now approved in 36 states and have served more than 33,000 children. We are also an active member of the Education Industry Association, which is very active in supporting SES goals. I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide testimony on the issue that represents the cornerstone of supplemental educational services: how to best empower parents to choose the provider and programs best suited to their child's tutoring needs. Parent awareness, education and information are essential to a parent's ability to make an informed choice for their child. Our company's experience indicates that when local school districts and providers work in concert, parents and students benefit and parents are willing partners. This partnership role was underscored in the recent GAO report on SES. In districts where we worked directly with the central administration and building principals, we have forged a better understanding of the types of communication that work best for parents and the most effective ways to support their attendance at school functions and special events. As examples of our effective school partnerships, we sent home bi-monthly parent newsletters providing information, helpful tips on working at home with their children improving reading and math skills, and articles on NCLB and SES. We also continue to offer free parent and teacher workshops. We provide all of our parent information in English and Spanish. We have also found that community-based organizations, CBOs, are effective partners in working with parents to heighten their awareness and emphasize their involvement in making informed choices for their children. Our experience also indicates, however, that too many parents remain unaware of supplemental educational services, and the processes and procedures to gain access are often too complex, too confusing and too inconvenient to permit many parents to take full advantage of them. To improve parent participation and involvement we have four recommendations. One, rolling enrollments to keep open year-round the window for parents to sign up their children or at least two very large windows of opportunity. Two, coordination with providers and districts to work together to boost enrollment. Rather than districts prohibiting providers from marketing to parents, Federal Government or the state should create a regulatory framework to define necessary requirements to promote this. Third, there should be better involvement of CBOs. They have close ties to the communities we wish to serve. There should be some seed funding to these organizations to assist them with promoting SES in a systemic way. And finally, we should standardize the enrollment process and the forms. The Federal Government should send out guidance which should be available through CBOs as well as providers and school districts. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And I would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the committee may have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:] Prepared Statement of Dr. Barbara Anderson, Vice President of Education, Knowledge Learning Corporation-School Partnerships Thank you Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Miller for inviting me to testify today. My name is Dr. Barbara Anderson and I am the Vice President of Education for Knowledge Learning Corporation-School Partnerships (KLC-SP) Division, and we are a Supplemental Educational Services provider. I bring more that 30 years of experience in public education to my role and responsibilities with the Knowledge Learning Corporation. I began my career as a teacher in an urban school district and have served as a school and district administrator, a county superintendent of schools, and assistant commissioner for the New Jersey Department of Education, working with the 30 poorest districts known as the Abbott Special Needs districts. My children have also attended public schools. KLC-SP, a division of Knowledge Learning Corporation, is the largest national education company delivering unique, in-school solutions for educational enrichment. Recently, KLC-SP acquired Education Station bringing together two of the nation's leading education companies with decades of expertise in partnering with schools to deliver high quality, proven-effective supplemental instruction and educational enrichment programs. The KLC family also includes KinderCare, Children's World Learning Centers and other trusted and well-known names in childcare and education. Company-wide, KLC last year served more than 200,000 children in 38 states and the District of Columbia. In the SES arena we are now approved in 36 states and have served more than 33,000 children. We are also an active member of the Education Industry Association (EIA) which is very active in supporting the goals of SES. I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide testimony on the issue that represents the cornerstone of Supplemental Educational Services--how to best empower parents to choose the provider and programs best suited to their child's tutoring needs. Parental awareness, education and information are essential to a parent's ability to make an informed choice for their child. Our company's experience indicates that when local school districts and providers work in concert, parents and students benefit. This partnership role was underscored in the recent GAO report on SES. In districts where we have worked directly with the central administration and building principals we have forged a better understanding of the types of communication that work best for parents and the most effective ways to support their attendance at school functions and special events. Working with school officials is essential for providers to gain access to student records and enrollment forms. Providers also need direct communication with principals, often by cell phone or email, to trouble shoot parent and student issues as they arise. As a national provider with talent and resources available to us, we continue to offer our services to districts and schools to partner with us to offer and market special parent events, create parent educational materials and to encourage parent participation on parent advisory groups and at parent resource conferences. As part of our Champions tutoring programs, we send home a bi-monthly parent newsletter updating parents on current information about our programs, offering helpful tips on working with their children at home, and providing articles on important topics related to NCLB and SES tutoring. We continue to offer free parent workshops and to-date we have facilitated more that 21 workshops to more that 300 parents in 6 states. Through our Education Station programs we provide ``Home Connection'', our parent outreach curriculum that reinforces essential learning concepts in a fun and exciting way that parents can do at home with their children. We provide all of our parent information and materials in both English and Spanish. We have also found that Community Based Organizations (CBOs) are effective partners in working with parents to heighten their awareness and emphasize their involvement in making informed choices for their children. CBOs can provide direct contact with parents and parent groups to allow providers to share information, attend community fairs, and distribute flyers in such places as county and city recreation facilities and housing authority communities. As an SES provider, we have customized our parent outreach to address parent needs in the communities we serve. For example, we have partnered with bus companies to distribute flyers at bus stops. We have also attended back-to-school events, open houses and parent fairs designed to provide information to parents about the content and quality of our program offerings. Knowledge Learning Corporation-School Partnerships has provided free parent workshops in all of our SES markets along with receiving an invitation to present at the Colorado Statewide Parent Conference in May of this year. I am pleased that the GAO report, ``NCLB-Education Actions Needed to Improve Local Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services'', highlights the need to better educate parents about the availability of free tutoring and their right to make informed choices to select the provider, programs and services that best meet the needs of their children. We also agree that more work and direction are needed to address the needs of English Language Learners and Special Needs students. We make every effort to provide ESL or Bilingual teachers when they are available. We work with schools to gain access to student IEPs to ensure appropriate program considerations and accommodations. We also work with principals, teachers, and parents to describe our tutoring programs to ensure that student's needs are addressed. Our company's experience indicates that too many parents remain unaware of Supplemental Educational Services and the process and procedure to gain access to services. Unfortunately, in too many places, parent notification letters are full of legal terms and long complex explanations that only serve to confuse parents. All communications should be written with parents in mind, they should be ``parent friendly'' and in a language they can understand. Parent representatives should be invited to assist with composing them to ensure their clarity and appeal. Once parents understand that free tutoring is available to help their children improve their academic achievement in reading and math, they are willing partners. Districts, schools and providers need to educate parents about NCLB throughout the school year in a variety of ways including but not limited to: working with the PTAs, parent meetings, local school councils and NCLB parent groups or by hosting parent meetings. To improve parent participation and involvement we offer the following recommendations for consideration by the Committee: 1. Rolling Enrollments--If our ultimate goal is to boost enrollment in SES, districts need to keep open year round the window of opportunity for parents to sign up their children in SES, similar to the way the consumer marketplace works and spend their entire set- aside. Short of a rolling enrollment, they should provide at least two very large windows of opportunity for parents to learn about SES and enroll their children in SES at once. Also, the enrollment process should take place in the communities where the families live and during the hours that parents are not at work, such as evenings and weekends. 2. Coordination with providers--If the goal of SES is to boost student achievement and remove schools from the needs improvement status, we must find a way to work closely together to boost enrollment. We and other private sector partners have the resources and the know-how to market to low-income communities and help districts meet their goals. The Federal government or the states may even consider creating a regulatory framework similar to the way the FCC currently regulates advertising. Instead of prohibiting us from doing any advertising to parents which is the case in many school districts, school districts and providers should partner to produce high quality parent information and materials and allow providers to play a role in enrolling students in SES. 3. Better involvement of Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and other local leaders--These entities have close ties to the communities we wish to serve and they are currently not a part of the SES parent recruitment equation in a significant way. This needs to change and the best way to do so is by offering some seed funding to these organizations to assist with promoting SES in a systemic way. Parent Information Resource Centers (PIRCs) also need to play a larger role in educating parents. 4. Standardized Enrollment process and forms--The Federal government should consider standardizing the enrollment process and forms and make them available through CBOs and the providers as well as the districts. As most educators can attest, it takes hard work and more time on task to raise student achievement. SES can only help in this task if it is used by the student population it is intended to serve. Otherwise, its true effectiveness will never be realized. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other committee members may have. ______ Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. Ms. Dollonne? STATEMENT OF MONIQUE DOLLONNE, PARENT OF A SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES STUDENT Ms. Dollonne. Good morning, Chairman McKeon. Good morning, Congressman Miller, my fellow Californian. My name is Monique Dollonne. I am coming to see you today to testify as a mother of a child who was a recipient of supplemental education services and also as a parent advocate representing the millions of parents whose children are eligible for SES and unfortunately could not fit in my suitcase today. I am honored to be here to testify today before this committee to provide the views of parents, stakeholders in education who are many times not invited to forum such as this. Thank you again for the opportunity. Now the burden is on me to be as clear and concise as I can be to let you hear their voices. First of all, as my own experience, I want you to know that SES tutoring works. I have watched it with my own child. Her increase in reading comprehension level by one grade in less than 5 weeks was phenomenal. Her math skills improved as well. The one-to-one attention from her tutor that she received built her confidence and increased her interest level in both subjects. She was able to go back to her classroom teacher with stronger skills and help the other children who did not get the chance to access the services. It was all around a very positive and helpful experience. As I watched the results amongst her peers at her school site and listened to the other parents, it became evident that, for a lot of the Title I children, the tutoring program was not just an academic support program; it was a safe haven as well. It became a place where students were looking forward to come and get help. After 2 weeks of efforts, their respective teachers at school noticed a difference. Out of the tutoring effort, we saw friendships grow with the tutors, attitude toward studying change, confidence build and test scores go up. SES, to a lot of children, represents extra support that will help them achieve. In most cases, it is a life preserver thrown at them when they are drowning in the school system. With all the evidence of the obvious benefits, the question remains, why can't many more parents access SES? The data that was presented to us today, we are talking about 19 percent of the children. Working with parents and advocacy groups, I can tell you, in California, for example, we are finding areas where only 1 to 3 percent of the children are being served. And this is not acceptable. And I am coming here to you to tell you, please, we need to take a look at that access part of the program. Notification letters. How does the information come to the parents? Notification letters are very confusing. A lot of times I have received notification letters that have three deadlines, for example. Deadlines that I receive--you are supposed to tell your district if your child needs services when you don't even receive the AYP results. Then you have to give another deadline for choice. From what I am understanding, we have a choice; we are supposed to be choosing the providers. Why do we parents have to go and give three choices and have the district prevent the choices? Clarification needs to be put into the law. Apparently this is not helping the parent access. Marketing. Marketing should be--or the enrollment should be total collaboration. We are finding districts that are spending a lot of money sending out letters, but they are not reaching the parents. The parents are not understanding what it is they are supposed to be doing. They are invited to go to fairs and meet the providers. But they have no information about the providers. The states are supposed to be giving a list. How many parents in Title I schools have a computer to access the providers list and actually make a judgment call when the schools are not allowed to give them the information? So we need to have information access to the parents, accurate information on the quality of the tutors as well, the quality of the information. But as well, we need to put in the provider, for example, professional development, the teachers, the staff, the school should understand what NCLB really meant with offering the SES providing services. The parents. NCLB offers a 1 percent training to train the parents to understand how to implement the NCLB provision. Maybe we should have a provision into the SES program that 1 percent or maybe a certain percentage can be for the parent development so parents can understand how to access SES providers. Any time as a parent I try to find out how an SES provider is doing, we have had no problem trying to get an evaluation. And, yes, we do want the providers to be qualified. We do want the programs to offer good programs. But a lot of times what we are finding out is SES comes in conflict with the school district. Why is it that schools recognize that the SES providers are not working in collaboration? We need to open the doors and finding out what the problems are. Funding. Twenty percent goes to the SES providers or actually allocated for SES. But it is not 20 percent. It is only we have a certain percentage, certain districts says 15 percent goes to choice. Well, then we have 5 percent left. So that becomes very confusing. People don't know if they are eligible or not. And the district cannot explain you are supposed to send an application. But you don't know if you are going to be eligible or not. So we need clarification at 20 percent. How much of that 20 percent should be going to transit to a better school? How much is actually going to SES? And if you are in a failing school, you should be entitled. The law says you are entitled to SES. So why do we have to go through all those barriers to access a service that is supposed to help our children succeed and achieve and help the school do better? This is one of my main questions. I am sorry. I forgot to read now. I will go back to my statement. Implementing SES properly and giving it its full force is a civil rights issue. SES is an answer to an SOS scream from our children. All the E.L. students are minority students, our most vulnerable children. SES is giving failing children a second chance or access to success when children have been in failing schools for the 4th year. Parents would like to see an earlier implementation of SES. Most parents would prefer to have SES access before being given transferring options to a better school. I am coming to you to proclaim that SES in the parents book is more like an answer to the SOS scream of our children. Of course, it can no longer be ignored, unwelcomed and mistreated by our school system. It should be embraced, welcomed and given the red carpet treatment no later than the very first day of school. All eligible students should be entitled to access SES support at the beginning of the year--not in December, not in January, not in May, like we are finding out in some of the areas in California. A stronger accountability process should be required for school districts and states are enforced. Funding distribution on SES should be strengthened. And districts not spending 20 percent allocation should be required to roll over the remaining funds into the next year allocation, increasing SES impact on students achievement for the following year. Parents and committee organization should be openly welcomed to build connections between their children, the tutoring centers and welcome to distribute applications and SES information to the community. Right now some applications are kept hostage at the district office. An SES application should not be kept hostage by school districts, but freely distributed at times of need without deadlines. The law doesn't have a deadline. Why do the parents get a deadline? The district receives the funding in August. Why should we have a deadline? And why should we be given 2 weeks to decide which SES provider we should be getting? We should have until June if our child is failing in June. It is imperative to give SES a full pledge of support from this committee in the reauthorization process. Our children need the SES provision to be fully implemented. Its funding needs to be sustained and dispersed until all children are fully served. Its accountability must be preserved under the law. SES is giving parents hope and paving the road to our children's success. Please, repair the broken toe of NCLB and transform it into the strong pillar as it was originally intended. Our children need a strong law to achieve strong results. Please do the right thing and help the SES provision save our children, our treasures, our nation's most precious assets. Please help us, the parents, be proud of our American kids. We, the parents, know that our children can shine again in tomorrow's world. With your help, they will shine. