Page 54 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 54 of 175 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
48
information gaps exist in the SES marketplace for parents? How do districts,
teachers, and schools filter or influence what SES information is communicated to
parents and explain parental choice?
Provider monitoring and evaluation of SES providers was underdeveloped, as
was the communication plan between the SES provider and the classroom teacher to
coordinate efforts to support what was happening in the classroom for the student.
The multiplicity of providers was a challenge for the district that needed to manage
the location and schedule of provided services. Sunderman and Kim (2004) note that
using pre and post testing to evaluate SES program effectiveness is the weakest
foundation for a cause and effect link. However, without clear research to
understand why students and parents are not availing themselves of SES,
understanding of SES policy in relation to effectiveness and how to improve it
remain hypothetical unknowns and speculative (Burch, 2007).
Hinting at his findings in the title of his article “Restricted Choices, Limited
Options”, Fusarelli (2007) illustrates how the hoped for free market pressures and
resulting expected reforms in education through parental choice have been uneven.
In the final analysis, Fusarelli concludes that in spite of the considerable effort
expended by legislators and school districts who must execute the SES provisions, it
is unclear whether supplementary educational services are improving educational
opportunities for disadvantaged students in schools in need of improvement. A July
2007 federal SES report of nine schools in a SES metastudy of 9 urban districts
found that in five of the 9 did show student gains in reading and math, two districts
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 54 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 48 information gaps exist in the SES marketplace for parents? How do districts, teachers, and schools filter or influence what SES information is communicated to parents and explain parental choice? Provider monitoring and evaluation of SES providers was underdeveloped, as was the communication plan between the SES provider and the classroom teacher to coordinate efforts to support what was happening in the classroom for the student. The multiplicity of providers was a challenge for the district that needed to manage the location and schedule of provided services. Sunderman and Kim (2004) note that using pre and post testing to evaluate SES program effectiveness is the weakest foundation for a cause and effect link. However, without clear research to understand why students and parents are not availing themselves of SES, understanding of SES policy in relation to effectiveness and how to improve it remain hypothetical unknowns and speculative (Burch, 2007). Hinting at his findings in the title of his article “Restricted Choices, Limited Options”, Fusarelli (2007) illustrates how the hoped for free market pressures and resulting expected reforms in education through parental choice have been uneven. In the final analysis, Fusarelli concludes that in spite of the considerable effort expended by legislators and school districts who must execute the SES provisions, it is unclear whether supplementary educational services are improving educational opportunities for disadvantaged students in schools in need of improvement. A July 2007 federal SES report of nine schools in a SES metastudy of 9 urban districts found that in five of the 9 did show student gains in reading and math, two districts |
