1. December, 2009
Supplemental Educational Services in New Mexico:
SY 2007-2008
PREPARED BY:
DR. STEPHANIE AMEDEO MARQUEZ, STATISTICIAN, NMPED
DR. VERONICA C. GARCÍA
CABINET SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
DR. CATHERINE CROSS-MAPLE
DEPUTY SECRETARY, LEARNING AND ACCOUNTABILITY
DR. TOM DAUPHINEE, INTERIM
INTERIM SUPERVISOR, ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DIVISION

2. 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Legislative History. The No Child Left behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) required school districts
receiving Title I funds to provide Supplemental Education Services (SES) to parents.
Economically disadvantaged children who attended Title I schools identified as “In Need of
Improvement” by the state for two years in a row were eligible for SES services in School Year
(SY) 2007-2008. The option required districts to set aside funds from school budgets which may
reach 20% of the school budgets to provide parents with this opportunity to enroll their children
in Supplemental Education Services (SES). Supplemental Education Services may include
tutoring, remediation, or other academic instruction offered by a state-approved provider, and
must be an addition to the regular daily instruction a student receives in the classroom.
Purpose of the Report. The main goal of this report is to examine whether the SES services had
an impact on student achievement as intended by the Federal legislation. A secondary goal was
to evaluate the effectiveness of various aspects of service delivery.
KEY FINDINGS
Completion Rates. Only 3,147 of 7,771 SES students in SY 2007-2008 could be evaluated for
changes in achievement. The principal reason they were not evaluated was a lack of two years of
valid SBA scores. Many SES tutored students were not in tested grades. About 41.2% of the SES
tutored students could not be evaluated for academic achievement.
A second issue involves completion of services. The mean completion level was at 13.49
sessions completed, the median was 15, and the mode was zero (meaning more students in this
category than any other). There were only 8 students at the highest end of completion, that is,
only 8 completed between 51 and 81 sessions. There were 544 students for whom no
information was reported to the State. Some 1,390 students had not completed any sessions, after
applying for services.
No Statistically Significant Gains in Math or Reading Proficiency. SES participating students,
when matched with non-participants on key characteristics (prior scores in reading and math,
school, grade, ethnicity, gender, English Language Learner status, special education)
experienced no significant gains in reading proficiency on the second administration (post-test)
of the NMSBA. Overall, New Mexico students declined in math, and stayed the same in reading
proficiency level in both years they participated. This trend was also true of SES students.
Analysis of Service Delivery Indicated Three Problem Areas. Three problem areas of service
delivery were substantially agreed upon by both providers and districts: (1) completion rates, (2)
increased communication between tutors and teachers, (3) improved achievement.

3. 2
Introduction
What is SES? Supplemental Educational Services (SES) were initiated by passage of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). NCLB required schools that received Title I funds and
had not made Adequate Yearly Progress for three consecutive years to offer parents additional
academic support in the form of SES services. The majority of SES services are provided by for-
profit companies that contract directly with the districts to supplement the regular academic
classroom with after-school one-on-one tutoring.
Research Results Are Inconclusive. Research results from other states for SES are mixed
regarding student achievement outcomes (CEP, 2006 and 2007). In June 2007, a report
published by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) found that students served by SES scored
better on math and reading in the first year and even better in the second and subsequent years.
This study was based on data collected from nine large, urban school districts.
Subsequent studies have not shown similar results, instead, most show student achievement
outcomes that were modest (Betts, 2006; Burch, 2007). In 2007-2008, Tennessee’s statewide
evaluation found no significant differences for SES compared to non-SES students. No providers
were significantly better or worse in producing academic achievement in their students than the
achievement in a group of comparable control students (Source: 2007-2008 Supplemental
Educational Services in Tennessee Student Achievement Report).
An evaluation of Minneapolis Public Schools, for 2006-2007 found no statistical significance in
reading achievement between students who participated in SES and those who were eligible but
did not participate. This was true across all grade levels (Tan, 2007). The Los Angeles Unified
School District (2007) reported statistically significant, yet substantively negligible performance
gains in achievement for students in SES tutoring over those who applied for but did not receive
services (used as the control group).
One study, conducted by the Chicago Public Schools (CPS), found students who started farthest
behind gained most. Students in the most need of academic help (those with the lowest
achievement scores) obtained a greater benefit from participating in the SES program.
Participation and Completion Rates. Participation and completion rates may impact findings. A
substantial number of SES students fail to start services, or to complete them. During 2005-2006,
in Massachusetts it was found that only 10% of SES instruction began before December
(Morgan and Bracket, 2007). The Chicago Public Schools (CPS) evaluation found that students
who completed the program made more gains on standardized math and reading tests than the
eligible students who did not receive SES. New Mexico Public Education Department (2007)
reported a similar finding that the more hours of tutoring resulted in greater growth gains in
standardized test scores.
Summary of Research Findings. Common results found in many states and school districts
included the following: 1. Only a small percentage of eligible families are taking advantage of
the free tutoring; 2. Quality of tutoring programs or tutoring companies is varied, and 3.
Achievement results are weak or not widely verified. The purpose of this report is to investigate
the participation in tutoring, achievement results, and service delivery.