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Ms. Dollonne follows:] Prepared Statement of Monique Dollonne, Ventura, CA Good morning, Chairman McKeon, and members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. My name is Monique Dollonne, I am coming to you to testify as a mother of a child who was the recipient of Supplemental Educational Services and as a Parent Advocate, representing the Millions of parents whose children are eligible for SES and unfortunately could not fit in my suitcase to join us at this table today. I am honored to be here to testify today before this Committee to provide the views of Parents, the stakeholders in education who are many times not invited to forum such as this. Thank you for this opportunity. Now the burden is on me to be as clear and concise and let you hear their voices. First of all, I would like to thank all of the players who will have an important role in the NCLB reauthorization and specifically in the reauthorization of one of the important pillars of NCLB: The tutoring previsions of the Law so called SES. I watched my child increase her reading and comprehension levels by one grade in less than 5 weeks. Her math skills improved as well as her confidence in computing the numbers at her 4th grade level. The one on one attention that she received built her confidence and increased her interest level in both subjects. She was able to go back to her classroom teacher with stronger skills and help the other children who did not get the chance to access the services. It was all around a very positive and helpful experience. As I watched the results amongst her peers at her PI (Program Improvement) 2 level school and listen to the other parents, it became evident that for a lot of the Title I children, the tutoring program was more than a support and help in improving results and test scores, it was a safe heaven. It became a place where students were looking forward to come and get help. After 2 weeks of efforts, their respective teachers at school noticed a difference. For the first time, some of those students were given a desk to study at, their own books, and one on one mentoring attention from their tutors. Out of the tutoring effort, we saw friendships grow, attitude towards studying change, confidence build, and test scores go up. SES, to a lot of children, represents extra support that will help them achieve; however, to most children, SES is also an opportunity for emotional support that might not be available at home. In most cases, it is a life preserver thrown at them when they are drowning in the system. With all the evidence of the obvious benefits, the question remains: Why can't all parents access SES? Why are we serving only 19% of our eligible children (Nationwide Data)? This is what my experience has been in the field after working with many parents; 1) Access to Services a) Notification letter. Letters are confusing, contradictory at times, poorly translated in a foreign language, not sent in a timely manner, full of deadlines Ex: Tutor (having a different meaning in the Spanish Language Ex: One letter has 3 deadlines in one paragraph. The access to SES needs to be free of deadlines. (The Law does not have a deadline, the funding does not have a dead line, why are the Notification letters full of deadlines?) b) How do parents receive the information of their rights to SES? One notification letter sent anytime is not sufficient. In some cases notification letters were received a month prior to receiving the PI Status information of the school attended. The SES provisions need much more clarification so there is no room for confusion. Information about SES under NCLB is crucial for its proper implementation. It can be received under training provided by Schools. The same as the teachers receive Professional Development; the parents should be entitled to Professional development access. May be through the 1% minimum allocation or may be through another allocation within the 20% allocation for the SES. Districts receive administrative allocations, the marketing of SES should also be a budget allocated for a better outreach campaign for parents. c) Eligibility Even though the funding clearly comes to Districts and States pre calculated, parents are given a blurry picture and have a difficult time knowing whether or not their child is eligible, and for how much, creating more confusion. Parents who are intimidated by the process do not follow up, thinking that their children are not eligible. d) Choice of SES provider: A lot of parents in need of SES providers do not have access to computers. They therefore rely on school personnel to help them choose a provider. As we know the Law is clear: the School cannot choose the provider and therefore cannot not get involved in that process. Parents complain they do not know how to find the tutors. Teachers are often times uninformed about SES and about NCLB altogether. A provision put into the Law making it part of the Professional development curriculum for teachers would help tremendously. Parents say it is hard to get the information from the District. There are definitely feelings of conflict of interest coming through during the information process. Districts often times organize a Providers Fair, though these are not well attended. The Fairs are in the middle of the afternoon, not convenient for working parents or parents with large families. They are located in County's Office quite a distance form the school sites. Suggestions for changes: SES Provider information should be freely accessible at the School Site. Districts and School personnel could very easily have an abundance of information on School Sites without divulging opinions or forcing a choice on the parents. SES Fairs could be taking place at the school sites. Every provider we have spoken with has had no problem in being available for a school visit or a Community Expo giving them an opportunity to explain their services to the parents. All providers should feel welcome at failing school sites and should be encouraged to engage in communication with parents as early as possible. e) Timing process: Because Schools do not have open door policies for SES Providers, the timing process between the time Notification letters are sent and the time fairs are organized and contracts get signed is very lengthy. As a result, the children do not have access to tutoring until December or January in many cases. We have found School Districts starting tutoring programs in May, which of course defeats the purpose. This process needs better and clearer regulations and some attention in the reauthorization process. SES provider Selection from the State: SES providers have to go through an elaborate process to apply and become an SES Provider and get on the approved list. The approved list should be made readily available to all parents via media campaign or mailing Distribution. Right now, Districts are not diffusing the information as profusely as they could. At times, we find that they exclude certain providers or include providers who do not have the profile mandated by NCLB. Example: Parents have complained of being given one choice of tutoring services; their children's failing school site. It would be very helpful to see reinforcement in the Law not allowing for this type of practice to continue. Suggestions: A massive mailer coming from the State and distributed by the District to all eligible families as soon as the PI Status of schools is determined would be very helpful. Accountability of SES Providers: Many Districts complain they cannot measure the performance increase delivered by SES providers and therefore question the efficiency of the SES Providers. As a parent, it seems totally inconceivable that a system based on Data Research analysis cannot come up with a consistent and fair evaluation system of the process. Without Data analysis, parents can't tell whether their children are improving. Why can't districts find a way to put the obvious into a reliable Data Format? May be the issue can be addressed and put into the Law. Implementing SES properly and giving it its full force is a Civil rights Issue for all of our most vulnerable children. SES is giving failing children a second chance of access to success when children have been in a failing school for the 4th year. Parents would like to see an earlier implementation of SES, most parents would prefer to have SES access before being given transferring options to a better school. I am coming to you to proclaim that SES in the parents' books is more like an answer to the SOS scream from our children (maybe we can change the names (Save Our Schools Program). SES reaching out to very few children is like a broken toe of NCLB. It can no longer be ignored, unwelcome and mistreated by our school systems; it should be embraced, welcome and given the red carpet treatment no later than the very first day of school. All eligible students should be entitled to access SES support at the beginning of the year, not in December, January or May. A stronger accountability process should be required from School Districts and States and enforced. Funding distribution on SES should also be strengthened. Districts not spending their 20% allocations should be required to roll over their remaining balance into the following year allocation increasing their SES impact on students' achievement for the following year. Parents and Community Organization should be openly welcome to build connections between their children and the tutoring centers and welcome to distribute applications and SES information to the Community. An SES application should not be kept hostage by School Districts but freely distributed at times of need without deadlines. It is imperative to give SES a full pledge of support from this Committee in the reauthorization process. Our children need the SES provision to be fully implemented. Its funding needs to be sustained and dispersed until all children are fully served. Its accountability MUST be preserved under the Law. SES is giving parents hope and paving the road to our children's success. Please, repair the broken toe of NCLB and transform it into the strong pillar as originally intended. Our children need a strong Law to achieve strong results. Please do the right thing and help the SES provision save our children, our treasures, our Nation's most precious assets! Please help us be proud of our American kids! We, the parents know that our children can shine again in tomorrow's World! With your help they will shine! ______ Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much. Ms. Ashby, in visiting school districts, in gathering the information, did you get the feeling that there is resistance on embracing the program? Or does it just take time to do it? Or is there competition? Do they look at it this is competition? Did you feel that there was acceptance of the program? What are some of the responses to that? Ms. Ashby. I think, as Mr. Brown said earlier, it is sort of all the above. There certainly is acceptance of supplemental educational services. And this certainly is a learning curve or a period of time that is needed in order for there to be increased acceptance and increased participation on the part of students and encouragement from their parents. The same thing with respect to school districts and principals and teachers. Certainly, as with any human endeavor, there has to be a period of time where people get used to the idea of change and adapt and participate and can shape it to fit their needs. There is some of that, too. There probably is some resistance and some competition from teachers and schools. But overall, the indications I get are that it is accepted. It is the law of the land. And people are trying to implement it. Chairman Mckeon. So you would be optimistic that it is---- Ms. Ashby. I would be optimistic, yes. Chairman Mckeon. I am glad to hear that. Dr. Barr, you said you had 384 providers? Mr. Barr. On the approved list, yes. Chairman Mckeon. On the approved list, 384? Would that go to like one person that signs up to provide tutoring to national companies? What is the range? Mr. Barr. We have the whole gamut. We have very localized providers who only want to provide at one school. We have national providers who do statewide or a few districts or regions of the state. So it covers the whole gamut. Chairman Mckeon. Ms. Harris, you said in the Chicago schools that 80 percent of your children come from low-income families. Is that just the way income is in Chicago? Or are students going to other schools? Ms. Harris. I think you find that the majority of students who live in Chicago who are low-income students attend the public school system. And those that are perhaps of a higher- income status are attending the parochial and private schools in the city. Chairman Mckeon. Dr. Anderson, your company is approved in several states. Ms. Anderson. Yes. Chairman Mckeon. So do you find different acceptance levels, some states easier to work with than others? Ms. Anderson. Absolutely, yes. Chairman Mckeon. And could we get a list of those that are--you probably wouldn't want to give that. Ms. Anderson. Well, I think what I would be happy to do is to provide you with information about types of situations that have occurred that have been both positive and not so positive. Where we have seen good collaboration, it has happened because you have leadership at the top or you have a school superintendent who embraces the concept, where you have a principal as an educational leader who believes in SES, who supports it, the teachers then support it. Parents are then involved. Then you have strong programs. So, yes, there are certainly other circumstances where we are present where we have found that school districts do not embrace supplemental educational services. And in those situations, it is difficult to get information to parents. It is difficult to get support. It is difficult to get participation. Oftentimes we are barred from schools and from speaking directly to parents. So I think there are a lot of ways for us to work to improve SES. We believe in it. We support it, and we certainly think it ought to continue. Chairman Mckeon. It seems to me that teamwork is vital in this effort because if you have a football team, you have got an offense, you have got a defense. And if one of them feels like they are doing the job and the other one isn't, they feel like they are doing the job and they are not. You know, they all are part of one team. But if they don't accept that and work together as a team, then, again, we forget what the ultimate goal is. And that is the child. Ms. Dollonne, have you found in some of the students that need this extra help--probably some of them come from families where there isn't a lot of parental support. And it would be if you could reach those families, maybe they are not in tune to reach out for that extra help. And that would be one of the problems with trying to get this service implemented. Ms. Dollonne. Absolutely. One of the examples that we have found out, for example, in Latino community, the word ``tutor'' means different things. And we have come to the homes of parents when the mother would say, well, you want to give me another husband. Because, you know, a tutor in Spanish means somebody who has custody of your child. And we said, no, no, no, this is not what it means. And the parents do not understand the test scores. That is another piece of information. They are not being explained at the beginning. Schools have a problem admitting that they are in school improvement or failing schools. They don't want to tell the parents. So that comes in the way. Chairman Mckeon. You know what one thing? I have heard the word several times today: failing school. And what I would like to do is eliminate that from our vocabulary. We have schools that need improvement. And that is what we need to focus on, because I don't think any school, any individual is totaling failing. You know, you might have problems in a subject. And I think then we paint a cloud over their head that I would like to see us just eliminate that from our vocabulary and focus on improvement, trying to bring improvement. Ms. Dollonne. That is right. And SES is part of the improvement. Therefore, it should be a celebration, a collaboration at the beginning of the year and say, let's address the issue and let's all work together and get it out. Chairman Mckeon. Make it part of the team. Ms. Dollonne. And be part of the team. And the families receiving a very bureaucratic written letter is not going to do the access and the marketing. So we need to have a different approach. And I haven't found one family that said, no, I don't want to access $1,200 of free tutoring if they are explained properly. They all want to help their children. All those families care, and they love their children. They want to see them succeed. But they don't understand where they are at, in terms of their level. And they understand where they need the help. So this is where the teachers need to be pushing for that and be open to have a open conversation with a tutor. And if everybody talks together, there is no competition, no fear. We are all going to get better, everyone will benefit from it, including the children, who we are trying to serve. Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much. The chair recognizes Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Ms. Dollonne, my wife will probably sign up for supplemental services if she thought she would get a different husband. But let's see. [Laughter.] I want to thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Dollonne, because you rattle off a series of questions. I hope the reporter was able to get all of this down. But when you left your formal testimony and rattled off all the questions that a practical person might have about engaging this program, I think it will be helpful to us. Ms. Dollonne. Thank you. Mr. Miller. Ms. Harris, Ms. Ashby in her report raises a question about the adequacy of acceptability for English learners and for students with disabilities. Obviously, you have this huge cohort of students who are engaged in these supplemental services. How are you addressing that? And have you been able to find providers with the quality of services for those students that you desire? Ms. Harris. Yes, I think it is an excellent question and certainly one that I think the state is trying to address, trying to bring in providers or approve providers on the front end that actually do service those populations. Currently I believe there are 12 out of 60 in our district that do serve special-education and ESL students. And so, we are excited to be able to work with those. And we, you know, certainly have parents gravitate to those programs because they accommodate special student needs. I should also mention that---- Mr. Miller. Is that sufficient? I mean, you have a really substantial extreme population. Ms. Harris. We do. And, yes, it is a significant challenge. And, in fact, what I was going to mention is that, actually, our program, Aim High, does have a special program specifically for our English language learners and also have special accommodations for our special-education students. And so, even as another argument for why the district's program should exist, we actually are always available to service those students and make a very strong effort to reach out to parents to let them know that we do exist to fill that void, because there is one. Mr. Miller. Mr. Barr, what is your situation in Ohio? Mr. Barr. Congressman, thus far we have not had any complaints about limited-English students or IET. I think as the program does increase, however, we will confront those issues of not having sufficient resources in the provider area, particularly as we get out to more of the rural areas. And while we are not a very populous state with languages, that is increasing in certain areas of the state. Mr. Miller. Ms. Anderson, as a national provider, how do you look at this issue? I mean, obviously in some cases it can be an isolated population or can be certainly students with special needs, individual special needs. How do you look at addressing that? Ms. Anderson. Just to give you some statistics, in the 2005-2006 school year, our company served 14 percent students who were limited English proficient. That was about 3,988 students. And we also served 5.3 percent students with special needs. And that was about 1,500 students in those categories. I think there does need to be better coordination in terms of identification of students, particularly those with disabilities. Oftentimes those students come into our programs and we are not aware that that student has an IEP, therefore not aware to specifically identify the areas of disability. We will pre-test those students as we will all others in the program. And sometimes it is during that process that we are able to determine, in making sure we are identifying the individual goals of each student, that this student has a disability or that the student is significantly lower than the other students in terms of ability. Therefore, then we start asking questions. But, in our view, there needs to be much better coordination with teachers, with schools in terms of identifying students so that we can ensure that our programs are, in fact, meeting their needs. Mr. Miller. Are these services more expensive? Ms. Anderson. That is on a case-by-case basis. And individually they certainly can be, yes. Not always, though. Mr. Miller. Thank you. Ms. Ashby, I want to thank you very much for your, GAO's, attention to the issues that we raised in our letter and the response that you have given back. I think this has really been very helpful to tease out a whole range of concerns that we are going to have to deal with. And I really want to appreciate you and your colleagues at GAO for the work you did on your report. Ms. Ashby. Thank you. Mr. Miller. Appreciate it. Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. The chair recognizes Ms. Davis. Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of you for being here. If I could go back, Dr. Barr, I may have not heard you quite correctly, but I think you questioned whether or not it was possible to determine the effects of the program, whether or not, you know, there were other intervening programs that might have made a difference in the success of a student or the progress, et cetera. Did you feel that there is really a question of how do we evaluate these programs and, in fact, whether we can attribute the SES program to the progress or lack thereof of the student? Mr. Barr. I think we find, just from an assessment process from the state, that it is very difficult for us to use any type of state assessments to make any judgments regarding whether a child has improved or not. Understand, all we have are an assessment that is given once a year. We would have to look at gains from 1 year to the next. And there would have to be some way to tease out what was the effect attributed by the SES, what was the effect attributed by the regular classroom teacher. And we find that very difficult to do. Mrs. Davis of California. Yes. Mr. Barr. And that does not say that the SES program is or is not effective. We are just saying we are having trouble accounting for attribution. Mrs. Davis of California. Yes. Well, what kind of validity, then, can we put into programs? I don't know. Dr. Anderson, I would assume that the organizations that you work with do have an evaluation, they have a pre-test, post, et cetera. Ms. Anderson. Right. Mrs. Davis of California. I think part of what I am trying to get at here, too, is, is this the right model? Clearly, students need assistance. And exceptional tutoring is always better than nothing. It has to be the right kind of tutoring. But I am wondering, in your look at this, can you offer whether, you know, this the right direction that we should be taking as we look at reauthorization? What should be done differently? I am concerned that it is difficult to tell whether it is having an effect or not. Mr. Barr. Well, if we are trying to get some attribution or really be able to tell the effects of SES--and I am not sure how important that is. I mean, the importance really is, is the child learning from 1 year to the next with all the additional types of supports? And we would have the same thing as if this classroom teacher or the additional supports coming in from IDEA or other things. So it is very difficult. Our important issue is, is the child doing better and what are all the supports that are getting there? And so, we do spend a lot of time, more on how do we help the school become a more effective school, how do we help teachers become more effective teachers, and trying to build systems behind all of those folks that provide the necessary support and push on the quality issues of professional development, frequent assessment, looking at the data constantly to see how children are doing. Mrs. Davis of California. OK. Thank you. Ms. Ashby, did you have any other thoughts? And I really wanted to ask you, Ms. Dollonne, as well about that. Ms. Ashby. Just to say that really we are dealing with this issue on two levels, I think. Supplemental educational services are directed to individual students on the micro level. And they are coming out of a system that is in need of improvement. That is the macro level. There are no evaluations of the effect of SES on the school or certainly on school districts or anything beyond that. But I do think that there could be measurements and outcomes for individual students: pre-, post-test or some other way of doing it. And in terms of evaluations, I think, at least for a long, long time, that has to be the focus, because there aren't enough students participating to have any impact on the macro level. It has to be on the micro. Mrs. Davis of California. I would certainly suggest, as a parent--and I am sure that you would agree--I mean, a parent knows whether a child is feeling better about their learning and how excited they are to go to school, all those kinds of measures. But I am also hoping that we are able to try and discern how, whether it is the Education Department or schools, how we can better evaluate this, in a way. Because one of the things that has been mentioned is, even though we are talking about 20 percent of the funding, Title I funding, that can go to this, as you pointed out very ably, 5 percent is going toward choice. Another quite a few percentage points are going toward transportation, to allow a child to go to a different school. That is a struggle, I know, in San Diego. And so, realistically, maybe 5 percent is going toward SES programs for children. And clearly, schools are not able to meet the need then. We also have children that, as you mentioned, come into school after the deadlines. They are not there. We know that we have children constantly coming into school, 150 percent turnover in some schools. So there are so many children that I am afraid are, you know, falling through the cracks or we just haven't been able to create the kind of program that really is able to do what we would all hope is that children get assistance when they need it at the right time in the most perfect way possible. And so, it is a complicated issue. And I think we took it on and yet are looking for ways that we can make it work better. And so, I just appreciate your being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Payne. Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. In your, Ms. Ashby, report, of all the recommendations that the GAO has in the report, which would you think would have the greatest impact on improving access to after-school tutoring programs? Ms. Ashby. Well, there was a lot of discussion in our report because there has been a lot of discussion, among the people that we have talked to and the data we have gathered, on the notification letter itself. That is one way of informing parents of the supplemental educational services program. Our recommendation is that states or districts be helped in clarifying the language for that letter, that notification. I read of one example of a letter, for example, that was 15, 20 pages long, that perhaps technically included the information it should have, but I doubt very many parents would have understood it, would have had the time to read it. So getting clear information to parents. As our parent at the end of the table said, all parents care about their children, even parents that have substantial problems: unemployed, homeless. They care about their children. They want the best for their children. But they need help in understanding what that is. And this is a resource that is available. It doesn't cost them anything. They just need to understand what it is and how to access it. And that, I think, would make a big difference. Mr. Payne. OK. In the discussion about onsite and offsite, you know, in some areas in some of our urban cities, safety is a real problem. Children are reluctant to go home after the group goes home. And I guess staying after school is one thing. Going to another site out of your local area, there is a lot of turf problems and so forth. Do you find that the in-school programs have a better success or neighborhood-type facilities? Ms. Ashby. Well, certainly, the participation rates would be greater. Parents and students are certainly more likely to take advantage of a program that is in the school building. There have been cases where there is public housing, and somewhere on the facility of the public housing there is a facility. Certainly, in those instances there would be more participation. Mr. Payne. Do you find any reluctance for providers, when they have preferences, you know, more reluctant to go, say, to a housing development to do the programs or in schools? Ms. Ashby. I don't know the specific example, but I would be surprised if there weren't reluctance. Mr. Payne. Thank you. Let me just ask Ms. Harris, in Chicago, the public schools are under the office of the mayor. You don't have the board of education. What is the situation there now? Ms. Harris. Our superintendent, our CEO, is appointed by the mayor. So we are under the mayor's, I guess, umbrella, you could say. But we also have, of course, a board of education that operates and works in collaboration with our superintendent or CEO, Arne Duncan. Mr. Payne. Are they appointed or elected? Ms. Harris. They are appointed. Mr. Payne. OK. Because in so many instances, you know, the direction from the board of education or whoever is in charge of the school district has a lot to do with it having been a product of local politics and so forth and so on. The question of who should have control, the elected officials feel they have got to come up with the money, and the board of education spends it. And they don't have control in Chicago, though, if the mayor's office--and I am not saying which one is better. But I am just wondering if it impacts. Ms. Harris. Certainly. I think we have certainly seen in Chicago that leadership does have a lot to do with how it is embraced by administrative, which, I think, was your point earlier. Our principals have seen our CEO embrace SES, embrace competition in general through charter schools and our Renaissance 2010 program and things of that nature. And so, in doing so, I think from the top down we have also embraced the spirit of SES. We have invited them into our buildings. We certainly have continued to make the argument that we believe that the CPS version of SES is just as good and can have a positive impact on student achievement as well and that there are positive benefits to that. But we certainly encourage and welcome our providers. And I think, over the years, we have developed very strong relationships with many of them. We have asked for their feedback. We have actually used their feedback in the implementation. And that all really, I think, certainly is directed by, you know, our CEO and his motivation of wanting to welcome the competition and welcome the services because our students need them. Mr. Payne. OK. Since my time has almost expired, let me just ask a quick question. I am color blind, you know. [Laughter.] Chairman Mckeon. Almost. Mr. Payne. I don't know what that red--is that red? Chairman Mckeon. Quick question, quick answer. Mr. Payne. Dr. Anderson, seeing that you have been a part of New Jersey and the Abbott school districts, do you--Abbott in our state, for those who don't know, means that there is level funding for the poor districts, state constitutional agreement. Let me move it right from there to the state-appointed districts. Do you find that, if you have had that experience, finding it easier to work with state-appointed superintendents under the Abbott, you know, the failing school districts in Jersey? And is there a uniformity? Or do you find that, even under the state take-over, that individual superintendents operate their own way? Ms. Anderson. I would tend to say both are true. Each of the superintendents in the state-operated districts very talented individuals, all of whom come from an educational philosophy and pedagogy who have clear goals and ideas about how they expect students to be successful in their districts. And I think that is why they are there. I think that one of the biggest challenges in state- operated school districts is getting the community to be supportive of the school district. Because it is, once again, a school district in need of improvement. And moving it from where it has been and all of the different issues that have caused it to be there and the challenges that it has had to face, to recognizing success, accepting resources to support it and then being willing to move forward and then recognizing that when that happens, control is returned to the local communities. And I think it is that process and that transition that, just as with supplemental educational services, the community has to be a partner in that relationship. Otherwise, they see themselves as disenfranchised. And as our parent has already indicated, when that happens, parents are the ones who are not benefiting from the services as we intended. So I think it is that partnership, the clear communication. In New Jersey, the state clearly played a very significant role precedent-setting across the country. But if you don't bring the partners along, then the initiative cannot be successful. Chairman Mckeon. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair recognizes Ms. Woolsey. Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Dollonne, have you put any thought into what if those services that your child, your student received had been made available in the classroom and why not? I mean, why aren't our schools doing all that Dr. Anderson has talked about? Ms. Dollonne. I thought this was a question I could ask you guys. Ms. Woolsey. Well, good. I mean, because the question is, why doesn't every school, every classroom, every child that needs help, and kids who are doing better that need to be kept interested, I mean, why aren't we investing our resources at the school site instead of in transportation and negotiating with providers for that extra help? Ms. Dollonne. OK, OK. I agree. I understand the question. And I agree totally with you. And from an outside point of view, an outside investigation, I could tell you that our school in improvement unfortunately do not get the services and the resources. It is almost like it has a cork somewhere. You know, the money comes from the U.S. Department, and it goes to the state, and it comes to the district. And then somewhere in between the district and the schools, there is something going on. Ms. Woolsey. Well, my question would be, if we are willing to increase the budget by 20 percent so that every child can succeed, which we must, that ought to go to the sites and the classrooms and the districts that need it. Dr. Anderson, can you discuss the qualifications required of your tutors, both in terms of their education, their knowledge, the subject knowledge and how you measure success? Ms. Anderson. We use highly qualified teachers, because many of our tutors come from school districts, so they are, in fact, certified teachers. And I would say I am talking about 95 percent of the tutors that we employ. I would also urge you, however, to recognize that in some situations you will have a college professor or individuals who come to Teach for America who may not be certified but are subject-area experts. We also think those types of individuals are important to keep in the process, because they bring a level of expertise to the circumstance that is important to help students, particularly in areas of math, in working with students to help them really understand things. When you see that light go on in the classroom because that tutor has connected with that child in that area. Ms. Woolsey. So can I ask you, don't you think that shouldn't be the exception, that the schools themselves ought to be allowed to hire that person and not---- Ms. Anderson. Well, there are mechanisms---- Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. Count their value because---- Ms. Anderson. There are mechanisms in place for that to happen. But I would mention one other thing. The reason we are in the schools is because parents choose us and because we bring to the table an area of expertise that is supportive of what schools are doing. We are not trying to replace what schools do. We are trying to be supportive partners. We have experience in the area of tutoring. We can offer smaller teacher-student ratios. We can offer specialized training to teachers that they may not have in the school district during the school day. So we are there as their partners. We want to be part of the solution and are, not part of the problem. Ms. Woolsey. Well, no, and I respect you for that. But I also believe that what you provide ought to be onsite. I don't think we should be spending money on transportation. We shouldn't be, you know, making it more difficult. We should make it easier by bringing all---- Ms. Anderson. We agree it should be onsite. Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. That you bring to the school site. Ms. Anderson. We agree it should be on the school site. And in every instance where it is, we have seen that students participate in larger numbers. We are certainly supportive of that opinion, yes. Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Mckeon. And thank you for being here and for your patience. We have another series of votes. I think this has been a very good hearing. If you think of something that you would like to add that you didn't get to say today, again, the hearing record will be held open for 14 days. And I hope you will stay involved as we go through this reauthorization process and continue to help us with your expertise. Thank you very much. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] [Additional material submitted by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota follows:] TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2004 AT THE FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2004 GRANTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated FY2004 grant State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2004 grant at full authorized level ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minnesota......................... 2700001 MOUNTAIN IRON- $156,900 $209,900 BUHL Do.............................. 2700005 UNITED SOUTH $174,400 $235,300 CENTRAL Do.............................. 2700006 MAPLE RIVER $145,300 $208,800 Do.............................. 2700007 KINGSLAND $112,500 $142,200 Do.............................. 2700008 ST. LOUIS COUNTY $580,800 $737,900 Do.............................. 2700013 WATERVILLE- $121,500 $160,200 ELYSIAN- MORRISTOWN Do.............................. 2700017 CHISAGO LAKES $226,400 $319,100 Do.............................. 2700019 MINNEWASKA $196,000 $271,900 Do.............................. 2700021 EVELETH-GILBERT $220,200 $283,700 Do.............................. 2700022 WADENA-DEER $293,800 $406,800 CREEK Do.............................. 2700023 BUFFALO LAKE- $83,400 $116,600 HECTOR Do.............................. 2700024 WARREN-ALVARADO- $83,200 $112,000 OSLO Do.............................. 2700088 LAKEVIEW $43,700 $58,600 Do.............................. 2700089 N.R.H.E.G. $86,100 $121,800 Do.............................. 2700090 MURRAY COUNTY $121,900 $172,500 Do.............................. 2700091 M.A.C.C.R.A.Y. $98,200 $136,300 Do.............................. 2700099 YELLOW MEDICINE $136,400 $193,900 EAST Do.............................. 2700100 FILLMORE CENTRAL $196,600 $271,800 Do.............................. 2700101 NORMAN COUNTY $75,100 $95,400 EAST Do.............................. 2700102 SIBLEY EAST $157,000 $227,200 Do.............................. 2700103 CLEARBROOK- $90,800 $125,800 GONVICK Do.............................. 2700104 WEST CENTRAL $143,300 $181,000 AREA Do.............................. 2700105 BELGRADE-BROOTEN- $211,400 $287,200 ELROSA Do.............................. 2700106 A.C.G.C. $185,800 $245,800 Do.............................. 2700107 GREENBUSH-MIDDLE $91,500 $109,400 RIVER Do.............................. 2700108 PIPESTONE-JASPER $180,100 $253,900 Do.............................. 2700109 LONG PRAIRIE- $346,900 $479,200 GREY EAGLE Do.............................. 2700110 CEDAR MOUNTAIN $34,900 $50,100 Do.............................. 2700111 REDWOOD FALLS $158,300 $215,800 Do.............................. 2700112 EAGLE VALLEY $128,500 $155,100 Do.............................. 2700123 HOWARD LAKE- $115,300 $163,900 WAVERLY-WINSTED Do.............................. 2700124 FAIRMONT AREA $476,700 $634,900 SCHOOLS Do.............................. 2700125 LAC QUI PARLE $147,300 $203,800 VALLEY Do.............................. 2700126 ADA-BORUP $63,500 $90,800 Do.............................. 2700127 STEPHEN-ARGYLE $66,500 $91,800 CENTRAL SCHOOLS Do.............................. 2700128 GLENCOE-SILVER $153,300 $211,800 LAKE Do.............................. 2700130 BLUE EARTH AREA $230,700 $313,400 PUBLIC SCHOOLS Do.............................. 2700131 JACKSON COUNTY $177,700 $251,500 CENTRAL Do.............................. 2700132 RED ROCK CENTRAL $121,900 $155,100 Do.............................. 2700148 GLENVILLE-EMMONS $57,400 $77,200 Do.............................. 2700149 MCLEOD WEST $60,100 $78,400 SCHOOLS Do.............................. 2700150 CLINTON- $150,700 $199,100 GRACEVILLE- BEARDSLEY Do.............................. 2700162 LAKE PARK- $121,800 $161,000 AUDUBON Do.............................. 2700163 RENVILLE COUNTY $205,100 $240,700 WEST Do.............................. 2700183 WESTBROOK-WALNUT $61,000 $84,800 GROVE Do.............................. 2702640 LESTER PRAIRIE $62,300 $90,200 Do.............................. 2702720 SOUTHLAND $70,500 $90,300 Do.............................. 2702730 ADRIAN $104,500 $144,700 Do.............................. 2702760 AITKIN $203,400 $267,800 Do.............................. 2702910 WALKER- $250,300 $346,400 HACKENSACK- AKELEY Do.............................. 2702930 ALBANY $181,500 $250,400 Do.............................. 2702970 ALBERT LEA $462,000 $661,500 Do.............................. 2703030 ALDEN $9,000 $9,000 Do.............................. 2703060 ALEXANDRIA $407,300 $578,800 Do.............................. 2703150 ANNANDALE $183,600 $262,200 Do.............................. 2703180 ANOKA-HENNEPIN $1,685,100 $1,685,100 Do.............................. 2703300 ASHBY $24,200 $35,100 Do.............................. 2703450 AUSTIN $627,200 $893,700 Do.............................. 2703540 BADGER $33,500 $48,400 Do.............................. 2703570 BAGLEY $368,400 $484,300 Do.............................. 2703600 BALATON $38,700 $47,700 Do.............................. 2703660 BARNESVILLE $58,600 $58,600 Do.............................. 2703690 BARNUM $72,500 $101,700 Do.............................. 2703750 BATTLE LAKE $136,000 $172,600 Do.............................. 2703870 BECKER $69,800 $71,500 Do.............................. 2704050 BELLE PLAINE $58,600 $58,600 Do.............................. 2704080 BELLINGHAM $45,200 $57,900 Do.............................. 2704440 BEMIDJI $1,188,300 $1,556,800 Do.............................. 2704470 BENSON $110,300 $143,000 Do.............................. 2705430 BERTHA-HEWITT $165,800 $195,800 Do.............................. 2705460 BIG LAKE $95,700 $95,700 Do.............................. 2705660 BIRD ISLAND- $115,400 $162,900 OLIVIA-LAKE LILLIA Do.............................. 2705730 BLACKDUCK $159,100 $215,600 Do.............................. 2705760 BLOOMING PRAIRIE $156,100 $186,400 Do.............................. 2705790 BLOOMINGTON $372,300 $372,300 Do.............................. 2706060 BRAHAM $117,800 $164,400 Do.............................. 2706090 BRAINERD $1,109,600 $1,491,500 Do.............................. 2706120 BRANDON $48,400 $68,800 Do.............................. 2706150 BRECKENRIDGE $148,700 $193,800 Do.............................. 2706180 BREWSTER $37,300 $45,100 Do.............................. 2706240 BROOKLYN CENTER $240,100 $324,800 Do.............................. 2706300 BROWERVILLE $96,100 $133,200 Do.............................. 2707110 BROWNS VALLEY $64,000 $74,000 Do.............................. 2707200 BUFFALO $227,000 $227,000 Do.............................. 2707290 BURNSVILLE $883,800 $1,249,800 Do.............................. 2707320 BUTTERFIELD $31,200 $45,100 Do.............................. 2707350 BYRON $45,800 $45,800 Do.............................. 2707380 CALEDONIA $131,800 $190,400 Do.............................. 2707410 CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI $382,200 $552,900 Do.............................. 2707450 CAMPBELL-TINTAH $29,800 $36,300 Do.............................. 2707470 CANBY $100,500 $145,300 Do.............................. 2707500 CANNON FALLS $64,300 $64,300 Do.............................. 2707590 CARLTON $86,600 $122,300 Do.............................. 2708070 CASS LAKE $431,600 $648,700 Do.............................. 2708100 CENTENNIAL $201,100 $201,100 Do.............................. 2708190 CHASKA $252,900 $252,900 Do.............................. 2708220 CHATFIELD $37,200 $37,200 Do.............................. 2708880 FRANCONIA $0 $0 Do.............................. 2708910 CHISHOLM $124,900 $175,000 Do.............................. 2708940 CHOKIO-ALBERTA $40,000 $52,900 Do.............................. 2709330 CLEVELAND $29,300 $29,300 Do.............................. 2709360 CLIMAX $61,400 $82,100 Do.............................. 2709420 CLOQUET $365,000 $484,400 Do.............................. 2709440 COLD SPRING $154,700 $223,800 Do.............................. 2709480 GREENWAY $288,300 $397,700 Do.............................. 2709510 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS $383,100 $538,700 Do.............................. 2709540 COMFREY $44,800 $51,200 Do.............................. 2709690 CROMWELL $61,200 $81,500 Do.............................. 2709720 CROOKSTON $263,400 $371,900 Do.............................. 2709750 CROSBY-IRONTON $288,200 $400,700 Do.............................. 2709960 CYRUS $27,100 $36,000 Do.............................. 2710060 DASSEL-COKATO $193,700 $271,500 Do.............................. 2710090 DAWSON-BOYD $50,700 $69,000 Do.............................. 2710140 DEER RIVER $387,600 $565,300 Do.............................. 2710170 DELANO $88,400 $88,400 Do.............................. 2710230 DETROIT LAKES $618,800 $847,700 Do.............................. 2710260 DILWORTH-GLYNDON- $226,900 $307,700 FELTON Do.............................. 2711010 DOVER-EYOTA $72,200 $72,200 Do.............................. 2711040 DULUTH $2,502,100 $3,579,900 Do.............................. 2711085 EAST CENTRAL $266,400 $373,200 Do.............................. 2711130 EAST GRAND FORKS $310,500 $399,200 Do.............................. 2711190 EDEN VALLEY $87,200 $122,900 Do.............................. 2711220 EDGERTON $46,400 $63,700 Do.............................. 2711250 EDINA $151,300 $151,300 Do.............................. 2711340 ELGIN-MILLVILLE $40,300 $40,300 Do.............................. 2711370 ELK RIVER $317,600 $317,600 Do.............................. 2711460 ELLSWORTH $30,100 $39,000 Do.............................. 2711520 ELY $106,700 $130,500 Do.............................. 2711610 EVANSVILLE $31,500 $42,900 Do.............................. 2711670 MINNETONKA $0 $0 Do.............................. 2711760 FARIBAULT $371,800 $537,900 Do.............................. 2711820 FARMINGTON $206,400 $206,400 Do.............................. 2711880 FERGUS FALLS $380,000 $529,100 Do.............................. 2711910 FERTILE-BELTRAMI $115,300 $149,500 Do.............................. 2712180 FISHER $21,800 $30,700 Do.............................. 2712210 FLOODWOOD $63,200 $87,400 Do.............................. 2712240 FOLEY $220,100 $289,500 Do.............................. 2712270 FOREST LAKE $288,300 $288,300 Do.............................. 2712300 FOSSTON $161,400 $205,000 Do.............................. 2712360 FRAZEE $209,400 $257,000 Do.............................. 2712420 FRIDLEY $282,500 $399,000 Do.............................. 2712480 FULDA $58,400 $82,200 Do.............................. 2712580 G.F.W. $163,000 $204,600 Do.............................. 2712900 GOODHUE $42,700 $57,500 Do.............................. 2713020 GOODRIDGE $64,300 $91,100 Do.............................. 2713040 GRANADA HUNTLEY- $48,600 $63,000 EAST CHAIN Do.............................. 2713110 COOK COUNTY $80,800 $116,900 Do.............................. 2713140 GRAND MEADOW $14,600 $14,600 Do.............................. 2713170 GRAND RAPIDS $755,400 $994,300 Do.............................. 2713380 HANCOCK $28,600 $28,600 Do.............................. 2713530 HASTINGS $253,200 $253,200 Do.............................. 2713560 HAWLEY $77,100 $108,900 Do.............................. 2713590 HAYFIELD $59,600 $59,600 Do.............................. 2713680 HENDRICKS $32,100 $45,000 Do.............................. 2713860 HENNING $101,700 $129,400 Do.............................. 2713890 HERMAN-NORCROSS $55,000 $64,600 Do.............................. 2713920 HERMANTOWN $57,000 $57,000 Do.............................. 2713930 HERON LAKE- $36,300 $46,200 OKABENA Do.............................. 2713980 HIBBING $414,400 $583,400 Do.............................. 2714010 HILL CITY $130,600 $170,100 Do.............................. 2714040 HILLS-BEAVER $32,300 $42,200 CREEK Do.............................. 2714070 HINCKLEY- $319,500 $430,100 FINLAYSON Do.............................. 2714190 HOLDINGFORD $120,200 $156,900 Do.............................. 