University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Organizational relationships in supplemental educational services (SES) and SES-type programs

(USC Thesis Other)

Organizational relationships in supplemental educational services (SES) and SES-type programs

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES (SES) AND SES-TYPE PROGRAMS

by

Thomas Anthony Tan

_________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2008

Copyright 2008 Thomas Anthony Tan

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation could not have been possible without the encouragement,
support and assistance of my chair Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, Dr. Amanda Datnow,
and Dr. Gabriela Mafi. My fellow Data Driven Decision Dilemma (4Ds) thematic
group members provided the encouragement to move forward and gave the needed
push from behind when I needed it.
Finally, thank you to my parents, wife Diana, Nicholas and Logan Alexandria
who held down the home front for the countless nights and weekends I was away.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………….. ii
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………. iv
Abstract ………………………………………………………………….. v
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ……………………………………. 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review ………………………………………… 26
Chapter Three: Research Methodology …………………………………. 53
Chapter Four: Research Findings ……………………………………….. 67
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions and Implications of Findings …… 119
Figure 5-1: Expanded Pool of SES Eligibility …………………………... 135

References ……………………………………………………………….. 147
Appendices ………………………………………………………………. 159

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. SES Student Enrollment-San Angeles School District …………….. 56
Table 3-2. Data Collection Sources ……………………………………………. 62

Table 3-3. Relations of Data Collection Instruments to Research
Questions ……………………………………………………………………….. 64

Table 3-4: Select Elements of SARC…………………………………………... 66

Table 4-1. SES and SES-type Schools Selected for Research ………………… 69

Table 4-2a. Principal-Agent SES Research Findings Categorized by
principal-agent (P-A) Problem …………………………………………………. 69

Table 4-2b. Principal-Agent SES Research Findings Categorized by
principal-agent (P-A) Problem ………………………………………………… 70

Table 4-2c. Principal-Agent SES Research Findings Categorized by
principal-agent (P-A) Problem ………………………………………………… 70

Table 4-3. Summary Comparison of SES vs. SES-Type After School
Tutoring Programs ……………………………………………………………… 73

Table 4-4. Types of data available in SES and SES-type systems ……………... 74

Table 4-5. SES Providers Selected For Study ………………………………….. 87

Table 4-6. Marketing Dimensions Used by 29 SES Providers to Differentiate
Among Competitors ……………………………………………………………. 89

Table 4-7. Student Selection Criteria for After School Tutoring in SES
vs. SES-Type Schools …………………………………………………………. 101

v
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?

vi
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.

1
CHAPTER ONE
Overview of the Study

Introduction
“In the end, there has not been competition, demonstrably effective
remediation, or much evidence of innovation. We conclude that the
SES provision is unworkable as presently designed.”
— Hess and Finn (2007)
To live up to the expectation that no child be left behind, proclaimed in the
congressional act of the same name, low achieving students would benefit from extra
and more intensive academic instruction. The time required to deliver these services
falls outside an already full regular school day. These supplemental tutoring services
for students offered outside of the school day, in low achieving Title I schools, are
either required and called Supplemental Educational Services (SES) or offered by
choice in what will be termed “SES-type services” for this study. In January 2001,
only three days after his inauguration, President George W. Bush unveiled the design
for No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB included standards and testing called for
in A Nation at Risk, the prominent 1983 report that warned that the educational
foundations of American society were being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity.
NCLB contained the recommended standards and testing along with new
requirements of accountability for states, school districts, and schools (NCEE, 1983;
Martel, 2005).

2
Against this backdrop of increased accountability to improve public
education, this chapter will provide an introduction to the study of the principal-
agent relationships present in NCLB’s Supplemental Educational Services (SES) and
SES-Type after school tutoring programs. Performance related issues among SES
and SES-type schools were examined using the framework of principal-agent theory.
It is a requirement of NCLB that public schools test their grade 3-8 students
each year in language arts and math. Each state determines if its public schools are
making “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) toward 100% proficiency in these two
subjects by the year 2014. AYP proficiency goals rise steadily until the goal of
100% proficiency is achieved by the year 2014 as currently mandated by NCLB.
Proficiency is measured through demographics and statistically significant subgroups
that include of race, disability, and English language status. Should a school fail to
achieve AYP goals in any of those categories for two consecutive years, the school is
labeled a “school in need of improvement” (SINI).
SES is designed to improve student achievement so students who attend
schools with a large percentage of poor children, defined as Title I schools, have the
opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach proficiency on state
assessments. SES represents additional academic instruction designed to increase
the achievement of students in low performing schools. SES differs from previous
Title I solutions to improve student achievement by changing the focus from the
historical whole school reform to a focus on individual student achievement.

3
Background of the Problem
Supplemental Educational Services (SES): Closing the Achievement Gap
“Parents know what is best for their children. Expanding educational
options for parents is one of the hallmarks of the No Child Left
Behind Act and it remains on of the President’s highest priorities”
— Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings (NCLB B, 2007)

Eligibility for Supplemental Educational Services (SES)
A school designated as a Title I school is allocated funding through formulas
based on census poverty estimates and the cost of education in each state. Created as
part of then President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, Title I of the 1965
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was designed to provide support
to districts and schools with a large percentage of poor children to help them meet
state academic standards (US DOE Part A, 2002). In California, this determination
of low income is made through the student eligibility for the free and reduced lunch
program. Schools are ranked and then are funded, with priority given to schools
with the highest concentration of low income students funded first.
Schools that are required to offer SES have been unable to achieve state
defined Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goals for two consecutive years and have
consequently been identified as a “school in need of improvement (SINI)” status or
what is called in California “Program Improvement (PI)”. Once a school is deemed
to be in need of improvement, school officials will receive help and technical
assistance. Schools must develop a two-year plan for the school to meet their AYP
goals. For Title I schools in Program Improvement, the parental choice options are:

4
1) transferring to another non-PI public school in the district with transportation
provided by the district or 2) selecting to receive Supplemental Educational Services
(SES) for low income Title I students from a list of state approved providers. The
intent of these options is to permit students who find themselves in failing schools to
have the opportunity to receive a better education.
A 2006 RAND report on SES in Pittsburgh Public Schools notes how SES
legislation has given SES providers incentive and guidance to coordinate their
student support efforts with school districts (Zimmer et. al, 2006). SES providers
now have a vehicle to systematically link themselves directly to school districts and
the students they serve. Response to SES has been mixed, as some districts have
embraced SES while others have resisted the encroachment on their budget and
competition from outsiders. SES providers can include the school district, private
companies, non-profit organizations, or faith-based groups.
For districts required to provide SES, the funding for these parental choice
options is allocated from 20% of the district Title I allocation to the district (NCLB
A, 2001; NCLB B, 2007). Supplemental Educational Services are to be grounded in
high-quality, research-based practices designed to increase student academic
achievement (NCLB, sec. 1116 [e][12][C][ii]). Based on student need, this academic
focus is on reading, language arts and mathematics.

5
Potholes and Bumps in the Road of SES Policy and Practice
“[ambitious new federal programs] almost never work smoothly at
the outset. They usually bring a raft of unforeseen problems,
unintended consequences, unwanted loopholes, and unworkable
features”
(Hess and Finn, 2004)
NCLB SES programs are not without critics in the areas of precedent and
implementation. Sunderman and Kim (2004) emphasize there is limited evidence
that supplemental services will improve the education of low-income and minority
students. Implementation issues include the availability of services to special
education or ELL populations, and the qualifications of SES providers. The design
of SES requires local education agencies to provide SES to eligible children in the
school from a provider with a demonstrated record of effectiveness. This provider is
approved by the State educational agency and then selected by parents (US DOE Part
A, 2002).
However, SES programs as designed by NCLB have no precedent in prior
federal legislation or research to support their effectiveness (Sunderman and Kim,
2004). A 2005 U.S. Department of Education report estimates the average annual
cost to districts required to provide SES at $1,400 per student (Saifer and Speth,
2007). SES legislation has provided the pollen to fertilize a blossoming field of SES
providers driven by a healthy profit motive. This field of SES providers has
expanded to over 270 SES providers in California according to a 2007 count by the
California Department of Education. The lucrative appeal of profits from SES

6
funding has caused at least one company to shift its strategy from managing schools
to providing supplemental educational services (Delamaide, 2007).
In a June 20
th
, 2007, USA Today opinion-editorial debate about NCLB
Supplemental Educational Services (SES), opponents sliced to the core of the
effectiveness of SES, performance, and accountability issues in stating “the only true
measure of proof is learning”. U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
countered by stating that improvements for reading and math had been found
through tutoring, even greater if tutoring was received longer than a year. Clouding
the understanding of SES effectiveness is whether gains in student achievement can
be attributed to instruction during the school day or outside of the school day SES
tutoring. The reliance on faith-based decision making and publicly taking such
statements of success (or dismal failure) as articles of faith points to the problem of
understanding the differences in how SES operates in practice.
With a clearer understanding to explain how and why there is such a variety
in SES, we can work to improve and replicate successful SES implementations.
Research into networked learning communities indicates that the quality and strength
of professional working relationships is a factor in producing effective teaching and
learning (Crandall et al, 2006). The differences in working relationships, among
schools, districts, SES providers, students and parents for example, involved in
mandatory SES and voluntary SES-type programs can be studied through what
economists call “principal-agent” theory.

7
What is principal-agent (P-A) Theory
The Foundations of P-A Theory
The principal-agent (P-A) relationships and problems revolve around
accountability. The economic theory of P-A relationships developed from the need
to understand the role and behavioral implications of imperfect information on
participants in a contractual relationship (Jensen and Meckling, 1976). Nobel Prize
winning Economist Kenneth Arrow (1985) in his work The Economics of Agency
stated that agency problems occur when the authority is delegated by the principal to
the agent and the welfare of the principal is affected by the choices of the agent. A
principal is defined as having the authority to delegate authority to an agent, reward
or remove an agent. An agent is charged by the principal to carry out a task delegated
to them by the principal. The employer-employee relationship is the most commonly
referenced example of a P-A relationship.
P-A Theory Applied to Education
The five types of accountability problems in educational P-A relationships
are: 1) adverse selection, 2) divergent objectives, 3) information asymmetry, 4) weak
incentives, and 5) limited decision rights problems (Hentschke and Wohlstetter,
2004). Adverse Selection is when principals lack complete information about the
abilities and values of agents and select agents who are not the best choice.
Divergent Objectives problems occur when agents pursue their own interests at the
expense of the goals of the principal; a misalignment of goals of the agent with the
principal. The role of information noted by Pratt and Zeckhauser (1985) and Arrow

8
(1985) is captured in Information Asymmetry problems; these occur when the
principal has insufficient knowledge to assess the performance of agents. Limited
Decision Rights are found in instances where agents are held accountable by
principals for practices and outcomes over which they do not have complete
responsibility. Weak Incentives problems occur when the principal lacks the
decision rights to motivate the provider to act in a manner that supports the values
and goals of the principal.
P-A Theory in Organizational Relationships in SES and SES-type Systems
The literature review in Chapter Two will contain an analysis of current P-A
research as applied to education and government services contracting and serve as a
framework for the analysis of SES and SES-type programs. This study will uncover
and examine principal-agent relationships in SES and SES-type after school tutoring
systems. Examples of P-A relationships include the delegation by the school district
of after school tutoring authority to SES providers and the delegation of authority for
tutoring by parents through parental choice to their selected SES providers.
SES principal-agent Design Problems: Accountability
The five fundamental building blocks of NCLB are results and
accountability, state and local flexibility, a focus on scientifically based research or
“what works”, parental choice, and resource alignment to support high-poverty and
low-performing schools (CCSSO, 2005). However, while the expectations for
accountability are explicit in the form of Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and in
California the Academic Performance Index (API), SES results and accountability

9
systems are lacking at the school, district, and state levels. In their study of SES in
Northwest region states, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory researchers
Saifer and Speth (2007) found that school and district SES evaluation systems were
often lacking and disorganized. The contribution of SES to improved test scores and
better school API rankings is unclear. SES programs may not be furnishing
understandable information and data for parents to distinguish among SES providers
to select the appropriate services for their child.
Relationships between the U.S. Department of Education, districts, schools
and SES providers exhibit characteristics of the economic principal-agent problem.
The design challenge of the principal-agent problem in this SES context is unveiled
in the disincentives districts have to promote SES programs. Unspent Title I funds
reserved for SES that do not find their way into the pockets of SES providers remain
in school district budgets, free to be spent on other district initiatives. Sunderman
(2006) points out the dearth of evidence supporting supplemental services
effectiveness, and the risk of expanding a public policy with questionable benefits
for students but one that comes with a large price tag. As noted in the 2005 Council
of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) report on after school programs, “…the SES
program is still evolving” (CCSSO, 2005).
SES and SES-Type Issues: Student Participation
Anxiety with principal-agent relationships between the SES provider and the
school and district are found in student outcome concerns. One concern is how well
SES programs are aligned with teacher efforts in the classroom. Specific concerns

10
for students are 1) low participation (enrollment) in SES services and 2) low
attendance in SES classes. The principal-agent alignment issue present here is that
the student incentives to attend even more school pale in comparison to incentives
for other non-academic out of the school day activities, such as athletics or an after-
school job. Increased demands on student time and alternative options for how
students could spend their time contributed to lower participation rates. The
availability of SES provider slots for students is often greater than the number of
students who could be enrolled in SES programs by parents. Low participation and
attendance come together to create a situation of SES underutilization that represents
a challenge for both providers and schools. Improve student participation and
improved academic performance may follow.
The NCLB SES programs are distinctly different in how they have changed
the focus from improvement of school wide programs to a focus on individual
student achievement (Sunderman and Kim, 2004). While many students have been
identified as eligible for SES, the percentages of those students that choose to
participate are under 10% (e.g. 6% in Los Angeles, Buffalo, 5% in Chicago in 2002-
03) (Sunderman and Kim, 2004). The students who fall further behind suffer
cumulative learning losses that are more difficult to overcome with the passing of
time. The expected benefit of student participation in SES programs is a tailored
intervention to overcome learning obstacles and erase learning deficits (US DOE
OII, 2004). Other research (Marsh et al, 2005) on SES from California, Georgia, and
Pennsylvania presented similar findings that obstacles to participation in SES were

11
lack of transportation, inconvenient time, inadequate options, student and parent
resistance or lack of interest and lack of understanding by parents.
SES and SES-Type Issues: Information to Parents for Decision Making
The P-A theory and problems are useful for studying how and why parents
encounter both choice and confusion when faced with Supplemental Educational
Services (SES) and SES-type programs. Unclear information by the district about
eligibility and the cost of the services were cited in one SES study from Pittsburgh
Public Schools (Zimmer et al, 2006). SES are designed to provide eligible low-
income parents the same educational support opportunities as affluent families have
had with skilled tutor to give students the extra time and specific attention they need
as a learner (US DOE OII, 2004).
Given increasing parental choice options under NCLB, parents have the
opportunity to choose among the approved SES providers that serve their school
district. The underpinnings of the benefits of parent choice are that public agencies,
such as school districts and their schools, can benefit from emulating free market
behaviors. In this case, an educational free market for extended learning
opportunities would assume the form of many providers of SES services from which
parents could choose (Schneider, 1997). Under NCLB, these state approved SES
providers deliver their services for free to parents. The school district acts as the
agent for reimbursing the SES providers.
In the realm of accountability, parents and providers work together to craft an
agreement for specific achievement goals for the student with a design for evaluating

12
and communicating student progress (Sunderman and Kim, 2004). However, parents
have experienced confusion and mistrust towards these new SES educational
programs for students that were not provided by the school district (ACORN, 2005).
Low parent participation at provider fairs has been cited as one factor behind low
student participation in SES programs (NJ DOE, 2005). It may not be the case that
SES provider fairs are the only appropriate, let alone sufficient, means of
communication with parents.
SES and SES-Type Issue: Student Tutoring Service Providers
The broad definition of who can provide SES and a government generated
increase for demand of SES, has spawned an entire new market opportunity. SES
providers could be non-profit companies, a publicly traded corporation, a non-profit
group, a local community program, colleges or universities, national organizations,
faith-based groups, private and charter schools, and public schools and districts (if
they have not been identified as in need of improvement under AYP provisions)
(NCLB B, 2007; CSSSO, 2005). In California, the range of providers on the
California Department of Education approved SES providers list includes national
organizations such as Kumon, local SES providers, school districts, and the Christ
Church of San Diego. To become an approved SES provider in California,
prospective providers must submit a completed request for application form and earn
a passing score on the application rubric. An SES provider must have its curriculum
and standards aligned with local curriculum and state educational content standards.

13
The instructional methods must also be research-based with a history of
effectiveness.
Under Title I provisions, 20% of Title I funds for districts that are required to
offer SES must be reserved for school choice options (transportation for students
who choose to attend another public school or provision of SES). For SES students,
the districts may choose to spend the per-child Title I allocation or spending on the
actual cost of services. However, should these funds be unspent, the district is able
to divert them for other uses. The controversy falls to the level of funding, how and
who makes these funding decisions, and whether SES funds are well spent. The
development of common accountability practices and responsibilities is an
underdeveloped area.
Non-public sector SES providers find themselves needing to comply with
public education requirements for documentation of student attendance and bearing
startup costs for their programs, as reimbursement occurs after services are delivered
to students. In a competitive market with potentially many SES providers, such
providers must expend resources to build what constitutes brand and program
awareness with the district, schools, and parents. Economic realities intrude on SES
providers as they often desired a guarantee of a minimum number of students to
make the provision of services a profitable enterprise (Sunderman and Kim, 2004).
SES providers recognize that low student participation has a direct tie to
program profitability and viability for the provider. In May 2007, Steven Pines of
the Education Industry Association (EIA) was contacted to gather research on

14
legislation and positions EIA is taking in support of SES. EIA has been active in
supporting SES with its “Campaign to Support Quality Tutoring for America’s
Students” supported by the 27 provider members of the EIA Supplemental Education
Services Coalition. David Mulhausen, Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data
Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, found that in 2002-2003 there was a
participation rate of only 3.9% of the 164,434 eligible students (Mulhausen, 2006).
Confusion and conflict over implementation includes mutual finger pointing by
providers complaining of excessive bureaucratic complexity facing parents who want
to enroll students in SES. Providers added that parent notification of the SES option
by school districts is not timely. Districts countered that some SES providers had
been less than timely and accurate with required student attendance data that triggers
funding. Failure to align SES tutoring programs with the classroom program is a
concern (Borja, 2007).
Unfunded Mandates for Administration and Evaluation for Districts
The recent requirement to provide SES services has revealed discrepancies
between the letter and spirit of the legislation vs. the implementation realities.
School districts are responsible for determining which students are eligible for SES
and notification of parents (CCCSO, 2005). The greatly expanded pool of SES
providers has resulted in an increase of resources needed for program administration
and oversight. Contract administration is a time-consuming administrative task that
can include negotiation of contracts with SES providers, clarifying expectations for
student learning outcomes, rules for use of school facilities, transportation, and

15
payments or reimbursements for SES delivered. Failure to pay adequate attention to
these details can lead to future disagreements (CSSSO, 2005).
Districts must be mindful to monitor SES program eligibility since school
program improvement status may change, thereby impacting the SES eligibility of
students. SES funding requirements to reserve 20% of Title I funding for school
choice options of transportation to another public school or obtaining SES reduced
funding that districts could be use to support district initiatives (Sunderman and Kim,
2004). Other restrictions on funding were that of the 20% of Title I that has been set
aside, 5% of that was to be dedicated to SES. (US DOE Part A, 2002).
The most common problems experienced by school districts included
availability of transportation, unfamiliarity of new programs by parents, competition
with existing programs, student absenteeism, pricing for services, Internet
availability for online providers, and low student enrollment (ACORN, 2005). The
challenges for the parent to compare programs and the need for SES accountability
are compounded by a wild diversity of services. These services that can include one-
on-one tutoring, small group prescriptive skill building, individualized gap
assessment and remediation, small group drill and practice, computer-based
assessment, interactive electronic tutoring on the Internet, and Internet based skill
building with direct feedback (US DOE OII, 2004).
Students participating in SES have an agreement that spells out the specific
goals to be accomplished through use of high-quality research-based practices.
Since districts and schools are better informed than parents about what constitutes

16
such practices, the burden falls upon educators to provide the monitoring and
evaluation of SES providers. It is also in the best interests of the district and schools
seeking to exit program improvement status that their students participating in SES
programs are improving academically. As per NCLB statute, the state bears the
formal responsibility for evaluation of SES providers as captured in Section
1116(e)(4)(D) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 2001
(NCLB) that reads:
develop and implement and publicly report on standards and
techniques for monitoring the quality and effectiveness of the services
offered by approved providers under this subsection, and for
withdrawing approval from providers that fail, for 2 consecutive
years, to contribute to the increasing academic proficiency of
students… (ACORN, 2005)

However, a review of available research indicates that monitoring at the district and
state level is in its infancy and as such can provide little guidance about SES
effectiveness. The need for accountability and understanding of SES effectiveness
is found in a State of Virginia 2005 report reviewing SES. The Virginia Department
of Education concluded that its own results were inconclusive regarding provider
effectiveness, yet detailed how Virginia entered into a flexibility agreement with the
U.S. Department of Education to allow SES services to be provided for schools in
year one of program improvement (vs. the statutory second year) (Potter and Ross,
2005).
Since per- pupil costs are explicitly identified in SES contracts, districts and
schools must wrestle with the cost-benefit equation. Are more costly per-pupil

17
programs more effective? Will the more expensive programs limit the number of
qualified students who can participate? The largest provider of private Title I
services is Sylvan which charges $2,520 per student, near the high end of the
industry norm of $1,000-$3,000 per student. Sylvan and districts that have
contracted with the company cite instances of student success. In one case from
1996, all students enrolled in a Sylvan algebra class passed the Texas Assessment of
Achievement of Skills (TASS) with a 100% passing rate whereas the 1995 passing
rate was only 30% (Mathews, 2000). In his descriptions of the principal-agent
model, University of Sydney Professor Zhou (2002) would explain this by stating
that the greater fiscal incentive would motivate the SES agent to exert greater effort
towards achievement of the goal of improved student achievement.

Statement of the Problem
However well crafted and carefully detailed the SES legislation may be,
those who are entrusted to put policy into practice are not behaving in the way the
legislation intended them to behave. 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. Supplemental Educational Services (SES) was deemed to be
important or very important by less than 10% of the districts surveyed (CEP, 2007).
However, 85% of surveyed districts provided before or after school, weekend, or
summer programs of academic instruction and were providing extra academic

18
instruction to low-achieving students. Of these districts, 78% attributed success to
the outside of the school day programs, while 92% gave credit to the extra
instruction for low achieving students. How can we explain differences in outside
of the school day academic programs that are mandated (SES programs under
NCLB) and those that are willingly provided (SES-type programs by schools)? How
can mandated SES programs be held in low regard while SES-type programs with
similar goals of serving low achieving students outside of the school day are so
highly regarded?
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) and SES-Type schools. In
both cases, this study will examine the P-A relationships of participants within the
three primary SES elements – individualized instruction, provider accountability, and
student participation. To create and enhance Title I Supplemental Educational
Services (SES) programs to improve student achievement, it is meaningful to know
more about the nature of Supplemental Education Services (SES), the
implementation of SES policy at the district and school level, and the relationships
between the latter and the implementation of the SES legislation.

19
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to compare Title I schools that are required to
provide Supplemental Educational Services (SES) with Title I schools that
voluntarily offer SES-type programs and the role of principal-agent relationships in
these implementations. Comparisons between these two contexts will help develop
understanding of principal-agent relationships among players in the three primary
areas of provider accountability, instructional techniques used, and student
participation in SES and SES-Type programs.

Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
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 monitor and evaluate accountability for student learning?

3. How does the principal-agent relationship explain how SES and SES-type
providers manage student participation?

These three research questions are the foundation for design of methodology and
data collection, analysis and discussion of the data. For each research question,
information on the findings and results will be presented in the conclusions and
recommendations summary section of the study.

20
Importance of the Study
As the NCLB 2014 student proficiency deadline approaches, more districts
and Title I schools face the prospect of failing to meet their AYP objectives and
being identified as needing improvement. SES providers face their own challenges
with the expectation of improving student achievement through the commitment of
considerable amounts of public funding to SES. Hess and Finn (2007) go so far as to
suggest that SES is unworkable as presently designed. Before writing off SES as a
failure, this study into SES programs represents an opportunity to clarify how to
engineer more effective SES programs through the theory of principal-agent
relationships.
Keeping student achievement first and foremost, the importance of this study
parallels the reference from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation
and Improvement to help improve implementation and accelerate the learning curve
(US DOE OII, 2004). In the long run, this SES research also is a proxy for the
added foray into the use of public funding for private providers of education and may
offer guidance for the implementation of vouchers with private and non-public
providers. Insights into the principal-agent issues of a public education system
defined by increasing public-private sector partnerships may be discovered. The
discoveries on how SES should operate or how it can be improved are important as
the program grows with greater state and parent awareness (Sunderman, 2006). The
results of this research can inform Title I schools that wish to avoid falling into

21
needing improvement, understanding effective SES-type programs, and improving
SES programs.

Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
Finite amounts of time required a limit on the scope of research. While the
SES provisions of NCLB apply nationwide, this study focused on schools in
California. To obtain information about parent experiences with SES to help answer
the research questions, the source of our information about parents was school level
and district level administrators who are most likely to have the greatest contact and
understanding of parent concerns. More specifically, the most informed individuals
about parents would be the teachers, school administrators, and the district level
administrator responsible for SES.

Definition of Key Terms and Related Concepts
The following are terms and their definitions utilized in this research, and
provide additional context for the study.
Adverse Selection: One of the five types of principal-agent problems. This
occurs when principals lack complete information about the abilities and values of
agents and select agents who are not the best choice.
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP): Each state determines if its public schools
are making “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) toward 100% proficiency in Language

22
Arts and Math by the year 2014. AYP proficiency goals rise steadily until the goal
of 100% proficiency in 2014.
Divergent Objectives: One of the five types of principal-agent problems.
This occurs when the agent pursues their own interests at the expense of the goals of
the principal or where there is a misalignment of goals of the agent with the
principal.
Information Asymmetry: One of the five types of principal-agent problems.
This occurs when the principal has insufficient knowledge to assess the performance
of agents.
Limited Decision Rights: One of the five types of principal-agent problems.
This occurs when agents are held accountable by principals for practices and
outcomes over which they do not have complete responsibility.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The name give to the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) signed into law by President Bush
on January 8, 2002 distinguished by increased provisions for accountability, teacher
quality, and parent choice in the form of SES and school transfer options.
Outside of the School Day: Refers to before school, after school,
intersession, off track, summer sessions, or weekends when tutoring services such as
SES may be offered.
Parental Choice: The rights of parents to choose either an alternative school
or SES if their child is in a Title I school in need of improvement (SINI).

23
The principal-agent (P-A) Problem: An economic theory that describes
problems that arise under conditions of incomplete and asymmetric information
when a principal hires an agent, delegating authority to the agent to complete a task
for the principal. The five types of accountability problems in educational P-A
relationships as 1) adverse selection, 2) divergent objectives, 3) information
asymmetry, 4) weak incentives, and 5) limited decision rights problems.
Proficient: Proficiency is measured in demographic and statistically
significant subgroups that include of race, disability, and English language status.
Should a school fail to achieve AYP proficiency goals in any of those categories for
two consecutive years, the school is labeled a “school in need of improvement”
(SINI).
Program Improvement (PI): The definition of a SINI under the California
accountability system.
School In Need of Improvement (SINI): Defined by NCLB as schools that
have been unable to achieve state defined Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goals for
two consecutive years.
Supplemental Educational Services (SES): NCLB acronym that describes
free outside of the regular school day academic tutoring in reading and math for Title
I students from low income families. Required to be offered in Title I schools in need
of improvement (SINI).

24
SES-Type Programs: Academic programs voluntarily offered outside of the
school day by Title I schools that are not designated as a school in need of
improvement (SINI) or program improvement (PI).
Title I : With a budget of approximately $12.7 billion dollars (2005) for
elementary and secondary education, Title I funds are allocated through formulas
based on census poverty estimates and cost of education in each state. Title I
legislation is designed to provide support to districts and schools with a large
percentage of poor children to help them meet state academic standards.
Weak Incentives: One of the five types of principal-agent problems. This
occurs when the principal lacks the decision rights to motivate the provider to act in
a manner that supports the values and goals of the principal.

Organization of Dissertation
Chapter One has provided an overview to this study of the principal-agent
relationships in Supplemental Educational Services (SES) and SES-Type programs.
Chapter Two is a review of the literature of the current state of affairs with regard to
SES covering the background, intent, along with knowledge gaps, unanswered
questions, and problems with implementation. Anchoring research in Chapter Two
serves as the bedrock for the research questions of this study. Chapter Three
describes the research methodology that was used to explore the answers and frame
data collection activities to address the three research questions. Chapter Four
represents an analysis of the data collected with a presentation of the major findings

25
and overall themes that may emerge from the analysis. Finally, Chapter Five
represents the capstone of the study with a discussion of implications for SES and
SES-Type programs and the participants involved.

26
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review

Introduction
The noble legislative intent of NCLB to improve student achievement for the
students with the greatest need has given birth to an entire industry of SES providers.
However, as with any seedlings in a forest of opportunity, not all trees will grow to
the sky. Some will falter. Some will thrive. The question is under what conditions
we can expect SES to successfully thrive to deliver on the promise of improved
student achievement. The research that anchors this study indicates that three
elements of individualized instruction, provider accountability, and student
participation are fundamental to successful SES and SES-Type programs that deliver
improved student academic achievement.
This literature review chapter is organized as follows. It will describe the
global economic challenges and the role public education will play in serving the
national interests. The role of NCLB and the design behind SES to improve
academic achievement for students in low performing schools will be detailed. The
review will continue with a discussion of how the planned SES design has varied
with actual implementation and practice. A framework based on the economic
theory known as “principal-agent” relationship problems in comparing SES and
SES-type programs will be introduced. Finally, anchoring research will highlight the
principal-agent issues in the three elements of SES and SES-Type programs of

27
instructional strategies and practices, accountability of providers, and student
participation.

Rising to the Challenge: The Role of Education in National Competitiveness
It takes fifteen years to train a scientist or advanced engineer, starting
from when that young man or woman first gets hooked on science and
math in elementary school.
(Friedman, 2006)

The wealth of nations is increasingly being defined by the creativity,
innovation and knowledge of its people. Futurist Thomas Friedman notes in his
book The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century that the design
of the education system of the early 20
th
century created an unbalanced education
system. Public schools in wealthy neighborhoods provided an education that was
innovative and creative while students at the worst schools received simply bread-
and-butter basics (Friedman, 2006). The world of low skill-high paying jobs is
disappearing. The future for a poorly educated populace is economically bleak and
devoid of opportunity. It is akin to bringing a bat to a football game for students to
be unprepared in a workplace increasingly dominated by knowledge and
information. They will be unable to play the game because they are simply not
equipped to do so.
Competitiveness of American students in relation to their peers around the
world has garnered increasing attention from business and government. In response
to this challenge to prepare better educated students, Step 7 from the Tough Choices

28
or Tough Times report from the National Center on Education and the Economy
calls for giving support to the students who need it most. This increased student
support is proposed in the form of schools that are open early in the morning until
late at night, offering a wide range of supportive services for students and their
families (NCEE, 2007). Conclusions such as these support the development of SES
and SES-type services in public schools.
Incentives and Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged
NCLB requires schools to look at students no longer as a single population,
but as subgroups. These subgroups include ethnic, racial, low income, special
education and English Language Learner (ELL). In a statistically significant
subgroup, at least 95% of students must be tested. The “stick” in the proverbial
carrot-and-stick scenario is sanctions for schools that fail to make Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP) targets for two consecutive years and requires schools that receive
Title I funding be labeled “in need of improvement”. Such schools must also offer
parental choice options of transfer to another school within the district (that is not in
need of improvement) or Supplemental Educational Services (SES), such as after
school tutoring (Marsh et al, 2005; Mantel, 2005; NCLB, 2001).
In a 2003 RAND article by Stecher et al (2003), there are those that believe
lawmakers who created the provision for SES in NCLB realized that schools might
not be able to solve their own problems and that parents needed to be provided
alternatives. SES were created to fill this void of unmet student needs; it is this
attention to these students who faced the greatest danger of marginalization in the

29
education system that NCLB supporters believe constitutes the greatest contribution
of the law to education (Marsh, 2005).

The principal-agent (P-A) Theory in Education
“An agency relationship is said to exist between two (or more) parties
when one, designated as the agent, acts on behalf of another,
designated the principal.”
Daniel Levinthal (1988) on agency
models of organizations
The Foundations of P-A Theory
The core of principal-agent (P-A) relationships is accountability. P-A in the
research literature may also use similar categorizations such as agency theory or
modeling, the theory of incentives, the economics of incentives and incomplete
information, the principal-agent problem, or the director-provider problem. The
economic theory of P-A relationships evolved from a desire to understand the role
and behavioral implications of imperfect information on participants in a contractual
relationship (Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Arrow, 1984). The first participant is the
principal who has the authority to reward or remove the agent. The second
participant is the agent who is contracted by the principal to carry out a task. The
most commonly cited example in P-A discussions is the employer-employee
relationship. Issues in the P-A relationship stem from the decentralization of
authority. The principal delegates responsibility to the agent to accomplish the goals
of the principal (Zhou, 2002; Ferris, 1992; Sappington, 1991). The principal-agent
challenge is that the principal often has imperfect information as to whether the agent

30
has carried out the terms of the agreement, given that the agent has their own self-
interests and goals that may not be aligned with that of the principal.
P-A Applied to Organizations
The building blocks in P-A relationships are information and economic
incentives (Pratt and Zeckhauser, 1985). Wharton School of Business Profession
Daniel Levinthal (1988) broadens the use of P-A theory in his work on agency
models in organizations. His research studied the behavior of an organization of
self-interested agents with goals that conflicted with the principals in a world of
incomplete information. Along the lines of the Hess and Finn (2007) observation
that Federal programs rarely function as designed from the outset, Levinthal (1988)
proposes that the repetition of the agency relationship over time will improve
efficiency. Over time more information about the P-A organizational relationship
will reveal itself and work out issues of uncertainty and dysfunctional behavior. This
stands in contrast to the snapshot in time point of view of Hess and Finn (2007) that
SES is unworkable in its present form. This research represents the P-A
organizational research foundations for the study of the SES and SES-type
organizational relationships and systems in this paper.
Research on P-A Theory in Education and Government Services
The theory of the principal-agent problems of accountability has been applied
to education and government services. Research on school based decision making
from the P-A perspective has been conducted by Political Scientist James Ferris
(1992) at the University of Southern California. His research applied a P-A

31
framework to study areas for growth in education performance and the costs to
school accountability by delegation of authority. As stated by Ferris (1992), public
education can be viewed as a series of principal-agent relationships. Examples can
start from the Federal level where education authority and responsibility is delegated
to the states down to where the district office delegates authority to the school site.
Research by Liz Gordon (1995) from the University of Canterbury on the
application of P-A theory to reforming public schools describes the role of self-
interest and goal misalignment. Gordon makes the distinction between private sector
motivations of profit and public sector motivations where, free of the mechanisms of
a market economy, the self-interest of the individual prevails. This research presents
an opportunity for the study of organizational relationships among outside private
sector and for profit SES providers and their interaction with the traditional
monopolistic public sector K-12 education organizations. An understanding of how
the motivation of profit in SES schools or the self-interest of the individual in SES-
type schools shapes the P-A relationship can shine a light on how and where the SES
after school tutoring system can be improved.
Criticisms of P-A Applied to Education and Government Services
Ferris notes two specific criticisms of P-A theory applied to contracting for
services in public education. The first is by DeHoog (1990) that questions the degree
of competition in contractual relationships in public education. DeHoog explores the
question of how a government contracting system can be designed to promote the
goals of the public agency given the three conditions of 1) characteristics of the

32
external environment (e.g. the number of service suppliers), 2) availability of
organizational resources (e.g. staff support, time, and program knowledge), and 3)
the level of uncertainty (e.g. whether service outputs are generating the expected
outcomes). This research has application to this study and the use of outside SES
after school tutoring providers contracting with the school district. The improvement
of efficiency and effectiveness are more easily monitored in “hard” service areas,
such as garbage collection. However, such measures are more challenging in “soft”
service areas, such as education or in the case of this study, Title I SES after school
tutoring programs.
The second criticism is by McCubbins, Noll and Weingast (1987) who take
issue with whether public sector P-A relationships are neat and tidy singular
principal relationships or involve the more complex situation of multiple principals.
Considering groups such as citizens or parents, as a singular group with common
goals may not be entirely accurate. While many agree with the need to improve
student achievement, common agreement on how to measure and accomplish these
goals is less clear. The existence of multiple principals in the P-A relationship serves
to add complexity to this picture.
This study will reveal that these P-A organizational relationships exist in
contracting for Title I SES and SES-type after school tutoring programs; P-A (and
the criticisms of the theory applied to public sector education) can be used to study
areas for growth and improvement of SES. To quote from DeHoog (1990) on P-A
organizational relationships, “To understand how contracting really works, we must

33
look beyond simply the stated preferences and rational choices of the organization
and recognize that individuals and their relationships across the organization
boundaries also help explain the success or failure of public purchasing”.
P-A and the Unique Characteristics of Education Organizations
Princeton Economics Professor Avinash Dixit (2002) has researched P-A
incentives and organizations in the public sector. Research by Dixit highlighted
those special characteristics of public sector agencies that explain why they are in the
public sector in the first place. Dixit cites five elements that make education unique
when applying P-A theory: 1) multiple goals, 2) multiple principals, 3) multiple
periods, 4) lack of competition, and 5) motivated agents.
Multiple goals can be found in education by examining items that fall into the
domain of education. These include the basic skills of literacy, math, and science,
development of the physical, social, and emotional needs of children, and the
teaching of citizenship and responsibility to name just a few of these multiple goals.
In education, multiple principals, or what can be called stakeholders with sometimes
conflicting goals, include children, parents, teachers, unions, taxpayers, and local
employers and community members. An example of one goal conflict is the desire
by taxpayers to minimize costs to themselves and the desire of teacher unions for
increased salary. Time in service is a factor represented in multiple periods.
Teachers often have careers spanning many years. In this case, long term career
concerns such as skills to master the teaching craft may take precedence over P-A
incentives for short term changes in behavior and subsequent improvement in

34
outcomes. While examples of parochial, private and charter school competitors
exist, the local school system is generally characterized by the lack of competition.
Finally, the nature of education may attract people who enter the profession for
idealistic reasons or the opportunity to improve the lives of children. The presence
of motivated agents, driven by factors other than profit, is a unique distinguishing
factor in education.
These characteristics, that are common to K-12 public education, can result in
conflicting agreements on process and outcomes. As summarized by Dixit, “To sum
up, the system of public education is a multi-task, multi-principal, multi-period, near-
monopoly organization with vague and poorly observable goals” (Dixit, 2002). This
background lays the foundation for study of P-A organizational relationships when
outside SES tutoring providers interact with K-12 public education. Dixit (2002)
comments that performance based solutions may be inappropriate and even naïve in
a government agency such as education. This study will help with the understanding
of the role of SES competition and performance incentives where idealism and
professionalism have traditionally been the primary motivators for educators in K-12
public education.
Professors Hentchke and Wohlstetter (2004) from the University of Southern
California and Ferris (1992) describe the five types of accountability problems in
educational P-A relationships as 1) adverse selection, 2) divergent objectives, 3)
information asymmetry, 4) weak incentives, and 5) limited decision rights problems.
Adverse selection describes the situation where principals do not have complete

35
information about the agent’s ability to perform. In this study, the adverse selection
problem is found when parents (the principals) must select from an array of tutoring
providers (the agents). Divergent objectives refer to how principal goals may not
align with agent self-interests. The profit motive of SES providers and the student
achievement goals for schools and districts is one example of divergent objectives in
this study. Related to adverse selection is the problem of information asymmetry
where the principal has insufficient knowledge to assess the performance of agents.
This occurs in this study in how parents make the choices as to which SES provider
can best provide for the needs of their child. Weak incentives are present as schools
and districts work to have SES providers improve student learning and SES with
providers who must in turn compel students to attend tutoring sessions. Finally, the
disconnect between SES provider accountability for improved student performance
and the school, district and parent goals of better student performance is an
expression of the limited decision rights problem where agents are held accountable
but do not possess full authority or accountability to ensure outcomes.
The principal-agent (P-A) Theory and Organizational Relationships in SES and SES-
Type Programs
The two systems to be studied are 1) Title I schools that are required to
provide SES and 2) Title I schools that choose to provide SES-type services. The
literature review will show that some districts have not willingly embraced providing
SES. Lack of cooperation with SES providers and disincentives to cooperate, such
as the redirection of Title I funds to SES, impede the effectiveness of SES.

36
Illustrative of the principal-agent conflicts in SES are the differing objectives and
incentives among the players as detailed by Hess and Finn (2007). One group views
SES as a first step to full voucher program and sees competition for students as a
force that can drive low performing Title I schools to improve. Yet another faction
views SES as a vehicle to deliver extra instruction to students in low performing
schools in a way that does not punish the school or students. Finally, SES is seen as
a budding industry for profit and non-profit providers alike to deliver tutoring
services to at-risk students.
While all groups will work to claim the moral high ground of doing what is
best for students, even in this tightly delimited example, the multiple incentives of
profit, competition and student achievement can be seen pulling SES in multiple
directions. In contrast to the lack of cooperation, Sappington (1991) in his
exploration of incentives in principal-agent relationships makes two observations
that are relevant in our principal-agent analysis of Title I schools with required SES
and voluntary SES. The first is that the number of principals may explain the actions
of the agents. For example, while an SES provider agent may be funded from
federal Title I funds and apply to the state to become an approved provider, the agent
must work locally with the district for local support and facilities if needed. The
second aspect of the problem is how most studies of incentive problems avoid issues
such as worker loyalty and pride that can be critical to the success of an enterprise.
This opens the door to study how people and systems perform when
intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to provide SES. Will one SES or SES-Type

37
system perform more efficiently and effectively over the other? Sociologist Mark
Granovetter (1985) supports this look at the social structure in what he terms the
economic analysis of social institutions. The socio-cultural context of work matters.
How does a required SES delivery system composed of third party agents operate in
comparison to an voluntary SES delivery system where the agents a socially
embedded as part of the school?

SES Challenges: Disconnect from the Teacher and School, Instructional Program
The American education system has been observed to be not lacking in
programs or initiatives but in fact burdened by an overabundance that may conflict
with each other in a discordant chaotic symphony (NCEE, 2007). NCLB mandates
“highly qualified teachers”, defined as having a bachelor’s degree, be licensed or
certified by the state, and demonstrate that they know the subject they teach. For
new teachers, highly qualified status can be earned by passing a state test or having a
college major in the subject they will teach (Mantel, 2005). This high standard is not
found in the requirements for SES providers. There is an irony in placing the
students most in need of academic assistance with SES providers who could be less
qualified than their regularly assigned classroom teachers. Student need disconnects
with provider skill further points to the need to know how SES and SES-Type
providers determine and communicate their effectiveness to parents and districts.

38
Communications for Understanding and Commitment: What Gets Data Shared?
Section 1116(e)(3)(A) of NCLB (2001) specifically defines the
communication that is to occur between the SES provider and parents, developed in
partnership with the local educational agency. Data communicated includes a
specific statement of achievement goals, how student progress will be measured and
a timetable for improving student achievement. The power of communication is
reflected in how state reporting of schools in need of improvement explains parent
behavior in terms of choice programs, such as SES or transfer to another school
(Stecher et al, 2003). However, to borrow wisdom from the Irish playwright George
Bernard Shaw, ‘the single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it
has taken place”. Both SES and school education professionals are at odds with each
other about engaging those processes that would allow them to work together (Borja,
2007). A cloud of confusion may also exist in communication between non-educator
parents and SES providers, providing the basis for our research question on parent-
SES provider communications. The quality and value of parent involvement is
dampened if the parent does not understand what is happening to and for their child.
Timeliness of the communication of data is an issue between parents and SES
providers. The state test used to determine if a school has met its AYP targets is
given in the spring with test results usually being returned in late summer. The late
arrival of test data has been problematic for notification of parents in a timely
manner to avail themselves of the parent choice SES option before the start of the
school year (Stecher et al, 2003; Borja, 2006). On parental choice, Stecher et al.

39
(2003) argue that a proper communications process would allow parents adequate
time for decision making, adequate information about options, and the choices of
either schools open to transfer or effective SES providers. Complexity is added to the
communications issue if a parent does not speak English or is unfamiliar with
navigating the education bureaucracy to find the information they need.

Monitoring SES Effectiveness: Is Anyone Listening?
State departments of education have been entrusted with evaluating outside
providers of SES. However, most states do not have experience with this level of
responsibility on a statewide scale (Mantel, 2005). A lack of staff, process, and
evaluation criteria for SES providers contributes to the inability of the state to
perform proper monitoring. In a variation of the heading for this section, if an SES
provider were failing to meet its obligations, would anyone know? SES providers
speaking through the Education Industry Association (EIA) have made
recommendations to Congress that include requiring that funding be provided for
districts and states to provide oversight and administration of SES (Borja, 2007). In
terms of a principal-agent problem, this is an example of where the interests of the
state and district align with that of the agent SES providers. However, a conflict and
misalignment that characterizes the principal-agent problem is seen in other EIA
recommendations to require districts to spend all funding reserved for SES programs
or roll unspent funding into SES budget for the following year. Current legislation
allows districts to keep retain SES funds and use them for purposes other than SES.

40
Equal but Not Equal: The Definition of Proficient
While NCLB requires that students achieve proficiency, each state has the
freedom to determine the academic standards used, the assessment instruments used,
and the cutoff points that determine proficiency (Mantel, 2005). The goal of all
students reaching proficiency by 2014 has each state establishing benchmark
proficiency goals, known as annual measurable objectives (AMOs). The AMO is the
measuring stick held up to schools to ascertain whether schools or districts are
successfully making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) or if they are found wanting
(Marsh et al, 2005). Such inconsistency in definition dilutes the comparability of
what it means to be proficient when comparing states.
Consistent with this inconsistent definition of what it means to be proficient,
states are held responsible for the development of criteria to 1) approve SES
providers and 2) remove SES providers, and 3) supply school districts with a list of
approved providers (Zimmer et al, 2006; NCLB A, 2001). However, additional
variation has been found to creep into the faithful implementation of these
accountability measures across states. States have been found to differ in their
interpretation of standards based accountability and NCLB. Capacity at the state
level to manage and monitor these NCLB accountability provisions and the related
SES program requirements has permitted variation in implementation (Marsh et al,
2005). These variations flow downwards to districts and schools, compounding the
challenge of faithful implementation.

41
Let the Market Decide: Who Gets Served and What Gets Provided
The variety and quality of SES services to meet student needs are a concern if
the states, district and parents do not have the data to differentiate among providers.
While it may be probable that a richer variety of SES providers and services could be
found in an urban vs. rural setting, the more pressing question is the decision on what
SES services to provide (e.g. services to English Language Learner (ELL) or Special
Education students, online classes vs. instructor led classes). It could be that letting
the free market decide what is provided and which students are served means that
services are provided to the students who are easiest and least expensive to service.
This is another instance of the principal-agent problem. Intensive instruction and
consumption of tutoring time by the neediest students, such as special education and
English Language Learners, may not be met.
Problems in this area resemble economic supply and demand issues in the
form of whether there are insufficient SES seats to accommodate all eligible students
or if there is an adequate variety of SES to meet student needs (Stecher, 2003). A
variation of this which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg scenario plays out when
SES providers will provide services only is there is an enrollment to make it
economically viable. However, if parents do not know about the provider, they may
not enroll.
The exploration leads to questions about the individualized instructional
practices of SES services. RAND researchers (Juvonen et al, 2004) studying
challenges in American middle schools and SES services (e.g. after-school programs,

42
remedial classes, tutoring) concluded that it was not known which forms of support
provided the largest payoff for students. If the students are not present, they cannot
learn. Mental presence counts as much as physical presence. RAND research
(March et al, 2006) analyzing after-school programs found that younger students
found it difficult to sit through extra hours of instruction after a full day of school.
Issues of student ambition, desire and SES structure are critical components to
learning success (Stecher, 2003). In this study, after school tutoring structure refers
to Title I schools with SES type programs that are integrated into their school
program compared with the external provider SES programs in low-performing Title
I schools. Incentives and how student effort is motivated between these schools are
factors in successful learning.
A quote from a RAND SES study (Marsh et al, 2005) alludes to the value of
a student tutoring services that are viewed as part of the school. To quote from
superintendents in the study, “the most common explanation for underutilization
given by superintendents with eligible students was that parents and students
preferred to utilize existing tutoring programs on campus; about half reported this”
(Marsh et al, 2005). Knowledge about individual student needs and the data to meet
those subject area needs should also be more available in SES type programs that are
tightly aligned and part of the school.

43
What We Want To Know: Connecting to the Research Questions
What We Know About SES-type Programs
Where Title I schools in the third year of program improvement are required
to offer SES, there are Title I schools not in program improvement that voluntarily
offer after school tutoring; for this study, these schools are referred to as SES-type
schools. There is some research on what is known about SES type programs, which
may include before school, after school, intersession, summer school, and programs
that may go by different names, such as out-of-school. One finding is that the
voluntary nature of student participation means that the students who select to
participate are different than those who do not (Zimmer et al, 2006). On the issue of
student SES participation, research by the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO, 2006) indicated that only 12-19% of eligible students took part in NCLB SES
programs nationwide. For these types of programs, waiting lists are often not the
case as available slots exceed the demand (Zimmer et al, 2006). This is important
because it could help set expectations of what student participation levels could be.
The desire for SES providers to have near 100% participation for program viability
and profitability may stand in conflict with the reality of how students choose to
participate.
Wrapped into the decision to participate are the data and influences schools
and parents bring to the enrollment process. However, research by Schwendiman
and Fager (1999) from Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL) has
produced after-school program data that indicates a growing need for quality after-

44
school programs. One interpretation to resolve how data can indicate low after-
school participation while other data shows increasing demand could depend on
parent motivation to use SES as child care. Confusion among parents about program
purpose may be impacting SES program effectiveness. SES type programs taught by
teachers at the school are viewed as a legitimate extension of school by parents and
students.
Quality SES and SES-Type Programs: What do they look like?
Effective schools researcher Lawrence Lezotte (1991) identified seven
correlates of effective schools. These are a safe and orderly environment, a climate
of high expectations for success, instructional leadership, a clear and focused
mission, opportunity to learn and time on task, frequent monitoring of student
progress, and home school relations. For quality SES and SES-type programs, it
would be expected that these elements also be present. Previous extended learning,
after school, before and after-the-bells Federal programs have included some or all of
these elements in their objectives. Jeffrey Cohen, president of Sylvan Education
Solutions, a national provider of supplemental tutoring services, describes six
qualities that would characterize the most effective supplemental programs. These
qualities are 1) a strong tutor-parent-teacher connection, 2) experienced providers, 3)
proven methods of instruction, 4) customized instruction, 5) measurable results of
time on task, and 6) a positive learning environment (Cohen, 2003). NCLB SES
legislation using similar terms confirms the value of all of the above. Of these six
qualities, only positive learning environment, which includes student self-

45
confidence, motivation and joy of learning, is not mentioned in NCLB SES
legislation.

Anchoring the Study to Existing Research: Rationale for Research Questions
P-A Implications in Instructional Strategies: Improving Student Achievement
Vergari (2007) notes that instructional delivery of SES covers a broad
spectrum that includes one-on-one tutoring, small group instruction, computer based
instruction which can occur at home, school community centers, libraries or SES
provider facilities. The questions raised here include those of expectations and
effectiveness of instructional practice and how location for SES services impact
effectiveness and participation. SES changes the focus to the individual with dollars
following the student vs. a comprehensive school-wide reform approach that benefits
all students. Fragmentation and dilution of Title I services is an area of concern. One
district “response” has been the shouldering of the administrative burden of parent
communication about SES and negotiating contracts with each provider.
With so much funding at stake, more significant is the response of some
districts to become providers themselves (Sunderman and Kim, 2004). As for what
is best for improving student achievement, little is known about the instructional
practices let alone effective instructional practices that may be found among
providers. Instructional practices may include, independent study, homework
assistance, one-on-one or home based tutoring, or a scripted approach to direct
instruction. Learning environment, what students are actually being taught, whether

46
the SES program links to the curriculum and instruction that occurs during the
regular school day, and SES instructor preparedness and qualifications are also
contributing factors in the principal-agent relationship. Inconsistencies exist in the
highly qualified teacher requirements of NCLB and the lack of comparable
accountability and standards for SES instructors (Burch, 2007).
Vergari (2007) notes that with regard to districts as SES providers, we would
expect to find in high performing Title I schools that provide SES-type services the
similar advantages described by districts. Exploring this advantage at the school site,
we may expect to find that this embedded relationship of teacher, data on the student
and what goes on in the classroom is a distinct competitive advantage and ingredient
to program success when compared with SES programs.
The principal-agent (P-A) Implications with Instructional Strategies:
• Divergent Objectives: Meeting of individual student’s needs may require
specialized knowledge, such as that required to work with special needs or
English Language Learner populations. These skills may be in limited
supply or available at a premium. The cost in time and money for this talent
to meet student needs conflicts with the need to operate a profitable SES
tutoring enterprise. These special needs populations stand to be underserved
or ignored altogether.
• Information asymmetry: SES providers may lack the information to diagnose
and meet the student tutoring needs. This information may be readily
available within a school district, but less so to outsiders. SES providers may

47
be at a disadvantage on curriculum and instructional practices used during the
school day; such information would be useful to align SES after school
tutoring with what happens during the school day.
• Limited decision rights: As agents, SES providers and tutors may lack the
authority, responsibility and influence with students which yield the most
effective results with SES tutoring. Teachers who are after school tutors
such as in SES-type programs may have greater decision rights at their
disposal (e.g. influence and relationship with the students, the support of
district discipline policy).
P-A Implications in Accountability: Measuring and Demonstrating Effectiveness
University of Albany associate professor and researcher Sandra Vergari
(2007) has studied the interaction of Federal intervention in the form of market-
based education policy applied to Supplemental Educational Services (SES). Since
each state has been left to its own definition for Proficiency under NCLB AYP, a
common standard for comparisons of accountability does not exist. This extends to
oversight and accountability of SES providers. The absence or weakness of SES
accountability measures weakens the information parents could use to make
informed decisions about SES providers for their child. Questions that arise include:
What information do parents receive from SES providers to help them select the
services that meet the needs of their child? How do SES providers distinguish
themselves from other providers? What data and information do SES providers use
to demonstrate their effectiveness (e.g. test data, satisfaction surveys, etc.)? What

48
information gaps exist in the SES marketplace for parents? How do districts,
teachers, and schools filter or influence what SES information is communicated to
parents and explain parental choice?
Provider monitoring and evaluation of SES providers was underdeveloped, as
was the communication plan between the SES provider and the classroom teacher to
coordinate efforts to support what was happening in the classroom for the student.
The multiplicity of providers was a challenge for the district that needed to manage
the location and schedule of provided services. Sunderman and Kim (2004) note that
using pre and post testing to evaluate SES program effectiveness is the weakest
foundation for a cause and effect link. However, without clear research to
understand why students and parents are not availing themselves of SES,
understanding of SES policy in relation to effectiveness and how to improve it
remain hypothetical unknowns and speculative (Burch, 2007).
Hinting at his findings in the title of his article “Restricted Choices, Limited
Options”, Fusarelli (2007) illustrates how the hoped for free market pressures and
resulting expected reforms in education through parental choice have been uneven.
In the final analysis, Fusarelli concludes that in spite of the considerable effort
expended by legislators and school districts who must execute the SES provisions, it
is unclear whether supplementary educational services are improving educational
opportunities for disadvantaged students in schools in need of improvement. A July
2007 federal SES report of nine schools in a SES metastudy of 9 urban districts
found that in five of the 9 did show student gains in reading and math, two districts

49
showed no change, and the final two districts had too small a sample size to produce
valid results (US DOE, 2007).
The principal-agent (P-A) Implications in Accountability:
• Divergent Objectives: SES providers (agents) pursuing their own objectives
at the expense of Parents and the school district (principals). Examples of
this were the marketing efforts to compete for after school tutoring
enrollment dollars and inattention to whether SES improved educational
opportunities for students.
• Information Asymmetry: Parents and the school district lack information to
be able to distinguish between good and bad SES providers. The information
asymmetry problem is exacerbated by having multiple SES providers
(agents) that provide information to distinguish themselves from the
competition; however, information provided by SES providers is not
standardized across providers.
• Adverse Selection: Parents (principals) do not possess adequate information
about SES providers (agents) to make the best choice of after school tutoring
service for their child.
P-A Implications in Student Participation: Improving the Odds of Success
Noted obstacles to improving SES participation for students and parents
include location and transportation issues, a parent information gap that may lead to
confusion about SES providers, district and school bureaucratic barriers, and
provider requirements for minimum enrollments before provision of services for

50
profitability. (Vergari, 2007). SES policy design is based on the assumptions that
parents are motivated and are prepared to make informed decisions to select an SES
provider for their child. Vergari details how schools are not passive actors. A
federal study of SES school districts found that high levels of engagement and
support by teachers and school Principals improved SES participation rates. A
district and school are trustworthy agents in the SES relationship. Will the district
and school act in the best interests of the student by supporting parent use of SES
programs or will the district and school, viewing SES providers as unqualified, a
competitor for Title I dollars, or a threat, fail to support SES programs?
The change in Title I focus with SES on individual improvement instead of
the historical whole school one-size-fits-all reform has heightened the principal-
agent frictions with competition for students and their tutoring dollars. An example
of a principal-agent temptation is found in an SES study of implementation
challenges in the Northwest Region by Saifer and Spether (2007) the question was if
providers should be permitted to offer incentives to entice students and parents to use
their services. Some students have avoided SES participation out of pride, not
wanting to be identified as low income or targeted as low achieving. Student time
dedicated to SES is also in competition with existing activities, such as other after
school programs, sports or tutoring activities. (Vergari, 2007) In findings by
Sunderman and Kim (2004), student SES participation was believed to be impacted
because services were offered outside of the regular school day and at a location
other than their school.

51
The student has a wide variety of activities to choose from for outside the
school day, such as sports or other extracurricular activities. We would perhaps
expect to find in high performing Title I schools either a combination of these
activities for the student and perhaps even the parent that makes school the choice
for the student. The desire to be in school makes the tutoring activities, such as SES
or SES-type activities, more effective. Burch (2007) alludes to this in the discussion
about after-school programs that go beyond purely academic measures, such as
leadership, artistic, or athletic activities. The argument extends to how SES
programs should be assessed for value and effectiveness. Possible measures could
include degree of improvement in student achievement, parent and student
satisfaction, and service delivery in compliance with SES legislation. Ultimately,
creating the desire and environment to learn precedes the need for the student to be
physically present to learn.
The principal-agent (P-A) Implications in Student Participation:
• Divergent Objectives: P-A issues can arise in the case of SES providers
offering incentives for parents to enroll their children with them. While this
improves the profitability for the SES provider, such actions do not represent
time and effort spent towards delivering on the district goals of improved
student achievement through after school tutoring. The district office acting
as both principal and agent as an SES provider and as the school district
hiring SES providers adds a twist to the conflict of interest problem.

52
• Weak Incentives: Research has shown that student participation and
engagement by teachers and school Principals can improve SES participation.
However, with the school already in state program improvement status, the
school district may be limited in its ability to encourage or coerce school sites
to actively promote SES participation.
• Limited Decision Rights: The wide array of after school activities competing
for the time and attention of students include sports and other extracurricular
activities. Parental support is also fundamental for participation in SES and
SES-type after school tutoring programs. However, the school district and
SES tutors may not have the authority or influence to change student and
parent behavior in order to improve SES participation and thus student
achievement through after school tutoring.

53
CHAPTER THREE
Research Methodology

The intent of this chapter is to present the research methodology for the study
of principal-agent issues in the three components of Supplemental Educational
Services (SES) and SES-Type programs. This chapter describes the program of
work that will be followed to answer our research questions. The pieces and
sequence of this framework are the research design, sample, instrumentation and data
collection and data analysis procedures. The research questions posed for 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 after
school tutoring 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?

Qualitative, descriptive-analytic case study research methods will be used to
accomplish an in-depth study and analysis of the four schools with voluntary SES
and required SES programs. The general steps used to pursue the answers to these
research questions will be defining the research questions, selecting the cases and
determining data gathering and analysis techniques, preparation to collect data,
collection of data, evaluation and analysis of data (Chapter 4), and reporting of
findings (Chapter 5).

