Encouraging Spending on Parental Outreach for SES

Many low-income parents with children in low-performing schools are not taking advantage of free tutoring available to them under No Child Left Behind. Under NCLB’s “Supplemental Educational Services” (SES) provision, school districts that fail to meet academic benchmarks for three years must set aside part of their federal Title I grant to provide outside tutoring—but only a fraction of eligible students are using the program.

The Department of Education is trying to figure out how to increase take-up rates for the SES program. As part of a package of new NCLB regulations, the Department proposed this week that districts should be able to use part of their SES funding set-aside to conduct outreach activites to educate parents about the program (this currently isn’t allowed). This is a logical, beneficial addition to the SES provision that hopefully will encourage districts to implement more intensive, effective ways to inform parents about SES.

Low Levels of SES Participation…

In the 2003-04 school year, 1,377,000 students were eligible for SES (eligible students are low-income students who are enrolled in schools that have failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for three consecutive years). But only 233,000 of those students—a mere 17 percent of eligible students nationwide—participated in SES, according to the most recent National Assessment of Title I.

Other studies of individual states and districts have found similarly low participation rates. While the overall number of students participating in SES has increased in recent years, this is a result of the rising number of failing schools and eligible students, not take-up (see graph to right).

…and Spending

NCLB requires school districts to set aside 20 percent of their Title I grants for SES and school choice (low-income students can also choose to transfer to another school after two years of AYP failure by their school). Administrative costs, such as parental outreach, cannot be included in the 20 percent. If a district does not spend the entire 20 percent set-aside—either because not enough students are eligible or because not enough students choose to participate—it can reallocate the remaining funds to other Title I activities.

A GAO report estimated that districts nationwide spent 42 percent of the total amount set aside for SES in 2004-05. Of course, spending on SES varies from district to district, and in some districts—primarily large, urban districts with significant numbers of failing schools and eligible students—the demand may exceed the funding available for SES. But this is not the norm (in this case, districts must prioritize the lowest-achieving students). In 2004-05, the GAO estimated that 16 percent of districts could not provide SES to all students who requested it with their 20 percent set-aside. In the majority of school districts, SES funds are under-utilized, allowing districts to redirect the unused SES money to other purposes.

Increasing Participation Takes Effort, and Money

Free tutoring should be an appealing option to most parents, so why does only one out of every five eligible students nationwide take advantage of the SES program? Most case studies find that the main obstacle is inadequate parental outreach and engagement.

NCLB requires districts to “promptly provide to a parent or parents (in an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent practicable, in a language the parents can understand) of each [eligible] student…an explanation of the parents’ option to obtain SES.” This typically means that districts send a letter to parents of eligible students at the beginning of the year.

These letters often fail to explain the SES option in a clear, understandable way. And in some cases they are lost because of high mobility rates for low-income families. In addition, parents can find the task of choosing a SES provider and filling out the requisite paperwork overwhelming. Because districts cannot include administrative costs in their 20 percent set-aside spending, many are discouraged from taking more extensive and effective, but also more expensive, actions to notify parents.

For example, some proactive districts have used a variety of strategies to increase SES take-up. They have: called, visited at home, or held meetings at school with parents; hosted informational events such as SES fairs at which parents can explore provider options; worked with outside community organizations or churches to raise awareness; bought advertisements on radio, television, or billboards, etc.

Given the widespread information problems, it’s commonsense to allow districts to use a small portion of the 20 percent set-aside to figure out how to engage more parents and students. The Department proposes allowing districts to spend up to 0.2 percent of the overall Title I grant on parental outreach, or 1 percent of the 20 percent set-aside. In addition, districts that are under-utilizing their SES and school choice funds should be given other options to support low-income children in failing schools: for example, New America’s Early Education Initiative, has proposed allowing districts to spend part of this money on high-quality pre-kindergarten for 3- and 4-year olds.

The Department recognizes that many low-income students in low-performing schools are not getting the additional academic support envisioned by NCLB. Encouraging districts to spend more money on parental outreach is a positive step toward reaching more of these students. Next up is accountability: the Department needs to show, conclusively, that this significant federal investment in SES is having a positive effect on student achievement. More to come on SES effectiveness from Ed Money Watch.