2714220 EDEN PRAIRIE $280,700 $280,700 Do.............................. 2714260 HOPKINS $324,500 $324,500 Do.............................. 2714280 HOUSTON $81,900 $109,700 Do.............................. 2714970 HUTCHINSON $285,200 $412,600 Do.............................. 2715000 INTERNATIONAL $312,300 $422,300 FALLS Do.............................. 2715030 INVER GROVE $374,300 $501,200 Do.............................. 2715510 ISLE $71,300 $92,600 Do.............................. 2715540 IVANHOE $47,700 $65,000 Do.............................. 2715750 JORDAN $95,200 $95,200 Do.............................. 2716830 PRINSBURG $20,500 $26,800 Do.............................. 2716980 KASSON- $72,200 $72,200 MANTORVILLE Do.............................. 2717010 KELLIHER $164,000 $265,500 Do.............................. 2717100 KENYON-WANAMINGO $74,200 $103,000 Do.............................. 2717120 KERKHOVEN- $86,900 $120,000 MURDOCK-SUNBURG Do.............................. 2717220 KIMBALL $125,100 $155,900 Do.............................. 2717250 LACRESCENT-HOKAH $86,900 $86,800 Do.............................. 2717460 LAKE BENTON $27,300 $38,700 Do.............................. 2717520 LAKE CITY $137,100 $197,100 Do.............................. 2717570 LAKE OF THE $83,000 $117,200 WOODS Do.............................. 2717780 LAKEVILLE $0 $0 Do.............................. 2717880 LANCASTER $45,100 $62,900 Do.............................. 2717910 LANESBORO $71,100 $91,900 Do.............................. 2717940 LAPORTE $98,500 $140,800 Do.............................. 2718030 LECENTER $44,500 $44,500 Do.............................. 2718060 LEROY $43,800 $57,200 Do.............................. 2718070 LESUEUR- $167,500 $234,900 HENDERSON Do.............................. 2718090 LEWISTON $132,900 $173,600 Do.............................. 2718210 LITCHFIELD $169,900 $235,300 Do.............................. 2718240 LITTLE FALLS $502,900 $675,400 Do.............................. 2718270 LITTLEFORK-BIG $62,900 $87,100 FALLS Do.............................. 2718330 LUVERNE $162,800 $235,500 Do.............................. 2718360 LYLE $48,100 $56,600 Do.............................. 2718390 LYND $0 $0 Do.............................. 2718540 MABEL-CANTON $145,300 $192,800 Do.............................. 2718570 MADELIA $100,900 $139,000 Do.............................. 2718660 MAHNOMEN $265,600 $373,900 Do.............................. 2718750 MAHTOMEDI $81,000 $81,000 Do.............................. 2718780 MANKATO $744,500 $1,055,300 Do.............................. 2718810 MAPLE LAKE $33,500 $33,500 Do.............................. 2718920 GRYGLA $36,100 $46,500 Do.............................. 2718940 MARSHALL $221,600 $306,900 Do.............................. 2718960 MARTIN COUNTY $140,500 $160,800 WEST Do.............................. 2719170 MCGREGOR $201,200 $282,600 Do.............................. 2719320 MEDFORD $24,600 $24,600 Do.............................. 2720550 MELROSE $255,800 $328,100 Do.............................. 2720580 MENAHGA $166,200 $222,500 Do.............................. 2720670 MILACA $240,200 $347,400 Do.............................. 2721210 MILROY $19,500 $27,400 Do.............................. 2721240 MINNEAPOLIS $20,163,000 $31,457,900 Do.............................. 2721270 MINNEOTA $68,900 $97,100 Do.............................. 2721320 MONTEVIDEO $168,800 $239,100 Do.............................. 2721360 MONTGOMERY- $126,600 $177,200 LONSDALE Do.............................. 2721390 MONTICELLO $189,900 $189,900 Do.............................. 2721420 MOORHEAD $870,800 $1,159,800 Do.............................. 2721450 MOOSE LAKE $82,400 $107,700 Do.............................. 2721480 MORA $285,400 $382,600 Do.............................. 2721540 MORRIS $93,900 $129,100 Do.............................. 2722920 WESTONKA $0 $0 Do.............................. 2722950 MOUNDS VIEW $372,300 $372,300 Do.............................. 2723010 MOUNTAIN LAKE $207,200 $289,200 Do.............................. 2723310 NASHWAUK- $113,200 $163,700 KEEWATIN Do.............................. 2723370 NEVIS $68,600 $95,500 Do.............................. 2723400 NEW LONDON- $109,900 $109,900 SPICER Do.............................. 2723430 NEW PRAGUE $72,300 $72,300 Do.............................. 2723490 NEW ULM $262,100 $379,200 Do.............................. 2723520 NEW YORK MILLS $170,600 $238,000 Do.............................. 2723550 NEWFOLDEN $68,100 $85,400 Do.............................. 2723580 NICOLLET $35,600 $50,500 Do.............................. 2723820 NORTH BRANCH $254,000 $367,500 Do.............................. 2723850 NORTH ST. PAUL- $598,500 $598,500 MAPLEWOOD Do.............................. 2723880 NORTHFIELD $226,500 $226,500 Do.............................. 2723910 NORWOOD $78,000 $78,000 Do.............................. 2723970 OGILVIE $170,700 $236,600 Do.............................. 2724030 OKLEE $30,700 $41,600 Do.............................. 2725050 ONAMIA $346,000 $469,700 Do.............................. 2725080 ORONO $0 $0 Do.............................. 2725110 ORTONVILLE $67,300 $86,100 Do.............................. 2725140 OSAKIS $117,300 $144,500 Do.............................. 2725200 OSSEO $816,200 $816,200 Do.............................. 2728050 OWATONNA $408,600 $584,600 Do.............................. 2728080 PARK RAPIDS $352,300 $489,500 Do.............................. 2728110 PARKERS PRAIRIE $82,900 $113,200 Do.............................. 2728140 PAYNESVILLE $178,600 $217,800 Do.............................. 2728170 PELICAN RAPIDS $213,600 $309,000 Do.............................. 2728200 PEQUOT LAKES $148,900 $215,500 Do.............................. 2728230 PERHAM $219,400 $317,400 Do.............................. 2728290 RUSHFORD- $67,000 $96,900 PETERSON Do.............................. 2728320 PIERZ $196,700 $255,200 Do.............................. 2728350 PILLAGER $100,900 $140,100 Do.............................. 2728380 PINE CITY $300,000 $396,200 Do.............................. 2728950 PINE ISLAND $72,800 $103,100 Do.............................. 2728960 PINE POINT $64,200 $94,200 Do.............................. 2728970 PINE RIVER- $308,500 $418,000 BACKUS Do.............................. 2729040 PLAINVIEW $52,300 $52,300 Do.............................. 2729070 PLUMMER $33,800 $41,200 Do.............................. 2730030 PRINCETON $167,900 $167,900 Do.............................. 2730060 PRIOR LAKE $170,600 $174,500 Do.............................. 2730090 PROCTOR $118,800 $118,800 Do.............................. 2730150 RANDOLPH $17,800 $17,800 Do.............................. 2730450 RED LAKE FALLS $64,900 $83,200 Do.............................. 2730480 RED WING $266,100 $377,100 Do.............................. 2730510 RED LAKE $1,193,100 $1,921,000 Do.............................. 2730870 REMER $291,600 $440,100 Do.............................. 2731750 RICHFIELD $426,200 $601,200 Do.............................. 2731780 ROBBINSDALE $758,600 $758,600 Do.............................. 2731800 ROCHESTER $1,546,100 $2,247,500 Do.............................. 2732070 ROCKFORD $49,100 $49,100 Do.............................. 2732250 ROSEAU $56,000 $56,000 Do.............................. 2732390 ROSEMOUNT-APPLE $719,400 $719,400 VALLEY-EAGAN Do.............................. 2732430 ROSEVILLE $251,700 $251,700 Do.............................. 2732460 ROTHSAY $27,700 $40,100 Do.............................. 2732490 ROUND LAKE $24,900 $30,900 Do.............................. 2732520 ROYALTON $133,900 $172,500 Do.............................. 2732550 RUSH CITY $113,200 $163,700 Do.............................. 2732640 RUSSELL $18,600 $24,500 Do.............................. 2732670 RUTHTON $45,600 $57,500 Do.............................. 2732700 SOUTH $90,300 $126,500 KOOCHICHING Do.............................. 2732820 SARTELL $192,800 $279,000 Do.............................. 2732850 SAUK CENTRE $176,000 $176,000 Do.............................. 2732880 SAUK RAPIDS $300,200 $434,300 Do.............................. 2732970 SEBEKA $143,600 $181,800 Do.............................. 2733000 SHAKOPEE $155,300 $156,600 Do.............................. 2733210 SLEEPY EYE $118,700 $168,200 Do.............................. 2733270 SOUTH ST. PAUL $300,300 $300,300 Do.............................. 2733300 SPRING GROVE $33,200 $46,000 Do.............................. 2733330 SPRING LAKE PARK $263,700 $263,700 Do.............................. 2733390 SPRINGFIELD $49,200 $49,200 Do.............................. 2733420 ST. ANTHONY-NEW $47,100 $47,100 BRIGHTON Do.............................. 2733450 ST. CHARLES $183,000 $251,400 Do.............................. 2733480 ST. CLAIR $22,500 $22,500 Do.............................. 2733510 ST. CLOUD $1,134,700 $1,608,700 Do.............................. 2733540 ST. FRANCIS $215,000 $215,000 Do.............................. 2733600 ST. JAMES $221,200 $308,400 Do.............................. 2733720 NETT LAKE $40,600 $55,600 Do.............................. 2733780 ST. LOUIS PARK $211,900 $211,900 Do.............................. 2733790 ST. MICHAEL- $64,400 $64,400 ALBERTVILLE Do.............................. 2733810 SOUTH WASHINGTON $353,200 $353,200 COUNTY Do.............................. 2733840 ST. PAUL $16,931,300 $26,927,700 Do.............................. 2733870 ST. PETER $252,100 $307,200 Do.............................. 2733900 STAPLES-MOTLEY $419,100 $558,400 Do.............................. 2738160 STEWARTVILLE $72,700 $72,700 Do.............................. 2738190 STILLWATER $327,200 $327,200 Do.............................. 2738280 SWANVILLE $61,200 $88,500 Do.............................. 2738850 THIEF RIVER $281,400 $393,400 FALLS Do.............................. 2738880 ESKO $83,700 $120,300 Do.............................. 2740590 TRACY $149,600 $202,100 Do.............................. 2740665 TRITON $134,800 $192,100 Do.............................. 2740680 TRUMAN $64,300 $91,900 Do.............................. 2740740 LAKE SUPERIOR $206,700 $299,000 Do.............................. 2740770 TYLER $65,900 $81,700 Do.............................. 2740810 ULEN-HITTERDAL $167,700 $185,500 Do.............................. 2740830 UNDERWOOD $59,800 $59,800 Do.............................. 2740860 UPSALA $63,700 $86,000 Do.............................. 2740920 VERNDALE $100,800 $107,900 Do.............................. 2741040 VIRGINIA $213,600 $300,800 Do.............................. 2741060 WABASHA-KELLOGG $93,600 $124,900 Do.............................. 2741430 WABASSO $100,500 $140,200 Do.............................. 2741460 WACONIA $64,800 $66,400 Do.............................. 2741850 WARROAD $138,600 $200,400 Do.............................. 2741880 WASECA $261,000 $371,000 Do.............................. 2741910 WATERTOWN-MAYER $63,100 $64,700 Do.............................. 2742120 WAUBUN $272,900 $383,400 Do.............................. 2742160 WAYZATA $0 $0 Do.............................. 2742270 WEST ST. PAUL- $232,800 $232,800 MENDOTA HTS. Do.............................. 2742330 WHEATON $51,800 $72,100 Do.............................. 2742360 WHITE BEAR LAKE $357,300 $365,900 Do.............................. 2742720 WILLMAR $809,700 $1,102,200 Do.............................. 2742750 WILLOW RIVER $150,800 $214,100 Do.............................. 2742780 WINDOM $168,600 $214,700 Do.............................. 2744070 WINONA $510,300 $726,600 Do.............................. 2744160 WORTHINGTON $367,200 $531,200 Do.............................. 2744190 WRENSHALL $36,000 $45,400 Do.............................. 2745735 ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA $106,800 $153,700 Do.............................. 2781053 Balance of $0 $0 Hennepin County Do.............................. 2781097 Balance of $0 $0 Morrison County Do.............................. 2791445 LAKE CRYSTAL- $96,300 $127,500 WELLCOME MEMORIAL Do.............................. 2791446 TRI-COUNTY $96,400 $124,200 Do.............................. 2791447 KITTSON CENTRAL $41,800 $57,600 Do.............................. 2791448 HALSTAD-HENDRUM $68,900 $86,100 Do.............................. 2791449 WIN-E-MAC $161,300 $192,000 Do.............................. 2791450 MESABI EAST $256,000 $342,800 Do.............................. 2791451 JANESVILLE- $135,000 $159,800 WALDORF- PEMBERTON Do.............................. 2799998 ................ $0 $0 Do.............................. 2799999 PART D SUBPART 2 $2,036,000 $2,948,500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Important limitations: A. Each of these amounts may be reduced by approximately 3% for state administration and school improvement activities. B. These amounts may also be reduced to account for grants to charter schools or recent local educational agency (LEA) boundary changes. C. States are also authorized to adjust these amounts for all LEAs serving localities with total population below 20,000 persons (currently 8 states exercise this authority). Notice: these are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended to predict specific amounts which states or LEAs will receive. Estimates are based on FY2004 program data. Estimates prepared by CRS. TABLE 2.--ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2005 AT THE FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2005 GRANTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated FY2005 grant State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2005 grant at full authorized level ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minnesota......................... 2700001 MOUNTAIN IRON- $152,000 $216,700 BUHL Do.............................. 2700005 UNITED SOUTH $161,300 $248,200 CENTRAL Do.............................. 2700006 MAPLE RIVER $155,200 $231,300 Do.............................. 2700007 KINGSLAND $96,900 $137,600 Do.............................. 2700008 ST. LOUIS COUNTY $519,000 $715,600 Do.............................. 2700013 WATERVILLE- $109,500 $157,900 ELYSIAN- MORRISTOWN Do.............................. 2700017 CHISAGO LAKES $226,700 $346,100 Do.............................. 2700019 MINNEWASKA $174,000 $283,200 Do.............................. 2700021 EVELETH-GILBERT $198,200 $276,800 Do.............................. 2700022 WADENA-DEER $307,200 $440,100 CREEK Do.............................. 2700023 BUFFALO LAKE- $83,800 $124,000 HECTOR Do.............................. 2700024 WARREN-ALVARADO- $72,300 $111,400 OSLO Do.............................. 2700088 LAKEVIEW $38,800 $58,200 Do.............................. 2700089 N.R.H.E.G. $84,900 $133,300 Do.............................. 2700090 MURRAY COUNTY $112,800 $188,800 Do.............................. 2700091 M.A.C.C.R.A.Y. $89,400 $142,500 Do.............................. 2700099 YELLOW MEDICINE $119,500 $214,700 EAST Do.............................. 2700100 FILLMORE CENTRAL $176,800 $294,000 Do.............................. 2700101 NORMAN COUNTY $65,400 $92,600 EAST Do.............................. 2700102 SIBLEY EAST $162,000 $251,700 Do.............................. 2700103 CLEARBROOK- $85,200 $136,300 GONVICK Do.............................. 2700104 WEST CENTRAL $126,000 $175,000 AREA Do.............................. 2700105 BELGRADE-BROOTEN- $221,800 $311,700 ELROSA Do.............................. 2700106 A.C.G.C. $175,400 $246,300 Do.............................. 2700107 GREENBUSH-MIDDLE $79,100 $103,300 RIVER Do.............................. 2700108 PIPESTONE-JASPER $167,500 $275,800 Do.............................. 2700109 LONG PRAIRIE- $334,600 $527,200 GREY EAGLE Do.............................. 2700110 CEDAR MOUNTAIN $36,900 $55,500 Do.............................. 2700111 REDWOOD FALLS $110,200 $215,800 Do.............................. 2700112 EAGLE VALLEY $121,700 $147,700 Do.............................. 2700123 HOWARD LAKE- $420,000 $181,400 WAVERLY-WINSTED Do.............................. 2700124 FAIRMONT AREA $137,400 $657,000 SCHOOLS Do.............................. 2700125 LAC QUI PARLE $52,300 $211,000 VALLEY Do.............................. 2700126 ADA-BORUP $56,800 $100,100 Do.............................. 2700127 STEPHEN-ARGYLE $158,600 $94,400 CENTRAL SCHOOLS Do.............................. 2700128 GLENCOE-SILVER $217,900 $218,400 LAKE Do.............................. 2700130 BLUE EARTH AREA $108,600 $334,900 PUBLIC SCHOOLS Do.............................. 2700131 JACKSON COUNTY $51,700 $275,800 CENTRAL Do.............................. 2700132 RED ROCK CENTRAL $55,800 $150,600 Do.............................. 2700148 GLENVILLE-EMMONS $135,600 $76,800 Do.............................. 2700149 MCLEOD WEST $108,900 $77,000 SCHOOLS Do.............................. 2700150 CLINTON- $180,800 $203,700 GRACEVILLE- BEARDSLEY Do.............................. 2700162 LAKE PARK- $147,400 $160,900 AUDUBON Do.............................. 2700163 RENVILLE COUNTY $55,800 $225,300 WEST Do.............................. 2700183 WESTBROOK-WALNUT $154,900 $88,800 GROVE Do.............................. 2702640 LESTER PRAIRIE $78,200 $99,900 Do.............................. 2702720 SOUTHLAND $63,400 $87,900 Do.............................. 2702730 ADRIAN $97,200 $156,600 Do.............................. 2702760 AITKIN $179,400 $265,200 Do.............................. 2702910 WALKER- $231,100 $381,300 HACKENSACK- AKELEY Do.............................. 2702930 ALBANY $167,500 $257,200 Do.............................. 2702970 ALBERT LEA $498,100 $732,900 Do.............................. 2703030 ALDEN $7,700 $7,700 Do.............................. 2703060 ALEXANDRIA $384,200 $640,300 Do.............................. 2703150 ANNANDALE $188,800 $290,600 Do.............................. 2703180 ANOKA-HENNEPIN $1,763,600 $1,643,200 Do.............................. 2703300 ASHBY $22,300 $38,900 Do.............................. 2703450 AUSTIN $647,800 $990,100 Do.............................. 2703540 BADGER $32,400 $53,700 Do.............................. 2703570 BAGLEY $335,600 $491,500 Do.............................. 2703600 BALATON $32,900 $45,500 Do.............................. 2703660 BARNESVILLE $49,800 $49,800 Do.............................. 2703690 BARNUM $65,900 $109,200 Do.............................. 2703750 BATTLE LAKE $120,600 $167,400 Do.............................. 2703870 BECKER $74,000 $73,500 Do.............................. 2704050 BELLE PLAINE $58,200 $58,700 Do.............................. 2704080 BELLINGHAM $42,700 $58,500 Do.............................. 2704440 BEMIDJI $1,075,500 $1,530,600 Do.............................. 2704470 BENSON $100,700 $140,000 Do.............................. 2705430 BERTHA-HEWITT $142,200 $186,000 Do.............................. 2705460 BIG LAKE $99,900 $98,000 Do.............................. 2705660 BIRD ISLAND- $118,400 $177,700 OLIVIA-LAKE LILLIA Do.............................. 2705730 BLACKDUCK $155,400 $229,600 Do.............................. 2705760 BLOOMING PRAIRIE $137,600 $176,000 Do.............................. 2705790 BLOOMINGTON $404,500 $364,200 Do.............................. 2706060 BRAHAM $107,200 $174,000 Do.............................. 2706090 BRAINERD $1,014,600 $1,534,000 Do.............................. 2706120 BRANDON $45,800 $75,900 Do.............................. 2706150 BRECKENRIDGE $127,400 $190,100 Do.............................. 2706180 BREWSTER $31,800 $42,800 Do.............................. 2706240 BROOKLYN CENTER $248,400 $346,000 Do.............................. 2706300 BROWERVILLE $92,800 $144,300 Do.............................. 2707110 BROWNS VALLEY $57,600 $73,200 Do.............................. 2707200 BUFFALO $319,400 $231,100 Do.............................. 2707290 BURNSVILLE $1,030,700 $1,356,000 Do.............................. 2707320 BUTTERFIELD $27,000 $50,000 Do.............................. 2707350 BYRON $44,900 $44,600 Do.............................. 2707380 CALEDONIA $122,900 $211,000 Do.............................. 2707410 CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI $394,300 $612,600 Do.............................. 2707450 CAMPBELL-TINTAH $26,400 $34,400 Do.............................. 2707470 CANBY $92,700 $161,000 Do.............................. 2707500 CANNON FALLS $54,700 $54,700 Do.............................. 2707590 CARLTON $75,300 $133,300 Do.............................. 2708070 CASS LAKE $405,500 $724,100 Do.............................. 2708100 CENTENNIAL $218,800 $201,400 Do.............................. 2708190 CHASKA $262,900 $253,900 Do.............................. 2708220 CHATFIELD $34,600 $35,900 Do.............................. 2708880 FRANCONIA $0 $0 Do.............................. 2708910 CHISHOLM $120,600 $186,900 Do.............................. 2708940 CHOKIO-ALBERTA $34,100 $52,200 Do.............................. 2709330 CLEVELAND $24,900 $24,900 Do.............................. 2709360 CLIMAX $56,700 $85,100 Do.............................. 2709420 CLOQUET $321,800 $489,800 Do.............................. 2709440 COLD SPRING $165,300 $248,000 Do.............................. 2709480 GREENWAY $302,400 $430,300 Do.............................. 2709510 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS $405,400 $581,100 Do.............................. 2709540 COMFREY $38,300 $47,700 Do.............................. 2709690 CROMWELL $54,300 $83,200 Do.............................. 2709720 CROOKSTON $258,000 $405,300 Do.............................. 2709750 CROSBY-IRONTON $282,300 $434,500 Do.............................. 2709960 CYRUS $23,700 $36,400 Do.............................. 2710060 DASSEL-COKATO $185,400 $290,600 Do.............................. 2710090 DAWSON-BOYD $46,900 $69,000 Do.............................. 2710140 DEER RIVER $356,100 $627,800 Do.............................. 2710170 DELANO $75,200 $75,200 Do.............................. 2710230 DETROIT LAKES $613,700 $932,100 Do.............................. 2710260 DILWORTH-GLYNDON- $213,200 $329,500 FELTON Do.............................. 2711010 DOVER-EYOTA $61,400 $61,400 Do.............................. 2711040 DULUTH $2,496,300 $3,863,600 Do.............................. 2711085 EAST CENTRAL $257,500 $411,600 Do.............................. 2711130 EAST GRAND FORKS $277,000 $389,200 Do.............................. 2711190 EDEN VALLEY $89,400 $133,300 Do.............................. 2711220 EDGERTON $41,000 $64,800 Do.............................. 2711250 EDINA $161,300 $143,600 Do.............................. 2711340 ELGIN-MILLVILLE $34,200 $34,200 Do.............................. 2711370 ELK RIVER $275,400 $269,900 Do.............................. 2711460 ELLSWORTH $26,500 $38,200 Do.............................. 2711520 ELY $94,700 $124,300 Do.............................. 2711610 EVANSVILLE $28,000 $42,900 Do.............................. 2711670 MINNETONKA $0 $0 Do.............................. 2711760 FARIBAULT $428,900 $595,900 Do.............................. 2711820 FARMINGTON $315,000 $201,400 Do.............................. 2711880 FERGUS FALLS $349,600 $557,100 Do.............................. 2711910 FERTILE-BELTRAMI $102,100 $146,300 Do.............................. 2712180 FISHER $20,100 $33,300 Do.............................. 2712210 FLOODWOOD $67,500 $94,600 Do.............................. 2712240 FOLEY $202,600 $285,100 Do.............................. 2712270 FOREST LAKE $250,300 $246,900 Do.............................. 2712300 FOSSTON $150,900 $198,800 Do.............................. 2712360 FRAZEE $185,200 $245,200 Do.............................. 2712420 FRIDLEY $308,300 $434,900 Do.............................. 2712480 FULDA $51,600 $88,800 Do.............................. 2712580 G.F.W. $144,500 $197,400 Do.............................. 2712900 GOODHUE $38,600 $57,300 Do.............................. 2713020 GOODRIDGE $57,900 $98,000 Do.............................. 2713040 GRANADA HUNTLEY- $43,300 $61,700 EAST CHAIN Do.............................. 2713110 COOK COUNTY $68,700 $129,600 Do.............................. 2713140 GRAND MEADOW $20,100 $13,100 Do.............................. 2713170 GRAND RAPIDS $672,800 $983,500 Do.............................. 2713530 HASTINGS $215,200 $215,200 Do.............................. 2713560 HAWLEY $71,500 $118,400 Do.............................. 2713590 HAYFIELD $50,700 $50,700 Do.............................. 2713680 HENDRICKS $27,300 $49,000 Do.............................. 2713860 HENNING $90,800 $125,700 Do.............................. 2713890 HERMAN-NORCROSS $47,300 $60,800 Do.............................. 2713920 HERMANTOWN $54,300 $54,300 Do.............................. 2713930 HERON LAKE- $31,000 $44,900 OKABENA Do.............................. 2713980 HIBBING $394,300 $631,100 Do.............................. 2714010 HILL CITY $126,600 $172,100 Do.............................. 2714040 HILLS-BEAVER $21,900 $41,400 CREEK Do.............................. 2714070 HINCKLEY- $310,300 $461,300 FINLAYSON Do.............................. 2714190 HOLDINGFORD $109,500 $154,000 Do.............................. 2714220 EDEN PRAIRIE $310,900 $271,400 Do.............................. 2714260 HOPKINS $358,900 $310,800 Do.............................. 2714280 HOUSTON $71,700 $113,400 Do.............................. 2714970 HUTCHINSON $338,400 $457,100 Do.............................. 2715000 INTERNATIONAL $273,300 $447,500 FALLS Do.............................. 2715030 INVER GROVE $351,800 $497,400 Do.............................. 2715510 ISLE $64,600 $90,700 Do.............................. 2715540 IVANHOE $40,600 $70,300 Do.............................. 2715750 JORDAN $80,900 $80,900 Do.............................. 2716830 PRINSBURG $18,700 $26,400 Do.............................. 2716980 KASSON- $61,400 $61,400 MANTORVILLE Do.............................. 2717010 KELLIHER $194,000 $298,600 Do.............................. 2717100 KENYON-WANAMINGO $69,200 $107,300 Do.............................. 2717120 KERKHOVEN- $86,800 $130,000 MURDOCK-SUNBURG Do.............................. 2717220 KIMBALL $113,700 $149,800 Do.............................. 2717250 LACRESCENT-HOKAH $73,800 $73,800 Do.............................. 2717460 LAKE BENTON $23,300 $42,600 Do.............................. 2717520 LAKE CITY $132,900 $218,400 Do.............................. 2717570 LAKE OF THE $70,900 $127,700 WOODS Do.............................. 2717880 LANCASTER $38,300 $69,300 Do.............................. 2717910 LANESBORO $61,800 $89,900 Do.............................. 2717940 LAPORTE $88,700 $155,800 Do.............................. 2718030 LECENTER $37,800 $37,800 Do.............................. 2718060 LEROY $39,700 $56,100 Do.............................. 2718070 LESUEUR- $151,900 $251,700 HENDERSON Do.............................. 2718090 LEWISTON $118,800 $170,400 Do.............................. 2718210 LITCHFIELD $170,900 $244,300 Do.............................. 2718240 LITTLE FALLS $471,700 $703,600 Do.............................. 2718270 LITTLEFORK-BIG $53,700 $94,300 FALLS Do.............................. 2718330 LUVERNE $146,300 $261,000 Do.............................. 2718360 LYLE $42,200 $53,200 Do.............................. 2718390 LYND $0 $0 Do.............................. 2718540 MABEL-CANTON $132,900 $198,100 Do.............................. 2718570 MADELIA $91,000 $150,500 Do.............................. 2718660 MAHNOMEN $295,100 $402,900 Do.............................. 2718750 MAHTOMEDI $83,400 $75,300 Do.............................. 2718780 MANKATO $789,700 $1,160,400 Do.............................. 2718810 MAPLE LAKE $28,500 $28,500 Do.............................. 2718920 GRYGLA $30,700 $45,400 Do.............................. 2718940 MARSHALL $199,800 $318,300 Do.............................. 2718960 MARTIN COUNTY $120,300 $149,500 WEST Do.............................. 2719170 MCGREGOR $195,200 $311,900 Do.............................. 2719320 MEDFORD $20,900 $20,900 Do.............................. 2720550 MELROSE $231,000 $319,600 Do.............................. 2720580 MENAHGA $160,000 $231,300 Do.............................. 2720670 MILACA $226,700 $384,900 Do.............................. 2721210 MILROY $20,100 $29,600 Do.............................. 2721240 MINNEAPOLIS $23,256,300 $33,958,900 Do.............................. 2721270 MINNEOTA $70,400 $105,500 Do.............................. 2721320 MONTEVIDEO $162,000 $262,800 Do.............................. 2721360 MONTGOMERY- $115,000 $188,800 LONSDALE Do.............................. 2721390 MONTICELLO $161,400 $161,400 Do.............................. 2721420 MOORHEAD $771,500 $1,189,600 Do.............................. 2721450 MOOSE LAKE $71,500 $105,800 Do.............................. 2721480 MORA $255,000 $396,600 Do.............................. 2721540 MORRIS $80,200 $131,400 Do.............................. 2722950 MOUNDS VIEW $391,900 $381,700 Do.............................. 2723010 MOUNTAIN LAKE $189,600 $315,800 Do.............................. 2723310 NASHWAUK- $100,500 $181,400 KEEWATIN Do.............................. 2723370 NEVIS $59,200 $103,600 Do.............................. 2723400 NEW LONDON- $93,400 $93,400 SPICER Do.............................. 2723430 NEW PRAGUE $72,400 $70,900 Do.............................. 2723490 NEW ULM $254,700 $420,100 Do.............................. 2723520 NEW YORK MILLS $173,500 $262,200 Do.............................. 2723550 NEWFOLDEN $58,000 $82,400 Do.............................. 2723580 NICOLLET $40,200 $55,500 Do.............................. 2723820 NORTH BRANCH $251,300 $407,200 Do.............................. 2723850 NORTH ST. PAUL- $539,100 $533,100 MAPLEWOOD Do.............................. 2723880 NORTHFIELD $273,100 $192,600 Do.............................. 2723910 NORWOOD $66,300 $66,300 Do.............................. 2723970 OGILVIE $166,200 $260,500 Do.............................. 2724030 OKLEE $26,900 $41,500 Do.............................. 2725050 ONAMIA $320,600 $492,200 Do.............................. 2725080 ORONO $0 $0 Do.............................. 2725110 ORTONVILLE $59,600 $83,800 Do.............................. 2725140 OSAKIS $102,700 $138,200 Do.............................. 2725200 OSSEO $701,200 $693,700 Do.............................. 2728050 OWATONNA $425,500 $647,800 Do.............................. 2728080 PARK RAPIDS $321,000 $530,700 Do.............................. 2728110 PARKERS PRAIRIE $81,100 $122,500 Do.............................. 2728140 PAYNESVILLE $158,500 $207,100 Do.............................. 2728170 PELICAN RAPIDS $220,000 $342,400 Do.............................. 2728200 PEQUOT LAKES $141,800 $238,700 Do.............................. 2728230 PERHAM $226,700 $351,600 Do.............................. 2728290 RUSHFORD- $63,700 $107,300 PETERSON Do.............................. 2728320 PIERZ $175,600 $251,300 Do.............................. 2728350 PILLAGER $91,600 $151,800 Do.............................. 2728380 PINE CITY $267,000 $395,200 Do.............................. 2728950 PINE ISLAND $73,700 $112,900 Do.............................. 2728960 PINE POINT $64,300 $101,400 Do.............................. 2728970 PINE RIVER- $286,400 $451,500 BACKUS Do.............................. 2729040 PLAINVIEW $63,000 $44,600 Do.............................. 2729070 PLUMMER $28,900 $39,200 Do.............................. 2730030 PRINCETON $142,800 $142,800 Do.............................. 2730060 PRIOR LAKE $177,900 $179,500 Do.............................. 2730090 PROCTOR $100,900 $100,900 Do.............................. 2730150 RANDOLPH $15,100 $15,100 Do.............................. 2730450 RED LAKE FALLS $55,300 $81,100 Do.............................. 2730480 RED WING $264,700 $414,600 Do.............................. 2730510 RED LAKE $1,295,100 $2,146,400 Do.............................. 2730870 REMER $285,500 $492,000 Do.............................. 2731750 RICHFIELD $490,300 $653,300 Do.............................. 2731780 ROBBINSDALE $1,158,900 $689,000 Do.............................. 2731800 ROCHESTER $1,658,800 $2,410,600 Do.............................. 2732070 ROCKFORD $49,600 $49,000 Do.............................. 2732250 ROSEAU $49,600 $51,700 Do.............................. 2732390 ROSEMOUNT-APPLE $790,100 $711,700 VALLEY-EAGAN Do.............................. 2732430 ROSEVILLE $213,900 $213,900 Do.............................. 2732460 ROTHSAY $26,800 $44,400 Do.............................. 2732490 ROUND LAKE $21,500 $29,600 Do.............................. 2732520 ROYALTON $119,100 $168,400 Do.............................. 2732550 RUSH CITY $112,800 $181,400 Do.............................. 2732640 RUSSELL $16,400 $24,200 Do.............................. 2732670 RUTHTON $40,100 $55,600 Do.............................. 2732700 SOUTH $81,600 $139,100 KOOCHICHING Do.............................. 2732820 SARTELL $210,000 $309,100 Do.............................. 2732850 SAUK CENTRE $173,700 $149,600 Do.............................. 2732880 SAUK RAPIDS $334,000 $481,200 Do.............................. 2732970 SEBEKA $127,000 $176,000 Do.............................. 2733000 SHAKOPEE $161,300 $161,100 Do.............................. 2733210 SLEEPY EYE $108,300 $185,100 Do.............................. 2733270 SOUTH ST. PAUL $328,500 $255,300 Do.............................. 2733300 SPRING GROVE $29,300 $48,100 Do.............................. 2733330 SPRING LAKE PARK $224,100 $224,100 Do.............................. 2733390 SPRINGFIELD $53,400 $41,800 Do.............................. 2733420 ST. ANTHONY-NEW $75,900 $45,500 BRIGHTON Do.............................. 2733450 ST. CHARLES $177,800 $272,700 Do.............................. 2733480 ST. CLAIR $19,100 $19,100 Do.............................. 2733510 ST. CLOUD $1,153,800 $1,692,700 Do.............................. 2733540 ST. FRANCIS $209,300 $206,600 Do.............................. 2733600 ST. JAMES $190,700 $335,000 Do.............................. 2733720 NETT LAKE $37,700 $57,600 Do.............................. 2733780 ST. LOUIS PARK $293,700 $181,200 Do.............................. 2733790 ST. MICHAEL- $62,200 $61,300 ALBERTVILLE Do.............................. 2733810 SOUTH WASHINGTON $348,600 $348,400 COUNTY Do.............................. 2733840 ST. PAUL $18,258,100 $29,969,200 Do.............................. 2733870 ST. PETER $221,400 $292,000 Do.............................. 2733900 STAPLES-MOTLEY $393,200 $576,400 Do.............................. 2738160 STEWARTVILLE $61,800 $61,800 Do.............................. 2738190 STILLWATER $340,800 $333,500 Do.............................. 2738280 SWANVILLE $62,500 $98,100 Do.............................. 2738850 THIEF RIVER $250,900 $418,300 FALLS Do.............................. 2738880 ESKO $79,300 $133,300 Do.............................. 2740590 TRACY $141,300 $214,600 Do.............................. 2740665 TRITON $126,200 $212,800 Do.............................. 2740680 TRUMAN $59,200 $101,800 Do.............................. 2740740 LAKE SUPERIOR $201,000 $331,300 Do.............................. 2740770 TYLER $56,000 $78,400 Do.............................. 2740810 ULEN-HITTERDAL $42,600 $168,500 Do.............................. 2740830 UNDERWOOD $50,900 $50,900 Do.............................. 2740860 UPSALA $60,000 $90,800 Do.............................. 2740920 VERNDALE $85,600 $99,800 Do.............................. 2741040 VIRGINIA $210,000 $325,700 Do.............................. 2741060 WABASHA-KELLOGG $86,700 $123,700 Do.............................. 2741430 WABASSO $114,100 $152,300 Do.............................. 2741460 WACONIA $69,300 $68,300 Do.............................. 2741850 WARROAD $129,600 $222,100 Do.............................. 2741880 WASECA $273,600 $410,900 Do.............................. 2741910 WATERTOWN-MAYER $63,700 $66,500 Do.............................. 2742120 WAUBUN $269,200 $404,000 Do.............................. 2742160 WAYZATA $0 $0 Do.............................. 2742270 WEST ST. PAUL- $254,200 $228,500 MENDOTA HTS. Do.............................. 2742330 WHEATON $46,200 $75,900 Do.............................. 2742360 WHITE BEAR LAKE $380,900 $376,400 Do.............................. 2742720 WILLMAR $830,500 $1,190,800 Do.............................. 2742750 WILLOW RIVER $147,000 $236,700 Do.............................. 2742780 WINDOM $149,100 $208,400 Do.............................. 2744070 WINONA $512,700 $805,100 Do.............................. 2744160 WORTHINGTON $339,500 $588,500 Do.............................. 2744190 WRENSHALL $25,300 $43,900 Do.............................. 2745735 ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA $109,500 $170,300 Do.............................. 2781037 Balance of $0 $0 Dakota County Do.............................. 2781053 Balance of $0 $0 Hennepin County Do.............................. 2781097 Balance of $0 $0 Morrison County Do.............................. 2791445 LAKE CRYSTAL- $86,600 $125,900 WELLCOME MEMORIAL Do.............................. 2791446 TRI-COUNTY $82,000 $121,200 Do.............................. 2791447 KITTSON CENTRAL $35,500 $59,200 Do.............................. 2791448 HALSTAD-HENDRUM $59,300 $82,900 Do.............................. 2791449 WIN-E-MAC $138,900 $181,900 Do.............................. 2791450 MESABI EAST $260,200 $359,200 Do.............................. 2791451 JANESVILLE- $117,800 $150,000 WALDORF- PEMBERTON Do.............................. 2799999 PART D SUBPART 2 $1,947,800 $3,270,700 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Important limitations: A. Each of these amounts may be reduced by approximately 5% for state administration and school improvement activities. B. These amounts may also be reduced to account for grants to charter schools or recent local educational agency (LEA) boundary changes. C. States are also authorized to adjust these amounts for all LEAs serving localities with total population below 20,000 persons (currently 8 states exercise this authority). Notice: these are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended to predict specific amounts which states or LEAs will receive. Estimates are based on FY2005 program data. Estimates prepared by CRS. TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER TITLE I, PART A OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) FOR FY2006 AT THE FULL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT COMPARED TO ACTUAL FY2006 GRANTS AT THE LEVEL PROVIDED ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated FY2006 grant State LEA code LEA name Actual FY2006 at full authorized grant level ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minnesota............................ 2700001 MOUNTAIN IRON-BUHL $142,300 $230,100 Do................................. 2700005 UNITED SOUTH $138,900 $222,100 CENTRAL Do................................. 2700006 MAPLE RIVER $157,800 $257,600 Do................................. 2700007 KINGSLAND $84,400 $118,900 Do................................. 2700008 ST. LOUIS COUNTY $451,600 $687,100 Do................................. 2700013 WATERVILLE-ELYSIAN- $98,700 $157,100 MORRISTOWN Do................................. 2700017 CHISAGO LAKES $229,300 $400,100 Do................................. 2700019 MINNEWASKA $151,000 $246,600 Do................................. 2700021 EVELETH-GILBERT $175,400 $275,500 Do................................. 2700022 WADENA-DEER CREEK $265,700 $410,300 Do................................. 2700023 BUFFALO LAKE- $81,700 $133,400 HECTOR Do................................. 2700024 WARREN-ALVARADO- $64,700 $104,300 OSLO Do................................. 2700088 LAKEVIEW $34,200 $54,000 Do................................. 2700089 N.R.H.E.G. $87,400 $144,300 Do................................. 2700090 MURRAY COUNTY $97,600 $157,100 CENTRAL Do................................. 2700091 M.A.C.C.R.A.Y. $86,300 $142,500 Do................................. 2700099 YELLOW MEDICINE $104,400 $177,200 EAST Do................................. 2700100 FILLMORE CENTRAL $164,300 $252,200 Do................................. 2700101 NORMAN COUNTY EAST $58,000 $88,300 Do................................. 2700102 SIBLEY EAST $163,400 $270,400 Do................................. 2700103 CLEARBROOK-GONVICK $74,700 $124,000 Do................................. 2700104 WEST CENTRAL AREA $109,800 $158,800 Do................................. 2700105 BELGRADE-BROOTEN- $234,100 $372,000 ELROSA Do................................. 2700106 A.C.G.C. $163,200 $273,000 Do................................. 2700107 GREENBUSH-MIDDLE $68,400 $91,600 RIVER Do................................. 2700108 PIPESTONE AREA $148,700 $248,500 SCHOOLS Do................................. 2700109 LONG PRAIRIE-GREY $302,400 $459,600 EAGLE Do................................. 2700110 CEDAR MOUNTAIN $32,900 $54,800 Do................................. 2700112 EAGLE VALLEY $95,100 $128,000 Do................................. 2700123 HOWARD LAKE- $131,700 $219,200 WAVERLY-WINSTED Do................................. 2700124 FAIRMONT AREA $403,300 $646,600 SCHOOLS Do................................. 2700125 LAC QUI PARLE $131,700 $215,600 VALLEY Do................................. 2700126 ADA-BORUP $53,300 $89,500 Do................................. 2700127 STEPHEN-ARGYLE $51,500 $84,000 CENTRAL SCHOOLS Do................................. 2700128 GLENCOE-SILVER $133,800 $248,500 LAKE Do................................. 2700130 BLUE EARTH AREA $182,400 $305,100 PUBLIC SCHOOL Do................................. 2700132 RED ROCK CENTRAL $94,700 $141,300 Do................................. 2700148 GLENVILLE-EMMONS $45,800 $73,100 Do................................. 2700149 MCLEOD WEST $47,800 $78,600 SCHOOLS Do................................. 2700150 CLINTON-GRACEVILLE- $116,200 $167,200 BEARDSLEY Do................................. 2700162 LAKE PARK-AUDUBON $102,100 $156,800 DISTRICT Do................................. 2700163 RENVILLE COUNTY $157,200 $213,200 WEST Do................................. 2700182 REDWOOD FALLS AREA $124,300 $226,500 SCHOOLS Do................................. 2700183 WESTBROOK-WALNUT $53,300 $89,500 GROVE SCHOOLS Do................................. 2700231 JACKSON COUNTY $153,200 $252,100 CENTRAL Do................................. 2702640 LESTER PRAIRIE $76,000 $129,700 Do................................. 2702720 SOUTHLAND $57,000 $88,200 Do................................. 2702730 ADRIAN $89,900 $140,200 Do................................. 2702760 AITKIN $157,000 $251,100 Do................................. 2702910 WALKER-HACKENSACK- $201,800 $326,300 AKELEY Do................................. 2702930 ALBANY $170,200 $277,700 Do................................. 2702970 ALBERT LEA $451,700 $783,800 Do................................. 2703030 ALDEN $6,500 $6,500 Do................................. 2703060 ALEXANDRIA $367,700 $626,700 Do................................. 2703150 ANNANDALE $219,000 $361,700 Do................................. 2703180 ANOKA-HENNEPIN $1,727,900 $5,384,500 Do................................. 2703300 ASHBY $22,700 $36,500 Do................................. 2703450 AUSTIN $668,500 $1,114,500 Do................................. 2703540 BADGER $31,800 $51,200 Do................................. 2703570 BAGLEY $303,000 $440,500 Do................................. 2703600 BALATON $24,100 $33,800 Do................................. 2703660 BARNESVILLE $42,300 $42,300 Do................................. 2703690 BARNUM $54,600 $106,000 Do................................. 2703750 BATTLE LAKE $101,900 $149,800 Do................................. 2703870 BECKER $77,700 $86,200 Do................................. 2704050 BELLE PLAINE $106,700 $182,700 Do................................. 2704080 BELLINGHAM $38,500 $54,800 Do................................. 2704440 BEMIDJI $912,600 $1,511,400 Do................................. 2704470 BENSON $83,600 $135,200 Do................................. 2705430 BERTHA-HEWITT $120,800 $159,900 Do................................. 2705460 BIG LAKE $102,200 $117,100 Do................................. 2705660 BIRD ISLAND-OLIVIA- $113,500 $188,200 LAKE LILLIAN Do................................. 2705730 BLACKDUCK $138,200 $227,600 Do................................. 2705760 BLOOMING PRAIRIE $120,600 $169,300 Do................................. 2705790 BLOOMINGTON $406,600 $445,800 Do................................. 2706060 BRAHAM $111,200 $191,800 Do................................. 2706090 BRAINERD $907,600 $1,551,400 Do................................. 2706120 BRANDON $46,500 $74,900 Do................................. 2706150 BRECKENRIDGE $111,100 $172,300 Do................................. 2706180 BREWSTER $27,500 $36,300 Do................................. 2706240 BROOKLYN CENTER $223,700 $418,300 Do................................. 2706300 BROWERVILLE $81,700 $128,300 Do................................. 2707110 BROWNS VALLEY $51,400 $69,400 Do................................. 2707200 BUFFALO $342,800 $595,600 Do................................. 2707290 BURNSVILLE $1,249,300 $2,189,000 Do................................. 2707320 BUTTERFIELD $25,000 $40,200 Do................................. 2707350 BYRON $49,100 $52,100 Do................................. 2707380 CALEDONIA $121,400 $204,600 Do................................. 2707410 CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI $373,400 $668,700 Do................................. 2707450 CAMPBELL-TINTAH $23,600 $35,700 Do................................. 2707470 CANBY $78,400 $131,500 Do................................. 2707500 CANNON FALLS $46,500 $48,800 Do................................. 2707590 CARLTON $64,900 $118,800 Do................................. 2708070 CASS LAKE-BENA $343,900 $593,900 SCHOOLS Do................................. 2708100 CENTENNIAL $218,000 $243,200 Do................................. 2708190 CHASKA $283,800 $309,900 Do................................. 2708220 CHATFIELD $33,300 $82,200 Do................................. 2708880 FRANCONIA $0 $0 Do................................. 2708910 CHISHOLM $116,900 $193,700 Do................................. 2708940 CHOKIO-ALBERTA $30,700 $46,100 Do................................. 2709330 CLEVELAND $21,200 $21,200 Do................................. 2709360 CLIMAX $51,000 $74,500 Do................................. 2709420 CLOQUET $278,900 $475,700 Do................................. 2709440 ROCORI $162,300 $270,400 Do................................. 2709480 GREENWAY $258,400 $453,600 Do................................. 2709510 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS $465,300 $760,000 Do................................. 2709540 COMFREY $33,200 $43,300 Do................................. 2709690 CROMWELL-WRIGHT $58,600 $99,300 Do................................. 2709720 CROOKSTON $233,800 $425,700 Do................................. 2709750 CROSBY-IRONTON $263,600 $432,000 Do................................. 2709960 CYRUS $20,800 $31,900 Do................................. 2710060 DASSEL-COKATO $177,100 $328,900 Do................................. 2710090 DAWSON-BOYD $39,600 $73,100 Do................................. 2710140 DEER RIVER $309,800 $534,600 Do................................. 2710170 DELANO $63,900 $63,900 Do................................. 2710230 DETROIT LAKES $552,800 $898,500 Do................................. 2710260 DILWORTH-GLYNDON- $214,300 $339,700 FELTON Do................................. 2711010 DOVER-EYOTA $52,200 $52,200 Do................................. 2711040 DULUTH $2,137,600 $4,072,600 Do................................. 2711085 EAST CENTRAL $231,700 $381,000 Do................................. 