Page 156 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 156 of 175 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
150
Education Industry Association (EIA). (2007c). Guidelines for Qualifications for
Tutor/Education Service Provider (ESP). Education Industry Association
2007 Membership Directory.
EdWeek, Online Chat: The changing role of the U.S. Department of Education:
looking back, looking ahead. Transcript retrieved February 17, 2007 from
http://www.edweek.org/chat/transcript_10_18_2006.html.
Ferris, J. (1992). School-based decision making: a principal-agent perspective.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Vol. 14, No. 4, (Winter, 1992),
pp.333-346.
Flynn, M. (2002). Title I supplemental educational services and after school
programs: opportunities and challenges. The Finance Project. Retrieved
February 17, 2007 from http://www.financeproject.org/
Publications/suppsvc.pdf.
Friedman, Thomas. (2006). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first
Century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux Publishers.
Frerking, Beth. (2007). A new learning day: after school is no afterthought. Edutopia
magazine.
Fusarelli, L. (2007). Restricted choices, limited options: implementing choice and
supplemental educational services in no child left behind. Educational
Policy. Vol. 1, Number 21, 132-154.
Gharajedaghi, J. (2006). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity.
Butterworth-Heinemann Publishers.
Granger, R. C., & Kane, T. (2004). Improving the quality of after-school programs.
Education Week, 23(23), 52, 76.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of
embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 91, No. 3 (Nov.,
1985), pp. 481-510.
Halpern, R. (2002). The need to reframe expectations of after school programs.
Partnership for After School Education (PASE), Erikson Institute. Retrieved
May 13, 2008.
http://www.pasesetter.org/publicationresources/publications/pdf/halpern.pdf
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 156 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 150 Education Industry Association (EIA). (2007c). Guidelines for Qualifications for Tutor/Education Service Provider (ESP). Education Industry Association 2007 Membership Directory. EdWeek, Online Chat: The changing role of the U.S. Department of Education: looking back, looking ahead. Transcript retrieved February 17, 2007 from http://www.edweek.org/chat/transcript_10_18_2006.html. Ferris, J. (1992). School-based decision making: a principal-agent perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Vol. 14, No. 4, (Winter, 1992), pp.333-346. Flynn, M. (2002). Title I supplemental educational services and after school programs: opportunities and challenges. The Finance Project. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from http://www.financeproject.org/ Publications/suppsvc.pdf. Friedman, Thomas. (2006). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux Publishers. Frerking, Beth. (2007). A new learning day: after school is no afterthought. Edutopia magazine. Fusarelli, L. (2007). Restricted choices, limited options: implementing choice and supplemental educational services in no child left behind. Educational Policy. Vol. 1, Number 21, 132-154. Gharajedaghi, J. (2006). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity. Butterworth-Heinemann Publishers. Granger, R. C., & Kane, T. (2004). Improving the quality of after-school programs. Education Week, 23(23), 52, 76. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 91, No. 3 (Nov., 1985), pp. 481-510. Halpern, R. (2002). The need to reframe expectations of after school programs. Partnership for After School Education (PASE), Erikson Institute. Retrieved May 13, 2008. http://www.pasesetter.org/publicationresources/publications/pdf/halpern.pdf |
