Page 18 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 18 of 175 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
12
and communicating student progress (Sunderman and Kim, 2004). However, parents
have experienced confusion and mistrust towards these new SES educational
programs for students that were not provided by the school district (ACORN, 2005).
Low parent participation at provider fairs has been cited as one factor behind low
student participation in SES programs (NJ DOE, 2005). It may not be the case that
SES provider fairs are the only appropriate, let alone sufficient, means of
communication with parents.
SES and SES-Type Issue: Student Tutoring Service Providers
The broad definition of who can provide SES and a government generated
increase for demand of SES, has spawned an entire new market opportunity. SES
providers could be non-profit companies, a publicly traded corporation, a non-profit
group, a local community program, colleges or universities, national organizations,
faith-based groups, private and charter schools, and public schools and districts (if
they have not been identified as in need of improvement under AYP provisions)
(NCLB B, 2007; CSSSO, 2005). In California, the range of providers on the
California Department of Education approved SES providers list includes national
organizations such as Kumon, local SES providers, school districts, and the Christ
Church of San Diego. To become an approved SES provider in California,
prospective providers must submit a completed request for application form and earn
a passing score on the application rubric. An SES provider must have its curriculum
and standards aligned with local curriculum and state educational content standards.
Object Description
| Title | Organizational relationships in supplemental educational services (SES) and SES-type programs |
| Author | Tan, Thomas Anthony |
| Author email | diandtom@sbcglobal.net; thomas_tan@jusd.k12.ca.us |
| Degree | Doctor of Education |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Education (Leadership) |
| School | Rossier School of Education |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-07 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-08 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Hentschke, Guilbert C. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Datnow, Amanda Mafi, Gabriela |
| Abstract | The Center for Education Policy (CEP, 2007) released a July 2007 NCLB report examining the effectiveness of assistance to schools that have been unable to achieve state defined student Proficiency goals for two consecutive years. This academic tutoring assistance known as Supplemental Educational Services (SES) was deemed to be important or very important by less than 10% of the districts surveyed.; How can we explain differences in outside of the school day academic tutoring programs that are mandated (SES programs under NCLB) and those that are willingly provided (SES-type programs by schools)? These differences in programs can be studied and understood through what economists call "principal-agent" theory to study the relationships among the participants. The principal-agent (P-A) theory had its origins in the study of the problems that arise when objectives of a principal and agent diverge. The purpose of the study is to understand the P-A related performance problems among the participants in Supplemental Educational Services (SES). This study will examine the P-A organizational relationships within the three primary SES and SES-type school program elements – individualized instruction, provider accountability, and student participation. The three research questions that were developed to guide this study are: 1. How does the principal-agent relationship explain what instructional strategies and practices are used by SES and SES-type providers in out of school hours programs? 2. How does the principal-agent relationship explain how SES and SES-type providers are accountable for student learning? 3. How does the principal-agent relationship explain how SES and SES-type providers manage student participation?; In comparing SES and SES-type after school tutoring organizations, data analysis revealed that principal-agent problems in Title I schools required to provide SES were greater than those Title I SES-type schools that willingly provided after school tutoring. The six major findings of this study found principal-agent problems in the areas of SES organizational barriers, beliefs in tutoring effectiveness, sub optimization of SES, non-performance based competition among SES providers, and relationships among parents, tutors, and educators.; Recommendations for successful SES implementation and improvement of current practice to address these principal-agent problems included increasing the outreach to parents, using an SES provider report card to rank provider performance, improved sharing of existing student data between school districts and SES providers, expanding the pool of students who could benefit from SES tutoring, and improving communications and coordination through an SES provider-school district advisory council. Suggestions for future research include comparing SES implementations in coastal vs. inland California school districts, study of student motivation in after school tutoring, greater cooperation between SES providers and school districts, and the effectiveness of comprehensive vs. academic after school tutoring. |
| Keyword | principal; agent; education; elementary; k12; nclb; supplemental; educational; services; SES; tutoring |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Coverage date | 2007/2008 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1643 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Tan, Thomas Anthony |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Tan-2371 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume26/etd-Tan-2371.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 18 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 12 and communicating student progress (Sunderman and Kim, 2004). However, parents have experienced confusion and mistrust towards these new SES educational programs for students that were not provided by the school district (ACORN, 2005). Low parent participation at provider fairs has been cited as one factor behind low student participation in SES programs (NJ DOE, 2005). It may not be the case that SES provider fairs are the only appropriate, let alone sufficient, means of communication with parents. SES and SES-Type Issue: Student Tutoring Service Providers The broad definition of who can provide SES and a government generated increase for demand of SES, has spawned an entire new market opportunity. SES providers could be non-profit companies, a publicly traded corporation, a non-profit group, a local community program, colleges or universities, national organizations, faith-based groups, private and charter schools, and public schools and districts (if they have not been identified as in need of improvement under AYP provisions) (NCLB B, 2007; CSSSO, 2005). In California, the range of providers on the California Department of Education approved SES providers list includes national organizations such as Kumon, local SES providers, school districts, and the Christ Church of San Diego. To become an approved SES provider in California, prospective providers must submit a completed request for application form and earn a passing score on the application rubric. An SES provider must have its curriculum and standards aligned with local curriculum and state educational content standards. |