2711130 EAST GRAND FORKS $243,400 $381,700 Do................................. 2711190 EDEN VALLEY- $90,800 $148,000 WATKINS Do................................. 2711220 EDGERTON $35,600 $58,500 Do................................. 2711250 EDINA $174,400 $179,000 Do................................. 2711340 ELGIN-MILLVILLE $29,100 $29,100 Do................................. 2711370 ELK RIVER $275,800 $308,300 Do................................. 2711460 ELLSWORTH $23,300 $34,700 Do................................. 2711520 ELY $81,600 $118,600 Do................................. 2711610 EVANSVILLE $27,200 $43,800 Do................................. 2711670 MINNETONKA $0 $0 Do................................. 2711760 FARIBAULT $390,400 $681,500 Do................................. 2711820 FARMINGTON $377,900 $613,900 Do................................. 2711880 FERGUS FALLS $299,400 $511,600 Do................................. 2711910 FERTILE-BELTRAMI $90,400 $137,400 Do................................. 2712180 FISHER $21,600 $34,700 Do................................. 2712210 FLOODWOOD $57,100 $104,000 Do................................. 2712240 FOLEY $180,300 $292,300 Do................................. 2712270 FOREST LAKE $301,200 $322,100 Do................................. 2712300 FOSSTON $131,800 $201,900 Do................................. 2712360 FRAZEE $161,400 $229,200 Do................................. 2712420 FRIDLEY $350,700 $590,100 Do................................. 2712480 FULDA $44,300 $73,100 Do................................. 2712580 G.F.W. $127,600 $185,300 Do................................. 2712900 GOODHUE $39,700 $63,900 Do................................. 2713020 GOODRIDGE $50,800 $74,900 Do................................. 2713040 GRANADA HUNTLEY- $37,900 $58,800 EAST CHAIN Do................................. 2713110 COOK COUNTY $63,600 $102,300 Do................................. 2713140 GRAND MEADOW $12,700 $34,700 Do................................. 2713170 GRAND RAPIDS $567,300 $954,700 Do................................. 2713530 HASTINGS $196,600 $235,900 Do................................. 2713560 HAWLEY $71,500 $122,400 Do................................. 2713590 HAYFIELD $43,100 $43,100 Do................................. 2713680 HENDRICKS $23,500 $35,600 Do................................. 2713860 HENNING $77,500 $113,800 Do................................. 2713890 HERMAN-NORCROSS $41,100 $54,500 Do................................. 2713920 HERMANTOWN $46,200 $55,300 Do................................. 2713930 HERON LAKE-OKABENA $27,400 $38,800 Do................................. 2713980 HIBBING $382,500 $634,000 Do................................. 2714010 HILL CITY $111,600 $174,000 Do................................. 2714040 HILLS-BEAVER CREEK $24,800 $36,900 Do................................. 2714070 HINCKLEY-FINLAYSON $263,900 $424,400 Do................................. 2714190 HOLDINGFORD $98,000 $154,700 Do................................. 2714220 EDEN PRAIRIE $326,600 $344,100 Do................................. 2714260 HOPKINS $540,200 $889,700 Do................................. 2714280 HOUSTON $71,800 $112,400 Do................................. 2714970 HUTCHINSON $285,700 $535,300 Do................................. 2715000 INTERNATIONAL $250,200 $413,000 FALLS Do................................. 2715030 INVER GROVE $423,300 $703,400 Do................................. 2715510 ISLE $56,200 $98,800 Do................................. 2715540 IVANHOE $35,200 $52,600 Do................................. 2715750 JORDAN $68,800 $68,800 Do................................. 2716830 PRINSBURG $16,500 $25,900 Do................................. 2716980 KASSON-MANTORVILLE $52,200 $54,500 Do................................. 2717010 KELLIHER $168,600 $294,900 Do................................. 2717100 KENYON-WANAMINGO $73,800 $124,200 Do................................. 2717120 KERKHOVEN-MURDOCK- $83,200 $130,700 SUNBURG Do................................. 2717220 KIMBALL $98,500 $151,900 Do................................. 2717250 LACRESCENT-HOKAH $62,700 $62,700 Do................................. 2717460 LAKE BENTON $20,200 $31,600 Do................................. 2717520 LAKE CITY $131,700 $221,100 Do................................. 2717570 LAKE OF THE WOODS $62,000 $100,500 Do................................. 2717880 LANCASTER $32,200 $46,800 Do................................. 2717910 LANESBORO $53,500 $78,000 Do................................. 2717940 LAPORTE $76,900 $123,100 Do................................. 2718030 LECENTER $32,100 $70,600 Do................................. 2718060 LEROY $35,900 $56,700 Do................................. 2718070 LESUEUR-HENDERSON $163,400 $266,700 Do................................. 2718090 LEWISTON-ALTURA $112,500 $174,600 Do................................. 2718210 LITCHFIELD $160,000 $266,700 Do................................. 2718240 LITTLE FALLS $402,200 $627,900 Do................................. 2718270 LITTLEFORK-BIG $47,100 $77,500 FALLS Do................................. 2718330 LUVERNE $135,100 $230,200 Do................................. 2718360 LYLE $36,100 $49,500 Do................................. 2718390 LYND $0 $0 Do................................. 2718540 MABEL-CANTON $120,400 $173,800 Do................................. 2718570 MADELIA $77,600 $130,500 Do................................. 2718660 MAHNOMEN $251,000 $407,200 Do................................. 2718750 MAHTOMEDI $93,500 $104,900 Do................................. 2718780 MANKATO $794,700 $1,355,800 Do................................. 2718810 MAPLE LAKE $25,400 $30,900 Do................................. 2718920 GRYGLA $27,600 $40,400 Do................................. 2718940 MARSHALL $202,000 $343,500 Do................................. 2718960 MARTIN COUNTY WEST $103,200 $134,500 Do................................. 2719170 MCGREGOR $185,900 $295,200 Do................................. 2719320 MEDFORD $17,800 $17,900 Do................................. 2720550 MELROSE $212,000 $328,500 Do................................. 2720580 MENAHGA $149,400 $231,300 Do................................. 2720670 MILACA $211,100 $376,400 Do................................. 2721210 MILROY $19,300 $31,100 Do................................. 2721240 MINNEAPOLIS $24,532,900 $48,341,400 Do................................. 2721270 MINNEOTA $65,800 $118,800 Do................................. 2721320 MONTEVIDEO $161,200 $270,400 Do................................. 2721360 MONTGOMERY- $119,200 $197,300 LONSDALE Do................................. 2721390 MONTICELLO $137,200 $142,400 Do................................. 2721420 MOORHEAD $750,000 $1,203,000 Do................................. 2721450 MOOSE LAKE $62,300 $95,300 Do................................. 2721480 MORA $218,400 $357,700 Do................................. 2721540 MORRIS $71,800 $115,100 Do................................. 2722950 MOUNDS VIEW $369,400 $395,400 Do................................. 2723010 MOUNTAIN LAKE $169,600 $257,200 Do................................. 2723310 NASHWAUK-KEEWATIN $85,900 $158,900 Do................................. 2723370 NEVIS $51,600 $83,000 Do................................. 2723400 NEW LONDON-SPICER $79,400 $79,400 Do................................. 2723430 NEW PRAGUE AREA $74,500 $81,300 SCHOOLS Do................................. 2723490 NEW ULM $254,200 $433,000 Do................................. 2723520 NEW YORK MILLS $154,900 $232,600 Do................................. 2723550 MARSHALL COUNTY $50,900 $72,400 CENTRAL SCHOOLS Do................................. 2723580 NICOLLET $35,200 $67,600 Do................................. 2723820 NORTH BRANCH $247,400 $442,100 Do................................. 2723850 NORTH ST PAUL- $841,700 $1,502,800 MAPLEWOOD Do................................. 2723880 NORTHFIELD $255,400 $429,300 Do................................. 2723910 NORWOOD $56,300 $56,300 Do................................. 2723970 OGILVIE $150,600 $229,600 Do................................. 2724030 OKLEE $25,000 $42,000 Do................................. 2725050 ONAMIA $287,700 $476,700 Do................................. 2725080 ORONO $45,200 $48,000 Do................................. 2725110 ORTONVILLE $51,000 $75,200 Do................................. 2725140 OSAKIS $90,400 $126,600 Do................................. 2725200 OSSEO $699,100 $772,000 Do................................. 2728050 OWATONNA $414,300 $719,800 Do................................. 2728080 PARK RAPIDS $286,900 $460,200 Do................................. 2728110 PARKERS PRAIRIE $75,200 $119,600 Do................................. 2728140 PAYNESVILLE $140,700 $200,800 Do................................. 2728170 PELICAN RAPIDS $190,700 $314,200 Do................................. 2728200 PEQUOT LAKES $135,100 $226,500 Do................................. 2728230 PERHAM $195,200 $328,900 Do................................. 2728290 RUSHFORD-PETERSON $55,600 $98,700 Do................................. 2728320 PIERZ $149,800 $223,500 Do................................. 2728350 PILLAGER $79,900 $131,900 Do................................. 2728380 PINE CITY $225,500 $376,100 Do................................. 2728950 PINE ISLAND $86,300 $138,900 Do................................. 2728960 PINE POINT $50,600 $61,800 Do................................. 2728970 PINE RIVER-BACKUS $245,600 $389,000 Do................................. 2729040 PLAINVIEW $38,800 $42,300 Do................................. 2729070 PLUMMER $26,100 $36,100 Do................................. 2730030 PRINCETON $123,600 $310,600 Do................................. 2730060 PRIOR LAKE $192,600 $217,200 Do................................. 2730090 PROCTOR $85,800 $85,800 Do................................. 2730150 RANDOLPH $12,900 $12,900 Do................................. 2730450 RED LAKE FALLS $50,600 $74,700 Do................................. 2730480 RED WING $283,700 $478,700 Do................................. 2730510 RED LAKE $1,154,400 $2,048,300 Do................................. 2730870 NORTHLAND $233,600 $429,000 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS Do................................. 2731750 RICHFIELD $508,500 $855,000 Do................................. 2731780 ROBBINSDALE $1,207,500 $2,121,300 Do................................. 2731800 ROCHESTER $1,873,600 $3,351,200 Do................................. 2732070 ROCKFORD $54,700 $59,400 Do................................. 2732250 ROSEAU $42,100 $47,200 Do................................. 2732390 ROSEMOUNT-APPLE $848,900 $913,500 VALLEY-EAGAN Do................................. 2732430 ROSEVILLE $181,800 $181,800 Do................................. 2732460 ROTHSAY $25,000 $43,800 Do................................. 2732490 ROUND LAKE $19,000 $26,400 Do................................. 2732520 ROYALTON $101,800 $151,500 Do................................. 2732550 RUSH CITY $109,000 $195,500 Do................................. 2732640 RUSSELL $15,000 $23,800 Do................................. 2732670 RUTHTON $35,600 $51,700 Do................................. 2732700 SOUTH KOOCHICHING $73,000 $114,300 Do................................. 2732820 SARTELL $204,300 $345,300 Do................................. 2732850 SAUK CENTRE $127,200 $127,200 Do................................. 2732880 SAUK RAPIDS $304,200 $520,700 Do................................. 2732970 SEBEKA $108,000 $155,700 Do................................. 2733000 SHAKOPEE $187,900 $203,400 Do................................. 2733210 SLEEPY EYE $113,500 $186,400 Do................................. 2733270 SOUTH ST. PAUL $304,300 $489,600 Do................................. 2733300 SPRING GROVE $27,200 $45,700 Do................................. 2733330 SPRING LAKE PARK $190,500 $190,500 Do................................. 2733390 SPRINGFIELD $35,500 $69,000 Do................................. 2733420 ST. ANTHONY-NEW $86,300 $149,800 BRIGHTON Do................................. 2733450 ST. CHARLES $172,900 $284,900 Do................................. 2733480 ST. CLAIR $16,300 $17,900 Do................................. 2733510 ST. CLOUD $1,032,400 $2,062,900 Do................................. 2733540 ST. FRANCIS $200,500 $231,000 Do................................. 2733600 ST. JAMES $170,900 $267,300 Do................................. 2733720 NETT LAKE $32,700 $47,000 Do................................. 2733780 ST. LOUIS PARK $306,400 $513,400 Do................................. 2733790 ST. MICHAEL- $59,400 $65,900 ALBERTVILLE Do................................. 2733810 SOUTH WASHINGTON $392,300 $440,100 COUNTY Do................................. 2733840 ST. PAUL $16,870,100 $33,054,800 Do................................. 2733870 ST. PETER $196,300 $278,800 Do................................. 2733900 STAPLES-MOTLEY $356,800 $531,500 Do................................. 2738160 STEWARTVILLE $52,500 $52,500 Do................................. 2738190 STILLWATER $410,600 $992,100 Do................................. 2738280 SWANVILLE $53,600 $93,200 Do................................. 2738850 THIEF RIVER FALLS $238,300 $422,000 Do................................. 2738880 ESKO $78,300 $127,900 Do................................. 2740590 TRACY $140,500 $233,700 Do................................. 2740665 TRITON $129,400 $237,500 Do................................. 2740680 TRUMAN $57,900 $96,800 Do................................. 2740740 LAKE SUPERIOR $195,200 $325,200 Do................................. 2740770 TYLER $48,300 $64,400 Do................................. 2740810 ULEN-HITTERDAL $43,100 $69,400 Do................................. 2740830 UNDERWOOD $43,200 $43,200 Do................................. 2740860 UPSALA $50,900 $77,600 Do................................. 2740920 VERNDALE $72,100 $93,200 Do................................. 2741040 VIRGINIA $206,600 $338,000 Do................................. 2741060 WABASHA-KELLOGG $74,100 $131,500 Do................................. 2741430 WABASSO $110,700 $173,200 Do................................. 2741460 WACONIA $69,800 $78,900 Do................................. 2741850 WARROAD $119,200 $191,800 Do................................. 2741880 WASECA $256,500 $442,100 Do................................. 2741910 WATERTOWN-MAYER $97,600 $169,900 Do................................. 2742120 WAUBUN $230,100 $373,100 Do................................. 2742160 WAYZATA $0 $0 Do................................. 2742270 WEST ST. PAUL- $280,600 $670,500 MENDOTA HTS.- EAGAN Do................................. 2742330 WHEATON AREA $43,100 $74,900 SCHOOL Do................................. 2742360 WHITE BEAR LAKE $334,500 $390,500 Do................................. 2742720 WILLMAR $737,800 $1,236,900 Do................................. 2742750 WILLOW RIVER $131,700 $209,000 Do................................. 2742780 WINDOM $127,800 $194,300 Do................................. 2744070 WINONA AREA PUBLIC $493,700 $851,400 SCHOOLS Do................................. 2744160 WORTHINGTON $316,700 $520,700 Do................................. 2744190 WRENSHALL $21,500 $21,500 Do................................. 2745735 ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA $115,800 $191,800 Do................................. 2781037 BALANCE OF DAKOTA $0 $0 COUNTY Do................................. 2781053 BALANCE OF $0 $0 HENNEPIN COUNTY Do................................. 2781097 BALANCE OF $0 $0 MORRISON COUNTY Do................................. 2791445 LAKE CRYSTAL- $76,700 $126,100 WELLCOME MEMORIAL Do................................. 2791446 TRI-COUNTY $70,300 $99,200 Do................................. 2791447 KITTSON CENTRAL $22,700 $22,700 Do................................. 2791448 NORMAN COUNTY WEST $53,100 $76,900 Do................................. 2791449 WIN-E-MAC $120,700 $167,000 Do................................. 2791450 MESABI EAST $251,100 $397,000 Do................................. 2791451 JANESVILLE-WALDORF- $103,400 $140,000 PEMBERTON Do................................. 2799999 PART D SUBPART 2 $1,850,400 $3,096,300 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Important limitations: A. Each of these amounts may be reduced by approximately 5% for state administration and school improvement activities. B. These amounts may also be reduced to account for grants to charter schools or recent local educational agency (LEA) boundary changes. C. States are also authorized to adjust these amounts for all LEAs serving localities with total population below 20,000 persons (currently 8 states exercise this authority). Notice: these are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the relative impact of alternative formulas and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended to predict specific amounts which states or LEAs will receive. Estimates are based on preliminary FY2006 program data on school-age children poor families and state expenditure factors, FY2005 data otherwise. Estimates prepared by CRS. TABLE 4.--ESTIMATED `NEW MONEY' FOR MINNESOTA LEAs UNDER IDEA PART B GRANTS TO STATES [dollars rounded to nearest $100; totals may differ slightly due to rounding] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated Estimated `New Estimated `New Difference Between Local Educational Agency (LEA) Money' Based on Money' Based on Authorized and FY2006 Grant FY2006 Authorized Appropriated Amount Amounts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.C.G.C............................................. $126,400 $207,800 $81,400 ADA-BORUP........................................... $51,600 $84,900 $33,200 ADRIAN.............................................. $63,800 $104,800 $41,000 AITKIN.............................................. $141,700 $232,900 $91,200 ALBANY.............................................. $179,400 $294,900 $115,500 ALBERT LEA.......................................... $425,700 $699,700 $274,000 ALDEN............................................... $23,700 $38,900 $15,200 ALEXANDRIA.......................................... $460,600 $757,100 $296,500 ANNANDALE........................................... $235,600 $387,200 $151,600 ANOKA-HENNEPIN...................................... $4,696,600 $7,719,600 $3,023,000 ASHBY............................................... $24,200 $39,700 $15,600 AUSTIN.............................................. $523,700 $860,800 $337,100 BADGER.............................................. $26,600 $43,800 $17,100 BAGLEY.............................................. $129,600 $213,000 $83,400 BALATON............................................. $19,300 $31,700 $12,400 BARNESVILLE......................................... $75,900 $124,700 $48,800 BARNUM.............................................. $65,900 $108,200 $42,400 BATTLE LAKE......................................... $61,000 $100,300 $39,300 BECKER.............................................. $230,200 $378,400 $148,200 BELGRADE-BROOTEN-ELROSA............................. $116,000 $190,600 $74,600 BELLE PLAINE........................................ $161,700 $265,700 $104,100 BELLINGHAM.......................................... $16,700 $27,400 $10,700 BEMIDJI............................................. $677,100 $1,112,900 $435,800 BENSON.............................................. $103,400 $170,000 $66,600 BERTHA-HEWITT....................................... $52,200 $85,700 $33,600 BIG LAKE............................................ $297,300 $488,600 $191,400 BIRD ISLAND-OLIVIA-LAKE LILLIAN..................... $113,600 $186,700 $73,100 BLACKDUCK........................................... $89,600 $147,300 $57,700 BLOOMING PRAIRIE.................................... $96,800 $159,200 $62,300 BLOOMINGTON......................................... $1,247,100 $2,049,800 $802,700 BLUE EARTH AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL....................... $159,300 $261,800 $102,500 BRAHAM.............................................. $118,100 $194,100 $76,000 BRAINERD............................................ $789,600 $1,297,900 $508,200 BRANDON............................................. $38,400 $63,100 $24,700 BRECKENRIDGE........................................ $104,600 $171,900 $67,300 BREWSTER............................................ $19,200 $31,600 $12,400 BROOKLYN CENTER..................................... $153,200 $251,800 $98,600 BROWERVILLE......................................... $52,500 $86,300 $33,800 BROWNS VALLEY....................................... $17,100 $28,200 $11,000 BUFFALO............................................. $573,800 $943,100 $369,300 BUFFALO LAKE-HECTOR................................. $68,000 $111,800 $43,800 BURNSVILLE.......................................... $1,479,400 $2,431,600 $952,200 BUTTERFIELD......................................... $25,800 $42,300 $16,600 BYRON............................................... $145,500 $239,100 $93,600 CALEDONIA........................................... $137,700 $226,300 $88,600 CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI.................................... $524,900 $862,800 $337,900 CAMPBELL-TINTAH..................................... $18,800 $31,000 $12,100 CANBY............................................... $71,800 $118,000 $46,200 CANNON FALLS........................................ $151,900 $249,700 $97,800 CARLTON............................................. $80,200 $131,700 $51,600 CASS LAKE-BENA SCHOOLS.............................. $129,000 $212,000 $83,000 CEDAR MOUNTAIN...................................... $46,800 $76,900 $30,100 CENTENNIAL.......................................... $725,900 $1,193,100 $467,200 CHASKA.............................................. $935,100 $1,537,100 $601,900 CHATFIELD........................................... $89,400 $147,000 $57,600 CHISAGO LAKES....................................... $352,800 $579,900 $227,100 CHISHOLM............................................ $99,900 $164,200 $64,300 CHOKIO-ALBERTA...................................... $27,500 $45,200 $17,700 CLEARBROOK-GONVICK.................................. $54,300 $89,300 $35,000 CLEVELAND........................................... $45,100 $74,200 $29,000 CLIMAX.............................................. $22,100 $36,400 $14,200 CLINTON-GRACEVILLE-BEARDSLEY........................ $62,400 $102,600 $40,200 CLOQUET............................................. $260,600 $428,400 $167,700 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.................................... $419,900 $690,200 $270,300 COMFREY............................................. $20,900 $34,300 $13,400 COOK COUNTY......................................... $81,000 $133,100 $52,100 CROMWELL-WRIGHT..................................... $34,500 $56,800 $22,200 CROOKSTON........................................... $196,400 $322,900 $126,400 CROSBY-IRONTON...................................... $200,100 $328,800 $128,800 CYRUS............................................... $15,000 $24,600 $9,600 DASSEL-COKATO....................................... $240,800 $395,900 $155,000 DAWSON-BOYD......................................... $54,200 $89,100 $34,900 DEER RIVER.......................................... $134,000 $220,300 $86,300 DELANO.............................................. $210,400 $345,900 $135,400 DETROIT LAKES....................................... $330,200 $542,700 $212,500 DILWORTH-GLYNDON-FELTON............................. $149,500 $245,700 $96,200 DOVER-EYOTA......................................... $77,000 $126,600 $49,600 DULUTH.............................................. $1,563,700 $2,570,200 $1,006,500 EAGLE VALLEY........................................ $57,100 $93,900 $36,800 EAST CENTRAL........................................ $132,600 $217,900 $85,300 EAST GRAND FORKS.................................... $198,100 $325,600 $127,500 EDEN PRAIRIE........................................ $1,104,500 $1,815,400 $710,900 EDEN VALLEY-WATKINS................................. $95,600 $157,200 $61,600 EDGERTON............................................ $44,000 $72,300 $28,300 EDINA............................................... $703,600 $1,156,500 $452,900 ELGIN-MILLVILLE..................................... $54,000 $88,800 $34,800 ELK RIVER........................................... $1,073,100 $1,763,800 $690,700 ELLSWORTH........................................... $21,900 $36,000 $14,100 ELY................................................. $72,800 $119,600 $46,800 ESKO................................................ $100,300 $164,800 $64,500 EVANSVILLE.......................................... $29,800 $49,100 $19,200 EVELETH-GILBERT..................................... $150,900 $248,100 $97,100 FAIRMONT AREA SCHOOLS............................... $255,800 $420,500 $164,700 FARIBAULT........................................... $555,900 $913,700 $357,800 FARMINGTON.......................................... $519,200 $853,400 $334,200 FERGUS FALLS........................................ $356,500 $586,000 $229,500 FERTILE-BELTRAMI.................................... $57,200 $93,900 $36,800 FILLMORE CENTRAL.................................... $113,100 $186,000 $72,800 FISHER.............................................. $22,600 $37,100 $14,500 FLOODWOOD........................................... $34,700 $57,100 $22,300 FOLEY............................................... $199,100 $327,300 $128,200 FOREST LAKE......................................... $853,600 $1,403,100 $549,400 FOSSTON............................................. $72,900 $119,800 $46,900 FRANCONIA........................................... $3,800 $6,300 $2,500 FRAZEE.............................................. $133,300 $219,100 $85,800 FRIDLEY............................................. $296,500 $487,400 $190,800 FULDA............................................... $56,300 $92,500 $36,200 G.F.W............................................... $124,000 $203,700 $79,800 GLENCOE-SILVER LAKE................................. $225,700 $370,900 $145,300 GLENVILLE-EMMONS.................................... $49,800 $81,900 $32,100 GOODHUE............................................. $56,700 $93,200 $36,500 GOODRIDGE........................................... $20,200 $33,200 $13,000 GRANADA HUNTLEY-EAST CHAIN.......................... $38,700 $63,600 $24,900 GRAND MEADOW........................................ $34,200 $56,300 $22,000 GRAND RAPIDS........................................ $479,900 $788,800 $308,900 GREENBUSH-MIDDLE RIVER.............................. $49,100 $80,700 $31,600 GREENWAY............................................ $160,300 $263,500 $103,200 GRYGLA.............................................. $20,500 $33,800 $13,200 HANCOCK............................................. $23,000 $37,700 $14,800 HASTINGS............................................ $593,300 $975,200 $381,900 HAWLEY.............................................. $83,800 $137,800 $54,000 HAYFIELD............................................ $105,300 $173,100 $67,800 HENDRICKS........................................... $20,400 $33,600 $13,200 HENNING............................................. $47,100 $77,400 $30,300 HERMAN-NORCROSS..................................... $19,100 $31,300 $12,300 HERMANTOWN.......................................... $167,000 $274,500 $107,500 HERON LAKE-OKABENA.................................. $33,000 $54,300 $21,300 HIBBING............................................. $322,600 $530,200 $207,600 HILL CITY........................................... $39,500 $64,900 $25,400 HILLS-BEAVER CREEK.................................. $36,400 $59,800 $23,400 HINCKLEY-FINLAYSON.................................. $147,900 $243,200 $95,200 HOLDINGFORD......................................... $111,900 $183,900 $72,000 HOPKINS............................................. $948,200 $1,558,500 $610,300 HOUSTON............................................. $59,600 $97,900 $38,300 HOWARD LAKE-WAVERLY-WINSTED......................... $182,100 $299,400 $117,200 HUTCHINSON.......................................... $354,600 $582,800 $228,200 INTERNATIONAL FALLS................................. $192,600 $316,600 $124,000 INVER GROVE......................................... $533,000 $876,000 $343,000 ISLE................................................ $55,000 $90,400 $35,400 IVANHOE............................................. $26,000 $42,700 $16,700 JACKSON COUNTY CENTRAL.............................. $152,900 $251,300 $98,400 JANESVILLE-WALDORF-PEMBERTON........................ $94,200 $154,900 $60,600 JORDAN.............................................. $202,600 $333,000 $130,400 KASSON-MANTORVILLE.................................. $178,800 $293,800 $115,100 KELLIHER............................................ $37,100 $60,900 $23,900 KENYON-WANAMINGO.................................... $106,200 $174,500 $68,300 KERKHOVEN-MURDOCK-SUNBURG........................... $61,800 $101,500 $39,800 KIMBALL............................................. $95,100 $156,300 $61,200 KINGSLAND........................................... $97,000 $159,400 $62,400 KITTSON CENTRAL..................................... $45,500 $74,800 $29,300 LAC QUI PARLE VALLEY................................ $129,400 $212,600 $83,300 LACRESCENT-HOKAH.................................... $162,100 $266,500 $104,400 LAKE BENTON......................................... $24,100 $39,700 $15,500 LAKE CITY........................................... $161,900 $266,100 $104,200 LAKE CRYSTAL-WELLCOME MEMORIAL...................... $112,900 $185,500 $72,600 LAKE OF THE WOODS................................... $73,400 $120,600 $47,200 LAKE PARK-AUDUBON DISTRICT.......................... $82,700 $136,000 $53,300 LAKE SUPERIOR....................................... $225,200 $370,200 $145,000 LAKEVIEW............................................ $51,500 $84,600 $33,100 LAKEVILLE........................................... $1,006,800 $1,654,800 $648,000 LANCASTER........................................... $21,100 $34,700 $13,600 LANESBORO........................................... $33,000 $54,200 $21,200 LAPORTE............................................. $36,100 $59,400 $23,300 LECENTER............................................ $74,500 $122,500 $48,000 LEROY............................................... $42,200 $69,400 $27,200 LESTER PRAIRIE...................................... $64,000 $105,200 $41,200 LESUEUR-HENDERSON................................... $167,000 $274,600 $107,500 LEWISTON-ALTURA..................................... $93,200 $153,200 $60,000 LITCHFIELD.......................................... $216,300 $355,600 $139,300 LITTLE FALLS........................................ $367,300 $603,700 $236,400 LITTLEFORK-BIG FALLS................................ $34,500 $56,700 $22,200 LONG PRAIRIE-GREY EAGLE............................. $180,600 $296,900 $116,300 LUVERNE............................................. $135,100 $222,100 $87,000 LYLE................................................ $26,000 $42,700 $16,700 LYND................................................ $19,400 $31,900 $12,500 M.A.C.C.R.A.Y....................................... $99,400 $163,400 $64,000 MABEL-CANTON........................................ $61,100 $100,500 $39,400 MADELIA............................................. $71,900 $118,200 $46,300 MAHNOMEN............................................ $97,300 $159,800 $62,600 MAHTOMEDI........................................... $338,800 $556,900 $218,100 MANKATO............................................. $813,200 $1,336,600 $523,400 MAPLE LAKE.......................................... $108,400 $178,200 $69,800 MAPLE RIVER......................................... $135,900 $223,300 $87,400 MARSHALL............................................ $253,900 $417,300 $163,400 MARSHALL COUNTY CENTRAL SCHOOLS..................... $34,500 $56,700 $22,200 MARTIN COUNTY WEST.................................. $80,700 $132,600 $51,900 MCGREGOR............................................ $84,000 $138,000 $54,100 MCLEOD WEST SCHOOLS................................. $60,200 $98,900 $38,700 MEDFORD............................................. $57,200 $94,000 $36,800 MELROSE............................................. $193,000 $317,200 $124,200 MENAHGA............................................. $82,600 $135,800 $53,200 MESABI EAST......................................... $140,600 $231,000 $90,500 MILACA.............................................. $218,600 $359,400 $140,700 MILROY.............................................. $18,100 $29,800 $11,700 MINNEAPOLIS......................................... $7,832,500 $12,874,000 $5,041,400 MINNEOTA............................................ $56,900 $93,500 $36,600 MINNETONKA.......................................... $876,300 $1,440,400 $564,100 MINNEWASKA.......................................... $164,900 $271,100 $106,100 MONTEVIDEO.......................................... $147,900 $243,100 $95,200 MONTGOMERY-LONSDALE................................. $150,500 $247,400 $96,900 MONTICELLO.......................................... $390,300 $641,500 $251,200 MOORHEAD............................................ $662,300 $1,088,700 $426,300 MOOSE LAKE.......................................... $72,100 $118,500 $46,400 MORA................................................ $211,300 $347,200 $136,000 MORRIS.............................................. $94,500 $155,300 $60,800 MOUNDS VIEW......................................... $1,280,800 $2,105,100 $824,400 MOUNTAIN IRON-BUHL.................................. $91,700 $150,700 $59,000 MOUNTAIN LAKE....................................... $81,600 $134,200 $52,500 MURRAY COUNTY CENTRAL............................... $94,500 $155,300 $60,800 N.R.H.E.G........................................... $105,300 $173,200 $67,800 NASHWAUK-KEEWATIN................................... $71,200 $117,000 $45,800 NETT LAKE........................................... $10,700 $17,600 $6,900 NEVIS............................................... $37,600 $61,800 $24,200 NEW LONDON-SPICER................................... $153,000 $251,500 $98,500 NEW PRAGUE AREA SCHOOLS............................. $325,500 $535,000 $209,500 NEW ULM............................................. $345,800 $568,400 $222,600 NEW YORK MILLS...................................... $83,300 $136,800 $53,600 NICOLLET............................................ $50,400 $82,800 $32,400 NORMAN COUNTY EAST.................................. $47,400 $77,900 $30,500 NORMAN COUNTY WEST.................................. $35,400 $58,200 $22,800 NORTH BRANCH........................................ $391,500 $643,500 $252,000 NORTH ST PAUL-MAPLEWOOD............................. $1,410,200 $2,317,800 $907,700 NORTHFIELD.......................................... $411,900 $677,000 $265,100 NORTHLAND COMMUNITY SCHOOLS......................... $79,500 $130,600 $51,200 NORWOOD............................................. $171,100 $281,200 $110,100 OGILVIE............................................. $90,300 $148,500 $58,100 OKLEE............................................... $23,100 $37,900 $14,800 ONAMIA.............................................. $133,200 $218,900 $85,700 ORONO............................................... $262,700 $431,800 $169,100 ORTONVILLE.......................................... $50,300 $82,700 $32,400 OSAKIS.............................................. $67,300 $110,500 $43,300 OSSEO............................................... $2,337,800 $3,842,500 $1,504,700 OWATONNA............................................ $556,100 $914,000 $357,900 PARK RAPIDS......................................... $214,500 $352,500 $138,000 PARKERS PRAIRIE..................................... $60,800 $99,900 $39,100 PAYNESVILLE......................................... $122,500 $201,300 $78,800 PELICAN RAPIDS...................................... $154,700 $254,300 $99,600 PEQUOT LAKES........................................ $130,400 $214,400 $83,900 PERHAM.............................................. $191,500 $314,700 $123,200 PIERZ............................................... $110,200 $181,100 $70,900 PILLAGER............................................ $82,600 $135,800 $53,200 PINE CITY........................................... $188,700 $310,200 $121,500 PINE ISLAND......................................... $113,600 $186,700 $73,100 PINE POINT.......................................... $12,600 $20,700 $8,100 PINE RIVER-BACKUS................................... $151,800 $249,500 $97,700 PIPESTONE AREA SCHOOLS.............................. $151,900 $249,700 $97,800 PLAINVIEW........................................... $107,400 $176,500 $69,100 PLUMMER............................................. $15,200 $25,000 $9,800 PRINCETON........................................... $339,400 $557,900 $218,500 PRINSBURG........................................... $17,000 $27,900 $10,900 PRIOR LAKE.......................................... $698,400 $1,147,900 $449,500 PROCTOR............................................. $170,700 $280,500 $109,900 RANDOLPH............................................ $44,500 $73,100 $28,600 RED LAKE............................................ $267,600 $439,800 $172,200 RED LAKE FALLS...................................... $45,400 $74,700 $29,200 RED ROCK CENTRAL.................................... $69,800 $114,800 $45,000 RED WING............................................ $353,800 $581,600 $227,700 REDWOOD FALLS AREA SCHOOLS.......................... $156,400 $257,100 $100,700 RENVILLE COUNTY WEST................................ $93,100 $153,100 $59,900 RICHFIELD........................................... $533,800 $877,400 $343,600 ROBBINSDALE......................................... $1,648,600 $2,709,700 $1,061,100 ROCHESTER........................................... $2,090,500 $3,436,100 $1,345,600 ROCKFORD............................................ $203,300 $334,100 $130,800 ROCORI.............................................. $254,300 $418,000 $163,700 ROSEAU.............................................. $141,000 $231,800 $90,800 ROSEMOUNT-APPLE VALLEY-EAGAN........................ $3,047,400 $5,008,900 $1,961,500 ROSEVILLE........................................... $737,100 $1,211,500 $474,400 ROTHSAY............................................. $21,700 $35,600 $14,000 ROUND LAKE.......................................... $15,000 $24,700 $9,700 ROYALTON............................................ $75,900 $124,700 $48,800 RUSH CITY........................................... $115,000 $189,100 $74,000 RUSHFORD-PETERSON................................... $71,700 $117,800 $46,100 RUSSELL............................................. $18,000 $29,600 $11,600 RUTHTON............................................. $19,600 $32,100 $12,600 SARTELL............................................. $285,600 $469,500 $183,800 SAUK CENTRE......................................... $141,200 $232,100 $90,900 SAUK RAPIDS......................................... $438,300 $720,500 $282,100 SEBEKA.............................................. $60,000 $98,600 $38,600 SHAKOPEE............................................ $568,100 $933,800 $365,700 SIBLEY EAST......................................... $154,100 $253,200 $99,200 SLEEPY EYE.......................................... $119,200 $196,000 $76,800 SOUTH KOOCHICHING................................... $34,900 $57,300 $22,400 SOUTH ST. PAUL...................................... $387,400 $636,800 $249,400 SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY............................. $1,724,200 $2,834,000 $1,109,800 SOUTHLAND........................................... $77,200 $126,900 $49,700 SPRING GROVE........................................ $39,700 $65,200 $25,500 SPRING LAKE PARK.................................... $442,100 $726,600 $284,500 SPRINGFIELD......................................... $66,500 $109,400 $42,800 ST. ANTHONY-NEW BRIGHTON............................ $127,700 $209,900 $82,200 ST. CHARLES......................................... $125,700 $206,700 $80,900 ST. CLAIR........................................... $50,200 $82,500 $32,300 ST. CLOUD........................................... $1,415,200 $2,326,000 $910,900 ST. FRANCIS......................................... $675,000 $1,109,500 $434,500 ST. JAMES........................................... $139,000 $228,400 $89,400 ST. LOUIS COUNTY.................................... $329,200 $541,200 $211,900 ST. LOUIS PARK...................................... $530,000 $871,100 $341,100 ST. MICHAEL-ALBERTVILLE............................. $292,000 $479,900 $187,900 ST. PAUL............................................ $6,697,800 $11,008,900 $4,311,100 ST. PETER........................................... $201,600 $331,400 $129,800 STAPLES-MOTLEY...................................... $206,900 $340,100 $133,200 STEPHEN-ARGYLE CENTRAL SCHOOLS...................... $45,900 $75,400 $29,500 STEWARTVILLE........................................ $172,900 $284,200 $111,300 STILLWATER.......................................... $1,079,500 $1,774,300 $694,800 SWANVILLE........................................... $42,800 $70,400 $27,600 THIEF RIVER FALLS................................... $234,700 $385,700 $151,000 TRACY............................................... $90,300 $148,400 $58,100 TRI-COUNTY.......................................... $41,800 $68,800 $26,900 TRITON.............................................. $153,700 $252,700 $99,000 TRUMAN.............................................. $51,700 $85,100 $33,300 TYLER............................................... $33,100 $54,400 $21,300 ULEN-HITTERDAL...................................... $38,400 $63,100 $24,700 UNDERWOOD........................................... $35,800 $58,800 $23,000 UNITED SOUTH CENTRAL................................ $124,900 $205,200 $80,400 UPSALA.............................................. $44,600 $73,300 $28,700 VERNDALE............................................ $34,900 $57,300 $22,400 VIRGINIA............................................ $178,100 $292,700 $114,600 WABASHA-KELLOGG..................................... $94,700 $155,600 $60,900 WABASSO............................................. $64,700 $106,300 $41,600 WACONIA............................................. $282,200 $463,900 $181,700 WADENA-DEER CREEK................................... $172,800 $284,100 $111,300 WALKER-HACKENSACK-AKELEY............................ $127,500 $209,600 $82,100 WARREN-ALVARADO-OSLO................................ $69,200 $113,700 $44,500 WARROAD............................................. $150,000 $246,500 $96,500 WASECA.............................................. $241,100 $396,300 $155,200 WATERTOWN-MAYER..................................... $174,600 $287,000 $112,400 WATERVILLE-ELYSIAN-MORRISTOWN....................... $122,200 $200,800 $78,600 WAUBUN.............................................. $91,200 $149,900 $58,700 WAYZATA............................................. $977,900 $1,607,300 $629,400 WEST CENTRAL AREA................................... $93,100 $153,100 $60,000 WEST ST. PAUL-MENDOTA HTS.-EAGAN.................... $732,500 $1,204,000 $471,500 WESTBROOK-WALNUT GROVE SCHOOLS...................... $49,100 $80,700 $31,600 WESTONKA............................................ $288,300 $473,800 $185,500 WHEATON AREA SCHOOL................................. $44,000 $72,200 $28,300 WHITE BEAR LAKE..................................... $1,023,500 $1,682,300 $658,800 WILLMAR............................................. $513,100 $843,400 $330,300 WILLOW RIVER........................................ $62,900 $103,400 $40,500 WINDOM.............................................. $111,000 $182,500 $71,500 WIN-E-MAC........................................... $57,600 $94,700 $37,100 WINONA AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS.......................... $575,100 $945,300 $370,200 WORTHINGTON......................................... $278,800 $458,200 $179,400 WRENSHALL........................................... $32,300 $53,000 $20,800 YELLOW MEDICINE EAST................................ $130,500 $214,500 $84,000 ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA.................................... $133,600 $219,600 $86,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: These are estimates provided for the purpose of policy discussion only and do not necessarily represent what LEAs will acturally receive ------ [Material submitted by the Education Industry Association follows:] Education Industry Association Code of Professional Conduct and Business Ethics for Supplemental Educational Services Providers amended november 15, 2005 This revised code of ethics, as adopted by the EIA Board of Directors on November 15, 2005, shall become effective November 15, 2005. SES Providers (and other education service providers) operate in an environment that touches communities, school officials, parents, students and other providers. The importance of the activities and complexity of the interactions make it paramount that EIA member organizations adhere to the highest standards of professional conduct and business ethics. In its role of providing critical leadership to the education industry, both public and private, EIA has adopted this voluntary code to describe key organizational behaviors and policies that will guide its member companies. High quality educational programs delivered by trained professionals represent the core value that is to be reflected throughout all of our partnerships with schools, parents and students. The following structure represents the collective judgment of what constitutes ethical behavior. EIA members are committed to using it to guide to decision-making and performance at all levels of their organizations-from the CEO to the employee in the classroom. Accountability for achieving desired results consistent with these guidelines and standards is the ultimate benchmark upon which EIA member service providers will be judged. We encourage States and Local School Districts to adopt these guidelines into their governance, contractual and oversight systems and apply all appropriate sanctions when the guidelines have been breached. General Guidelines In the conduct of business and discharge of responsibilities, Providers commit to: 1. Conduct business honestly, openly, fairly, and with integrity. 2. Comply with applicable laws, statutes, regulations and ordinances. 3. Avoid known conflict of interest situations. 4. Never offer or accept illegal payments for services rendered. 5. Apply these guidelines and standards throughout the company by insuring all employees understand them and act accordingly. 6. Refrain from publicly criticizing or disparaging other providers. 7. In the case of any conflict, first attempt resolution directly with each other. However, the parties involved may ask EIA to help mediate potential disputes. 8. Comply with the confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions of all applicable federal, state and local laws, including those relating to student identity, records, reports, data, scores and other sensitive information. 9. Be factual and forthright in reporting and documenting attendance rates, effectiveness of their programs, and in explaining the theoretical/empirical rationale behind major elements of its program, as well as the link between research and program design. 