1
/
of
1
ReadCycle
Impacts of Title I Supplemental Educational Services on Student Achievement
Impacts of Title I Supplemental Educational Services on Student Achievement
Regular price
$2.99 USD
Regular price
Sale price
$2.99 USD
Shipping calculated at checkout.
Quantity
Couldn't load pickup availability
As one of the parental choice provisions implemented with Title I funds under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), parents of low-income students in low-performing schools are offered a choice of Supplemental Educational Services for their children. Supplemental Educational Services (SES) include tutoring or other academic support services offered outside the regular school day, at no charge to students or their families, by public or private organizations that have been approved by the state as SES providers. School districts are required to offer SES to all students from low-income families attending a Title I school that for three consecutive years did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward meeting state standards regarding the percentage of students (or subgroups of students) who have achieved proficiency in reading and math.
Implementation of SES has grown quickly and is now widespread. The number of students participating more than doubled (to 530,000) from 2004–2005 to 2006–2007 (Stullich et al. 2009) and continued growing (to 672,101) in 2008–2009 (www.eddataexpress.ed.gov). Whether ESEA will require SES in its next reauthorization is unclear. The Department of Education’s blueprint for reauthorization of ESEA, released in March 2010, recommends that chronically low-performing schools should no longer be required to fund SES but instead should be required to implement any of a number of “data-driven interventions,” which could include “expanded learning time, supplemental education services, public school choice, or other strategies” (
Over the years, SES funding in a few districts has fallen short of what was needed to serve all eligible youth who were interested in accessing services. Federal regulations governing the implementation of SES require prioritization of services to the lowest achieving eligible students when resources are constrained and funds are insufficient to provide SES to all eligible students who request services (Section 116[b][10][C]; 34 CFR 200.45 [d]). A few prior studies have estimated the effect of SES for students receiving services and provide some preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of these tutoring services in raising student achievement (for a summary of some of these studies, and a discussion of implementation issues, see Springer et al. 2009b).
This report presents the findings of an evaluation sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) at the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and conducted by Mathematica Policy Research (Mathematica) that uses a regression discontinuity (RD) design to assess the potential benefits of offering SES in districts that have unmet need. Specifically, the study focuses on six school districts in which more eligible students applied for SES than could be served with available funds (i.e., oversubscribed districts), and which therefore allocated scarce SES spaces by giving priority to lower-achieving students among the eligible applicants. The current study is the first to use a research design that can directly account for selection into services and therefore (if reasonable assumptions are met) support drawing causal inferences about the impact of SES on students at the cutoff of receiving services (Hahn, Todd, & Van Der Klaauw, 2001; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002; Imbens & Lemieux, 2008). The study’s RD design estimates the impact of SES on academic achievement by comparing the post-test scores of students offered services with those for students whose prior achievement scores were slightly too high to be offered services, with the comparison adjusting for the prior achievement scores that were used to determine assignment to services. The estimates apply to students in the study’s school districts who are on the cusp of receiving services. Because different cut points were used in different grades across the six districts, these estimates show the effect on students on the cusp of participating in the program in multiple contexts in oversubscribed districts.
Implementation of SES has grown quickly and is now widespread. The number of students participating more than doubled (to 530,000) from 2004–2005 to 2006–2007 (Stullich et al. 2009) and continued growing (to 672,101) in 2008–2009 (www.eddataexpress.ed.gov). Whether ESEA will require SES in its next reauthorization is unclear. The Department of Education’s blueprint for reauthorization of ESEA, released in March 2010, recommends that chronically low-performing schools should no longer be required to fund SES but instead should be required to implement any of a number of “data-driven interventions,” which could include “expanded learning time, supplemental education services, public school choice, or other strategies” (
Over the years, SES funding in a few districts has fallen short of what was needed to serve all eligible youth who were interested in accessing services. Federal regulations governing the implementation of SES require prioritization of services to the lowest achieving eligible students when resources are constrained and funds are insufficient to provide SES to all eligible students who request services (Section 116[b][10][C]; 34 CFR 200.45 [d]). A few prior studies have estimated the effect of SES for students receiving services and provide some preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of these tutoring services in raising student achievement (for a summary of some of these studies, and a discussion of implementation issues, see Springer et al. 2009b).
This report presents the findings of an evaluation sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) at the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and conducted by Mathematica Policy Research (Mathematica) that uses a regression discontinuity (RD) design to assess the potential benefits of offering SES in districts that have unmet need. Specifically, the study focuses on six school districts in which more eligible students applied for SES than could be served with available funds (i.e., oversubscribed districts), and which therefore allocated scarce SES spaces by giving priority to lower-achieving students among the eligible applicants. The current study is the first to use a research design that can directly account for selection into services and therefore (if reasonable assumptions are met) support drawing causal inferences about the impact of SES on students at the cutoff of receiving services (Hahn, Todd, & Van Der Klaauw, 2001; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002; Imbens & Lemieux, 2008). The study’s RD design estimates the impact of SES on academic achievement by comparing the post-test scores of students offered services with those for students whose prior achievement scores were slightly too high to be offered services, with the comparison adjusting for the prior achievement scores that were used to determine assignment to services. The estimates apply to students in the study’s school districts who are on the cusp of receiving services. Because different cut points were used in different grades across the six districts, these estimates show the effect on students on the cusp of participating in the program in multiple contexts in oversubscribed districts.
Share