4. 3
Background
Eligibility and Receipt of Services. During SY 2007-2008, New Mexico districts reported a total
of 80,819 students who were eligible for SES services. Only 6,825 students applied for SES
services, and even fewer (5,959) received them. Districts varied in their SES expenditures per
student. An expenditure of $6,220,154 for 5,964 students equates to the average amount spent in
New Mexico per student for SES tutoring was approximately $1,043 per student.
TABLE 1: ELIGIBILITY, APPLICATIONS, AND RECIPIENTS OF SES SERVICES, BY DISTRICT
DISTRICT
NUMBER OF
STUDENTS
ELIGIBLE FOR
SES
NUMBER OF
STUDENTS
APPLYING FOR
SES
NUMBER OF
STUDENTS
RECEIVING SES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
ALBUQUERQUE 25,988 2,844 2,844 3,193,695
AZTEC 219 34 34 20,624
BELEN 2,840 210 137 85,292
BERNALILLO 884 58 24 15,059
BLOOMFIELD 375 26 21 19,794
CARLSBAD 526 44 26 27,360
CENTRAL CONS. 5,851 367 302 358,687
CUBA 726 27 27 22,823
DEMING 2,461 24 24 25,943
DULCE 538 12 12 10,597
ESPANOLA 2,002 332 299 218,187
FARMINGTON 1,174 25 24 28,703
GADSDEN 5,535 803 577 573,368
GALLUP 8,872 897 780 889,775
GRANTS 1,973 11 8 7,000
HATCH 1,128 14 14 15,242
JEMEZ MOUNTAIN 67 13 11 12,582
JEMEZ VALLEY 155 30 18 11,295
LAS CRUCES 4,546 152 88 70,007
LAS VEGAS CITY 682 24 19 16,679
LOS LUNAS 2,173 103 101 87,357
MAGDALENA 299 8 8 6,994
MORIARTY 332 17 15 12,760
PECOS 164 19 2 2,250
POJOAQUE 292 45 45 38,155
ROSWELL 2,145 115 104 130,032
SANTA FE 5,290 473 316 243,191
SOCORRO 576 36 26 13,027
TAOS 2,073 28 28 34,212
WEST LAS VEGAS 933 32 25 29,467
TOTALS 80,819 6,825 5,959 6,220,154

5. 4
Participation Rates. Findings in New Mexico reflect the national pattern of low participation.
The average participation rate nationally in SES for SY 2005-06 was 14%. In SY 2006-07,
Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) reported a participation rate of 12.1%. State data presented
in Table 1 suggests that APS participation rates in 2007-08 were 10.94%, which was higher than
the state average of 7.38% for all districts reporting in 2007-08. Participation rates varied from a
low of .41% (Grants) to a high of 16.32% (Jemez Mountain). State totals were 7.38%,
confirming the national pattern of low participation.
Reported Program Expenditures. Based upon data reported to the state, Table 1 provided a
breakdown of district expenditures by number of students receiving SES for fiscal year 2007-08
(the latest year for which complete data are available). As the figure shows, some districts have a
larger proportion of students receiving services per eligible students than others, partially
explained by the fact that not all schools in a district are required to support supplemental
educational services.
Supplemental Educational Service Providers
Providers. Of 16 providers operating in both years, 13 service providers operated as for profit
agencies, 1 was a non-profit agency, and 2 were community-based agencies. Locations where
the tutoring services were delivered included: in-home services (3), at the child’s school (2), in
the provider’s business center (2), and some combination of the aforementioned locations (3).
Two providers did not continue providing services in the second school year examined, 2007-08.
Eleven providers were either new to operations in 2007-08 or did not provide information during
2006-07. Finally, 14 providers operating in both years were available for achievement analysis:
• A to Z In-Home Tutoring
• Advantage Tutoring Services
• ATF Teacher Tutoring Services
• Club Z! In-Home Tutoring
• Club Z! New Mexico
• CompatibleLand, Inc.
• Education Station
• eProgress Academy
• La Promesa A+ Tutoring
• Northern New Mexico Network
• One Room School House
• Successylvan Farmington
• Rio Grande Educational Collaborative (RGEC)
• Youth Development Inc., (YDI)
Hours Recommended. The hours recommended by providers to complete their programs ranged
between 22 to 40 hours, with two providers having variable recommended hours depending upon
the students’ needs. Six of these providers recommended 26 hours or less, while the rest
recommended 30 or more hours as completing a program of study.

6. 5
Tutor Qualifications. Tutor qualifications fell into three categories: providers that hired only
certified teachers (3), those that hired tutors with a Bachelor of Arts degree (3), and the rest hired
tutors who had a high school diploma and some college courses, but no four-year degree.
Mission. All providers are dedicated to improving the academic success of students, as
evidenced in their applications, where each was asked to describe their mission in providing
tutoring services (12 of 14 responding).
TABLE 2: SES SERVICE PROVIDER’S SELF-DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
TUTORING SERVICE PROVIDER PROVIDER’S SELF-DESCRIPTION OF TUTORING SERVICES *
A TO Z IN-HOME TUTORING “NOT ONLY HAVE CLASSROOM GRADES IMPROVED, BUT ALSO
ATTITUDES, BEHAVIOR, ATTENDANCE, SELF-ESTEEM, AND OTHER
LESS TANGIBLE FACTORS.”
ADVANTAGE TUTORING SERVICES “TUTORS EMPLOY EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING
ESSENTIAL SKILLS, DRAWING UPON THEIR EXPERTISE AS
EDUCATORS, IN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SKILLS EACH
STUDENT POSSESSES…”
ATF TEACHER TUTORING SERVICES “PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS MAKE OUR PROGRAM EFFECTIVE AND
SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE TRAINING TO KNOW HOW TO
HELP YOUR CHILD.”
CLUB Z! IN-HOME TUTORING “STUDENTS WHO COMPLETE CLUB Z! SUPPLEMENTAL
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES SHOW AN AVERAGE OF A YEAR’S WORTH OF
GROWTH, SO START YOUR CHILD ON THE ROAD TO ACADEMIC
SUCCESS BY JOINING THE CLUB Z! CLUB TODAY!”
CLUB Z! NEW MEXICO “THE MAJORITY OF OUR STUDENTS IMPROVE NOT ONLY THEIR
GRADES, BUT THEIR CONFIDENCE….WE HELP YOU HELP YOUR
CHILDREN TO BE STUDENTS WITH THE NECESSARY ABILITIES TO
MAKE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM WORK FOR THEM.”
COMPATIBLELAND, INC. “COMPATIBLELAND USES COMPUTERIZED CURRICULUM TO TEACH
STUDENTS…. COMPATIBLELAND’S SES MODEL IS PROVEN
EFFECTIVE.”
LA PROMESA A+ TUTORING “A+ TUTORING SERVICES USES COMPUTERIZED CURRICULUM TO
TEACH STUDENTS….A+TUTORING SERVICES’ SES MODEL IS
PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE.”
NORTHERN NEW MEXICO NETWORK “THE NORTHERN NEW MEXICO NETWORK PROVIDES SMALL GROUP
TUTORING (NO MORE THAN THREE STUDENTS PER TEACHER) IN
MATHEMATICS, READING, AND WRITING. OUR GOAL IS TO
ACCELERATE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE BY SIX MONTHS IN AN EIGHT
WEEK PERIOD.”
ONE ROOM SCHOOL HOUSE “THE ONE ROOM SCHOOLHOUSE PROVIDES HIGH QUALITY
TUTORING…THE PROGRAM WAS DESIGNED BY TEACHERS AND IS
RESEARCH BASED…”
SUCCESSYLVAN FARMINGTON “THE FARMINGTON SYLVAN LEARNING CENTER, LOCATED IN THE
SAN JUAN PLAZA, HAS BEEN HERE FOR 11 YEARS AND IT WORKS!”
RIO GRANDE EDUCATIONAL COLLABORATIVE (RGEC) “RGEC WILL HELP YOUR CHILD SUCCEED IN SCHOOL.”
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT INC., (YDI) “YDI TUTORING OFFERS FREE TUTORING IN READING, LANGUAGE
ARTS, MATH, AND SCIENCE. TUTORS ARE TRAINED TO MEET YOUR
CHILD’S NEEDS. YOUR CHILD WILL BE PROVIDED AN
INDIVIDUALIZED PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT.”
*SOURCE: PROVIDER APPLICATIONS TO THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Complexity of Services. There are a wide variety of service delivery models in operation in New
Mexico. Tutoring is offered before and after school, in homes and at schools, on computers and
using more traditional methods of teaching. Individual tutors’ education, skills, and experiences
can range from a young college student with his high school diploma and some college