10. Take appropriate corrective action against provider employees, consultants or contractors who act in a manner detrimental to the letter or spirit of this code. 11. Take immediate steps to correct any actions on its part that willfully or inadvertently violate of the letter or spirit of this code. Standards Specific to SES EIA Members will consistently implement the NCLB Supplemental Services provisions and promote full access to SES services. To that end, Providers will NOT: 1. Compensate school district employees personally in exchange for access to facilities, to obtain student lists, to assist with marketing or student recruitment, to promote enrollment in a provider's program at the exclusion of other providers, to obtain other similar benefits for their SES program, or for any illegal purpose. 2. Employ any district employees who currently serve the districts in the capacity of Principal, Assistant Principal, or school or district SES Coordinator. 3. Employ any individuals, including teachers, parents or community leaders, who have any governing authority over a school district or school site. 4. Hire school-employed personnel for any purpose other than instruction-related services or program coordination, as described in item #3 in the next section below. 5. Make payments or in-kind contributions to schools or school personnel, exclusive of customary fees for facility utilization in exchange for access to facilities, to obtain student lists, to increase student enrollment, to obtain other similar benefits for their SES program or for any illegal purpose. 6. Misrepresent to anyone, including parents (during student recruitment), the location of a provider's program, principal/district or state's approval of a provider, or the likelihood of becoming so approved. 7. Offer a student any form of incentive for signing-up with a provider. 8. Employ any District-enrolled student. 9. Use a district enrollment form that has the selected provider's name pre-printed as part of the form. 10. Encourage students/parents to switch providers once enrolled. A student is considered enrolled once the District has issued the formal student / Provider selection list. Providers MAY: 1. Provide simple door prizes of a nominal value (approximately $5 per prize) and refreshments to potential students and their families, while attending informational sessions 2. Offer enrolled students performance rewards with a maximum value of 5% of the district's PPA that are directly linked to documented meaningful attendance benchmarks and/or the completion of assessment and program objectives. 3. Employ school district employees (subject to items #2, #3 and #4 in the previous section above) for instruction-related services or program coordination purposes as long as the person does not restrict the marketing or enrollment opportunities of other providers, subject to District policies governing conflict of interests and other District-imposed requirements. 4. Include in tutor compensation, incentives for student achievement consistent with a company's written policy. ______ Education Industry Association Analysis of GAO SES Study The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Supplemental Education Services (SES) generally finds what we have known for some time to be true: 1. Participation in SES is low; the GAO found that participation increased from 12% of eligible students receiving services in 2003-04 to 19% in 2004-05; 2. Overwhelmingly, most districts (90%) report very positive interactions with providers, and there are a great variety and supply of providers, except, perhaps in rural districts; 3. Students receiving services are the most at-risk students; 4. Many problems remain in the implementation of SES and states, districts, schools, providers and the federal government need to continue to work to solve the issues, which include communication (with parents, between providers and districts, etc.), contracting, hard-to- serve districts, student enrollment/participation, and student attendance; 5. Providers, districts and schools all believe that a greater role for schools would improve SES implementation; 6. Evaluating the academic impact of SES remains a challenge and many states have not taken enough action to address the issue. That does not mean, however, that providers are not held accountable for academic performance: providers have to pass a high hurdle for state provider-approval status, parents are free to choose the best provider for their child, providers only get paid for actual services delivered, districts have done some evaluation (e.g., CPS), and providers must track and report student academic achievement; 7. When school principals and teachers had maximum information and engaged providers in the planning and operation of SES programs in their schools, it often resulted in more effective implementation of SES services; 8. Districts in which SES is required to be offered are not fully expending their SES set-aside (the report estimates the expenditure at 5% (of 20%) for 2004-05). However, the GAO report also has some serious flaws. The report suffers from ``system'' bias and is misleading about: facility access; LEP/SPED participation; overall student participation and attendance; and provider communication with teachers and parents. There is a serious lack of connection between claims and evidence gathered regarding state/district desire to control provider program costs/ design; and an incomplete exploration of 20% set-aside issue and districts in need of improvement waivers. 1. To increase participation, the report recommends that more districts in need of improvement be given waivers from the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) to be able to provide SES. There is no evidence to support whether this recommendation would be effective other than that was what the survey responses indicated was needed; while the federal waivers MAY have this effect, it is unsupported by the findings of the report. Before any additional pilots are granted, the Department should first complete its own rigorous evaluation; 2. To increase participation, the report recommends that states be given clearer guidance on controlling provider costs and programs. Again, there is no evidence to support whether this recommendation would be effective other than that was what the survey responses indicated was needed; 3. The report does not address its own findings that districts in which SES is required to be offered have spent much less than the statutorily required set aside of 20% and why district efforts at parental outreach have been ineffective; 4. The report does not break down its statistics by the large districts surveyed (which have over 100,000 students eligible for SES (21 districts)) and smaller districts surveyed (less than 100,000 students eligible (167 districts)). Given that the report found that SES recipients are concentrated in a small group of large districts, the data can be very misleading since the number of smaller districts can mask or change the survey results from the large districts; 5. Although the GAO study makes numerous references to limited English proficient and special education students not being served adequately, the report states unequivocally: ``* * * we were unable to determine whether certain groups of students were underserved.'' (Page 17, emphasis added) 6. GAO estimated that some, most or all providers did not contact teachers to align curriculum in 40% of districts and did not contact parents in 30% of districts in 04-05. This ``finding'' is essentially meaningless because the conclusion is based on the aggregation of potential responses to the GAO question. There is no breakdown between providers, in which districts, and among each category. For example, the breakdown for contacting teachers could be: in 25% of districts, some providers did not contact teachers; in 10% of districts, most providers did not contact teachers; and in 5% of districts, no providers contacted teachers, which is a much different picture than that given by the GAO. The report also doesn't indicate which size of districts (the 21 large districts and all other smaller ones) and how many providers are in each district. For example, in small districts with one provider, if that provider doesn't contact teachers, then that yields a result of no providers contacting teachers in the district, which is a problem, but not of the same nature as that portrayed by the report. Finally, this finding is specific to providers contacting teachers to align curriculum; it doesn't address other forms of contact between providers and teachers that happen everyday on student learning plans, achievement and satisfaction. 7. The report underestimates the importance of providers serving students in school facilities; it lumps together services provided in school facilities with those near school facilities--that is a major difference in physical location for parents and their children. Further, the report does not examine the question of location of SES and impact on student participation and attendance; 8. The report is a qualitative analysis that relies on self- reported surveys of only some of the major actors involved in SES: states and districts. Whereas 50 states (and DC and PR) and 188 districts were given in-depth surveys, only 22 providers were ``interviewed''. The report suffers from this imbalance as it gives too much weight to state and district survey findings and uncritically parrots the wants of the states and districts, particularly in its recommendations (see points 7 and 8 above). The report states: ``While we did not validate specific information that states and districts reported through our surveys, we reviewed the information to determine that their responses were complete and reasonable and found the information to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.'' (Page 2) One method used to determine what was ``reasonable'' was to check two reports by the Center on Education Policy, which were also surveys of states and various districts. Conclusion The report completely misses some of the biggest drivers of SES mis-implementation and doesn't directly address the core problems of participation and achievement results. All recommendations solve state/ district/school concerns, and only touch on provider concerns to the extent they are the same as the ``systems.' '' Specifically, the report does not directly address and recommend solutions to the following: 1. Unless and until the issue of the use of the 20% set-aside for SES (and public school choice) is addressed, it will be impossible for SES to reach its potential. There is an overwhelming disincentive for districts to encourage SES enrollment since ``unused'' funds revert back to the school district that school year for other uses. Most of the obstacles to SES implementation and increasing SES enrollments stem from this single issue. There are a number of possible solutions to this core problem, although the surest way to avoid any perverse incentives or conflicts of interest would be to have a third party administer the 20% set-aside for the district when the district is a provider. Another approach is the ``lock-box'' concept that reserves SES/Choice funds just for that purpose at the district and state levels. With potentially surplus funds remaining restricted for those original purposes, the district would more likely ``use it vs. lose it''. We should also study the new approach by the state of Florida that sets a high standard of student enrollment or student opt-out before unused funds are re-allocated for non-SES purposes. 2. More widespread facility access must become a reality, as it will increase enrollment, parental satisfaction, safety and even academic achievement. Many districts use facility access as a 'backdoor' means to regulate SES, including using it to lower per-pupil costs and recapture SES dollars leaving their control. There is a simple way to address this issue that puts providers on the same footing as other groups seeking access to school facilities after the regular school day. Federal law should require districts to select an approved provider or providers using a fair, transparent and objective process to operate on-site in the school or schools free of charge, or for a reasonable fee, on the same basis and terms as are available to other groups that seek access to the school building. This process may take into account the performance of a provider. About the Education Industry Association and its SES Coalition The Education Industry Association (EIA) works to expand educational opportunities and improve student achievement for learners of all ages by infusing American education with market-based drivers of service, innovation, and results. Founded in 1990, EIA is the leading professional association for private providers of education services, suppliers, and other private organizations in all sectors of education. EIA currently has more than 500 individual and corporate members. www.educationindustry.org A number of EIA members are state-approved providers of supplemental education services (SES) under ``No Child Left Behind,'' and have delivered tutoring to hundreds of thousands of economically and educationally disadvantaged, SES-eligible students. These EIA members have formed the EIA SES Coalition, which sponsors the ``Campaign to Support Quality Tutoring for America's Students,'' launched in February, 2006. In addition to managing the Campaign and the SES Coalition, EIA provides the framework for entrepreneurs and corporate executives to work together to promote public understanding of the education industry and develop public-private partnerships to advance better teaching and learning. The association also works to advance state and federal education policies--such as No Child Left Behind--to the benefit of EIA members, children, educators and parents. EIA members include tutoring companies, education management organization, charter schools, educators, publishers, school suppliers, financial institutions, investors, and colleges and universities. More information on the Education Industry Association (EIA) may be obtained by calling Steve Pines, EIA executive director at 800-252-3280 or visiting www.educationindustry.org. ______ Education Industry Association Campaign to Support Quality Tutoring for America's Students Parents: How to Get Free Tutoring for Your Child? 10 Questions To Ask Your Local School District 1. Is free tutoring being offered in my child's school? 2. Where can I learn more about this program? 3. Is my child eligible to receive free tutoring? 4. How do I enroll my child in the tutoring program? 5. How much time do I have to make up my mind? 6. Can I ask the principal of my child's school about this program? 7. Will I be given plenty of information about all the tutoring organizations I can choose from? 8. Will I be able to ask questions of the tutoring organizations I am considering? 9. Will my child be able to receive the tutoring at his or her school? 10. How soon will the program begin? ______ Education Industry Association Guidelines for Accountability in Supplemental Education Services REVISED FEBRUARY 9, 2006 Under ``No Child Left Behind,'' state education agencies (SEAs) are tasked with developing lists of approved providers of supplemental education services (SES) deemed capable of helping students most at need--those who are Title 1-eligible, and who attend schools that have failed to make adequate yearly progress for two straight years. NCLB stipulates that if an SES provider's program fails to demonstrate effectiveness for two consecutive years, an SEA may remove that organization from its state's approved provider list. Four years after NCLB was signed into law, SEAs seem to have fulfilled their responsibility of reviewing and approving SES providers; as of this writing, there are approximately 1,800 approved SES providers nationwide, with about 300,000 educationally and economically needy students currently enrolled in programs. SEA measurement of SES effectiveness, on the other hand, has proven to be much more problematic. Very few SEAs have initiated SES evaluation programs, and fewer still have used SES evaluation data to improve program content or delivery. The Education Industry Association (EIA), representing over 600 education organizations that serve students, schools and the community, including SES providers nationwide, calls on all SEAs to take immediate action to develop and implement sound, equitable and effective SES evaluation systems. EIA believes that to do any less would be unfair to the students currently enrolled in SES programs nationwide, and detrimental to the future viability of the SES program under NCLB. The Association and its members stand ready to work cooperatively with all states and districts nationwide not only to deliver the highest-quality SES services, but to ensure those services are helping our nation's economically and educationally disadvantaged students. General Principles of Effective SES Evaluation EIA's position on SES evaluation, fully outlined below, follows these general principles: <bullet> Providers strongly endorse accountability. The industry supports valid and reliable evaluation methods that recognize effective programs, while sanctioning programs that fail to produce results. <bullet> The process of accountability starts prior to service delivery. During the state review and approval process for providers, SEAs should set high benchmarks in the application including: demonstrated organizational capacity; a record of prior performance with similar programs/student populations; viable financial management systems; use of research-based materials/methods; and use of qualified staff. SEAs and providers should understand what success looks like before the first SES student is enrolled in a program. <bullet> Provider performance can be maximized when providers follow industry standards of program quality and business ethics such as those endorsed by the EIA. EIA has adopted voluntary codes followed by our members, which have been utilized by some state departments of education in their provider review process, including those in CT, NY, OH, MD, GA, and IL. <bullet> Evaluation designs and their implementation must be fair and sensitive enough to record gains of individual students, especially students whose achievement level is several grades behind their grade level. It's simply not realistic for anyone to expect that an average of 40 hours of tutoring can, or should, bring students up to grade- level performance if they are one, two or three grade levels behind. That said, effective tutoring must be able to demonstrate that students are making progress toward pre-defined goals. <bullet> Evaluation designs need to account for, and be fair to, providers serving larger and smaller populations of students, and using varying methods of instruction. Unlike the use of standardized testing to measure students' knowledge of state-mandated core content taught in the regular classroom, SES evaluation designs should be comprehensive enough to assess growth achieved through multiple variables including different tutoring pedagogies, ratios, contact hours, and student characteristic, etc. <bullet> States should collect qualitative data on parental satisfaction in addition to student academic achievement data. From their perspective on access, to choices in the selection of SES providers, to their views on the influence and impact of tutoring programs on their children overall, parents' voices can and should be heard as part of the SES evaluation process. States should understand this, and use multiple measures of provider success in addition to student achievement data, including levels of parental satisfaction and attendance rates. <bullet> States should receive support from the federal government to conduct proper evaluation of SES. Sound evaluation of SES cannot, and should not be achieved on the cheap. EIA advocates that States either be permitted to use a portion of Title I funding to conduct SES evaluation, or that the federal government provide funding for evaluation beyond funding for SES itself. Specific Recommendations on SES Evaluation 1. States should closely involve Providers and LEAs early in the development of evaluation policies and specific methodologies. Providers and districts have ``been in the trenches'' with SES programs for nearly four years, and should be consulted on the selection of assessment tools and the means for monitoring and data collection. 2. States should ensure the overall fairness of the system especially when the LEA is an approved provider. There are potential conflicts of interest that must be openly disclosed and avoided with respect to SES evaluation, especially when the local school district is also an SES provider and conducts monitoring on behalf of the State. EIA urges States to consider the use of third-party outside evaluators to mitigate any potential conflicts. 3. States should isolate the effects of SES from other variables that might affect a student's achievement. SES evaluations must be designed to detect and measure the specific effects of the tutoring intervention, apart and separate from classroom instruction or other extracurricular activities that might influence academic achievement. Statistical regression models can help project academic growth that tutored students may be expected to make and then compare their actual performance with these projections. 4. States should consider the use of control groups for comparison purposes. This offers a way to demonstrate whether or not enrollment in SES programs enhances performance beyond attendance of regular classroom instruction. It will also enable administrators to determine whether eligible students who choose not to enroll in SES programs are being left behind students who do choose to enroll. 5. States should factor in the length of time a student is in an SES program. If a student does not attend a provider's program for at least 75% to 80% of the scheduled time, his or her chronic absences should be taken into account at the time the provider is evaluated. Overall attendance patterns, however, should be one of several criteria that SEAs should include in the performance review of providers. 6. States should exercise extreme care or avoid using standardized testing for purposes other than for which it was originally deemed reliable and valid. Measuring a 30-, 40- or even an 80-hour tutoring program with an standardized instrument designed to measure year-over- year growth of students in classrooms full time, may not pick up potential change from a short-term tutoring program unless there are very large samples and evaluators use sophisticated statistical controls that can accurately isolate these effects. Another limitation of the use of grade-level standardized testing comes with SES students who are frequently achieving well-below grade level. Learning gains from SES may not be picked up by these tests. The federal government should assist States with the extraordinary costs that may be incurred if state-standardized assessments need to be modified for SES purposes. 7. States should implement a standards-based testing framework that is aligned to their core reading and mathematics standards. They should then ensure that the provider's curriculum is linked to these standards through the upfront provider approval process. 8. States should include in their overall evaluation of provider effectiveness, data from providers' pre- and post-testing of SES students. Since individual learning goals are set for each student, this approach may better measure those individualized results. This is the least costly approach, since the provider pays these costs. 9. States should include in their evaluation policies the prospect of providers demonstrating clear effectiveness in one or more districts within a State, and a lack of progress in other district within that same State. At the same time, States should also develop an appeals process which would allow a provider deemed ineffective to make its best case not to be removed from the approved provider list. 10. States should ensure privacy for all students and their families. Information on student performance in SES programs should be protected to the same degree that all other student information is protected. For more information on EIA, please contact Mr. Steve Pines, Executive Director, 800-252-3280, or spines@educationindustry.org. <all>