Few take advantage of free tutoring

COLUMBIA — School district administrators say it's difficult to get poor parents to enroll their children for free tutoring because the after-school help is inconvenient or seen as a stigma instead of an opportunity.

Poor parents, who often are single and work more than one job, struggle to clothe, feed and keep their family healthy, so tutoring isn't a high priority, and students may have to baby-sit younger siblings.

While educators must make parents understand the importance of a good education, tutoring "doesn't add another set of hands or more hours in the day," Percy Mack, superintendent of downtown Columbia schools, said after testifying last week at a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights fact-finding session on South Carolina's compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind education accountability law.

Under the law, high-poverty schools that don't meet educational goals for several consecutive years must offer free tutoring to poor students. For the past two schools years, only 13 percent of eligible students in South Carolina took advantage of the tutoring — 8,835 students in 2007-08 and 6,887 in 2006-07.

Daniel Cassidy, a member of the commission's South Carolina Advisory Board, called the statewide statistic appalling.

More than 70 private companies offer tutoring through the government program in South Carolina, though the options vary within each district.

At the state board's request, the commission is investigating to ensure South Carolina educators are following the law and not discriminating based on race. Beyond meetings, it also plans to conduct a telephone survey of parents and school officials. The commission expects to issue a report and any recommendations by March, said Derek Horne, a commission attorney.

South Carolina's participation rates are lower than the national average — by at least 2 percentage points — but "nothing extreme," he said.

Administrators said they're following the law, and it's frustrating that so few parents take advantage of the government-paid services, despite their repeated outreach efforts.

In Clarendon 1 (Summerton) — where 30 percent of students live in single-parent households and 25 percent of parents never finished high school — that included several letters sent home in "parent-friendly language," follow-up phone calls, home visits and churches spreading the word. Still, fewer than five parents attended each of the district's information fairs. Last school year, 35 of its middle school students received tutoring, assistant superintendent Barbara Ragin said.

In Mack's district, about 340 of nearly 1,600 eligible students were tutored last year.

Parents often let their children decide whether they want to be tutored, and, though transportation is provided, staying after school means students might not get home until late in the evening, Ragin said. She suggested more money for at-home computers that would allow for online tutoring.

Mignon Clyburn, chairwoman of South Carolina's committee, said it might be a marketing issue. Educators might need to try harder to communicate in a way parents will understand, she said.

"We need to make it attractive enough so parents say, 'Yes, this is what I want because I see the benefit,' because just saying it's free hasn't worked," Clyburn said after a public hearing held Sept. 22 for parents. None attended.

The commission's South Carolina Advisory Committee also heard from federal and state administrators.

U.S. Department of Education regional liaison Anne Hancock credited South Carolina's education agency as "doing an exceptionally good job." If there's any breakdown, it's in how districts handle the law, she said. She said no state is held up as a national model.

The federal law is hundreds of pages long, and sometimes district officials make mistakes due to simple misunderstanding, but "we've tried hard to clear that up," said Nancy Busbee, director of the state Education Department's accountability office.

Even fewer students take advantage of transferring options under the law. Just 1 percent of students attending high-poverty schools that didn't meet goals chose to attend a different school in the district — 2,047 students in 2007-08. Mack said that's because most parents want their children in their neighborhood school.