US Chamber of Commerce

Since 2003, participation in SES has increased from 233,000 students to nearly 700,000.  During this same period, participation in public school choice has grown from approximately 50,000 students to roughly 150,000.

U.S. Student Participation in Supplemental Educational Services and Public School Choice (2003-2009)*

*Data does not include information from the District of Columbia and Nebraska

SES Participation:

The huge rise in SES participation is likely due to several factors, including an increase in the number of eligible students, a growing awareness among parents regarding the availability of free tutoring, and general improvements of implementation by districts over time. However, participation is by no means even across states or districts either in real numbers or as a percentage of students eligible to receive services.

As reflected in the chart below, of the nearly 700,000 SES participants in 2008-09, 63% were from only four states and one territory—California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Puerto Rico.

U.S. Student Participation in Supplemental Educational Services (SES) As Number of Students, by State (2008-2009)*

*Data does not include information from the District of Columbia and Nebraska

While the population of the states and their relative number of eligible students are key factors driving the overall number of students participating in SES, there is great variation from state to state on the overall percentage of eligible students participating. In fact, three of the top states with the highest number of overall SES participants (CA, FL, and IL) are not among the top states in terms of overall SES participation as a percentage of eligible students. As the chart below indicates, participation as a percentage of eligible students ranges from a high of over 40% in Maryland to below 5% in 11 different states.

U.S. Student Participation in Supplemental Educational Services (SES) As Percentage of Eligible Students, by State (2008-2009)*

*Data does not include information from the District of Columbia and Nebraska

While the number of students and the percentages of students participating in SES help gain insight into the overall use of SES, they don’t provide an accurate or complete picture about the demand for free tutoring or the level of commitment put forth by states and school districts in implementing SES. This is due to the simple fact that the required 15% set-aside available for SES (5% plus the 10% flexible funding) is rarely enough to provide all eligible students with free tutoring. For example, a district with a $1 million Title I allocation must set aside at least 15% for SES ($150,000). If the district’s per-pupil allocation is roughly $1,500, this is sufficient to provide 100 students with SES; in other words, the district has 100 funded slots available. If 300 students were eligible for SES, the district would only have funds to serve one-third of those students without tapping into additional funding sources.

Given this fact, it is useful to look at the extent to which districts are providing SES to students based upon the full use of their set-aside for this purpose. While such information is difficult to gather from a national perspective, a review of the top 25 largest school districts in the United States found that nine provided free tutoring to 100% or more of their “funded” slots.

Student Participation in Supplemental Educational Services (SES) In Nation’s Largest 25 School Districts As Percentage of All Students Eligible and As a Percentage of Fundable “Slots” (2008-2009)

At the same time, six of these districts provided free tutoring to less than 50% of their “funded” slots. Such disparities also exist in school districts within the same state. For example, while Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC provided tutoring to over 100% of their funded slots, the Wake County, NC Public School System provided tutoring to less than 10% of their funded slots.

Wide differences in the extent to which districts provide services were highlighted in a 2004 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which estimated that no students received services in about 20% 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. Barriers to implementing SES faced by rural schools are in large part a result of geographic location, including a lack of qualified tutors, inadequate transportation to and from service locations, inconsistent Internet access, and limited number of providers who actually offer services in these areas (GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. September 23, 2004).

In urban districts, the quality of district implementation—the timeliness of information to parents, support for choosing a tutoring provider, and district processes—are more likely to influence SES enrollment.

Public School Choice Participation

In 2008-09, 154,000 students took advantage of school choice options under NCLB, less than 3% of the 5.8 million students eligible to participate and roughly 25% of the number of students participating in SES. As with SES, participation varied from state to state. As the chart below illustrates, some states had virtually no students using school choice. In terms of number of participants, over one-half were from the state of California alone in the 2008-09 school year, but South Dakota actually accounts for the largest percentage of eligible students opting for school choice.

Such low participation has been attributed to numerous factors. In some cases, districts limit the number of schools students have the option to attend, while in other cases, other options simply are not available. This is a rising issue in districts in which a growing majority of schools are “in need of improvement” and thus are prohibited from “receiving” eligible students. Even so, lack of capacity is not a permissible excuse for failing to provide choice under NCLB.

In addition, some 70% of school districts have 2,500 or fewer students, according to the American Association of School Administrators (AASA). These districts are not likely to have more than a couple of schools at each grade span (elementary, middle, and high) which limits students’ options (Testimony of Dr. Edward Hatrick, AASA president, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, February 2001). Although the law suggests that districts develop inter-district agreements to allow students to cross district lines, thereby expanding their choices, in practice, very few districts have developed such agreements. Since districts receive all, or the majority, of their funding from the state on a per-pupil basis, it is not in the financial interest of districts to encourage students to attend schools elsewhere. This is even more of a problem in rural districts which have few schools, and those schools tend to be spread out geographically, making transporting students both resource-intensive and impractical.

U.S. Student Participation in Public School Choice under NCLB as Percentage of Eligible Students, by State (2008-2009)

In some districts, school choice preceded NCLB in the form of open enrollment, where students can attend any school in the district. These types of programs include magnet schools, which have specialized programs designed to attract students; charter schools; and even virtual schools, where students “attend” classes online.

This article appeared in the March 2011 edition of ICW's Monthly Newsletter.