Page 53 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 53 of 175 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
47
be at a disadvantage on curriculum and instructional practices used during the
school day; such information would be useful to align SES after school
tutoring with what happens during the school day.
• Limited decision rights: As agents, SES providers and tutors may lack the
authority, responsibility and influence with students which yield the most
effective results with SES tutoring. Teachers who are after school tutors
such as in SES-type programs may have greater decision rights at their
disposal (e.g. influence and relationship with the students, the support of
district discipline policy).
P-A Implications in Accountability: Measuring and Demonstrating Effectiveness
University of Albany associate professor and researcher Sandra Vergari
(2007) has studied the interaction of Federal intervention in the form of market-based
education policy applied to Supplemental Educational Services (SES). Since
each state has been left to its own definition for Proficiency under NCLB AYP, a
common standard for comparisons of accountability does not exist. This extends to
oversight and accountability of SES providers. The absence or weakness of SES
accountability measures weakens the information parents could use to make
informed decisions about SES providers for their child. Questions that arise include:
What information do parents receive from SES providers to help them select the
services that meet the needs of their child? How do SES providers distinguish
themselves from other providers? What data and information do SES providers use
to demonstrate their effectiveness (e.g. test data, satisfaction surveys, etc.)? What
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 53 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 47 be at a disadvantage on curriculum and instructional practices used during the school day; such information would be useful to align SES after school tutoring with what happens during the school day. • Limited decision rights: As agents, SES providers and tutors may lack the authority, responsibility and influence with students which yield the most effective results with SES tutoring. Teachers who are after school tutors such as in SES-type programs may have greater decision rights at their disposal (e.g. influence and relationship with the students, the support of district discipline policy). P-A Implications in Accountability: Measuring and Demonstrating Effectiveness University of Albany associate professor and researcher Sandra Vergari (2007) has studied the interaction of Federal intervention in the form of market-based education policy applied to Supplemental Educational Services (SES). Since each state has been left to its own definition for Proficiency under NCLB AYP, a common standard for comparisons of accountability does not exist. This extends to oversight and accountability of SES providers. The absence or weakness of SES accountability measures weakens the information parents could use to make informed decisions about SES providers for their child. Questions that arise include: What information do parents receive from SES providers to help them select the services that meet the needs of their child? How do SES providers distinguish themselves from other providers? What data and information do SES providers use to demonstrate their effectiveness (e.g. test data, satisfaction surveys, etc.)? What |
