Schools that have not made adequate yearly progress in increasing student academic achievement are required, under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), to offer children in low-income families the opportunity to receive supplemental educational services (SES). In research conducted in Milwaukee Public Schools, the authors explore whether parents and students are aware of their eligibility and options for extra tutoring under NCLB, and who among eligible students registers for SES. Using the best information available to school districts, the authors estimate the effects of SES in increasing students’ reading and math achievement. Their nonexperimental estimates suggest no average effects of SES attendance on student achievement gains. They use qualitative research to explore possible explanations for the lack of observed effects.
AbadieA.ImbensG. W. (2006). On the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators (NBER Technical Working Paper 325).
2.
AgodiniR.DynarskiM. (2004). Are experiments the only option? A look at dropout prevention programs. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 180–194.
3.
AndersonL. M.LaguardaK. G. (2005). Case studies of supplemental services under the No Child Left Behind Act: Findings from 2003–04. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
4.
BlackA. R.DoolittleF.ZhuP.UntermanR.GrossmanJ. B.WarnerE. (2008). The evaluation of enhanced academic instruction in after-school programs: Findings after the first year of implementation. U.S. department of Education National Center for Education Evaluation Report, 2008-4021.
5.
BurchP. (2007). Supplemental educational services under NCLB: Emerging evidence and policy issues. Boulder: Educational Policy Research Unit, University of Colorado.
6.
BurchP. (2009). Hidden markets: The new educational privatization (The Critical Social Thought Series). New York: Routledge.
7.
BurchP.GoodA. (2009). Getting to the core: The role of instructional setting in federally mandated tutoring. Working paper presented at the 2009 American Educational Research Association Conference, San Diego, CA.
8.
BurchP.GoodA.HeinrichC. J.MeyerR. H.WhittenG. (2007, August). Summary of preliminary findings: Milwaukee Public Schools supplemental education services evaluation. Report to Milwaukee Public Schools, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
9.
BurchP.SteinbergM.DonovanJ. (2007). Supplemental educational services and NCLB: Policy assumptions, market practices, emerging issues. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 115–133.
10.
CasserlyM. (2004). Choice and supplemental services in America’s great city schools. In HessF.M.FinnC.E. (Eds.), Leaving no child behind? Options for kids in failing schools (pp. 191–212). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
ChatterjiM.KwonY. A.SngC. (2006). Gathering evidence on an after-school supplemental instruction program: Design challenges and early findings in light of NCLB. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(12), 1–44.
12.
Chicago Public Schools. (2007). The 2007 supplemental educational services program: Year 4 summative evaluation. Chicago: Chicago Public Schools Office of Extended Learning Opportunities, Research, Evaluation and Accountability.
13.
DynarskiM.James-BurdumyS.MooreM.RosenbergL.DekeJ.MansfieldW. (2004). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program: New findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
14.
Education Industry Association. (2007, August24). Supplemental education services (SES) and the 2007–2008 school year: The “No Child Left Behind” program can make a difference for more than 3 million students nationwide. Rockville, MD: Author.
15.
ElbaumB.VaughnS.HughesM. T.MoodyS. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605–619.
16.
FarkasG.DurhamR. (2006). The role of tutoring in standards-based reform (Working paper). Department of Sociology and Population Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University).
17.
Government Accountability Office. (2006). No Child Left Behind Act: Education actions needed to improve local implementation and state evaluation of supplemental educational services (GAO Report 06-758). Washington, DC: Author.
18.
HeckmanJ. J.IchimuraH.ToddP. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. The Review of Economic Studies, 65(2), 261–294.
19.
HeckmanJ. J.LalondeR. J.SmithJ. A. (1999). The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In AshenfelterO.CardD. (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (pp. 1865–2097). New York: Elsevier.
20.
HeinrichC. J.WhittenG. W. (2006). Supplemental education services (SES) in Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS): Focus group report. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
21.
LauerP. A.AkibaM.WilkersonS. B.AthorpH. S.SnowD.Martin-GlennM. L. (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76, 275–313.
22.
LockwoodJ. R.McCaffreyD. F. (2007). Controlling for individual heterogeneity in longitudinal models, with applications to student achievement. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 1(1), 223–252.
23.
LouY.AbramiP. C.SpenceJ. C.PoulsenC.ChambersB.d’ApolloniaS. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.
24.
McCaffreyD. F.HanB.LockwoodJ. R. (2008, February 28–29). From data to bonuses: A case study of the issues related to awarding teachers pay on the basis of their students’ progress. Prepared for the conference on “Performance Incentives: Their Growing Impact on American K–12 Education,”Nashville, TN.
25.
MeyerR. H.ChristianM. (2008, February 28–29). Value-added and other methods for measuring school performance. Prepared for the conference on “Performance Incentives: Their Growing Impact on American K–12 Education,”Nashville, TN.
26.
MueserP. R.TroskeK. R.GorislavskyA. (2007). Using state administrative data to measure program performance. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(4), 761–783.
27.
PadillaC.Lopez-TorkosA. (2006, April 7–11). Early implementation of NCLB Title I choice and supplemental services provisions. Center for Education Policy, SRI International. Paper presented at the 2006 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
28.
PetersonP. (2005). Making up the rules as you play the game. Education Next, 5(4), 42–49.
29.
RicklesJ. H.BarnhartM. K. (2007). The impact of supplemental educational services participation on student achievement: 2005–06 (Publication No. 352). Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District Program Evaluation and Research Branch, Planning, Assessment and Research Division
30.
RyanS.FataniS. (2005). SES tutoring programs: An evaluation of the second year—Part one of a two part report (Policy report). Chicago: Office of Research, Evaluation and Accountability, Chicago Public Schools.
31.
SteinbergM. S. (2006). Private educational services: Whom does the market leave behind?PolicyMatters, 4(1), 17–22.
32.
SundermanG. M.KimJ. (2004). Expansion of federal power in American education: Federal-state relationships under the No Child Left Behind Act, year one. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
33.
VandellD. L.ReisnerE. R.BrownB. B.DadismanK.PierceK. M.LeeD.PechmanE. M. (2005). The study of promising after-school programs: Examination of intermediate outcomes in year 2. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
34.
VegariS. (2007). Federalism and market-based education policy: The supplemental educational services mandate. American Journal of Education, 113, 311–339.
35.
WildeE. T.HollisterR. (2007). How close is close enough? Evaluating propensity score matching using data from a class size reduction experiment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(3), 455–478.
36.
ZimmerR.GillB.RazquinP.BookerK.LockwoodJ. R.III. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume I—Title I school choice, supplemental educational services, and student achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
