Private tutoring groups reap benefits of NCLB
By Del Stover
11/11/03 -- The mandate that tutoring be made available to students in low-performing schools is a laudable goal of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). But some school leaders worry this requirement could result in fewer students actually getting the help they need.
The main concern is that federal money earmarked for supplemental education services will be drained away by private service providers. Many of these providers are for-profit firms whose tutoring services can be more costly than those provided by public schools.
Among those voicing concern are school officials in Dolton East School District 149, outside Chicago. Nearly 250 students participated in an extended-day tutoring program last year at the district's middle school, says Superintendent Traci Brown.
This year, Title I funds set aside for tutoring will largely go to an outside contractor to serve only 100 students. It's unclear, she says, whether the school system can adequately serve other deserving students with the district's remaining funds.
Brown also is concerned that the private tutoring program offers fewer hours of instruction. "Previously, we had a 20-week program," she says. "Now we're going to 12 weeks of services."
Such cutbacks were not envisioned when Congress enacted NCLB with a provision that schools that fail to show adequate yearly progress for three consecutive years must make available supplemental education services to students. As much as 20 percent of Title I funds must be set aside to serve eligible students.
Under the law, parents of eligible students can choose their tutoring program from a variety of state-approved providers, including for-profit companies, faith-based organizations, national education firms, and community groups.
This option isn't available to Dolton East, however, because a low-performing school cannot tap Title I funds to pay for tutoring unless it is identified as "in need of improvement" under NCLB -- and Dolton East only has the one middle school, Brown says.
For now, officials have not determined how they can provide tutoring under NCLB.
Seven hundred miles away, Paul Vallas, CEO of the Philadelphia school system, has expressed concern that the federal law could drain resources unnecessarily from the public schools.
"I'm not adverse to outside providers, but to spending $1,800 per student," Vallas recently told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "My frustration is that there are so many kids in need, and my frustration is accountability. I'm just trying to serve the most children with the highest-quality program."
According to Vallas, the city schools could provide 120 hours of instruction for $300 per child, compared to the $1,800 charged by outside providers for 30 to 40 hours of tutoring.
If parents opt to send students to private contractors, there will only be enough Title I funds to serve 12,500 students, compared to the 40,000 who could be served under the district's less-costly program.
Nina Rees, deputy undersecretary for innovation and improvement at the U.S. Education Department, says that, if Philadelphia school officials can offer better service than a private contractor, they should do so with the expectation that parents will take advantage of their program.
"The heart of the law is choice," she says. "It would be wise of the school district to go ahead and offer . . . services in order to make sure parents who are sending students to school are happy."
If school systems are not eligible to tap Title I funds, they should use other funding or work with local nonprofit groups to establish less-costly options for parents, she says. If students do not choose private providers, then Title I funds will stay in local coffers.
School officials also are missing the point when they complain about students taking funding out of the schools, Rees says.
"The money is there to serve the needs of the child," she says. "And if the child has attended a school . . . that hasn't made necessary achievement toward state standards, then parents have a right -- should have a right -- to use allocated Title I funds" to help their children.
That philosophy sounds good, but in practice, it falls short in accountability, says Reggie Felton, NSBA's director of federal relations.
If a student receives inadequate supplemental instruction, "it won't be the service provider who's blamed or targeted," he says. "It will be the local schools."
In Los Angeles, where 186,000 students are eligible for tutoring, the school system is a state-approved provider and hopes to serve 20,000 to 25,000 students by the end of the school year. Another 10,000 probably will be served by outside providers.
Because so few students are taking advantage of the program, the impact of private providers on the budget isn't yet a practical problem, says John Liechty, associate superintendent for extended-day programs.
Also, because the district offers more hours of instruction and parents like to keep children in the neighborhood schools, the majority of funds are staying with the school system program.
This issue is no clearer in Charleston, S.C. According to Michele English Watson, the school system's Title I coordinator, approximately $2 million has been set aside for tutoring, but only 60 students had signed up in the first days of the enrollment period.
A more pressing concern, she says, is the disruption in budget planning caused by the NCLB provision calling for Title I funds to be set aside for tutoring.
Until school officials determine how many students will take advantage of supplemental services, these funds cannot be reallocated to other uses.
FEW TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TUTORING
Students at low-performing schools are not yet flocking to supplemental education services available under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Indeed, some school systems report that less than 5 percent of eligible students have signed up for free remedial tutoring:
• In New Orleans, fewer than 500 of 7,500 students had signed up by mid-October.
• In Gwinnett County, Ga., approximately 250 out of nearly 3,000 eligible students were expected to take advantage of the program.
• Charleston, S.C., school officials expected about 100 students -- out of 1,200 -- would be signed up for tutoring by early November.
• State officials in Virginia say only 1,300 out of 11,444 eligible students had applied for tutoring programs.
Some observers blame low participation on local school officials not being aggressive in letting parents know their options under NCLB. In Los Angeles, however, John Liechty, associate superintendent for extended-day programs, says his school system sent a sizable information booklet to parents, distributed fliers at schools, sent speakers to PTA meetings, and worked with the local media to get the word out.
He suggests low participation is simply a phenomenon of the "newness of it." By the end of the year, he predicts, participation in Los Angeles programs should rise by as much as 10,000 students -- up from today's 14,000.
But problems in implementing tutoring services also could be partially responsible for low participation rates. In August, for example, Louisiana state officials threatened to withhold $30 million in federal funds from the New Orleans school system because some schools were six months behind schedule in getting tutoring services off the ground.
Last year, 30,333 out of 243,249 eligible students in New York City took advantage of supplemental services. This year, despite a more aggressive effort to reach out to parents, school officials still expect tens of thousands of students to miss out on the tutoring.
Despite slow growth in getting students signed up for NCLB-specific programs, school officials say interest in after-school programs in general is high. More than 106,000 students participate in Chicago's after-school program, and half of Boston's 97,000 students attend a school district or private after-school program.
Top of Page
| Reproduced with permission from the 2003 issue of School Board News. Copyright © 2003, National School Boards Association. Opinions expressed in this newspaper do not necessarily reflect positions of NSBA. This article may be printed out and photocopied for individual or educational use, provided this copyright notice appears on each copy. This article may not be otherwise transmitted or reproduced in print or electronic form without the consent of the Publisher. For more information, call (703) 838-6789. |