54
The research questions for our study of principal-agent relationships in SES
and SES-Type programs in Title I schools have been defined through the literature
review research, which provided the necessary background for this study, as covered
in Chapter 2. The school districts and schools have been selected. Preparation to
collect the data consists of creation of the data collection instruments. Instruments
have been created based on the conceptual framework of this study, in order to
identify key elements of SES identified in answering the research questions of this
study. Qualitative data will be collected via open ended questionnaires, interviews,
observations and document analysis of existing documents and communication
artifacts.
The case study method was utilized in order to provide explanations for the
elements under study in order to describe their relational patterns. Purposeful
sampling of typical cases (four Title I schools) will anchor this qualitative case study
approach. On the size of this sample, Patton (2003) notes that validity,
meaningfulness, and insights generated from qualitative inquiry have more to do
with the information richness of the cases selected and the observation and analytic
capabilities of the researcher than with sample size.

Sample and Population
District and Site Selection Criteria
The district in this study is San Angeles school district with approximately 34
schools and an enrollment of 24,000 students. This urban school district covers

55
nearly 30 square miles and is located in the Inland region of California and has
experienced student enrollment growth in line with the state growth levels. The
district serves multiple cities with a total population exceeding 250,000. The district
is in Year 3 Program Improvement for failing to meet Annual Yearly Progress
(AYP) targets for students scoring at Proficient or above for the Language Arts on
annual state assessments.
The original design for this study specified two Southern California school
districts with elementary Title I schools. One district was to be located in a coastal
county while the other was to be located in an inland county. Each district had Title I
elementary schools that were in program improvement and required to offer
Supplemental Educational Services (SES). Each district also contained Title I
elementary schools that were not in program improvement, but also offered after
school tutoring (SES-type). The Superintendent and district SES coordinator for the
inland district agreed to participate in the study. The district SES coordinator for the
coastal district also agreed to participate in the study.
However, after months of repeated contact in person by phone and through
electronic mail, the coastal district did not respond to requests for permission to
begin data collection. After consulting with my dissertation chair, it was decided to
proceed with the inland district only but to add another SES and SES-type
elementary school to the data set for a total of four elementary schools. SES
providers were selected based on recommendations from the district SES

56
coordinator. In addition, a smaller and newer SES provider was added to the data
set.

San Angeles School District: SES Student Enrollment Information
The historical data for SES student enrollment in the San Angeles School
District is as follows:

Table 3-1. SES Student Enrollment-San Angeles School District
SES Students 2006-2007
Number of Student Applications 1626
Number of Student Denials 464
Number of Students Serviced 1162 (71% of Student Applications)
SES Students 2007-2008
Number of Student Applications 1158
Number of Student Denials 249
Number of Students Serviced 909 (75% of Student Applications)

Fewer students were eligible in 2007-2008. Declining enrollment was also cited as a
variable in the lower number of student applications. The district had suffered a
decline in enrollment from over 27,000 students (2002-2003) to 24,000 (2006-2007).

Interviewee Selection Criteria and Protocols
Sources of Information about SES principal and agent (P-A) Relationships
District SES or Title I coordinators, school site administrators and teachers
would have the best information about parent beliefs and behaviors about SES. This
interview strategy would allow the gathering of parent information while minimizing

57
the complexity of tracking down individual parents and scheduling separate
interviews. As educators, these three interview sources present a richer and more
informed source of information since they would have a better understanding of the
overall context. School site administrators, teachers and SES instructors would be
primary interview sources for beliefs and behaviors of students. This allowed the
collection of student information while still respecting the student privacy and
confidentiality requirements of research.
Sources of Organizational Data: Document and Policy Review
School accountability report cards (SARCs) are required of all public schools
in California and are made available to the public annually. The goal of SARCs is to
serve as a communication tool to provide the public with data and information about
the school’s progress towards achieving student learning goals. A SARC is available
for each of our four schools and the common requirements of the SARC should
allow us to compare schools against a common framework.
Each SES provider, district and school creates informational marketing and
data reports that can be used in the diagnosis of principal-agent issues in response to
the three research questions. SES provider fairs at the beginning of the school year
will be an opportunity to rapidly collect a large amount of information on SES
providers gathered in one location. This is based on the Sunderman and Kim (2004)
methodology used in their study of SES. Data was collected through interviews with
district individuals responsible for SES implementation. A document and policy
review along with newspaper and press release accounts were also collected.

58
Quantitative assessment data on schools in need of improvement and number of
students participating in SES will be gathered from the district and from the
California Department of Education. Adding to these sources will be the use of SES
provider, school and district websites as document data sources on out of the school
day academic tutoring programs.
To have a basis of what we could expect to see from voluntary SES
programs, Title I schools identified in the National Association of State Title I
Directors (NASTID) 2006 Title I Distinguished Schools book was used to screen for
schools that described SES-type programs offered or supported by the school.
NASTID schools are chosen for performance in one of two categories: 1)
Exceptional student performance for two or more consecutive years or 2) closing the
achievement gap between student groups. These NASTID Distinguished Schools are
found to exhibit strengths in the areas of opportunity for all children to meet
proficient/advanced achievement, strong professional development, coordination
with other programs, curriculum and instruction to support achievement, and
partnerships among schools, parents and communities.

Instrumentation
Framework for Research Question 1
What instructional strategies and practices are used by SES and SES-type
providers programs that occur outside of the school day?

59
With regard to SES and SES-type programs, the following data was
collected:
• Description of the school and demographics vs. program

• Description of the classroom: Is the SES or SES-type classroom environment
different from the regular day classroom? In what ways? What is the
significance?

• Description of the SES or SES-type program in practice and activities taking
place: What are the expectations? What is supposed to happen? What is
actually occurring? Why the variation between the two?

• Typical program daily schedule

• How does the SES program support and align with what is taught during the
school day?

• Typical program weekly, monthly, and annual schedule (offerings and times)

• What is the process for teachers to inform providers about what will help
their students? (e.g. teaching strategies, student needs)

• How do SES coordinators know if the SES curriculum is aligned with state
standards?

• What is the process for ongoing communications among teachers, providers,
and parents about the student?

Framework for Research Question 2
How does the principal-agent relationship explain how SES and SES-type
providers are accountable for student learning?
• What is the process for using input from school Principals, teachers,
providers, parents, and students on improving the SES system?

• Did districts or schools conduct their own evaluations of SES programs?

60
• If the district was a provider, did they conduct an evaluation of their program
effectiveness?

• Are students involved in the assessment of their learning? How do students
use the information?

• Are links being made to what is happening during the regular school day?

• What data are being communicated in class? How is data being used (if at
all?)

• What is the instructional format? Lecture? Small group?

Framework for Research Question 3
How do SES and SES-type providers manage student participation?
• What information did parents receive or not receive?
• How difficult was it for providers to work with schools and districts?
• How understandable were written communications with parents?
How Was Data Recorded?
To help with triangulation to improve quality of the data, analysis and
conclusions, data was collected in the following ways:
• Field notes

• Digital photographs of classroom artifacts and environment (e.g. what is on
whiteboards, posted on walls)

• Digital voice recordings: To allow capture of thoughts and impressions, free
of the need to break attention by writing notes.

• Collected artifacts and documents related to SES and SES-type programs,
and those related to ELL programs.

61
• Diagrams and drawings where verbal or written descriptions are
inappropriate or cannot fully describe the situation.

Interviews: In-Person and Phone
In person interviews for school Principals, teachers and school site staff
allowed us to observe the SES-type programs in practice. This physical presence is
important to identify program differences and practices that may be taken for granted
by those in the environment and thereby may not be captured in a phone interview.
Interviews have the advantage of a captive audience when conducted in person;
phone interviews, however, may not be as fruitful due to subjects being distracted or
dividing their attention.
Phone interviews for a small subgroup of SES providers beforehand can
assist in the construction of a survey that can ask the proper questions to answer the
research questions. A small subgroup of SES providers may be selected for a phone
interview for follow up and clarification of survey responses.
Interview Protocol
An initial short phone interview was conducted to establish a relationship and
rapport with interviewees. The goal is to ultimately create a receptive audience for a
site visit and face to face interview. An onsite interview allowed for closer
observation of environmental and cultural artifacts that distinguish the Supplemental
Educational Services (SES) program or SES-type program at the Title I school.

62
Table 3-2. Data Collection Sources
Level District SES/SES-Type
Federal-State Level Data U.S. Department of
Education
California Department of
Education
Education Industry
Association (EIA):
Education Industry Days
District Level Data District SES Admin. SES Providers
School Level Data School Principals (SES
School)
SES Site coordinator
School Principals (SES-
type)
Classroom Level Data Teachers SES Instructors
Parents Data Teachers, school
Principal, SES Admin
SES Providers
Students Data Teachers SES Instructors

Patton (2002) details how a “thick description” that is rich in detailed
descriptions of people and places can help in understanding the elements of the
study. Thick descriptions also aid in interpretations for meaning and significance of
qualitative data collected. These questions include:
• What are the stated goals of the program?

• What are the primary activities of the program?

• How do students enroll in the program?

• How do parents learn about the program?

• What is a description of the SES learning setting?

• What happens to students in the program?

• What are the effects of the program on students?

Data collection is planned to begin after the approval from the dissertation
committee following Qualifying Exams in August 2007. Initial contact with some

63
districts has indicated that prior approval processes must be completed before
inclusion of the school or district in the research. The SES provider fair is often
scheduled for August after the release of state testing results, but before the start of
the new school year.
Federal Level data collection occurred during a visit to the U.S. Department
of Education (U.S. DOE) in February 2008. The U.S. DOE visit consisted of an
interview on SES with the Chief of Staff for the Office of Planning, Evaluation and
Policy Development and the Assistant Secretary from the Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education. The visit to Washington D.C. coincided with the 2008
Education Industry Days by the Education Industry Association (EIA). The EIA was
founded in 1990 and represents over 600 companies in the pre K-16 education
industry. EIA has been active in providing public policy guidance and testimony to
Congress on SES legislation on behalf of its members. SES discussion panels at
Education Industry Days provided opportunities for data collection from SES
providers, U.S. DOE officials, and representatives of Presidential candidates.
The district SES coordinator was able to provide the results of a parent
survey of SES that provided approximately 160 surveys with qualitative ranking and
open ended parent responses. Interviews with SES providers were conducted via
electronic mail and through phone interviews. Interviews with the four school
Principals occurred at their school sites. Other interviews, such as the teacher focus
group and outreach consultant interview also occurred at the school site.

64
Table 3-3. Relations of Data Collection Instruments to Research Questions
Data Collection
Instruments
RQ 1: What
instructional
strategies and
practices are used
by SES and SES-
type providers
programs that
occur outside of
the school day?
RQ 2: How do
SES and SES-
type providers
monitor and
evaluate
accountability for
student learning
RQ 3: How do
SES and SES-
type providers
manage student
participation?

Process Flowchart X X
Document Analysis
a. SARC
b. District Website
c. SES Provider
Website
d. Parent
communications
e. State SES
website
X X X
Interview: District SES
coordinator (2)
X X X
Interview: SES
Provider(s)
X X X
Interview: School
Principal (4)
X X X
Survey: Teachers X X X
Survey: SES Instructor X X X

Process Flowchart Analysis of SES
To understand the distribution of responsibilities and tasks among SES
principals and agents, a comparative flowchart of required and voluntary SES
programs was created. Information and data that needs to flow through the system
was identified, the time required, and the areas where principal-agent frictions and
system breakdowns could occur. Saifer and Spether (2007) describe the ideal SES

65
case where the state passes the district information about eligible SES schools. In
turn, districts work with SES providers and schools. The district, provider and
schools work with parents to share information about SES.
Common SARC Elements for Comparison across Districts and Schools
Before delving into the comparisons and differences among the schools, we
needed to establish a common baseline of variables where the four schools in our
study are similar. The analysis allowed us to study the pairings of the two schools
required to offer SES and the two schools that voluntarily offer SES-type programs.
This is a variation of the work Saifer and Spether (2007) to allow comparison of data
for SES across different states. In this research, the comparisons are across districts.
Select elements of the California School Accountability Report Card (SARC)
listed above provide this framework for categories and areas that can permit
comparisons among the four schools and the SES programs.

66
Table 3-4: Select Elements of SARC

I. About This School
• Contact Information
• School Description and Mission
Statement
• Opportunities for Parental
Involvement
• Student Enrollment by Grade
Level
• Student Enrollment by Group
• Average Class Size and
Distribution-Elementary
• Average Class Size and
Distribution - Secondary
• Class Size Reduction Program
Participation
IV. Teachers
• Teacher Credentials
• Teacher Misassignments
• Classes Taught by NCLB
Compliant Teachers
• Substitute Teacher Availability
• Teacher Evaluation Process
VI. Curriculum and Instructional
Materials
• Quality, Currency and Availability
of Textbooks

VIII. Student Performance
• CST Results for All Students
• CST Results by Student Group
• NRT Results for All Students
• NRT Results by Student Group
• Local Assessment Results
IX. Accountability
• API Ranks
• API Changes by Student Group
• State Award and Intervention
Programs
• AYP Overall and by Criteria
• Federal Intervention Program
XI. Instructional Planning and
Scheduling
• School Instruction and
Leadership
• Professional Development
• Instructional Minutes
• Minimum Days in School Year

67
Analysis of the Data
The analysis of the data began with looking at what and to what degree
collected data informs the construction of answers to the three research questions, in
particular, an analysis of the principal-agent relationships among the parties involved
in SES. The next iteration in the analysis was to look for interactions or
interrelationships among the research questions, such as the degree to which we find
principal-agent influences on the SES program to help separate design from
implementation issues. An eye for the unknown was also be a possibility; to look for
those discoveries and revelations that at best add new insights that were not
originally considered before the study was started. At worst, these discoveries would
pose opportunities for further inquiry and research. Attempts to group major
categories and categorize common themes will be necessary to aid in the
understanding and application of what may be a large quantity of raw unstructured
data. Qualitative open ended responses will be categorized by common themes,
trends, or patterns. Program materials from SES providers will be subjected to a
similar filtering and categorization analysis found in the Appendices and presented in
Chapter Four and Chapter Five.

68
CHAPTER FOUR
Research Findings

This chapter is organized by research question with a discussion of the major
findings revealed by the study. The data collected for this study addressed the
following three research questions:
The Research Questions
1. How does the principal-agent relationship explain what instructional
strategies and practices are used by SES and SES-type providers in after
school tutoring programs? (Instructional Strategies)

2. How does the principal-agent relationship explain how SES and SES-type
providers are accountable for student learning? (Accountability)

3. How does the principal-agent relationship explain how SES and SES-type
providers manage student participation? (Student Participation)

Profiles of Elementary Schools in this Study
The elementary schools in this study were a pair of SES and SES-type
schools. The two SES schools (Kingsdale and Sunrise) were Title I schools in
Program Improvement and required to offer SES after school tutoring. Kingsdale
Elementary School is a Title I school in Year 3 of Program Improvement. Sunrise
Elementary School is a Title I school in Year 4 of Program Improvement. The two
SES-type schools (Hart and Eagle) were Title I schools not in Program Improvement
that voluntarily offered after school tutoring. Eagle Elementary School is a Title I
Academic Achievement award winner for having exceeded Adequate Yearly

69
Progress (AYP) for two or more years and closing the achievement gap among
numerically significant subgroups. Hart Elementary School is also a Title I school.
School Principals at all of these schools are veterans of the district and have served
as Principals of their schools for several years.

Table 4-1. SES and SES-type Schools Selected for Research

School Program Tutoring ELL FRLP* Enrollment
Eagle Elementary Title I SES-Type (Non PI) 37.3% (193) 65.4% (339) 518
Hart Elementary Title I SES-Type (Non PI) 52.1% (342) 72.3% (474) 656
Kingsdale Elementary Title I SES
(PI Yr 3)
57.9% (458) 82.7% (654) 791
Sunrise Elementary Title I SES
(PI Yr 4)
62.8% (456) 84.8% (616) 726
*Free and Reduced Lunch Program (FRLP)
Source: California Department of Education, EdData, 2006-2007, http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/

Findings
In examining organizational relationships among educators, parents and
outside SES providers, six main principal-agent findings emerged:

Table 4-2a. Principal-Agent SES Research Findings Categorized by principal-agent
(P-A) Problem

Research Question Finding: The principal-agent relationship
explains..
principal-agent (P-A)
problem
SES organizational and cultural barriers
(Finding 1)
Divergent Objectives RQ 1: Instructional
Strategies
Belief in tutoring effectiveness (Finding
2)
Information Asymmetry
Related findings for RQ 1:
• RQ1A: The structure of after school tutoring time in SES and SES-type schools was more
appropriate for Math intervention than Language Arts intervention.

70
Table 4-2b. Principal-Agent SES Research Findings Categorized by principal-agent
(P-A) Problem

Research Question Finding: principal-agent relationship
explains..
principal-agent (P-A)
problem
Suboptimization of SES (Finding 3) Information Asymmetry RQ 2: Accountability
SES Provider competition not based
on student performance
(Finding 4)
Limited Decision Rights,
Adverse Selection

Table 4-2c. Principal-Agent SES Research Findings Categorized by principal-agent
(P-A) Problem

Research Question Finding: The principal-agent
relationship explains..
principal-agent (P-A)
problem
SES and Districts working together
(Finding 5)
Divergent Objectives RQ 3: Student Participation
Value of SES and parent relationship
(Finding 6)
Weak Incentives/Limited
Decision Rights
Related Findings for RQ 3:
• RQ3A: Curriculum alignment and quality of tutoring issues are less in SES-type than SES
schools in the four areas of delivery of tutoring, student-tutor relationship, instructional
practices and tutor experience, and learning environment.

Research Question 1: Findings on Instructional Strategies and Practices
Research Question 1: How does the principal-agent relationship explain the
instructional strategies and practices are used by SES and SES-type providers in
after school tutoring programs?
Finding 1: Organizational and cultural barriers prevent coordination among
educators, parents and SES providers (P-A divergent objectives problem)
Student participation and enrollment for SES-type schools
The researcher discovered that teachers in SES-type schools factored in their
personal experience with students in making the determination of students who

71
would be invited to participate in after school tutoring. For SES-type schools,
tutoring teachers were mindful of the number of students they would be tutoring.
Where the payoff of profit was central for the SES provider, the payoff for SES-type
volunteer tutor teachers was: 1) the opportunity to work with their own students, 2)
a smaller number of students than their regular day class that allowed for greater
one-on-one and small group instruction, and 3) a lower likelihood of distractions
from student behavior issues. Teachers who provided after school tutoring were less
inclined to invite students to after school tutoring who had behavior problems during
the regular school day. Students were selected based on academic need but also on
their receptiveness to participate in an after school tutoring program.
Student participation and enrollment for SES schools
In the schools with SES, a primary concern for SES providers was to pay
attention to the sizes of the groups tutored. This was to ensure that tutoring would be
profitable and thereby worthwhile endeavor for the SES provider. Sufficient
enrollment was sometimes not achieved for SES providers and the needs of running
a profitable business took precedent over the needs of students. As one parent
commented in the survey, “The tutor never showed because they told us that there
weren’t enough students in the program.” The clause for termination of SES
services in the Parent-Provider Agreement stated that any party involved (parent,
district, or SES provider) can terminate services if the provider is unable to meet
stated goals and timelines (Appendix G). This is an example of the divergent
objectives problem in the principal-agent relationship, where each party has different

72
priorities. For the SES provider, profitability is a primary concern while the school
district values improved student achievement as the primary goal.
Teachers as SES-type Tutors: Choices Faced and Testing the Breaking Point
The use of regular day teachers as after school tutors in SES-type schools
built in the insurance for coordination and alignment of instructional and tutoring
efforts. The primary choice for school Principals in SES-type schools was the
challenge of stretching their teaching staff to volunteer to provide after school
tutoring. The school Principal and teachers who volunteered to be SES-type tutors
initially expressed similar goals of using after school tutoring to help the students.
Size of the groups tutored was kept well below the usual regular school day class
size, in the range of 11 to 14 students. The intrinsic professional reward of teaching
in the after school program was captured in the words of one Hart teacher: “It’s
wonderful when I get to sit with a child without the other distractions. That’s the
part of teaching that I like, the part that I get excited about.” “The people in the
trenches get to choose”, was a comment made by another teacher on how the
opportunity to influence the direction of the intervention weighed on their decision to
volunteer to be an after school tutor.
However, the teachers who volunteered to be SES-type tutors in this study
expressed that there were limits. In a demonstration of the principal-agent problem
of divergent objectives, as these limits were approached, the goals of the school
Principal (principal) and the teacher-tutor volunteers (agents) quickly diverged.

73
SES-type teachers who volunteered as tutors were paid, but this was not a primary
motivation.

Table 4-3. Summary Comparison of SES vs. SES-Type After School Tutoring
Programs

After
School
Tutoring
After School
Tutoring
Tutoring
Service
Location
Students Tutors Tutor Constraints
SES Required to
Provide as per
NCLB
At home of
student
Placed by Parent
choice of SES
provider
Paid Tutors
from SES
Provider
Adequate student
enrollment for a
profitable
program
Finding qualified
tutors.
SES-Type Voluntarily
Provided by
School
At school
site
Placed by
selection and
invitation by
Teachers from
school
Paid Teacher
volunteers
from school
Finding Teachers
to volunteer

The SES-type schools Principals in this study were well aware of the
limitations of teacher good will. If they asked too much of their teaching staff, they
could be left with no after school tutoring program at all.
Better After School Tutoring Through Data
Schools collect and capture student data from a variety of sources, such as
progress reports, report cards, classroom assignments, school and district diagnostic
and formative assessments, and annual state testing. Such information would be
useful in selecting the instructional strategies of where to focus tutoring efforts and
align tutor efforts with the school day instruction.

74
Table 4-4. Types of data available in SES and SES-type systems

After
School
Tutoring
Tutors Assessment Instruments Data System Teacher Input and
Feedback
SES Private
tutors
Woodcock Johnson III
reading fluency,
sound/symbol assessment,
Dynamic Indicators of
Basic Early Literacy Skills
(DIBELS)
Scantron
Performance
Services
(Everlearning)

Not sought
(Kingsdale)
Collected but
Disregarded by SES
tutors (Sunrise)
SES-type School
teaching
staff
District benchmark tests;
writing prompt; report
card;
Online Assessment
and Reporting
System (OARS);
District Student
Information
System;
Accelerated Math
Used to select
students for tutoring
(Hart)
(Eagle)
Teacher grade level
meetings (both),
share expertise and
common grade level
focus (Eagle)

With the seemingly common goal of improving student achievement through
tutoring, SES providers would have an incentive to gather all the information
available as would school districts have an incentive to provide available student
assessment information. However, none of the SES providers in this study cited a
need for existing student assessment data when asked how SES could be improved.
Indeed, Appendices E and F are examples of how the outreach consultant at the SES
school Sunrise Elementary collected data to share with SES tutors. However, the
outreach consultant commented:
I wanted the tutor to get input from my classroom teachers. So I
created a form [Appendix F] where the teacher just basically checked
off the areas of need, and then some specific objectives that the tutor
could work on. But then later on I found out those were disregarded
by the tutor because they were going to work on their own
assessment.

75
After school teachers/tutors in SES-type schools had access to the district
Instructional Data Management System (IDMS) for student benchmark data to
identify the tutoring areas where students needed to improve or had achieved
mastery.
Not One of Us: The Acceptance of SES Providers and Tutors as Education Partners
Federal Department of Education SES officials noted the duality that public
school educators were in favor of after school tutoring; however the reaction was less
receptive when the use of external for profit SES providers was mentioned. SES
providers noted similar challengingly unworkable requirements built into the SES
legislation with regard to the required parent meetings The SES providers faced the
structural challenge of meeting face to face with potentially hundreds of parents
during the work day to discuss after school tutoring for their child.
The Kingsdale Principal distinguished between what appeared to be the two
camps of SES providers. One camp of SES providers appeared to follow the
philosophy that they are teaching the child and not a program. These providers used
their diagnostic instruments and tutors, often with teaching credentials and
experience, to close the achievement gaps for the student. The other camp of SES
providers appeared to rely more heavily on a specific program to deliver tutoring and
an array of activities that they did with the students to meet their academic needs.
Challenges in SES Schools: All Together Now, If We Can
School Principals in the SES schools of Kingsdale and Sunrise Elementary,
however, lamented the lack of information about student progress and contact with

76
tutors to ensure such coordination and alignment was occurring between SES
tutoring and the instructional day. The Kingsdale Principal specifically identified the
value of teachers having the list of students enrolled in SES tutoring, along with the
value in having the tutor speak with the teacher to trade information. The ideas of
keeping SES tutoring intervention data in the district student information system was
suggested by the Sunrise Principal. On the SES providers and the school district, the
Sunrise Principal noted, “they’re just two systems in my mind that have not
connected as far as communication or academic goals; on academic feedback I feel
like we have very little”.
The principal-agent issue here is one of limited decision rights, where the
school Principal is held accountable for practices and results to meet school
performance goals, but lacks the complete authority and responsibility over SES
providers. Limited decision rights reduce the capability and will of the school
Principal to act in the interest of the district. Evidence of this was given by district
SES support staff who commented that while there is no directive that school
Principals cannot contact SES providers directly, this type of contact by school
Principals has not happened.
Information Asymmetry in the SES Schools with SES Providers and Tutors
Information asymmetry is one of the problems found in principal-agent
relationships where the agent (in this case the SES provider) has more information
than the principal (in this case the parent who can select the SES provider and has
the power reward the provider with the fees to provide tutoring).

77
One unexpected organizational relationship in the SES system was the role of
the Outreach Consultant (ORC) in taking the initiative to remedy the lack of parent
knowledge about SES programs. The role of the ORC is to serve as a liaison
between the parents and the school and be the safety net for students identified as at
risk. The ORC at Sunrise Elementary was particularly noteworthy for her
commitment to informing and encouraging eligible parents to enroll their children in
SES. The ORC contacted by phone all parents of students who were scoring at the
Far Below and Below Basic performance categories on the California Standards Test
(CST). The Sunrise Elementary Principal acknowledged the role of the ORC in
connecting families to the SES program. The additional value provided by the ORC
was with immigrant families where English was not the primary language spoken in
the home.
As an information broker, the ORC helped balance the information
asymmetry problem between parents and SES providers to ensure that relevant
information found its way to the appropriate parents and school staff. The ORC also
helped teach immigrant families that it was acceptable to express concerns they had
with SES tutors and gave parents the tools and processes needed to communicate
their concerns. On the value of personal contact in encouraging parents to enroll in
SES, the ORC stated:
“You see, and especially in Hispanic culture it’s all about bonding
and trusting. And even if you’re having coffee with the Principal, if
you call them and invite them, they’ll come. And if you spend $10 on
a fancy looking invitation, they won’t come”.

78
The one on one contact with parents by the ORC helped to build a
relationship of trust that increased parent awareness of SES and eventually resulted
in over 200 parents from Sunrise Elementary attending the first district SES Provider
Fair.
Finding 2: Parents, students, and educators believe after school tutoring is
making a difference academically and want more tutoring services (P-A information
asymmetry problem)
“…and maybe it is the after school program, but I can’t clearly say
that’s why it’s helping those kids in the program”.
Teacher/After School Tutor
Hart Elementary School

Educators and Parents on SES Tutoring
Skepticism was noted by educators in Title I schools required to offer SES
and by parents about the whether SES tutoring improved student academic
achievement. However, for the population of students who participated in after
school tutoring, the belief in the value of the individualized attention (one-on-one
and small group) was universal across parents, providers and educators both in SES
and SES-type programs.
Teachers on After School Tutoring
In this study, explicit data supporting the effectiveness of after school
tutoring was difficult to find. A combination of interventions occurring during the
day and after school tutoring made measuring the effects of the two challenging.
Indeed when asked, SES-type teachers who were after school tutors were hard

79
pressed to identify what specifically made after school tutoring effective. The SES-
type teacher focus group cited research on how students learn and the value of the
process of repetition and practice to achieve mastery of academic content. This
additional time on task and opportunity to learn is what SES after school tutoring
programs provide for students.
These described benefits of tutoring were nods towards the learning theory of
developmental psychologist Jean Piaget and schema theory from education
psychologist R.C. Anderson where student learning may require repeated exposures
and varying interactions with the material in order to assimilate and retain the
knowledge. As described in the SES-type teacher focus group, “And sometimes they
might get it through a few repetitions in class. But then if you do it again two or three
more times in the after school program….you sit down one on one and all of a
sudden they get it”. This retention of learning forms the necessary foundation for
more advanced levels of learning to build upon.
More Tutoring Desired By Parents
Teachers suggested that after school tutoring helped in engaging the parents
by helping them “wake up to the fact that their kid may need extra help”. In the SES
Parent survey, some parents believed that their child merited extra attention and that
a longer period of tutoring that started earlier in the year would be more beneficial.
One SES provider described how a client school in another district had clearly seen
the benefits of tutoring for the target SES population. In that case, the school

80
Principal was planning to use additional site Title I funding to expand the availability
of after school tutoring services to other students at the school.
Information Asymmetry with SES, Instructional Strategies and Student Needs
While research in this study indicated strong support for SES among parents,
instructional strategies and practices for the delivery of SES tutoring was not without
criticism. Parents described their frustration in what they believed were the most
ineffective instructional practices. Perceived ineffectual instructional practices
included a mismatch of instruction to student needs. One example was a student
who needed math instruction but spent time listening to the tapes of the alphabet
instead. Parent assurances by the SES tutor that “they knew what they were doing”
were not validated by improved student grades or work habits. These parent
concerns were further reinforced by voiced student boredom and lack of evident
progress as a result of SES tutoring. The failure to meet parent expectations for
tutoring has its roots in the failure of the SES provider and tutor to communicate and
translate student needs into objectives.
In what is a principal-agent issue of information asymmetry, the SES provider
lacked the information required to correctly align the tutoring intervention with
student academic needs. The principal-agent issue of weak incentives for the parent
is evident with the SES tutor seemingly turning a deaf ear towards parent concerns
about instructional practices and content. Even though the parent (principal)
selected the SES provider (agent), the parent lacks the decision rights to cause the
SES tutor to share their values (or in this case concerns). Evidence of divergent

81
objectives is shown by the mismatch of parent perceptions and delivery of tutoring
with student needs. As a Principal in this study observed, one camp of SES
providers was noted to favor the delivery of programs as the vehicle to deliver
tutoring. The programs, while simple to administer for SES tutors who may lack the
training and experience of a full time teacher, lack the flexibility to meet
individualized student needs. The inexperience of the SES tutor is a contributing
factor in this inflexibility. Even if the program did allow flexibility, the SES tutor
may lack the insight and experience to know how to adapt the program to meet
individual student needs.

Research Question 1: Related Findings
Differences in After School Tutoring for Math and Language Arts Content Areas
“one of the difficult things we still struggle with is that it is much
easier to go in and do intervention outside the bells with Math than
it is in Language Arts”
Principal, SES-type Eagle Elementary School
on differences in tutoring math and language arts

Finding RQ1A: The structure of after school tutoring time in SES and SES-
type schools was more appropriate for Math intervention than Language Arts
intervention.
Teachers at both SES-type schools made the distinction between the
challenges of individualized math intervention vs. language arts intervention. Math
was deemed easier to individualize and monitor in an after school tutoring program.
The ability to focus on distinct skills, such as working with decimals and fractions,

82
could be more easily monitored using systems such as Accelerated Math that
provided feedback to students and teachers on whether an objective had been
mastered. This was not the case for Language Arts. Improvements in reading were
more difficult to monitor in skills such as spelling, use of vowels and blending of
sounds. These skills took longer to master and did not lend themselves to easily
defined discrete measurement as was found with Math standards. One SES provider
in this study acknowledged the challenge that tutoring in Language Arts required
more time and frequency than the once weekly one hour tutoring sessions they had
available.

Research Question 2: Findings on Accountability
Research Question 2: How does the principal-agent relationship explain
how SES and SES-type providers are accountable for student learning?
“I was originally skeptical about SES that they were giving money to
people who were not qualified…it [SES] really has done some good
in a small percentage to help students get extra tutoring”
Principal, Sunrise Elementary School, commenting on
her initial perception and experience with SES
Finding 3: Sub optimization in data sharing and communication among the
school district, schools and tutoring providers is more prevalent in SES schools than
SES-type schools. (P-A information asymmetry problem)

83
Defining Sub optimization in SES
Sub optimization refers to system processes that are configured for maximum
local efficiency with disregard for the overall efficiency of the entire tutoring service
delivery process. Evidence of sub optimization in the use of information was
revealed by comments collected during research interviews. For the SES system in
this study, student information was found to be held locally by the district that could
assist the SES providers in assessing student needs more quickly and aligning
tutoring accordingly. Such data included the individual student data for the annual
California Standards Test (CST), California English Language Development Test
(CELDT), and the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for special education
students.
Sub optimization by School Districts
The SES providers interviewed commented on the uneven but more
commonly found inaccessibility to existing student achievement data held by the
district and schools. Evidence from research indicates one reason for this is the lack
of requirement for a district to share existing student assessment information. The
six responsibilities of school districts in providing SES are: 1) notify parents about
the availability of SES, 2) help parents choose a provider (if requested), 3) determine
students eligible for SES, 4) enter into agreements with SES providers selected by
parents of eligible students, 5) assist the state department of education in identifying
potential SES providers that serve the district, and 6) protect the privacy of students
who receive SES. (US DOE NRG, 2005).

84
For SES providers, subchapter 13 of the Education Code 13075.2 item #13 of
21 on the California Department of Education SES provider application requires that
SES providers describe how they will get parent permission for access to existing
student data. However, an examination of district SES provider application
documents and the parent-SES provider agreement in this study found that the
release of student information for SES providers related to Family and Education
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), not access to specific student assessment data (US
DOE NRG, 2005). One SES provider noted that with such student academic
information, the need to meet with parents individually could be eliminated. SES
providers could use the district provided student data to assess the academic
strengths and weaknesses, send tutoring goals to the district for review of the
tutoring plan, and once approved, assign the appropriate tutor.
Sub optimization by SES Providers
Sub optimizing communication and data sharing practices were found on the
part of SES providers. In this study, Appendix F was an example of how the SES
school Sunrise Elementary attempted to provide SES tutors with more information
on student academic needs from a teacher survey on individual student needs. SES
tutors were found to have ignored this information in favor of their own internal
diagnostic assessment data. One explanation for this is that SES providers were
contractually obligated to identify and use an assessment tool to show student
progress. No such contractual obligation existed to use teacher input or existing
student data in district information systems for setting tutoring goals.

85
Causes of Sub optimization in SES
The root of this sub optimizing behavior for SES student data and
information can be found in a comment on the joining of public education and
outside SES organizations from a US Department of Education official who stated,
“..bridging the gap between the public and private sector is huge, I think it was a
bigger difficulty, challenge than anyone really thought at the time”. As the school
Principal of Sunrise Elementary commented on the schools and SES providers,
“they’re just two systems that have not connected…as far as communication or
academic goals, academic feedback that I feel we have very little”. For school
districts, the principal half in the principal-agent problem, sub optimization is a link
between the organizational structure and the policies to support SES in schools. This
sub optimization was found to occur in commitment of district resources in the form
of three full time district level staff to oversee the district SES program. The work of
district SES support staff included coordination and accounting with the dozens of
district providers, eligibility notification and recordkeeping for parents and students
who enrolled in SES, and coordination of the SES programs with schools required to
provide SES. Thus, in order to support SES properly, the district redirected
resources that could have been used to support other district priorities. SES
providers commented on districts that had a revolving door on district SES support
staff or who had new staff unfamiliar with the SES program. These instances
exacerbated the district sub optimization issues in SES implementation.

86
Finding 4: Competition among SES Providers is not based on student
performance (P-A limited decision rights and adverse selection problems)
“There is no true competition without results”
Marc Lampkin, Executive Director, Ed in ’08
Education Industry Days 2008
Washington, D.C.

SES Provider Organization vs. Size: Factors in Performance and Accountability
There were notable differences (Table 4-5) between larger and more
established SES providers in this study and their smaller and less experienced
competitors. More established SES providers had developed more sophisticated
organizations that understood the value of public relations, worked with multiple
districts and multiple school sites, and provided training for their tutors. Established
SES providers went so far as to welcome scrutiny of their practices to help
distinguish themselves from competitors. The closed door of failing to provide such
transparency was noted as a “red flag” by one SES provider.
The SES providers selected for this study were based on recommendations
from the district SES coordinator, the district SES support staff, and parent survey
comments. Two SES providers were recommended, Everlearning and Project Learn
(identities coded for anonymity). These two providers were recommended by the
district SES coordinator and staff as examples of well run SES provider companies.
To add to the mix, the researcher selected a third SES provider called the Firefly
Group. This SES provider was noteworthy in that of the 29 SES providers in the

87
2007-2008 district SES information packet, the Firefly Group was the only provider
that did not have a physical office but a post office box as the point of contact.

Table 4-5. SES Providers Selected For Study

SES Providers Selected For Study
Everlearning Project Learn Firefly Group
School
Districts
Served
Serves 150 school districts,
expects to serve 160-165
districts
Serves 26 school districts N/A
Key Points “proven record with over
100 school districts”
“On average, students
increase 1 to 2 grade
levels”
“students with
consistent
attendance improve
5-25% against the
pre-test”
Business E-
mail domain
Yes, everlearning.com Yes, projectlearn.com No
Business phone
greeting and
identification
Yes Yes No
Physical office
address
Yes, Yes No, post office box
Notes Recommended by district
SES coordinator and
support staff
Recommended by district
SES coordinator and
support staff
Selected by
researcher as
newer, smaller SES
provider; declined
to participate in
study.
Description

“We provide individualized
tutoring instruction (One-to-
One) in math, reading, or
language arts. We serve
students in all grade levels
(from K-12
th
grade).
“Project Learn offers both
English Language Arts and
Math tutoring, grades K
through 8. English
Language Arts tutoring is
one-on-one (up to one-on-
three
“Tutoring takes
place in the
students’ home or
local public library,
with flexible
schedules during
weekdays and
weekends.

As a determinant of SES ability to perform, organization was more important
than the size of the SES provider. Characterized as “mom and pop” operations by
the district SES support staff, these SES providers had difficulty in completing the
required district SES provider application or had issues with hiring tutors, having

88
tutors available to service various school locations or obtain fingerprint clearances.
In the SES provider world, size does not matter as much as organization when
providing SES tutoring services for school districts and schools.
The Parent Dilemma: Adverse Selection of SES Providers
Evidence from the SES Parent Survey, district SES support staff, and SES
providers themselves, has illustrated that not all SES providers are equally capable.
Parents, however, are left with the principal-agent problem of adverse selection –
how to choose a quality SES provider in the absence of full information. The parent
adverse selection problem is compounded by how SES providers present themselves.
In addition to the sheer volume of providers to choose from, an analysis of SES
provider marketing statements (Table 4-6) in the parent information packet revealed
that SES providers attempted to distinguish themselves from the competition in the
following areas:
One noteworthy finding from this analysis was that the value of increased test
scores or grades, a proxy for student learning and for the effectiveness of tutoring,
was cited by only 9 of the 29 providers (31%) and did not appear in the top five SES
marketing dimensions.

89
Table 4-6. Marketing Dimensions Used by 29 SES Providers to Differentiate
Among Competitors

Marketing Dimensions Frequency Sample Marketing Statements from SES Providers
Cost 29 $24.75 to $80.00 per hour (price provided by all SES
providers)
Student-Tutor Ratio 24 “one-on-one tutoring”
“up to 5 students per instructor”
Bilingual Tutoring 20 “our teachers speak Spanish”
“over 60% of our tutors are bilingual”
Flexible Scheduling 12 “The parent/guardian can choose the recurring weekly
schedule”
“offers complete freedom when scheduling”
Skilled Tutors 12 “All of our tutors have at least a 4-year college degree”
“We have credentialed bilingual teachers, retired
teachers, college tutors”
Standards, Curriculum and
Research
11 “aligned with California Content Standards”
“our nationally recognized Stars curricula”
Increased Test Scores or
Grades
10 “our students increase 1 to 2 grade levels”
“a proven history of helping students raise their grades
and scores on standardized tests”
“We guarantee a 50% increase in scores from pre-test to
post-test”
Parent Communication 9 “Parents are provided progress reports”
“tutors available to discuss your child’s progress”
Technology Use 7 “selected tutors through our kid friendly online
classroom”
“Sessions occur online with a live certified teacher”
Student Engagement 4 “the best way to keep students interested is to make it
fun!”
“students will enjoy themselves without suffering from
monotone, boredom and apathy”

The evidence would support that this is an indicator of the principal-agent
problem of limited decision rights for the SES tutor over the student. Students who
need tutoring are those with a greater academic need and an SES provider may feel
hard pressed to make any performance assurances, in absence of a standardized
assessment system across all SES providers (such as the kind found to rank schools
under the California Academic Performance Index (API)). The SES marketing
dimensions data would seem to reinforce the statement from a participant at the

90
Education Industry Days 2008 conference who commented, “It is harder for parents
to identify if kids are getting a quality education than it is to know if a detergent was
successful in getting stains out of clothing”.
The information asymmetry problem thus exists where parents, schools and
districts have incomplete information about SES providers to make informed
decisions or where there is an imbalance in the distribution of information between
the school district (principal) and SES provider (agent). Accountability for quality of
delivery of service was mentioned by parents as a concern in the SES parent survey.
One parent stated, “I would appreciate a way to track his progress with [the] progress
report. This can assure us his parents that he is getting the attention he needs.”
Another parent added, “I never received any progress reports or phone calls from the
program to let me know how he was doing. I wish they would let me know about
that”.

Parent Communications, Expectations and Tutor Commitment
SES Schools (Kingsdale and Sunrise Elementary Schools)
From the district parent SES survey, one hundred and sixty (160) parent and
guardian surveys were collected and addressed the actual performance of SES
providers. Parents overall were thankful and satisfied with SES tutoring (Appendix C
and Appendix D). Parents were supportive of SES after school tutoring and believed
that it benefits their children academically. The time of delivery and duration of SES
tutoring services were found to start after January. The time since the start of the

91
school year in September was used to manage student enrollment of hundreds of
eligible students, coordinate the services for dozens of SES providers, and await the
arrival of student test scores to determine the list of students eligible for SES
tutoring. Time was also required to determine which schools had either moved out
of, or further into, program improvement status based on test scores from the
previous year.
However, parents with children enrolled in SES after school tutoring had
complaints that the SES provider assurances of improvement for their child were not
achieved. Concerns were also expressed about the lack of communication. As two
parents commented, “little by little she [SES tutor] stopped coming and she never
called (Parent Comment #90)” and “He [SES tutor] would change his hours all the
time (Parent Comment #126)”. Issues with not receiving SES tutoring services were
also found. “I filled out an application but never received an answer (Parent
Comment #59)” and “I am very upset they never bothered to call (Parent Comment
#158) related to parent complaints on communication breakdowns with SES
providers.
SES-type Schools (Hart and Eagle Elementary Schools)
Parents at SES-type schools with after school tutoring welcomed the
additional academic support for their child. In some cases parents initially did not
understand and felt after school tutoring was an indicator of problems with their
child. However, once SES-type school teachers and administrators explained that
the child was not at risk but simply required extra help to achieve the next level of

92
proficiency on the annual California Standards Test (CST), parents became
supportive and readily signed the permission slip for their child to participate. As
one SES-type teacher commented on explaining after school tutoring to a parent,
“Oh, your kid’s not in trouble but just shy of being proficient”. These conversations
with parents occurred in person and during conference time. Since the schools were
walking distance schools, parents often were present at the school sites.
Indeed, parents at SES-type schools were found to increase their participation
once they knew their child needed extra help. However, some parents
misunderstood after school tutoring as a homework club and did not understand why
their child still came home with homework to do after a tutoring session. Unlike
SES tutoring in this study, parents were expected to be active participants at home
even though their child participated in SES-type after school tutoring. Parent
participation opportunities included support for homework, having the child read 20-
30 minutes per night, and spelling practice. As the school Principal of Eagle
Elementary stated on the delivery a quality education, “I don’t think you could do it
without parent support. You can’t do it without parents doing things as well”.
In either case, positive and negative comments from parents on after school
tutoring were always heard at SES-type school sites. The walking distance to school
that put parents and educators in close proximity for easy communication about after
school tutoring and student progress. Having familiar teachers as the after school
tutors in SES-type schools were contributing factors in why the communications
flow was more successful than that found in SES schools.

93
The problems experienced at SES-type schools in terms of parent
communications and commitment of the tutors were less than those found at SES
schools with outside after school tutoring providers. In absence of objective ranking
criteria from the state or district, SES providers marketed themselves similarly and
were nearly indistinguishable. SES marketing appearances could not cover for “bad
actor” SES providers or those who could not deliver on their marketing promises to
parents and the district.

Research Question 3: Findings on Student Participation
Research Question 3: How does the principal-agent relationship explain
how SES and SES-type providers manage student participation?
“..but I think what’s best is that it [after school tutoring] gives the
parents a wake up call…that they need to help their child at a grade
level.”
Hart Elementary tutoring teacher
on one benefit of student involvement in tutoring

Finding 5: The school districts and schools required to offer SES are
learning how to work with outside SES providers to deliver after school tutoring. (P-
A divergent objectives problem)
The Need to Work and Learn Together: School Districts and SES Providers
In the course of conducting research for this study, both school districts and
schools and SES providers were found to come to the table with their own
organizational values and structures that act as barriers to a mutually beneficial
partnership. Public educators expressed trepidation about working with entities that

94
appeared to put profit before student needs. A U.S. DOE official commented that
they knew traditional educators would have difficulty with the SES concept, but
were surprised by the level of “roadblocks” of actions and attitude. One example
cited was an overly lengthy 10 page parent SES information and registration packet
from a district office with a 48 hour deadline. In terms of attitudes, educators
initially were found to be supportive of after school programs and tutoring, but were
more skeptical when it was learned that outside SES providers would be providing
the tutoring.
SES providers possessed their own frustrations and misconceptions about the
public education bureaucracy that was perceived to be standing in the way of their
access to students and profits. In one particularly colorful example, the district SES
program coordinator in this study detailed how one SES provider became frustrated
with the requirements of fingerprinting and attempted to skirt the process by
appealing to the Assistant Superintendent of School Administration, Interim
Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Services, the Superintendent and finally to
a member of the school board. While the ultimate result did not change the
requirement to fingerprint adults who would be working with students, a
considerable amount of time was expended on this single SES provider who was
unwilling to follow the district process and rules that bound all SES providers.
Closing the Gap between School Districts and SES Providers
The size of the gap between school districts and outside SES providers can be
illustrated by the school Principal at Sunrise Elementary who commented, “I was

95
originally skeptical about SES that they were giving money to people who were not
qualified…it [SES] really has done some good in a small percentage to help students
get extra tutoring”. On the relationship required for school districts and outside SES
providers to close the gap so they provide SES services most effectively, US DOE
education officials commented SES providers need to understand what is required to
run a school and understand what happens during the school day.
Increased Popularity and Parent Participation in SES
The level of coordination between school districts and SES providers is
related to improved parent SES participation. Levels of parent participation have
increased from the low single digit percentages reported in early SES studies to the
currently reported 14% SES participation rate by the US DOE. This data reflects the
increasing popularity of after school tutoring for Title I schools in need of
improvement. These numbers also belie an increasing level of parent involvement.
During this study, evidence from the SES parent survey, SES providers, and
educators highlighted the value of increased parent involvement to improve SES. In
this study, interviews with district SES support staff identified the causes of
increased popularity as:
• Increased communication among parents about SES: District SES
support staff noted that parents “word of mouth” was increasing among
parents, combined with the district SES support staff encouraging parents
to talk with each other about SES, since the district was required to
remain neutral about recommending SES providers.

96
• Teacher SES Referrals at Parent-Teacher Conferences: Teachers were
informing parents about the SES option and parents were contacting the
district office for more information.
• Increased awareness among parents: Also noted in interviews were
parents who claimed to never have received information about the
program or parents who had recently moved into the district. While these
parents were not the early adopters of SES, they had encountered parents
who were. As a result, these parents sought further information to
participate in SES, expanding the pool of interested parents.
• Aggressive SES provider marketing activity: Related to increasing
awareness among parents and subsequent participation in SES, SES
providers were noted to be more aggressive in marketing than in years
past. Beyond the SES provider fair designed to level the playing field for
all SES providers to promote their services, some providers had resorted
to the prohibited practices of distributing flyers in school parking lots and
showing up at the homes of parents claiming to be representatives of the
district to enroll their child in SES.
Bad Actors and High Provider Turnover
Building a working relationship between school districts and SES providers
is complicated by the presence of SES providers who are “bad actors” and the high
turnover of SES providers. An SES discussion panel at Education Industry Days
recognized the presence of some SES providers who were in the business for the

97
short term and represented some “bad actors” for whom the SES industry had to
cover. Cases of bad actors SES providers found in this study included a church with
a weak program that sought to capitalize on the income from SES tutoring and a
provider that offered a computer and only two hours of tutoring time at $550/hour
(Bartelt, 2007). High provider turnover was noted by the district in this study who
reported 69 providers who expressed interest in the 2007-2008 school year (down
from 80 providers in 2006-2007). After passing eligibility criteria and contracts, the
numbers were reduced to 30 SES providers in 2006-2007 and 23 SES providers in
2007-2008. Of these providers in 2007-2008, only 9 were returning SES providers.
Finding 6: Compared to SES-type tutoring, SES after school tutoring is more
reliant on the SES tutor-student relationship and the SES provider-tutor relationship
with the parents (P-A weak incentives and limited decision rights problems)
Parent Involvement and Expectations for SES and SES-type After School
Tutoring
One related discovery that was not expected in the initial research design was
the role of parent involvement in the tutoring process. SES-type teachers found that
advising parents that their child would be participating in after school tutoring was a
“wake up” call for parents to attend more closely to the academic needs of their
child. In some cases, expectations of parents for tutoring in both SES and SES-type
programs were not in alignment with the purpose of the tutoring to help students
with the greatest academic need. Parents of tutored children were baffled as to why
their child still had homework that was not completed even though they had attended

98
a tutoring session. Parent involvement and support is still required above and
beyond the tutoring hours delivered. On the other range of the scale of parent
involvement, SES tutors found that some parents for whom English was a second
language sat in on tutoring sessions for their child. SES tutors commented how they
appreciated such parent participation and involvement in after school tutoring that
took place in the home.
After school tutoring is less a “fire and forget” solution than it is one that
demands greater parent attention to support student learning. This leads to an
additional relationship wrinkle for SES providers and tutors who must now also be
mindful of the relationships with parents. Positive relationships between tutors and
parents were discovered with parents requesting the same tutor for the following year
or parents sitting in on SES tutoring sessions with their children. The division head
for SES provider Project Learn shared after school tutoring success stories of
students who were previously withdrawn and “feeling stupid” who were now
confident to read in front of the class as a result of one-on-one tutoring they received.
The SES tutor-student relationship created a safe environment for learning and
growth.
SES tutor relationships with students and parents were not without their
issues. The Outreach Consultant at Sunrise Elementary noted possible cultural
issues parents had with SES tutors who were strangers, asking to come into their
home to provide tutoring. This was not the case in SES-type schools where after
school tutoring was held on the school campus. Spouses sometimes objected to the

99
presence of strangers in the home who would provide the tutoring. Overly
aggressive marketing practices by SES providers insisting they visit the home to
have the parent complete a pre-completed SES application further degraded trust in
the SES provider and tutor relationship with parents. Basic communication and
good customer relations with parents were forgotten or overlooked by SES providers
and tutors. SES parent surveys and interviews with district SES support staff
verified multiple instances of SES providers who failed to make scheduled
appointments or notify the parent they would be absent. Failure to tend to this SES
provider and tutor relationship with parents was counterproductive to the success of
the SES tutoring program. Evidence from the SES Parent Surveys indicated that
parents who were not fluent in English were frustrated in their inability to
communicate with and support their children in schooling.

Research Question 3: Related Findings
Finding RQ3A: Curriculum alignment and quality of tutoring issues are less
in SES-type than SES schools in the four areas of delivery of tutoring, student-tutor
relationship, instructional practices, and learning environment.
Each of the SES and SES-type after school tutoring programs studied had
their limitations. Findings from this study were that SES-type programs experienced
fewer curriculum alignment and less severe quality of tutoring issues than their SES
school counterparts.

100
Delivery of Tutoring
While data was not collected directly from students, school Principal, teacher
and SES provider interviews along with SES Parent Survey information about the
design and process provided evidence of what after school tutoring was expected to
deliver. One-on-one and small group instruction prevailed in SES-type schools,
while SES providers in this study delivered after school tutoring in the home.
Fatigue after a full day of teaching was cited as a drawback by after SES-type school
teacher tutors and the SES-type school Principals.
Student-Tutor Relationship
In terms of relationship, SES-type teacher tutors differed from SES providers
by being able to select students for tutoring with whom they had a positive
relationship (Table 4-7). Teachers avoided creating a class of students with so many
students that they could not give individual attention. To help maintain order in
SES-type after school tutoring, teachers chose not to invite the students who
misbehaved during the school day. The principal-agent issue of divergent objectives
was eliminated in SES-type schools as teachers invited those students who needed
the most attention and screened out students with potential behavior problems.
However, evidence of the principal-agent problem of divergent objectives was found
in data collected from SES Parent Survey data on the student experience. Instances
of SES tutor distraction, inattention, and failure to keep scheduled tutoring
appointments degraded the value of SES tutoring. In these instances, Parents could

101
request a different SES tutor but not all were fully aware or took advantage of this
option.

Table 4-7. Student Selection Criteria for After School Tutoring in SES vs. SES-Type
Schools

Student Selection
Criteria
SES SES-Type
Academic
Criteria
1. Title I School in PI Year 2+
2. Score “below basic” or “far
below basic” on CST
1. Performance on district benchmark
assessments
2. Teacher judgment if student at risk of
retention
3. Teacher judgment if tutoring would
“bump” student up to next level
Non-Academic
Criteria
1. Free and Reduced Lunch 1. Student behavior
2. Small number of students to be tutored
in a class

Instructional Practices and Tutor Experience
Differences in vocabulary, language and experience in the delivery of
tutoring instruction were noted as potential impediments if the tutor was different
from the regular daytime teacher or not from the school or district. As the school
Principal of SES-type school Eagle Elementary commented, evidence of this
confusion for the students with outside tutors appeared in statements such as, “Well,
that’s not how my teacher did it”. Further highlighting the differences in after school
academic assistance coming someone other than the regular daytime teacher, the
school Principal elaborated, “[after school] aides don’t necessarily have that training
[on standards], only the academic vocabulary, the language that the teacher would
prefer to use versus the language that maybe they were taught or the shortcut method

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

103
programs. The most noteworthy differences between SES and SES-type programs
will be examined. The role of principal-agent theory and problems to explain these
differences and the behavioral implications of imperfect information on the P-A
relationship are the subject of the section that follows.
Major Theme One: Organizational structure differences between SES and
SES-type after school tutoring programs account for the principal-agent problems of
divergent objectives and information asymmetry that are at the root of how these two
programs differ.
Organizational Structure: The Root of P-A Differences between SES and
SES-type Programs
At the Federal level, an official from the U.S. Department of Education
commented on their surprise at how difficult it was for outside SES providers and
traditionally monopolistic school districts to work together to provide after school
tutoring. If the principal-agent relationship can be described as one of social
interaction, then the SES-type program is structurally preferred to that of the SES
program. With its use of outside SES providers, the principal-agent problems that
parents and school districts (principals) face in SES programs increase the challenge
of decision making under the uncertainty with imperfect information and goal
alignment of principal and agent. This structural challenge is further complicated by
the addition of dozens of potential SES providers (agents) that the parents must
discern and choose from. The odds of an adverse selection increase for parents in
schools with SES programs.

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

105
SES providers (agents) and a high turnover of those agents making the establishment
of a relationship and movement towards an equilibrium such as that found in SES-
type schools much more challenging.
Structurally as an organization, school districts and outside SES providers
have not yet achieved a level of equilibrium similar to that of SES-type schools. P-A
theory describes the ideal P-A relationship as one in which goals between principal
and agent are aligned and a world of perfect information exists. Absent this ideal,
the SES-type school is the best representation of what this ideal P-A relationship
would resemble. This would leave the SES programs as the next best solution, with
its use of outside SES providers, compounded by the newness of school districts and
outside SES providers working together. As such, applications of this study to future
education reforms indicate that whenever outside entities are involved with a school
district, the effectiveness of the reform can be improved by paying attention to the
organizational P-A problems that may be present and coordination among principals
and agents.
Student Enrollment Numbers Matter (But for Divergent Objectives)
For the research question on Instructional Strategies, how SES and SES-type
organizations were structured in terms of goals and culture was found to be a source
of differences that were at the root of the P-A divergent objectives problem (Finding
1). For both SES and SES-type tutors, the numbers of students tutored was
important, but for different reasons. For SES providers, the number of students
tutored had a direct correlation to the primary SES provider goal of profitability.

106
Evidence of this was found in parent and district SES support staff interviews of
instances where SES services were not provided due to enrollment, not due to a lack
of student need. For SES-type tutors who were paid volunteer tutors and full time
teachers during the regular school day, numbers of students tutored was related to the
intrinsic reward teachers gained by working with their own students, working one-
on-one, and simplified classroom management.
The differences between SES and SES-type tutors can be explained by the P-
A problem of divergent objectives. In this case, SES providers with the goal of
profitability prioritized this goal above that of providing after school student
tutoring. For SES-type tutors, the goal of after school student tutoring was primary
with many of the teacher rewards cited previously being related to working with the
students, not the pursuit of extra pay. On special characteristics that make public
sector organizations unique, Dixit (2002) recognizes the intrinsic reward of the
desire to improve the lives of children in attracting people to the education
profession.
Improved communications and data sharing include an improved parental
awareness of the SES programs and more complete information on SES
effectiveness with students. These would assist SES providers in helping to increase
their enrollment goals for profitability. Improved data on SES effectiveness by
providers would help parents discern between the weaker and stronger SES
providers. Parents would choose more effective SES providers and less effective
SES providers would exit the market.

107
The Parent Dilemma of Choosing the Best SES Provider (Information Asymmetry)
The Out Reach Consultant (ORC) was found to play a key role in how
parents obtained information and data about SES providers. Not all ORCs were
equal, the SES schools recommended in this study were noteworthy for the energy
their ORCs put forward to support SES at their school site. The numbers and
percentage of students enrolled in SES were believed to be a direct result of their
efforts (Appendix A). ORCs provided a valuable service as a personal “information
broker” for parents, informing them about the availability of SES programs. While
ORCs were prohibited from making recommendations of SES providers, the ORCs
did encourage parents to talk among themselves to share their experiences with SES
providers. The encouragement of this informal information exchange among parents
helped to redress the imbalance of the P-A information asymmetry problem faced by
parents in assessing SES providers.
Cultural barriers found with a parent population that did not speak English as
their first language were found to be challenges in improving awareness and
enrollment in SES. Cultural differences in communication and trust included how
immigrant families could express concerns with SES tutors, the acceptability of
strangers (SES tutors) being permitted into the home, and the role of trust in personal
communication with school officials vs. SES marketing.
SES-type after school tutoring programs did not face this P-A problem of
information asymmetry found in SES schools. In SES-type schools, the school was
the sole provider of tutoring. This difference removed the need by parents to select

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

109
by the principal-agent problem of divergent objectives between the school district
(principal) and SES providers (agents). Improved communications and data sharing
would allow both school district and SES provider to understand the goals,
motivation, and actions taken by the other as to why they behave the way they do.
This would be the first step in overcoming P-A divergent objective problems related
to goal misalignment between principal and agent.
Good for Part, but Not for the Whole: P-A Information Asymmetry Problem and Sub
Sub optimatization in SES
In the research question under Accountability, the principal-agent
relationship was found to explain the P-A problem of information asymmetry in sub
optimization of SES when compared with SES-type after school tutoring (Finding 3).
Sub optimization refers to when a process is configured for maximum local
efficiency, but at the expense of overall efficiency of the after school tutoring
delivery process.
Sub optimization was found to be true for both the school district (principal)
and SES providers (agents). Examples of sub optimization found on the part of the
school district in SES after school tutoring included student information held locally
by the school and district in the form of student assessment data. This data included
individual student data from district formative and annual state California Standards
Test (CST) summative assessments, student grades and teacher experience with
individual student needs. SES providers interviewed commented on the
inaccessibility to existing student achievement data. Examples of sub optimization

110
on the part of SES providers included the failure to use teacher data on individual
student needs. This teacher data example illustrates multiple goals, multiple
principals and motivated agents described by Dixit (2002) as elements that make
education unique when applying P-A theory. Wrapped into this teacher data
example are the multiple goals of the SES provider to profitably provide the tutoring
service, the school district goal of improved student achievement through SES for
eligible Title I students, and the ORC goal of improved student achievement for
students from their school site. The SES provider faces multiple principals of the
school district who enforce SES regulations and parents who can choose the SES
provider. Motivated agents are seen in SES with the ORC who took the initiative to
collect data on student academic needs and the teachers who willingly supplied that
information.
Redressing the imbalance of information that leads to the P-A information
asymmetry problem could reduce sub optimization. One benefit would be that if
such student assessment information were shared, the need for SES providers to meet
with a multitude of parents individually could be eliminated. SES providers could
use student assessment data provided by the district, school and teacher to assess
student strengths and weaknesses, design a tutoring plan and goals for district
review. Once the plan we reviewed and approved by the district, the SES provider
could assign a tutor. However, without this action, principal-agent theory helps
explain the cause of sub optimization and understand how it impedes the
effectiveness of SES in practice. With ready access to district student information

111
systems and knowledge gained by teaching the students during the day, teacher
tutors in SES-type schools did not suffer from the P-A information asymmetry and
resulting sub optimization shortcomings found in SES schools.
Major Theme Two: Compared with the SES-type programs, coordination of
principals and agents in SES programs represents a larger opportunity for
improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and increased participation than the
adjustment of incentives such as punishments and rewards.
Expectations and Effectiveness in SES vs. SES-type Programs
In this study, parents and educators were found to believe that SES tutoring
was effective (Finding 2). The P-A information asymmetry problem can help
explain why this is the case. When the problem of information asymmetry is present
in this SES study, the school district (director) or parent (director) was found to
possess inadequate information to accurately evaluate the SES provider (agent). As
a result, one possibility was the risk that SES providers would be deemed to be better
providers than they actually were.
Biasing the opinion of parents may have been the finding that the need for
after school tutoring acted upon to produce greater parent involvement. This was
found to be true in both SES and SES-type schools in this study. Teachers at one
SES-type school commented on the “wake up call” that produced greater parent
awareness. SES-type teacher tutors and SES school principals cited research about
additional time on task and practice that tutoring provides as a means to improve
student learning. Tutors in SES schools commented on the involvement of some

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

113
with students rather than an activity done to students. SES-type teacher tutors
recognized this and suffered none of the problems of tutor inattention reported with
SES tutors.
Behavior exhibited by SES providers gave evidence of an adverse selection
problem. The adverse selection problem was faced by parents who needed to select
an SES provider for their child under the conditions that parents had imperfect
information to select the best provider for their child. SES providers that were
confident in their tutoring services to deliver improved student learning welcomed
efforts to distinguish themselves and screen out weaker SES providers. In this study
SES providers were found that welcomed outside scrutiny of their tutoring practices
and performance, while one SES provider in the sample was found to be unwilling to
answer the most basic questions about their program.
The adverse selection problem can explain the behavior exhibited by SES
providers in this study. In a competitive field of many SES providers vying for
parent attention and hopefully their subsequent enrollment of their child with their
tutoring service, only a few SES providers would benefit from any ranking or
screening process. To be considered by parents as a choice, SES providers attempted
to differentiate their tutoring services through other non-student performance related
marketing dimensions. Indeed, only 9 of 29 SES providers used increased test scores
or improved grades, a proxy for student learning and the effectiveness of tutoring, as
one of their marketing dimensions. Improved student performance was one of the
top five marketing dimensions used by SES providers. In absence of common

114
assessment used across all SES providers to evaluate the output of additional tutoring
or a SES provider ranking scorecard, SES providers used multiple marketing
dimensions to obtain a competitive edge over rivals. As a result, parents are left
without a clear picture painted by available SES information to avoid the risk of
selecting a SES provider that is not the best choice for their child. To quote from
one speaker at Education Industry Days 2008, “There is no true competition without
results” and comparable results among SES providers are the missing element that is
at the root of the adverse selection problem facing parents.
SES vs. SES-type After School Tutors and School Districts Working Together
The P-A problem of divergent objectives between a school district (principal)
and outside SES providers (agents) working together can impede the ability of
parents to participate in SES (Finding 5). Under the divergent objectives problem,
goal conflict occurs as SES providers pursue their own objectives at the expense of
the school district objectives. Woven into the fabric of this relationship is the new
territory of school districts and outside SES providers working together.
Preconceived notions and perceptions that the school district and SES providers had
about the motivations each other had, impeded parent participation.
Several examples of behaviors observed that can be explained by this goal
conflict and divergent objectives were found in this study. The role of the district
does not only include support for SES after school tutoring for eligible students.
Maintaining a level playing field among the many SES providers is one of the
monitoring duties of the district. Unsatisfied with the process for their SES

115
application, one provider attempted to make appeals through the school district
hierarchy starting with the district SES support staff and leading through the
Superintendent and ultimately the Board.
This behavior is an example of divergent objectives as the SES provider, in
their enthusiasm to become an approved provider, did so with disregard for the
school district goal of maintaining a level playing field for all SES providers. The
application process for SES providers is one monitoring method used by the school
district to ensure SES providers abide by the rules governing SES and that the
children who will work with tutors are protected. The school district is delegated to
support the multiple goals of supporting SES tutoring for qualified students and
maintaining a level playing field for all SES providers. Dixit (2002) indicates in his
research on public sector P-A relationships that the presence of multiple goals is one
distinguishing element that makes education unique when applying P-A theory.
Principal and teacher enthusiasm and support for SES are another example
from this study where the divergent objectives problem can explain behaviors. In
this study, it was found that educators were initially supportive of additional tutoring
for students, a goal that aligned with that of the school district. However, this
enthusiasm waned and changed to suspicion of outside SES providers when it was
learned that profit driven outsiders would be providing the after school tutoring.
Divergent objectives can help explain behavior observed as a result of the values
conflict between educators and SES providers. Educators were doubtful of the
commitment to helping students by outside SES providers who had the goal of also

116
making a profit. Doubts were exacerbated by concerns that SES providers may not
be qualified to deliver tutoring. The resulting behavior was a lack of support for
SES, that was signaled to parents by not receiving information about the SES option
from educators, that consequently resulted in barriers to parent SES participation.
Redressing the Imbalance of information Over Time
Research from Levinthal (1988) on the role of time on the P-A relationship
suggests that over time the relationship between the school district and SES
providers will improve. This improvement occurs as a result of uncertainty being
reduced as information about SES providers is revealed and dysfunctional behavior,
such as “bad actor” SES providers or providers unable to successfully compete with
rivals, exit. SES provider turnover indicates a reduction in the number of SES
providers from 80 (2006-2007) to 69 (2007-2008). Only 9 SES providers in 2007-
2008 were providers who returned from the previous year. As both school district
and SES providers increasingly mutually understand how they need to operate
successfully, they will be able to work together towards the common goal of
providing SES tutoring to qualified students. Evidence of this was seen in the study
as a Principal of one school conceded that her original skepticism was not validated
and that SES was doing some good for a percentage of students. Teachers also
overcame some of their reservations and recommended the SES option to parents in
parent-teacher conferences.

117
Parent-Tutor Relationships in SES vs. SES-type Programs
Compared to tutoring in SES-type schools, SES after school tutoring was
found to be more dependent on the SES tutor-student relationship and the SES
provider-tutor relationship with the parents (Finding 6). This difference in behavior
can be accounted for by the principal-agent relationship between parent and SES
provider. In SES-type schools, the role of the parent is removed from the tutoring
process. Parent participation is limited to the granting of permission for their student
to attend SES-type school tutoring. Parents did not have the opportunity to select the
SES-type tutor or view the SES-type tutoring process. The opposite was found when
studying the SES tutoring process and relationship between the parent (principal) and
SES providers (agents).
The role of parents in the after school tutoring process of SES schools varied
in two areas when compared with that of SES-type schools. The first area is that
parents in SES schools had the authority to select among multiple outside SES
providers. As found in this study, parents sometimes exercised this authority to
change tutors or even providers who did not meet their needs. Parents in SES
schools were encouraged to, and often informally shared, their experiences with SES
providers. Not only must SES providers concern themselves with the improving
student learning through tutoring, but they must also have the goal of managing the
expectations of parents.
The second area is the role parents could play in the SES tutoring process.
Since SES tutoring in this study took place mostly in the home, parents had a front

118
row seat into the SES tutoring process. From such a vantage point, parents were also
able to bring their expectations and beliefs about good tutoring in direct contact with
the tutoring their child was receiving. This type of parent interaction was not present
in SES-type schools. As found in the SES parent survey, parents were sometimes
disappointed with the lack of observable results from SES tutoring, uncertain about
observed SES tutoring practices, or upset at the poor communication and scheduling
from SES tutors.
The P-A limited decision rights problem for SES providers, and the need to
manage multiple goals and multiple principals explains the need for SES providers to
be mindful of the relationship with parents. The finding of these multiple goals and
multiple parents as principals is supported by P-A research from Dixit (2002) that
cites these elements in making education unique when applying P-A theory. The P-
A problem of weak incentives for parents also serves to understand parent behaviors.
SES providers who wish to continue as a tutoring resource have a need to concern
themselves with not only the quality of tutoring they provide. SES providers must
also be mindful of their relationship with parents and the expectations they have for
communication, information, and academic assistance for their child.

119
CHAPTER FIVE
Summary, Conclusions and Implications of Findings

Chapter Overview
This chapter will review the findings and major themes to relate them to the
current understanding of SES in the research and literature. The findings will lead to
conclusions related to organizational relationships in Supplemental Educational
Services (SES) after school tutoring in Title I schools. The researcher will present
recommendations for SES policymakers and stakeholder groups based on this
research study. While the research study was on NCLB SES legislation applied
nationwide, the scope was limited to California and contributes to the early pool of
research on SES programs. This study may serve as a launch pad for future research
in the area of SES. As such, the researcher will share implications for future
research in SES that were discovered during the study and conclude with closing
thoughts on the subject.

Discussion of the Study
From comparing the after school tutoring systems in Title 1 SES and SES-
type schools, evidence and findings supported the existence of two organizational
relationship chains that could be applied to both organizations. These two
overarching organizational relationship chains were 1) communication and 2) data.
The presence of P-A relationships and the communications and data problems

120
supports the use of P-A to study the behavioral implications of imperfect information
(Jensen and Meckling, 1976, Arrow 1984). The chain of communication found can
be described as:
Communication > Understanding > Involvement > Commitment
The chain of data found can be described as:
Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom
The use of SES and SES-type after school tutoring organizations in this study
permits us to understand the importance of time and attention advocated by
Levinthal (1988) in his work on agency models in organizations. According to
Levinthal (1988), time and attention required to accomplish coordination within the
organizations can work towards remedying the conflicting goals and imperfect
information found in P-A relationships. Research into organizational knowledge
sharing by King and Marks (2006), speaks to the structure of the organization as a
factor in the “knowledge sharing” culture. This study did find differences in the type
and quality of information used in SES and SES-type organizations. On
relationships in an SES and SES-type organization, Appendix H lists some of the P-
A relationships found. These findings support the conclusion by Ferris (1992) that
public education can be viewed as a series of P-A relationships.
While these data and communication chains applied to both the SES and
SES-type after school tutoring systems, the SES-type schools were found to be more
encompassing of all elements of the chain. SES schools were found to be less so,
particularly towards the right ends of each chain for commitment in the

121
communication chain and wisdom in the data chain. Over time, the chain begins
with the lowest level of integration of organizational relationships and proceeds to
the highest levels in moving to the right. Research by Levinthal (1988) suggests that
P-A relationships become more efficient over time as the P-A relationship repeats
itself. The explanation for the increase in efficiency is that the effects of uncertainty
are reduced and dysfunctional behavior becomes apparent over time. In this study,
Levinthal’s P-A conclusions for organizations were seen in the parent (principal) and
SES provider and tutor (agent) relationship. Over time, certain SES providers
earned a reputation with parents that they were a good provider or a bad provider.
Applying our communication chain finding, parents communicated about
SES providers with each other which imparted understanding about SES provider
quality. Parent involvement grew as they committed themselves to providers based
on earlier communications with parents. The data chain followed a similar path.
Parents shared their beliefs “data” on SES providers. Other parents in turn used this
data to narrow the field of SES providers for useful information in the selection
process. Knowledge was expressed as parents applied this information to choose an
SES provider. Wisdom was seen with the decline in parents seeking SES
information in the following years as parents became more familiar with the SES
process, as noted by the school Outreach Consultant and district SES support staff.

122
Expanding on P-A Theory in Education
Principal-agent research by Jensen and Meckling (1976) and Arrow (1985)
describe that the foundation of P-A theory is information and economic incentives in
the delegation of authority from principal to the agent. Principal-agent problems
center on accountability and when the objectives of the principal and agent diverge.
This study utilized P-A theory to understand organizational relationships in SES and
SES-type after school programs to expand our understanding of P-A in education in
several areas.
P-A theory states that, given information asymmetries, agents typically know
more about their work than their principals do. In this study, the SES after school
tutoring program was found not to function as well as SES-type programs. Common
goals and information was shared and available among principals and agents in SES-
type programs. To replicate this same access to communication and information in
an SES program would have required additional time, effort, and funding. This
shortfall is referred to as agency loss or agency costs.
The P-A theory describes the ideal as a system where the sharing and flow of
information is without cost and the goals of principal and agent are aligned. The
SES-type after school tutoring programs most closely approximates the function
where information is shared without cost and goals of principals and agents are
aligned. SES after school tutoring programs approximate the next best solution
where, due to the use of outside SES providers, the sharing of information is not
without cost and goals of the school district and parents (principals) and SES

123
providers (agents) are not aligned. P-A theory can be used in education to compare
the differences between proposed education reforms and current states through
identification of these agency costs.
This study expands the understanding of the motivation of agents in P-A
theory. In particular, in this study the role of the motivated agents found in SES-type
programs compared to the external SES provider agents. Instances of intrinsic
motivations by agents were found in this study that reduced the information
asymmetry and need for monitoring that characterize P-A problems in education.
Intrinsically motivated agents are those employees who have their self needs and
goals satisfied by involvement in the activity itself (King and Marks, 2006). Dixit
(2002) called these intrinsically motivated people motivated agents in a P-A
relationship and a unique characteristic of P-A theory applied in public education.
Motivated agents took it upon themselves to act as information brokers, as
was seen in the case of the Outreach Consultants who reached out to parents. A
motivated agent in the form of an SES tutor was found, but noted as an exception in
this study. One particular SES tutor had “bonded” with the student and family to the
degree that they took it upon themselves to attend a Student Study Team (SST)
meeting. This was an action that extended beyond the contractual (and paid)
requirements of SES providers.
What is illustrative across all motivated agents found in this study was that
their intrinsic non-monetary motivation was a key element in determining how well
the after school tutoring program functioned. The receptiveness to a knowledge

124
sharing culture distinguished SES-type from SES programs. These motivated agents
identified closely with the overall goals of the after school tutoring programs to
improve student achievement. This aspect of a strong interpersonal culture in
improving the principal-agent relationship has been noted by King and Marks (2006)
in their P-A study of motivating knowledge sharing in organizations and Levinthal
(1988) in his recommendation that management should place a greater emphasis on
coordination in organizations that have P-A issues.

Applications of P-A for Education Practitioners in Future Reform Efforts
A Pause before Starting a Reform
As a result of the P-A relationships in SES schools with outside SES
providers (agents), school districts bear the costs of and suffer the effects of P-A
problems. School districts have an incentive in this SES case to minimize the cost
and effects of these P-A problems. In school reform where participation by outside
entities (agents) is involved, educators (principals) would benefit from understanding
that there will be P-A problems. The degree to which that these programs impact the
reform can serve as the starting place for a dialog between the school district and
educators (principals) and outside entities (agents).
This step or “pause” before beginning a reform effort can help dispel some of
the siren song and glow of a new reform and program to allow all parties to
understand the true scope of the work involved in the reform. The ash heap of
education history is littered with the bones of past reforms that initially promised

125
much, but ended in disappointment. Stopping to identify and understand the P-A
issues in education reforms can add a research based reality check that may forestall
future disappointment.
The scope of the information asymmetries can range on one end from the
perfect state where all information is shared and goals are in alignment. At the other
extreme, P-A scenarios exist where actions of the agent are not monitored by the
principal. An understanding about the goals of the principals and agents can
improve how quickly reform efforts can successfully take root. In this study, the US
DOE acknowledged but underestimated the difficulty in how school districts
(principals) and multiple SES providers (agents) would work together. Findings in
this study found the existence of P-A problems due to an imbalance of information
and the misalignment of goals and incentives between school districts to improve
Title I student achievement by after school tutoring and outside SES providers
working towards a profitable business. These findings are in line with what was
predicted by the research of Jensen and Meckling (1976) and Arrow (1985).
Attention to Coordination among Principals and Agents in Education Reform
On P-A and organizations, such as the SES and SES-type after school
tutoring programs in this study, Levinthal (1988) believes that management should
spend more time on the development of procedures to improve coordination among
principal and agents. Coordination problems were cited by school Principals at SES
schools in this study. This added attention to coordination among principal and
agents is supported in P-A education research. McCubbins, Noll and Wiengast

126
(1987), Ferris (1992), and Dixit (2002) all found that education was a complex series
of principal-agent relationships complicated by multiple principals.
Measuring Performance in Education Reform with P-A
The repetition of principal-agent relationship over time improves efficiency
as more information is revealed that will reduce uncertainty and dysfunctional
behavior (Levinthal, 1988). The measurement of performance of educational
reforms where P-A relationships are present is not without critics. Research by
DeHoog (1990) describes the challenge of measuring efficiency and effectiveness in
“soft” service areas, such as education (in contrast to “hard” service areas, such as
garbage collection). Levinthal (1988) suggests the use of rank, order performance of
agents relative to other agents as a measure of performance.
In his Nobel Prize lecture, Stanford Business School Professor A. Michael
Spence (2001) discusses how the use of “signals” can carry information from sellers
to buyers in a market with incomplete information. In this study, the signals would
be from SES providers (sellers) to the school district and parents (buyers). High
quality SES providers who can successfully deliver on the promise of improved
student learning through tutoring seek to distinguish themselves from their less
capable SES competitors. Both high quality SES provider and “bad actor” SES
providers seek to establish a reputation over time. Findings from this study revealed
how SES providers competed in marketing dimensions and imitated behaviors
conveyed information or “signals” to parents that did not reduce the adverse
selection problem. On P-A in education, Dixit (2002) states, “To sum up, the system

127
of public education is a multi-task, multi-principal, multiperiod, near monopoly
organization with vague and poorly observable goals”. The ranking system proposed
by Levinthal (1988) can be used in education reform efforts to signal information on
performance where P-A issues are present.
For the SES and SES-type education organizations in this study, both
Levinthal (1988) and King and Marks (2006) concur that P-A relationships in
organizations can be improved through 1) the deliberate commitment of time and
attention to greater coordination and 2) improved supervisory control mechanisms
between principal and agent (P-A). As a result of evidence and findings collected
from this study of SES, the two overarching themes for improvement were clear.
The first was that Title I after school tutoring requires tight integration with the
regular day instruction for the most benefit for students. The second was that
increasing participation in SES tutoring will require more effort than SES-type
tutoring programs. The recommendation section that follows details actions that can
address the issues of these two themes.

Recommendations
Organizational Constraints: Capacity and Funding
The findings and conclusions of this study have led to the following
recommendations to improve SES after school tutoring programs and remedy some
of the principal-agent problems that were found. In the context of publicly funded
grade K-12 education, an environment of scarcity of resources is more the norm than

128
the exception. While ideas to improve education are abundant, the fiscal and
organizational resources to carry them out are often absent. However, creative
budgeting and reallocation of existing resources increase the feasibility of
implementing these recommendations.
The Funding for expanding the availability of these services could come from
several options. Individual schools could reallocate some of their Title I funding to
expand availability of SES services, a solution experienced by one SES provider in
this study. SES participation by students outside of the eligible population of Title I
students with free and reduced lunch status could be based on a sliding scale based
on family income.
NCLB SES legislation requires that five percent of a school district Title I,
Part A allocation be dedicated to satisfying requests for supplemental educational
services. If demands for SES do not exceed this five percent, the funding could be
redirected to support the recommendations proposed below. As per NCLB SES
legislation, a school district has the option to transfer funds to support SES from
eligible programs that include Title II, Part A, Improving Teacher Quality State
Grants; Title II, Part D, Educational Technology State Grants; Title IV, Part A, Safe
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants; and Title V, Part A, State
Grants for Innovative Programs. For some recommendations below, repurposing the
use of existing staff or a combination of collaborative efforts among parents,
educators, school district, schools and SES providers can aid in implementing the
proposed recommendations.

