Page 118 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 118 of 175 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
112
parents in the tutoring process at home. The signaling to parents that their child may
need extra help and the lack of adequate information to accurately assess SES
providers, work to explain the parent and educator inclination to believe that SES
tutoring was effective.
Competitive Behavior among SES Providers vs. SES-Type Schools
At SES-type schools, the issue of competition to provide after school tutoring
services was not present since teachers at the school were the sole tutoring providers
and students were invited to join the tutoring program. However, at SES schools,
SES providers were not passive players in the face of competition with so many
other SES providers. Finding 4 revealed that competition among SES providers was
not based on student performance. The P-A problems of adverse selection and
limited decision rights explain why this behavior was observed by SES providers.
On the P-A limited decision rights problem, the SES providers are held
responsible for outcomes over which they do not have full authority or responsibility.
This problem changes the behavior of the SES provider (agent) to be less responsive
to meeting the goals of the school district (principal). Evidence of this was noted in
parents who reported SES tutor inattentiveness, unsatisfactory explanations and
results from questionable tutoring strategies, and poor tutor-parent communications.
In this case, parents selected an SES provider and a tutor was assigned to the student.
In SES-type schools, students were selected by the teachers to participate. Volunteer
tutors who were also teachers during the school day noted that they took time to
explain to students why they were selected. Education is a cooperative enterprise
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 118 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 112 parents in the tutoring process at home. The signaling to parents that their child may need extra help and the lack of adequate information to accurately assess SES providers, work to explain the parent and educator inclination to believe that SES tutoring was effective. Competitive Behavior among SES Providers vs. SES-Type Schools At SES-type schools, the issue of competition to provide after school tutoring services was not present since teachers at the school were the sole tutoring providers and students were invited to join the tutoring program. However, at SES schools, SES providers were not passive players in the face of competition with so many other SES providers. Finding 4 revealed that competition among SES providers was not based on student performance. The P-A problems of adverse selection and limited decision rights explain why this behavior was observed by SES providers. On the P-A limited decision rights problem, the SES providers are held responsible for outcomes over which they do not have full authority or responsibility. This problem changes the behavior of the SES provider (agent) to be less responsive to meeting the goals of the school district (principal). Evidence of this was noted in parents who reported SES tutor inattentiveness, unsatisfactory explanations and results from questionable tutoring strategies, and poor tutor-parent communications. In this case, parents selected an SES provider and a tutor was assigned to the student. In SES-type schools, students were selected by the teachers to participate. Volunteer tutors who were also teachers during the school day noted that they took time to explain to students why they were selected. Education is a cooperative enterprise |