7. 6
coursework to a certified teacher with decades of experience. The wide variety in service
provision complicates analysis of the effectiveness of tutoring on achievement.
Characteristics of SES Participating Students
SES Students With Valid Test Results. The numbers of SES students enrolled in grades that test
using the New Mexico Standards Based assessment and receiving tutoring services was 4,573
out of a total of 7,771 SES students during SY 2007-08. Analysis of achievement was
necessarily limited to those students that had academic test records.
TABLE 3: NUMBERS OF SES STUDENTS ENROLLED IN SBA TESTED GRADES
GRADE NUMBER OF
STUDENTS
ENROLLED*
PERCENT OF SES
ENROLLEES
NOT TESTED ON SBA 3,198 41.2
03 1,039 13.4
04 877 11.3
05 786 10.1
06 799 10.3
07 571 7.3
08 466 6.0
11 35 .5
TOTAL 7,771 100.0
*ENROLLED STUDENTS INCLUDES CONTINUOUS ENROLLMENTS, SUMMER ENROLLMENTS, AND IS NOT EQUAL TO ‘APPLIED’ IN TABLE 1.
Gender and English Language Learners. The percent of English Language Learners (ELL)
among SES students compared to Non-SES SBA test-takers in 2008 is shown in Table 4.
Compared to Non-SES students, the English Language Learners among SES recipients were a
greater proportion of the group than that observed in the eligible population (compare 33.9%
SES to 27.5% Non-SES) English Language Learners.
There were slightly more males among the Non-SES, and correspondingly slightly more female
students among the SES (Table 4).

8. 7
TABLE 4: GENDER AND ELL OF THE SES TUTORED STUDENTS COMPARED TO NON-SES
STUDENTS
SES NON-SES
FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNERS
2,614 33.9% 44,721 27.6%
MALE 2,235 48.9% 84,989 50.9%
FEMALE 2,338 51.1% 81,811 49.1%
Ethnicity. In looking at ethnicity as a demographic variable, the SES students compared to Non-
SES were more heavily Hispanic (71.6% compared to 55.7%) and Native American (18.6% to
10.7%). The Non-SES students are more representative, that is, more like the general New
Mexico population, according to the U.S. Census which states New Mexico has the following
demographic characteristics: Gender: Male (49.4%); Female (50.6%); Ethnicity: Asian (1.4%);
Black (2.2%); Hispanic (44.1%); White (68.7%); and Native American (9.2%).
Completion Rates. A major question raised by the research on SES effectiveness as discussed in
the introduction above, is program completion rates (Table 5). The mean number of completed
sessions was 13.49, the median was 15, and the mode was zero, indicating that there were more
students in this category than any other. At the highest end of completion, 8 students completed
between 51 and 81 sessions. The few students at the high end were receiving computer-based
instruction. There were 544 students for whom the state received no information.
TABLE 5: SESSIONS COMPLETED BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE FOR SES STUDENTS
SESSIONS
COMPLETED
NUMBER OF
STUDENTS
PERCENT OF SES
STUDENTS
0 1,390 17.9%
1-10 457 5.9%
11-16 1,690 21.7%
17-21 1,862 24.0%
22-51 1,820 23.4%
52-81 8 .1%
MISSING INFORMATION 544 7.0%
TOTAL 7,771 100.0
The research question under consideration was whether the service providers had effected the
expected changes in the SES students’ Standards Based Assessments (SBA) scores for SY 2007-
2008 over their test scores in SY 2006-2007 in reading and math. The expectation was to

9. 8
observe a significant increase in proficiency levels for the tutored students over those who did
not receive tutoring.
The following section reports on an analysis of tutoring effectiveness measured by student
achievement on the state’s Standards Based Assessment, comparing test scores for the treatment
group (SES receiving students) to the comparison group of similar students enrolled in the same
schools.
EVALUATION OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Research Question. This study examined one basic research question on the program
effectiveness of SES: do SES students achieve higher academic gains than students who were
not tutored?
Limitations of the Data. The first consideration was to assess whether the service providers had
effected the expected changes in the students’ Standards Based Assessments (SBA) scores for
SY 2007-08 over their performance in SY 2006-07. This goal was limited by the low
participation in SES services, and by the large proportion of SES students that sign up for, but do
not complete, these services.
Trends in the Underlying Student Population. Two and three year trends in the general New
Mexico student population revealed statistically significant declines in math SBA scores.
Comparing the SBA math mean scale score achieved in SY 2007-2008 for the entire NM
Population of test takers to the level achieved in SY 2005-2006 represents a significant decline
of -18.5 scale score points (t-value of -146.277, significant at .00).
Overall, New Mexico student achievement on the Standards Based Assessment in math
(comparing the SY 2007-2008 mean for the entire New Mexico population of test takers to the
SY 2006-2007 mean) represented a statistically significant contribution of approximately -5
scale score points to the earlier observed three year decline of -18 (Table 6).
TABLE 6: T-TEST RESULTS FOR NEW MEXICO STUDENTS TESTED ON SBA IN MATH
COMPARING MEANS FOR SY 2007-2008 TO SY 2006-2007
N 2008
MEAN
2008
MEAN
2007 T-VALUE SIG T
160,607 642 641 -38.829 .000
Three year trends in reading show statistically significant declines: comparing the SBA mean in
reading for the entire group of test takers (651.33) in SY 2007-2008 to the mean for the same
population in SY 2005-2006 (a mean of 661.84) shows a statistically significant decline as
measured by the t test of significance (t-value of -94.348, significant at p<.00). The scale scores
for 2008 were not statistically significantly different from the scale scores for 2007 in reading,
such that the two-year trends in reading represent a plateau.

