Page 110 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 110 of 175 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
104
Levinthal (1988) describes how the principal-agent organizational
relationships become more efficient over time as dysfunctional behavior is revealed
and remedied. Uncertainty is reduced among principals and agents as the relationship
is repeated over time. In SES-type schools, this study found an after school
environment of relative stability. For example, the school Principal (principal) and
volunteer tutors who were also day time teachers (agents) mutually understood the
limits of how much could be asked of teachers. As motivated agents, teachers chose
to volunteer to tutor if it would help their students. However, teachers would not
volunteer to tutor if the Principal insisted on larger classes of students to tutor or
taxing teacher volunteers by having them tutor every day of the week. In the SES-type
schools, the Principal (principal) and teachers (agents) understood the delicate
equilibrium required to provide an after school program but also meet the goals of
the Principal and the teachers.
In SES schools in this study, structural differences ran the gamut of
possibilities with the resulting increase in P-A problems not found in SES-type
schools. The relative newness of the SES program meant that elements of the SES
after school tutoring organization did not have enough time working together for
dysfunctional behavior to be revealed (and remedied). These principal-agent
organizational elements included the school district, parents, multiple outside SES
providers, and schools. Dixit (2002) had described how the presence of multiple
principals and motivated agents were an unique structural aspect of P-A theory
applied to education. For SES programs, the complexity increases with multiple
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 110 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 104 Levinthal (1988) describes how the principal-agent organizational relationships become more efficient over time as dysfunctional behavior is revealed and remedied. Uncertainty is reduced among principals and agents as the relationship is repeated over time. In SES-type schools, this study found an after school environment of relative stability. For example, the school Principal (principal) and volunteer tutors who were also day time teachers (agents) mutually understood the limits of how much could be asked of teachers. As motivated agents, teachers chose to volunteer to tutor if it would help their students. However, teachers would not volunteer to tutor if the Principal insisted on larger classes of students to tutor or taxing teacher volunteers by having them tutor every day of the week. In the SES-type schools, the Principal (principal) and teachers (agents) understood the delicate equilibrium required to provide an after school program but also meet the goals of the Principal and the teachers. In SES schools in this study, structural differences ran the gamut of possibilities with the resulting increase in P-A problems not found in SES-type schools. The relative newness of the SES program meant that elements of the SES after school tutoring organization did not have enough time working together for dysfunctional behavior to be revealed (and remedied). These principal-agent organizational elements included the school district, parents, multiple outside SES providers, and schools. Dixit (2002) had described how the presence of multiple principals and motivated agents were an unique structural aspect of P-A theory applied to education. For SES programs, the complexity increases with multiple |
