Page 114 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 114 of 175 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
108
from an array of tutoring providers as was the case in SES schools. Tutors in the
SES-type after school tutoring programs were paid volunteer teachers who taught
during the regular school day. As such, the credibility and trust levels parents had
with SES-type school teachers, staff and administration was higher than that
experienced with SES providers and tutors.
How Culture Matters in SES and SES-type Programs
The law and strategy to use outside SES providers to provide parent choice
and after school tutoring for Title I students in schools needing improvement met
resistance from the established school district culture. Both SES and SES-type
providers suffered from initially mutually poor perceptions of each other. US DOE
officials shared how the amount of resistance to having school districts and outside
SES providers was underestimated. SES providers were found to be sometimes
frustrated or unable to navigate the perceived school district barriers of bureaucracy.
Public educators were suspicious and doubtful of the motives and effectiveness of
SES providers.
One solution posed by US DOE officials was one of improved
communications and data sharing to overcome these cultural hurdles from a public
sector school district working with outside SES providers. School districts could
improve by understanding how the SES provider business operates. SES providers
would benefit from understanding the reasons behind the school bureaucracy, such
as time consuming fingerprinting and background checks of those who would be
trusted to work with children. The root cause of these differences may be explained
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 114 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 108 from an array of tutoring providers as was the case in SES schools. Tutors in the SES-type after school tutoring programs were paid volunteer teachers who taught during the regular school day. As such, the credibility and trust levels parents had with SES-type school teachers, staff and administration was higher than that experienced with SES providers and tutors. How Culture Matters in SES and SES-type Programs The law and strategy to use outside SES providers to provide parent choice and after school tutoring for Title I students in schools needing improvement met resistance from the established school district culture. Both SES and SES-type providers suffered from initially mutually poor perceptions of each other. US DOE officials shared how the amount of resistance to having school districts and outside SES providers was underestimated. SES providers were found to be sometimes frustrated or unable to navigate the perceived school district barriers of bureaucracy. Public educators were suspicious and doubtful of the motives and effectiveness of SES providers. One solution posed by US DOE officials was one of improved communications and data sharing to overcome these cultural hurdles from a public sector school district working with outside SES providers. School districts could improve by understanding how the SES provider business operates. SES providers would benefit from understanding the reasons behind the school bureaucracy, such as time consuming fingerprinting and background checks of those who would be trusted to work with children. The root cause of these differences may be explained |
