How Did States in the Central Region Evaluate Supplemental Educational Services in 2007?

In state needs assessment meetings held in late June 2008, the leadership of two Central Region state departments of education, South Dakota and Missouri, asked Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Central to determine how the states in the region evaluate their supplemental educational service (SES) providers. Specifically, these SEA staff requested more information about Central Region states' data collection processes, examples of instruments in use, and information on state SES contacts' perceptions of their evaluation processes, including issues that have emerged and/or problems that have been solved. In response to this regional request, REL Central reviewed the federal guidance provided to states on monitoring SES providers and developed the following research questions: (1) What criteria do states have for provider performance; how do they assess provider performance; and what policies do they have for terminating a provider? (2) What systems do Central Region states use to gather information with which to evaluate their providers? and (3) What do state contacts report about their experience with the state's evaluation of providers? States are required to develop standards for monitoring and evaluating providers. Only one state, South Dakota, has standards in place. The others rely on criteria that are found in the provider application, which defines the role and expectations of the provider. Typically, adherence to the provider contract becomes a substitute for criteria in evaluating provider performance. South Dakota is the only state with a provider termination policy. The study found that the seven Central Region states include varying numbers of approved providers, eligible schools, and eligible students, which influences the scope and scale of their provider evaluations. State contacts were primarily concerned that their states did not have sufficient staffing to adequately monitor and evaluate the providers, but suggested specific aspects of evaluation and monitoring that they believed worked well in their states. Six of the states (all but Nebraska, which has an evaluation process in place but did not identify any schools qualified to receive SES in 2007) have made or are making changes to better evaluate the performance and impact of their SES providers. Two appendixes present: (1) Protocol for State Contact Interviews; and (2) Summary of Data Collected in Central Region States during the 2007-2008 School Year. (Contains 8 footnotes and 4 tables.)