<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>