Page 51 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 51 of 175 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
45
confidence, motivation and joy of learning, is not mentioned in NCLB SES
legislation.
Anchoring the Study to Existing Research: Rationale for Research Questions
P-A Implications in Instructional Strategies: Improving Student Achievement
Vergari (2007) notes that instructional delivery of SES covers a broad
spectrum that includes one-on-one tutoring, small group instruction, computer based
instruction which can occur at home, school community centers, libraries or SES
provider facilities. The questions raised here include those of expectations and
effectiveness of instructional practice and how location for SES services impact
effectiveness and participation. SES changes the focus to the individual with dollars
following the student vs. a comprehensive school-wide reform approach that benefits
all students. Fragmentation and dilution of Title I services is an area of concern. One
district “response” has been the shouldering of the administrative burden of parent
communication about SES and negotiating contracts with each provider.
With so much funding at stake, more significant is the response of some
districts to become providers themselves (Sunderman and Kim, 2004). As for what
is best for improving student achievement, little is known about the instructional
practices let alone effective instructional practices that may be found among
providers. Instructional practices may include, independent study, homework
assistance, one-on-one or home based tutoring, or a scripted approach to direct
instruction. Learning environment, what students are actually being taught, whether
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 51 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 45 confidence, motivation and joy of learning, is not mentioned in NCLB SES legislation. Anchoring the Study to Existing Research: Rationale for Research Questions P-A Implications in Instructional Strategies: Improving Student Achievement Vergari (2007) notes that instructional delivery of SES covers a broad spectrum that includes one-on-one tutoring, small group instruction, computer based instruction which can occur at home, school community centers, libraries or SES provider facilities. The questions raised here include those of expectations and effectiveness of instructional practice and how location for SES services impact effectiveness and participation. SES changes the focus to the individual with dollars following the student vs. a comprehensive school-wide reform approach that benefits all students. Fragmentation and dilution of Title I services is an area of concern. One district “response” has been the shouldering of the administrative burden of parent communication about SES and negotiating contracts with each provider. With so much funding at stake, more significant is the response of some districts to become providers themselves (Sunderman and Kim, 2004). As for what is best for improving student achievement, little is known about the instructional practices let alone effective instructional practices that may be found among providers. Instructional practices may include, independent study, homework assistance, one-on-one or home based tutoring, or a scripted approach to direct instruction. Learning environment, what students are actually being taught, whether |