10. 9
Having established the significant underlying trends, the analysis proceeded to compare SES to
Non-SES to determine if trends for SES are different than trends for Non-SES. Are differences
in scale score means between the SES and the Non-SES large enough to be statistically
significant?
SES VS NON SES DIFFERENCES IN SCALE SCORES. NMSBA reading and math scale score
means for the SES, Non-SES were compared, to each other and to the overall population,
looking for significant differences between the groups on the SY 2005-2006, SY 2006-2007, and
SY 2007-2008 assessments.
Average math achievement, comparing SES, Non-SES, and the overall New Mexico population
established that SES math achievement followed the same pattern of decline. The reading
results also mirrored those of the overall student population (no statistically significant changes).
TABLE 7: AVERAGE ACHIEVEMENT IN MATH AND READING:
MEAN MATH SCALE SCORES COMPARING ALL NEW MEXICO STUDENTS, SES TUTORED STUDENTS, AND STUDENTS WITH NO
TUTORING (SY 2006, 2007, 2008)
MATH SCALE SCORE
(MEAN)
2006
MATH SCALE SCORE
(MEAN)
2007
MATH SCALE SCORE
(MEAN)
2008
NM STUDENT POPULATION 660 647 642
SES STUDENTS 657 630 625
NON-SES STUDENTS 656 647 642
READING SCALE
SCORE (MEAN)
SY 2005-2006
READING SCALE
SCORE (MEAN)
SY 2006-2007
READING SCALE
SCORE (MEAN)
SY 2007-2008
NM STUDENT POPULATION 662 651* 651
SES STUDENTS 632 637 631
NON-SES STUDENTS 638 650 652
Conclusion: trends for SES students are not significantly different from overall student
population, there were no statististically significant gains in either reading or math, and there
was a statistically significant decline in math. (Statistical significance was tested by use of the T-
test to compare means).
TABLE 8: T-TEST RESULTS FOR SES STUDENTS SHOWING NON-SIGNIFICANCE AND LACK OF GAINS
FOR READING (SY2005-06 COMPARED TO SY 2007-2008)
N 2008 MEAN 2008 MEAN 2006 T VALUE SIG T
4552 631.14 632 -1.409 .159
What Does This Analysis Reveal?
• Math scores for the entire group of New Mexico students have declined over time, and
these decreases are statistically significant.
• Math scores for SES have experienced a similar decline over both the two and three year
periods.

11. 10
• In looking at reading changes in scale scores for all New Mexico students, there was a
statistically significant three-year decline, with a plateau for the last 2 years examined.
• The gains in reading for SES from SY 2005-2006 to SY 2007-2008 were statistically
insignificant, and the decline from SY 2006-2007 to SY 2007-2008 also not statistically
significant. Testing from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, the result was no significant changes
(mean difference of -.864).
What Next? Given these results, the analysis examined whether SES students profited more
from SES tutoring than their non-tutored counterparts. The results for reading suggest that
perhaps SES, as compared to their peers, might have made stronger gains, in order to maintain
the plateau seen for all students. Another possibility is that the SES students experienced a less
sharp decline in math.
The major methodological question is how to effectively compare SES to Non-SES. It is
necessary to control for various influences that can affect achievement differentially for the SES
students over the non-SES, such as prior achievement levels, school, special education needs, or
gender. The answer is to create a special sample, using a method called “propensity scores” to
create a control group. This methodology is outlined in the section that follows.
Sample Selection Process. Given the wide disparity in numbers, the SES students must be
compared to a group of matched comparisons.
A matched pairs design helps to diminish the effects of size in order to better analyze whether
tutored students have greater achievement than similar peers who were not tutored. An
additional need for our sample is to control various influences that might affect the SES group
differentially. This need is especially acute given the observed differences in demographics
between SES and Non-SES. Without such a matched, controlled comparison group, it cannot be
established whether the SES students’ observed differences can be attributed to tutoring services,
rather than to variations in factors such as demographics.
Propensity score matching (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1985: Rubin, 1997; Joffe and Rosenbaum,
1999) provides an answer. It is a refined approach to a matched pairs design. Propensity scores
provide a method of controlling for factors such as the quality of instruction in the school,
entering differences in student abilities, or some combination of these factors, while creating a
matched pairs sample.
TABLE 9: SES STUDENTS AS PERCENTAGE OF ALL STUDENTS WITH VALID SBA SCORES IN BOTH YEARS
TOTAL NUMBER OF
STUDENTS IN 2008
NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH VALID SBA
SCORES IN BOTH YEARS (% OF TOTAL)
NON-SES 165,376 162,227 (97.2%)
SES 7,731 4,561 (2.8%)
TOTAL 173,107 166,788

12. 11
The matching variables used to select a student similar to the SES student were:
• School
• District
• Grade
• Economic disadvantage
• English Language Learner Status as determined by the New Mexico English Language
Proficiency Assessment (NMELPA)
• Student with Disabilities based on federal criteria
• Ethnicity
• Gender
• Pre-Test NMSBA Scores (scale scores from the 2007 NMSBA)
All the SES students were economically disadvantaged (by definition, to be eligible for SES
services). The first step in creating the group of potential matched controls was to eliminate
those students who were not economically disadvantaged from the pool of potential matches.
Economic disadvantage was measured by whether the student was eligible for the Free and
Reduced Lunch Program (FRL). This meant removing a group of 58,823 or 35.3% percent of the
total of 166,800 with complete information regarding FRL status, before continuing with the
analysis of 107,977 who were not economically disadvantaged.
Next, the groups were matched on a variety of covariates using the following procedure:
1. The procedure started with a sample from treatment group of interest (SES tutored
students). In our case, the sample of SES student with valid test scores on the SBA for
the two years of interest, 2007 and 2008.
2. The comparison group was drawn from the larger database of students taking the SBA
who were not tutored, but had valid test scores in the two years considered (2007, and
2008).
3. Logistic regression analysis predicted group membership (SES or non-SES) from the
covariates that might affect achievement (school, grade, ethnicity, ELL, SPED, prior
year’s math SBA scale score, prior year’s reading SBA scale score). (See Table 16
below)
Propensity scores created for each student reflect, in one variable, the desired combination of
student characteristics (Table 10).

13. 12
TABLE 10: AN EXAMPLE SHOWING PROPENSITY SCORE RESULTS
MATH
SCALE
SCORE
2007
READING
SCALE
SCORE
2007
ENGLISH
LANGUAGE
LEARNER
MALE FEMALE BLACK CAUCAS
IAN
HISPA
NIC
NATIVE
AMERIC
AN
PROPENSITY
SCORE
SES
674 693 NO YES NO NO NO YES NO .01339 YES
707 683 NO YES NO NO NO YES NO .01261 NO
642 665 NO NO YES NO NO YES NO .01912 YES
662 688 NO NO YES NO NO YES NO .01821 NO
682 660 NO YES NO NO YES NO NO .01602 YES
704 725 NO YES NO NO YES NO NO .01261 NO
527 557 YES NO YES NO NO NO YES .00803 YES
571 619 YES YES NO NO NO NO YES .00493 NO
664 614 YES NO YES NO NO YES NO ,00316 NO
4. Propensity groups based upon the quartile distribution of propensity scores were created:
the quartile cut scores were: .0106883, .0191488, .0288963, .0530488, with a maximum
of .77985 and a minimum that was close to zero.
5. Computed the probability of being in the treatment group using the logistic regression
function based on the covariates.
6. Form propensity groups. Using quintiles to establish the groups within which students are
matched most closely, assign each student to one of four propensity groups were created
(Propensity Group 1, Propensity Group 2, Propensity Group 3, Propensity Group 4).
The results were four groups that are matched on the covariates of interest (see Table 11 below).
The treatment effects (SES tutoring) that are observed can then be attributed to the difference in
test scores due to tutoring, rather than to variations in ethnicity, prior achievement, etc.
TABLE 11: THE DISTRIBUTION OF SES AND NON-SES WITHIN THE FOUR PROPENSITY GROUPS
PROPENSITY GROUP
TREATMENT GROUP
1 (25%) 2 (25%) 3 (25%) 4 (25%) TOTAL
NON-SES 17,088 16,848 16,406 15,887 66,229
SES 146 379 831 1,356 2,712
TOTAL 17,234 17,227 17,237 17,243 68,941
Although the technique of propensity score matching allows a control for covariates, it was also
necessary to first rule out issues of test-retest unreliability, since the analysis dealt with multiple
measures, before continuing to analyze achievement.
Ruling Out Test-Retest Unreliability. Another aspect that might have affected differences in
achievement for SES involved multiple measures. Perhaps the SES students performed better in
test conditions during the second year, so that gains were not attributable to the tutoring, but
rather to differences in the test. Correlations between the two test administrations for both
content areas, reading and math, tested this assumption.

14. 13
Table 12 shows the pattern of correlations for the entire group of matched pairs. Correlations
observed are those that would be expected if solid test re-test reliabilities existed: that is, all the
correlations achieve statistical significance.
Given these results, it is safe to conclude that differences in the test will not be a major factor
affecting achievement results for the sample of SES and Non-SES matched pairs.
TABLE 12: CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TESTS FOR THE MATCHED PAIRS PROPENSITY SAMPLE TO TEST FOR TEST-
RETEST RELIABILITY
MATH
SCALE SCORES
2007
READING
SCALE SCORES
2007
MATH
SCALE
SCORES
2008
READING
SCALE SCORES
2008
MATH SCALE SCORES
2007
PEARSON
CORRELATION
1.000 .791
**
.676
**
.422
**
SIG. (2-TAILED) .000 .000 .000
N 5,425 5,425 5,425 5,425
READING SCALE
SCORES 2007
PEARSON
CORRELATION
.791
**
1.000 .605
**
.549
**
SIG. (2-TAILED) .000 .000 .000
N 5,425 5,425 5,425 5,425
MATH SCALE SCORES
2008
PEARSON
CORRELATION
.676
**
.605
**
1.000 .428
**
SIG. (2-TAILED) .000 .000 .000
N 5,425 5,425 5,425 5,425
READING SCALE
SCORES 2008
PEARSON
CORRELATION
.422
**
.549
**
.428
**
1.000
SIG. (2-TAILED) .000 .000 .000
N 5,425 5,425 5,425 5,425
**. CORRELATION IS SIGNIFICANT AT THE 0.01 LEVEL (2-TAILED).
SES vs. NON-SES Differences in Math and Reading Achievement. Having established that
neither characteristics of the SES versus the Non-SES students nor differences in the two tests
are significantly impacting the sample, the analysis proceeded by looking at differences in
achievement.

15. 14
Reading Achievement Results. OLS regression is a method of analysis for assessing the
strength of the relationship between each explanatory variable: whether the treatment group
(tutored SES students) had statistically significantly gains in reading and math scale scores—
holding the prior year’s scale scores constant.
The multiple regression first tested whether the variables in the analysis (as indicated in the
correlation coefficient for the complete model) indicated a strong, statistically significant
correlation between the observed math scores and those predicted by the regression model
(factors, treatment group and prior reading scores). This was demonstrated in the R square
statistic which was significant. The F ratio that was found reflected the ratio of regression sum of
squares to the residual sum of squares, which compared unexplained to explained variance in the
reading scores attributable to the independent variables entered in the equation, and was
significant.
A significant result indicates that the analysis can proceed to estimations of the effects of single
variables. The adjusted R square statistic indicated that changing the number of factors thought
to predict the reading scores would not substantially improve estimation of R squared (Landau
and Everitt, 2004).
TABLE 13. “MODEL FIT”-- TESTING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SES AND PRIOR READING SCORES AS PREDICTORS OF
READING ACHIEVEMENT GAINS
R R SQUARE
ADJUS
TED R
SQUAR
E
STD. ERROR
OF THE
ESTIMATE
CHANGE STATISTICS
R SQUARE
CHANGE F CHANGE
D
F
1 DF2
SIG. F
CHANGE
.731A
.534 .534 29.084 .534 3106.418 2 5421 .000
MODEL
SUM OF
SQUARES DF MEAN SQUARE F SIG.
1 REGRESSION 525304.794 2 2627652.397 3106.418 .000
A
RESIDUAL 4585507.062 5421 845.878
TOTAL 9840811.855 5423
A. PREDICTORS: (CONSTANT), TREATMENTGROUP,
READINGSS2007
B. DEPENDENT VARIABLE:
SBA_READ_SS0708
The bivariate regression creates unstandardized beta coefficients which tested specifically the
research question: do SES students display more achievement gains as compared to Non-SES

16. 15
matched pairs, controlling for prior reading scores? The table displays these unstandardized beta
coefficients, as the estimate for the reading gains in the SES group when prior year’s
achievement is held constant. One interpretation of the unstandardized beta is that the Treatment
Group (SES) gained .062 scale scores for every one scale score gained by the Non-SES students.
As can easily be seen, this was a non-significant difference.
TABLE 14: UNSTANDARDIZED BETA COEFFICIENTS SHOWING NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN GAINS IN READING
FOR SES COMPARED TO MATCHED NON-SES STUDENTS
UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS
STANDARDIZED
COEFFICIENTS
T SIG.B STD. ERROR BETA
1 (CONSTANT) 116.216 6.659 17.452 .000
SES GROUP .062 .790 .001 .079 .937
READINGSS2007 .840 .011 .731 78.801 .000
A. DEPENDENT VARIABLE: SBA_READ_SS0708
Math Achievement Results. The same OLS regression analysis was conducted to examine SES
vs Non-SES achievement results for math. The model fit summary table showed that the R
square value of explained variance was significant enough to proceed to test the effects of each
variable separately considered. Testing the effects of SES tutoring on math achievement,
unfortunately, the unstandardized beta coefficients for this model did not reach significance,
although the unstandardized beta for treatment group shows that the tutored students gained
1.873 scale score points in math over the students that did not receive tutoring (controlling for
prior math scores). This effect is stronger than that observed for SES students in reading, but of
insufficient magnitude to reach statistical significance at the p<.01 level.
TABLE 15: UNSTANDARDIZED BETA COEFFICIENTS SHOWING NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN GAINS IN MATH FOR
STUDENTS WHO WERE TUTORED OVER MATCHED STUDENTS WHO RECEIVED NO TUTORING
UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS
STANDARDIZED
COEFFICIENTS
T SIG.B STD. ERROR BETA
1 (CONSTANT) 152.446 7.162 21.285 .000
SES GROUP 1.873 .893 .021 2.098 .036
MATHSS2007 .788 .012 .674 67.053 .000
A. DEPENDENT VARIABLE: SBA_MATH_SS0708

17. 16
The results above reveal weak or moderate results for math and no significant results in reading
for the SES. These results were not statistically significant in comparing SES to Non-SES. The
analysis will not be able to proceed to compare individual tutoring service providers, nor to
examine those aspects of the tutoring services that may have produced the results observed. The
reasons are these: (a) the changes in scale scores are weak for all students, and (b) the difficulty
of sorting out significant effects for each provider is complicated by the sample attrition noted
earlier. Thus, this report moves to an examination of provider customer service and compliance.
EVALUATION OF SERVICE DELIVERY
In addition to evaluating student achievement, the state evaluation included supplemental core
categories, including: Completion Rates, Communication, and Overall Performance. For each
category, the evaluator synthesized several sources of available data (achievement analyses,
surveys, monitoring tools, provider applications).
Limitations of the Data. Ascertaining the extent of stakeholder satisfaction is key to effective
program implementation. The satisfaction surveys developed for this and earlier evaluations
provide valuable insight into the self-reported experiences of those stakeholders who responded.
However, collection of on-site observational data will improve the nature and level of this data
collection effort, and improve the data quality.
Descriptive statistics showed wide variations in programs, operational models, and hiring
practices from one provider to another. Wide variations in program delivery, curriculum,
methods, and practices create a methodological difficulty when it comes to analyzing which
service providers created greater gains.
Completion Rates. During 2007-2008, districts that had SES service providers were required to
submit a customer satisfaction survey for each of the providers operating in their district. The
full survey is available online at www.ped.state.nm.us/SES.
Responses were obtained from the following districts (the number in parenthesis indicates the
number of surveys per provider that were submitted): Albuquerque (10), Bernalillo (2),
Bloomfield (9), Central Consolidated (2), Cuba (6), Des Moines (1), Dexter (2), Dulce (3),
Espanola (8), Farmington (1), Gadsden (11), Gallup (9), Grants (2), Hatch (1), Jemez Mountain
(1), Jemez Valley (1), Las Cruces (14), Las Vegas City (8), Los Lunas (1), Loving (1),
Lovington (2), Portales (1), Ruidoso (1), Santa Fe (11), Taos (3), West Las Vegas (1).
Districts’ Explanation of Completion Rates. Completion rates have been shown to be an
important prediction of overall provider success in raising achievement. Therefore, districts were
asked during SY 2007-2008 to report whether any providers in their districts had promised to
provide services, but had failed to do so, and to state the reason(s).