129
Recommendation 1: Increased outreach to parents about SES by the school district
This recommendation is designed to address the problems of adverse
selection and information asymmetry for parents (principals) in the selection of SES
providers (agents). Parents are at a disadvantage in selecting the SES provider who
can best meet the needs of their child because of a lack of unbiased SES provider
information. The risk of choosing an SES provider who is not the best choice is the
adverse selection problem. As found in this study, the large number of SES
providers who are competing in the same marketing dimensions (Table 4-6) makes it
difficult to distinguish the chaff from the grain. Word of mouth about the quality of
SES providers from parents provides information over an informal network, but
should not be considered a reliable or accessible resource for all parents.
Evidence from this study found cases where extraordinary efforts, in
particular by the Outreach Consultants, produced significantly larger participation by
parents and students in SES. Low percentages of enrollment mask eligible students
missing the SES opportunity because parents are not getting adequate and timely
communication and information. This is limiting the opportunity for parents to make
informed decisions about which SES providers to choose. Some low cost
improvements to improve the communication about the SES opportunity that would
not tax the school district budget and staffing include providing information to
teachers to discuss the SES option for eligible students during parent-teacher
conferences and distributing SES program information in student registration packets
and handbooks. The school and district website could also be a relatively low cost

130
vehicle for improving outreach about SES programs. The simple change in language
from the cryptic acronym “SES” to “after school tutoring” would help make
awareness of the program more accessible to parents. Should additional funding to
support and promote SES become available, such as proposals by the Education
Industry Association to increase NCLB allocation of funds to such activities, the
school district and its SES support staff can extend their role of increasing parent
outreach. This will ensure a credible unbiased clearing house on SES providers that
can be trusted by parents.
US DOE officials used the sports analogy of getting parents, community and
local economies from their traditional place in the bleachers and into the game by
informing them about the SES option. Parent involvement was a key element for
success of SES as noted in February 2008 at a Washington D.C. Education Industry
Days panel of representatives for the 2008 Presidential candidates. On SES
programs, the representative for Barack Obama commented, “Whoever presents
programs that work should get the money” while the representative for John McCain
stated, “If it doesn’t work, parents aren’t going to buy it”. The school district is the
best positioned in terms of communications infrastructure, staffing and trust to
perform this outreach function. The actions can reduce the probability of adverse
selection and redress the information asymmetry P-A problems faced by parents.

131
Recommendation 2: Allow school districts to objectively rank provider performance
on an SES provider report card
This recommendation is designed to address the P-A problems of information
asymmetry, adverse selection, divergent objectives and weak incentives faced by the
school district (principal) and SES providers (agents) and the P-A relationship of
parents (principal) and SES provider (agents). The organizational P-A research
from Leventhal (1988) and Dixit (2002) suggest that the use of a common
assessment and rank, ordering agent performance could reduce the risk of adverse
selection by enforcing common performance measures across SES providers.
The benefits of this approach are uncovered in this study when comparing
SES provider marketing practices. Increased test scores and grades are not among
the top five marketing SES marketing dimensions. It appears that in absence of any
objective outside requirement, SES providers choose to market themselves on
anything other than improved student achievement.
For the school district (principal) and SES providers (agent) relationship, the
P-A problem of weak incentives will be remedied by use of a district report card on
SES providers. Since SES provider value to parents would be seen in the rankings,
SES providers that improve student achievement would be rewarded with a high
ranking. Lower performing SES providers could avoid their fate by improving the
achievement of their students. Ranking SES providers would provide incentives for
them to ensure their agent goals are in alignment with those of the school district –
the improvement of student achievement through after school tutoring.

132
This study discovered the encouragement of parents to informally
communicate with each other about the quality and reputation of SES providers,
since the role of the district SES support staff was to create a level playing field for
all SES providers and not make recommendations. This informal parent network
served the same purpose in smoothing out the P-A information asymmetry issues in
selecting an SES provider. The accountability associated with an SES provider
report card would effectively rank providers on quality of delivery of service and
level the playing field of the principal-agent problem of information asymmetry, and
adverse selection where the school district and parents are not fully informed to
discern quality of performance of dozens of district approved SES providers.
The SES report card could share case studies of student SES success stories
and let the district sort, rank and recommend SES providers using objective metrics
such as percentage of students served, number of hours delivered and using a
common assessment of student growth. The resources to create this SES report card
could come from existing SES provider data collected by the district. Criteria for the
card could be created and vetted by parents who enroll their children in SES services.
The case studies of student SES success stories could come from parents, district
SES staff, and providers. These steps allow this option to be implemented without
additional taxing limited district resources.
To quote SES opponents in the June 20
th
, 2007 USA Today editorial on SES
after school tutoring effectiveness: “The only true measure of proof is learning”.
The parental option of SES after school tutoring will be strengthened with better

133
informed parents. SES report card accountability data will help improve the
perception and branding of SES tutoring not only valuable but desirable for parents.
Expectations for performance data will reinforce efficient operation of the SES
process. Parent participation and student enrollment in SES would be expected to
grow as a result. Qualitative measures of SES performance were noted by SES
providers in this study as a means of educating the public and schools to build
support for SES programs, weed out bad or weaker competitors, and perhaps dispel
the prejudices against outside for profit SES providers.
Recommendation 3: Explicitly detail in the law the provisions of what data and
information districts can and will share with SES providers; confidentiality of data
This recommendation is designed to address the P-A problems of limited
decision rights in the school district (principal) and SES provider (agent)
relationship. School districts collect a considerable amount of student performance
information. This information exists at the district in student information systems
(e.g. annual state summative assessments) or may exist also locally at the school site
in the form of grade books, grading rubrics, periodic district formative assessments,
or classroom assessments.
However, in this study it was found that a limited decision rights problem
existed for SES providers. SES providers did not possess the authority to access
existing district and school student performance information. Such information
could be beneficial to SES providers to more rapidly assess and tailor after school
tutoring to meet student needs, thereby improving the efficiency and effectiveness of

134
the SES organization. At best, the use of such existing student information was
murky. Some SES providers disregarded ad-hoc information provided by schools
while other SES providers reported they did have access to existing student
assessment information. High integration of organizational relationships in our SES-
type schools was found to contribute to an improved tutoring process while the
converse was found in SES schools. Unique instances were found where motivated
agents took it upon themselves to build relationships they perceived were needed to
improve the student SES tutoring process. The information and communication
chains discussed earlier in this study describe what an integrated relationship
between SES providers and school districts would resemble.
Recommendation 4: Include low achieving students who do not meet the free and
reduced lunch criteria. (Expand pool of students eligible for SES)
This recommendation is designed to address the P-A problems of limited
decision rights in the federal and state departments of education (principal) and the
school district (agent) relationship. This study has found evidence that the SES after
school tutoring option has contributed to supporting improved student achievement.
However, as the NCLB SES legislation is written, this solution is available to a very
narrow slice of the student population that qualifies (must be in a Title I school in
year 2-5 of Program Improvement, have Free and Reduced Lunch low income status,
and have scored at “below basic” and “far below basic” on the annual California
Standards Test (CST) in Language Arts and Math).

135
Figure 5-1. Expanded Pool of SES Eligibility

A more precise selection of students to participate in SES would be to target
the measured subgroups that did not achieve AYP goals and those students within
these groups that scored low achievement levels of “below basic” or ‘far below
basic” in the English Language Arts or Math sections of the California Standards
Test. This is depicted in Figure 5-1. The “X” denotes the current SES eligible
student population. The two circles represent the proposed expanded SES eligible
student population. Since the goals of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
and No Child Left Behind are to close the achievement gap and ensure that all
students achieve academic proficiency, the logic follows to increase the pool of SES

136
eligible students to include all low performing students. By improving through use
of SES after school tutoring, all low performing students, low and high income alike,
will have the additional academic assistance provided by SES. Increasing
availability can help close the achievement gap and help the school earn its way out
of program improvement status. School districts should be accorded the decision
rights to offer SES to an expanded pool of eligible students.
Recommendation 5: Offer SES as a Summer School option
This recommendation is designed to address the P-A problems of limited
decision rights in the federal and state departments of education (principal) and the
school district (agent) relationship. As the current legislation is written, SES after
school tutoring is only available during the school year. In this study, it was found
that because of the time required to process SES provider applications, the wait for
the return of annual state test scores from the previous year, and time to determine
the school program improvement status and student SES eligibility, SES tutoring
could start well into the school year after January.
Research from this study discovered differences in the tutored Math and
Language Arts content areas. With Math, tutored subjects and concepts could be
parsed into discrete units that did not require large amounts of time to teach and
could be assessed for learning mastery easily. This did not turn out to be the case for
Language Arts. Educators in this study pointed out that Language Arts concepts and
learning required a greater amount of time and that the concepts could not be so
easily separated out to be taught or assessed as separate skills. The blocks of time

137
and duration of tutoring time needed to support improved Language Arts tutoring
could be found during a summer school session. The one hour of after school
tutoring a couple times a week was not deemed to be equally effective across the
Math and Language Arts tutoring areas.
School Principals at SES-type schools of Hart Elementary and Eagle
Elementary reported two limiting elements in the provision of after school tutoring:
The first was a teaching staff that was simply too tired after a day of work to press on
even further to provide after school tutoring services for the students with the
greatest need. The second were the competing obligations and demands on teacher
time of home, family and personal life. In short, the professional teaching resource
is committed to the cause but limited by the laws of nature. And while it is possible
to run machines in overdrive, the same does not hold for people and even the most
enthusiastic teacher (and student receiving the tutoring) will run out of energy.
However, the repurposing of SES providers to also deliver summer school is
an option under certain conditions. For example, if a teaching staff is unavailable to
teach during summer school, SES providers could be an additional pool of talent that
could meet the needs of students. SES provided summer school could be made even
stronger if the aforementioned shortcomings and recommendations were addressed.
School districts and schools should be provided the additional decision rights by the
federal and state departments of education to offer SES as a summer school option.

138
Recommendation 6: Offer SES tutoring to a larger segment of the student population
This recommendation is designed to address the P-A problems of limited
decision rights in the federal and state departments of education (principal) and the
school district (agent) relationship in offering SES tutoring to students who do not
qualify in all categories. In the SES parent survey, parents lamented that their
student had improved so much, that they were no longer eligible for SES tutoring
services. This opens the door to discussions about implications for students who are
the average student or the gifted students. Federal budgets reflect the commitment to
improving the educational lot of low performing students in low performing schools.
Left unattended, the existing state of sub optimization will remain with misalignment
of goals and loss of opportunity through miscommunications, and lack of
information sharing becoming the status quo between school districts and outside
SES providers.
However, national competitiveness on the world stage will not be enhanced
by lifting all students to the level of proficient, while letting average students
stagnate and gifted students drift downward compared to their world peers. Parents
indicated in their SES surveys that they would also like to see a program in the
school for the children that are at grade level so that they don’t get behind. As one
parent stated on such tutoring, “Why wait until they get behind to try and help
them?” If the benefits of such after school tutoring programs are as effective as we
have discovered, it would merit looking at how to extend such services to the
average and gifted students to help them reach their academic potential. This

139
approach to setting the bar higher for all students was found at Eagle Elementary.
To borrow from Lisa Blackwell, a protégé of Stanford researcher Carol Dweck in the
area of motivation and student achievement, who studied improving achievement in
low performing students, “The brain is a muscle. Giving it a harder workout makes
you smarter” (Bronson, 2007). This is a piece of advice that should apply to all
students, not just those who need tutoring, as we push all students forward.
Recommendation 7: Creation of an SES Provider-School District Advisory Council
This recommendation is designed to address the five P-A problems of
adverse selection, information asymmetry, divergent objectives and weak incentives,
limited decision rights, for the school district (principal) and SES providers (agents).
In any forest of opportunity, not all trees grow to reach the sky. While P-A research
on organizations by Levinthal (1988) indicates that over time the P-A relationship
problems may work themselves out, this leaves SES program success in the hands of
chance. And as a tree in the forest needs a little extra help to grow to the sky, the
same is true for this new relationship between traditionally near-monopolistic school
district and the multitude of outside SES providers.
In interviews for this study, SES officials from the U.S. Department of
Education commented that in order for the partnership between school districts and
SES providers to be successful, each will need to learn and respect how the other
operates. An illustrative example of learning and respecting how the other operates
can be seen in the similar problem each faces in dealing with a large number of
clients. In the SES district and schools, considerable time, energy, and resources

140
were spent on non-instructional organizational support elements, such as student
enrollment and eligibility, communications with the dozens of vendors about
contract, attendance accounting and payments for SES vendors, etc. This can be
quantified in the two full time and one part time district employees committed to
supporting SES for the district in this study. Likewise, SES providers in this study
pointed out the challenge of managing dozens of school districts with SES support
staff that ranged from very knowledgeable to new on the job. In some cases, SES
providers were better informed about the program requirements than district SES
personnel.
Support for SES will be aided by the creation of a joint school district-SES
provider advisory council. This forum would allow a clearing house for information
and a vehicle to address P-A problems. The inefficient alternative would be for the
school district to deal with potentially the same P-A problems with each SES
provider, many times over. The agency models of organizations research by
Levinthal (1988) supports the deliberate expenditure of time and attention to improve
coordination between the school district and SES providers. This can accelerate the
learning curve and level of integration as specified in the previous data and
communication chains in this chapter.

141
Implications for Future Research
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?”
-Albert Einstein (Nobel Prize for Physics, 1921)

Having studied SES in the context of the research questions and the
principal-agent (P-A) problems, several unexplored areas are suggested as topics for
further research:
1. SES in Coastal vs. Inland Districts: This study initially was designed to
include two California school districts with Title I SES and SES-type
schools. One district was to be from Inland Southern California while the
other, which was not included because of communication problems, was a
Coastal Southern California district. The intent was to study two areas: 1)
concentration and quality of SES providers across districts in the same state
and 2) SES implementation and support by two different school districts
using P-A theory. The basis for studying this was variations found across
districts in the literature review. These ranged from districts which were
recognized as leaders in SES implementation to the extreme of districts that
had a revolving door on the SES office in terms of leadership. These two
areas were not able to be addressed in this study and remain a question and
open to further study.
2. Student Motivation in After School Tutoring: SES-type after school tutoring
after a full day of school was found to be demanding on students and teachers
alike. Attendance was not so much an issue as engagement was for students

142
in after school tutoring programs. In the words of the SES-type school
Principal at Eagle Elementary, “It isn’t really the attendance. We find that the
engagement, it’s really getting the engagement, the focus of the student – it’s
not the end of the day for them, it’s starting up. And now here are some
really important things. We need you to start paying attention to and its
2:45.” One area where improved understanding of program can help is in the
area of positive learning environment, what Cohen (2006) refers to as the joy
of learning in students. The After School Corporation (TASC) president
Lucy Friedman puts it plainly where she states that what brings students to
programs and to the school is that the activities may not look like learning, a
form of “stealth learning” (Frerking, 2007). There was a small number who
were found to be unmotivated during the day and in after school programs.
One teacher commented on a student “ditching” on the first day of the after
school tutoring class. Teachers were uncertain how to address the needs of
the unwilling students. By its very title of “No Child Left Behind”, NCLB
places the burden of sanctions on educators but provides little in the way of
incentives for students who are unmotivated to learn. In this case, teachers
and schools possess few tools to address student motivation. It extends
beyond the scope of this study, but methods to increase student motivation in
those where it is lacking represents an opportunity to improve student
learning. Motivation for all students to engage in tutoring at the end of a long
school day is an issue. For a small number of students, school has become

143
irrelevant to their lives. Emotionally dropping out of school is a prelude to
physically dropping out of school.
How to reconnect students to learning is an area that is only opening
in the field of the role of emotion in education (Immordino-Yang and
Damasio, 2007). Our physical actions and responses are slaves to emotional
goals (in the case of the ditching student, running away is more emotionally
satisfying than receiving after school tutoring). Areas to examine could
include the study of P-A problems with the teacher/tutor (principal) and the
student (agent) to improve their current limited influence over student
behavior, when and why the flame of the desire to learn was extinguished,
and how to motivate students who may not have support from the home.
3. The School District and SES Provider Alliance- Adversaries and Allies: One
of the characteristics of early stages of competition is a field of many
competitors, as was found with the field of SES providers in this study. While
this in itself is not new, the new element that SES brings to the environment
is the interaction between a vigorously competitive market of outside SES
providers and the historically monopolistic public education system. This
study has only scratched the surface to reveal the P-A complexities of
bringing together the separate entities of public sector education and outside
SES providers.
The complexity of principal-agent organizational relationships, as
studied by Levinthal (1988), DeHoog (1990) and Dixit (2002), incentives and

144
definition of roles becomes inherently messy when the school district is both
a customer for SES provider services and a competitor if the district also is an
SES provider. As one example of organizational learning found in this study,
school districts and outside SES providers need to mutually respect and
understand how the business of the other functions. Profit is not evil and
school district regulations and paperwork are not bureaucratic nonsense.
The challenge for SES providers is that more proof is needed to
demonstrate that SES is delivering on its promise of improved student
learning. SES represents an important opportunity for private sector for
profit providers to show they can work hand-in-hand with school districts.
Should SES providers fail to demonstrate their value and effectiveness, the
failure could stain the role of private involvement in public education for
years to come. These issues are beyond the scope of this study and an area
for further research.
4. After School Tutoring - Comprehensive vs. Academic: In the Olympics, if a
runner seeks to become faster, they do not merely run more. The athlete
includes other elements in the training regimen, such as a change in diet,
lifting weights or self-actualization training. Education research on after
school programs has found the same effect of programs that are purely
academic vs. those that include a blend of academics and self-esteem and
confidence (Ross, et al, 1992; Halpern, 2002). In this study, a more
comprehensive after school program funded by Proposition 49 called the

145
After School Education and Safety (ASES) was found at many schools.
While beyond the scope of the schools targeted for this study, the question of
whether such comprehensive programs can help engage students more
effectively is an area that could benefit from further research. It may be true
that students who are already unsuccessful in school during the day are
understandably less motivated to put their hand into the academic fire for
after tutoring school as well.
Even with the limited scope of this study on SES in one school district
and the use of principal-agent (P-A) theory to study schools required to
provide SES and those that voluntarily provided SES-type school after school
tutoring, it was evident that Supplemental Educational Services (SES) offers
two new educational opportunities. The first is the use of outside SES
providers to give additional academic assistance to students who qualify.
The second is the new opportunity for expanding the frontiers of parent
choice. Opportunities exist for school district partnership with for profit and
non-profit after school tutoring providers to improve student learning and
achievement. For this study in the San Angeles School District and the four
schools in this study, it can be generalized that the implementation of
Supplemental Educational Services (SES) set the framework and procedures
for the use of Title 1 SES after school tutoring.
Unlike voucher plans opposed by educators on the grounds that poor
and minority students would be at a disadvantage, SES provides student

146
choice for these students. However, the involvement of outside agents injects
additional organizational complexities in the form of principal-agent
problems. Comparing the delivery of Title I after school tutoring voluntarily
offered in SES-type schools to that required to be offered at NCLB SES
program improvement schools, permitted comparison of the merits of each
organization. As educators, parents, and SES providers and tutors agreed,
SES has room to grow and improve on helping improve student achievement.
And though the competing interests of parents, educators, and legislators may
not produce a perfect outcome, it is far from the unworkable condition
described by Hess and Finn (2007). The perfect solutions may be elusive.
However, collective efforts and research to improve SES through attention to
principal-agent problems can result in improved SES effectiveness and higher
student achievement and the possible evolution of the definition of public
education to include the involvement outside business partners combined
with the traditionally monopolistic school district.

147
REFERENCES
ACORN and AISJ. (2005, February). Accountability left behind: When children and
schools face high-stakes testing, tutoring Companies get a free ride.
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and the
American Institute for Social Justice (AISJ). Retrieved February 17, 2007
from http://www.acorn.org/fileadmin/ACORN_Reports/
Accountability_Left_Behind.pdf

American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (2004). New AYP policy on English
language learners. Retrieved May 13, 2007 from http://www.aft.org/
news/2004/ayp.

Anderson, L. & Weiner, L. (2007) Early implementation of supplemental
educational services. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/
rschstat/eval/disadv/supplementalyear1/finalyear1.doc

Arrow, K. (1984). The economics of agency. Institute for Mathematical Studies in
the Social Sciences technical report no. 451 (1984) Oct.

Ascher, C. (2006). Supplemental educational services: Is this what our students
need? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 136-41.

Belfield, C. & d’Entremont, C. (2005a). Privatization after school. The American
School Board Journal, 192(5), 28-31.

Belfield, C & d’Entremont C. (2005b). Will disadvantaged students benefit from a
free market in supplemental education services? American School Board
Journal 192 (5), 28-31.

Bernhardt, V. (2003). No schools left behind. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 26–30.

Borja, R. (2007, January 24). