Page 108 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 108 of 175 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
102
they know.” The school Principal of the SES school Sunrise Elementary shared her
concerns about the questionable instructional practices of SES providers, such as one
who wanted a pure computer approach to tutoring. This was a practice that was
contradictory to her experience and training that the relationship with a teacher is
fundamental to how students learn.
Differences in Learning Environment between SES vs. SES-type Tutoring
Unlike the SES-type programs taught in schools, SES tutoring in the home
could require 15 minutes of setup and cleanup time of the instructional area, cutting
into the instructional time available. While a school based SES-type after school
tutoring program was found to have issues with student attendance and
transportation, SES providers and tutors faced their own concerns with a proper
learning environment. For SES tutors, these included going into an unfamiliar home,
entering neighborhoods where tutors did not feel safe, multiple families living in a
crowded home, and lack of agreement to have the television volume lowered during
tutoring or a dedicated space where tutoring could occur.
Major Themes
Incorporating Supplemental Educational Services into K-12 education has
created relational issues among the primary participants – parents, students, school
based educators, and outside SES providers; these issues are classically revealed as
principal-agent problems. The following are the major themes found using
principal-agent theory in the study of SES and SES-type after school tutoring
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 108 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 102 they know.” The school Principal of the SES school Sunrise Elementary shared her concerns about the questionable instructional practices of SES providers, such as one who wanted a pure computer approach to tutoring. This was a practice that was contradictory to her experience and training that the relationship with a teacher is fundamental to how students learn. Differences in Learning Environment between SES vs. SES-type Tutoring Unlike the SES-type programs taught in schools, SES tutoring in the home could require 15 minutes of setup and cleanup time of the instructional area, cutting into the instructional time available. While a school based SES-type after school tutoring program was found to have issues with student attendance and transportation, SES providers and tutors faced their own concerns with a proper learning environment. For SES tutors, these included going into an unfamiliar home, entering neighborhoods where tutors did not feel safe, multiple families living in a crowded home, and lack of agreement to have the television volume lowered during tutoring or a dedicated space where tutoring could occur. Major Themes Incorporating Supplemental Educational Services into K-12 education has created relational issues among the primary participants – parents, students, school based educators, and outside SES providers; these issues are classically revealed as principal-agent problems. The following are the major themes found using principal-agent theory in the study of SES and SES-type after school tutoring |