18. 17
A few examples were:
• “Overall they did a good job, but there were students that were never served and not all
students began service within 30 days of enrollment.”
• “They only provided at specifice (sic) sites. Many schools that had students who had
chosen Advantage went unserved.”
• “Babbage Tutoring Company, stated that not enough studens (sic) had chosen them to
make it feasible (sic) for them to tutor in our district.”
• “They are all online services and then they learned our kids don't have computers or
internet at home. They failed to hire a person to stay after school with kids when we
offered our computer lab.”
• “This company did not provide any services. They could not obtain tutors. Last year they
had an onsight (sic) coordinator. This year they had no one and therefore did not realize
the vastness of this district.”
• “Srvices (sic) were not provided to students until second semester due to lack of
coordination of tutors.”
Providers’ Explanation of Completion Rates. All 27 providers operating in New Mexico during
SY 2007-08 were administered a survey similar to that administered to the districts. They were
asked functionally equivalent questions to provide a comparison to district responses. Some 26
providers responded, these were:
1st
Place Tutoring
A+ Tutoring
A to Z In-Home Tutoring
ABC Phonetic Reading
Advantage Tutoring
ATF Teacher Tutoring Services
Chrysalis
Club Z! Inc
Club Z! New Mexico
CompatibleLand, Inc
Education Station
FELC Tutors
Huntington
National Farm Workers SC
Northern New Mexico Network
Rio Grande Educational Collaborative (RGEC)
Sylvan-Farmington (Successylvan)
Tutorial Services
Youth Development, Inc. (YDI)
Providers that did not respond to the survey (N=7) were; BabbageNet, CAIR, Catapult On-Line,
CompassLearning, Corridor, eProgress Academy, One Room Schoolhouse.
Providers were asked about situations in which services that students signed up for were not
completed: “Were you initially contracted to provide services to children in this school

19. 18
district, but then were unable to do so?” All 27 providers offering services during SY2007-
2008 answered the question: 8 stated “yes” and the remainder stated “no”. Those who provided
comments listed the following reasons:
• “Families moved to other schools that were not on the list, or out of state, or out of the
country.”
• “Some were no shows; some parents changed their minds about tutoring after school
l(sic) (no transportation, no one at home to care for other siblings).”
• “Some students we were assigned to did not follow through with their tutoring. Our final
of students who actually received tutoring from us was 87.”
• “Some students had to be returned to the district due to a lack of tutors.”
• “Some students had to be returned to the district because they needed a bilingual tutor.”
• “Some students had to be returned because of lack of tutors in the region.”
• “One student required a Bilingual tutor which we didn't have at the time. That student
was given to another agency.”
A comparison of the district’s responses to these provider results provided anecdotal answers to
the question of why there were so many students with low completion rates.
Low Completion Rates. Table 16 shows the list of providers with the most students with low
completion rates. Two providers were in the top five list two years in a row: Catapult On-Line
and Advantage Tutoring Services, despite the fact that Catapult’s percentage reduced from more
than one half to just above one third. Club Z! Inc. dramatically reduced the percentages of
students with low completion rates.
TABLE 16: PROVIDERS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES OF STUDENTS WITH ZERO COMPLETED HOURS
TOP FIVE PROVIDERS WITH
HIGHEST PERCENTAGES OF
STUDENTS WITH ZERO COMPLETED
HOURS DURING SY 2006-2007:
SY 2006-2007
PERCENTAGE
OF STUDENTS WITH
ZERO COMPLETED
SESSIONS
SY 2007-2008
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
WITH ZERO COMPLETED
SESSIONS
CLUB Z! INC. 57.9% 8.4%
CATAPULT ON-LINE 53.7% 36.5%
EPROGRESS ACADEMY 31.6% NOT CONTINUED IN SY
2007-2008
COMPATIBLELAND, INC 18.7% 11.1%
ADVANTAGE TUTORING
SERVICES
13.7% 28.8%
SES providers who fit the criteria for having the most students completing their respective
programs in SY 2007-08 are listed below. The criteria were that the provider was in the top
quintile for having students complete programs, and that the highest percentage of students
within the program fell within the category of most completed hours, that is, had completed
between 22-82 hours.

20. 19
High Completion Rates. Providers with high rates of students that best completed their
respective tutoring programs were these:
• Successylvan —62.5%
• BabbageNet Schools, Inc. —52.2%
• Education Station LLC —45.9%
• Northern New Mexico Network —38.7%
Whatever the reasons for non-completion of sessions, an area of concern emerges: how to
increase levels of completion.
Communication. Providers and districts reported in parallel surveys during SY 2007-2008 on
the communication that occurred between the tutoring service providers and districts, teachers,
and parents. Communication is the key to cooperative relations between the districts, classroom
teacher and the tutors. The reliability rating of the four item communication survey (See
www.ped.state.nm.us/SES for district Survey), was quite high, at .87 with four items and 143
valid responses.
Provider’s Responses About Communication.. Of the 26 providers who answered the
questionnaire, and were asked, “What is the average # of times during the tutoring process that
tutors are expected to communicate with parents?” Very few providers (3.0%) responded that
tutors were not required to communicate with parents, 27.3% reported communicating regularly
with the parents, at the level of 3 or more times in total, 51.5% reported communicating with the
parents once each session, and 21.2% reported once each week. 7 providers stated that their
policy was to communicate with the parent after every 5th
hour of instruction.
Providers (N=26) were also asked to respond to this question: “What is the average number of
times during the tutoring process that tutors are expected to communicate progress to the child’s
teacher?” Answers were as follows:
Not required —47.3%
Twice (once at the beginning and once at the end of tutoring) —12.8%
Regularly, say three or more times in total —33.5%
Once each session —0.0%
Once each week —6.4%
Providers were asked to report on teacher’s co-operation and involvement, and they reported:
• Minimal—6 of 26 providers agreed with this assessment
• A little bit—2 of 26 providers agreed with this assessment
• Somewhat—15 of 26 providers agreed with this assessment
• Very much—6 of 26 providers agreed with this assessment
• A great deal—3 of 26 providers agreed with this assessment

21. 20
District Responses About Communication. Districts responded as follows to the question(s)
about communication:
% that answered provider contacted district ‘frequently’—23.6% (7 of 27)
% that answered provider contacted parents ‘frequently’—22.9% (6 of 27)
Communication as Contributions to Overall Provider Performance. The correlational analysis
above demonstrates those aspects of communication that most contributed to the district’s
overall satisfaction with the services of the provider. The only significant correlation is between
“how often did provider communicate with parents…” This item correlated at a moderate .343,
with significance at the lower level of p < .05 level.
TABLE 17: DISTRICTS’ EVALUATION OF QUALITY OF PROVIDER COMMUNICATION DURING SY 2007-2008
ASPECTS OF COMMUNICATION: “OVERALL, I AM SATISFIED WITH SERVICES OF
THIS PROVIDER.”
HOW OFTEN DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR DID THIS
PROVIDER COMMUNICATE STUDENT PROGRESS
WITH YOU?
PEARSON
CORRELATION
.184
SIG. (2-TAILED) .152
N 62
HOW OFTEN DID PROVIDER COMMUNICATE WITH
PARENTS IN AN EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE FORM?
PEARSON
CORRELATION
.343**
SIG. (2-TAILED) .006
N 62
HOW OFTEN DID PROVIDER COMMUNICATE WITH
TEACHERS?
PEARSON
CORRELATION
.208
SIG. (2-TAILED) .104
N 62
HOW OFTEN DID PROVIDER MEET OBLIGATIONS
FOR CONDUCTING STUDENT SESSIONS?
PEARSON
CORRELATION
.299*
SIG. (2-TAILED) .018
N 62
** CORRELATION IS SIGNIFICANT AT THE 0.01 LEVEL (2-TAILED).
* CORRELATION IS SIGNIFICANT AT THE 0.05 LEVEL (2-TAILED).

22. 21
With some differences in strength of endorsement, providers and districts agree on the levels of
communication that occurred between the tutoring service providers and teachers and parents.
The picture that emerges is that communication is an area identified for improvement, especially
communication that occurs between tutors and teachers.
Perceptions of Achievement. The correlational analysis displayed in the table below confirms
the importance of perceptions of SES providers’ achievement to the district’s assessment of
overall satisfaction with providers. There is a strong relationship between the district’s overall
assessment of the provider’s ability to positively impact student achievement (Pearson
correlation coefficient=.667, Sig p <.01), responsiveness (Pearson correlation coefficient=.685,
Sig p<.01), and overall satisfaction with the provider.
TABLE 18: DISTRICT’S EVALUATION OF TUTORING COMPANY SERVICES’ OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
ITEMS CONTRIBUTING TO DISTRICT OVERALL
SATISFACTION WITH PROVIDER:
“OVERALL, I AM SATISFIED WITH
SERVICES OF THIS PROVIDER.”
OVERALL, HAS POSITIVELY IMPACTED STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT IN DISTRICT.
PEARSON CORRELATION .667**
SIG. (2-TAILED) .000
N 59
OVERALL, I AM SATISFIED WITH THE
RESPONSIVENESS OF THIS PROVIDER.
PEARSON CORRELATION .685**
SIG. (2-TAILED) .000
N 53
OVERALL, HAS COMPLIED WITH SES DISTRICT
CONTRACT.
PEARSON CORRELATION .752**
SIG. (2-TAILED) .000
N 58
These results can be also interpreted as providing a rough estimate of district satisfaction overall
with providers. The results show remarkably high rates of satisfaction among New Mexico
districts, as compared to other state’s findings. For example, only half of the district coordinators
who responded in Tennessee’s SY 2007-2008 evaluation (50.0%; n=30/60) agreed with this statement:
“Overall, I am satisfied with the services of this provider.” (Source: 2007-2008 Supplemental
Educational Services in Tennessee Evaluation Report).
Areas that Need Improvement
Completion Rates. Districts noted extensive dissatisfaction when a provider signed a contract
and then did not deliver services. Very low completion rates for a high number of students who
apply for services initially and then do not complete sessions emerge as an area of concern.

23. 22
Communication. Improving communication between the providers and districts, parents, and
teachers of enrolled students is indicated. Contact between the provider and the child’s teacher
remains the greatest challenge. Research shows the importance of school interventions having
direct connection to regular classroom learning (Slavin & Fashola, 1998). In the case of SES,
frequent communications with teachers and school leaders should increase the continuity,
consistency, and relevance of the instructional program.
Student Achievement. Analysis comparing last year’s SBA scores to this year’s SBA scores for
tutored versus comparable students who did not receive tutoring, the findings were these: (1)
weak or moderate results for math, (2) no significant results in reading.
Suggestions for Improvement
State education agencies play a critical role in establishing, administering, and sustaining high-
quality extended learning opportunities. This role has increased over time, largely attributable to
state administration of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) Program and
the Supplemental Educational Services (SES) provisions of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act. An ongoing challenge is ensuring that students who need them most have access to high-
quality programs. To achieve continuous improvement in SES program quality, steps to
improve evaluation and enhanced monitoring ought to be considered.
Determine Reasons for Non-completion of Program. Without data on why students fail to show
up for services, or fail to complete services, it is difficult to address the sources of the problem
and improve retention rates. Implementation of a parent survey, to be conducted by PED, or an
independent outside contractor, could include all parents of children that failed to “show” for
services once applied, or that fail to complete a minimum number of hours. Contact information
should be required from districts or providers, and supplied to PED, so that a telephone survey
can be conducted by an independent source to determine the reasons that students or parents fail
to complete tutoring services. In short, implementation of a parent survey for those students is
warranted. This data can then be shared with providers to allow them to develop strategies to
address this crucial issue.
Stronger District Monitoring of Providers. Contact between the provider and the child’s
teacher remains the greatest challenge. District On-Site visits can improve communication,
verify use of Student Instructional Plans, and create stronger data to support monitoring
decisions. PED plans to assist districts with technical assistance to implement on-site monitoring
in 2009-10.
Implement Program Quality Improvement Measures. The PED is moving towards the
development of an instrument or tool, or perhaps a list of possible instruments, to provide
technical assistance to SES providers in valid, reliable methods to create continuous
improvement in program quality. State education agencies (SEAs) have the responsibility to play
a critical role in developing and sustaining high-quality, effective programs.

24. 23
Conclusions
The success of the SES program will be determined as more information becomes available
about how it is working and whether it is an option that parents find attractive. So far, few
national or statewide evaluations have demonstrated conclusively the effectiveness of SES in
improving student achievement performance on standardized state tests as required by and
intended by NCLB.
Tutoring Service companies operated using greatly varied methods in New Mexico. Tutoring is a
service that occurred before and after school, in homes and at schools, used entirely computer-
based curriculum, was set in a traditional classroom, took place in small groups or one-on-one.
Tutors varied widely in education, skill, and experience. Given such wide variety in tutoring
services, it is difficult to quantify the effectiveness such tutoring services might have on
achievement.
Acknowledgments:
This report was prepared by Dr. Stephanie Amedeo
Marquez under the supervision of Dr. Cindy Gregory.
Technical Report:
To request the full technical report call (505) 827-6509 or
email the PED helpdesk: ped.assessment@state.nm.us
This report and others are available on the PED Internet
site at www.ped.state.nm.us .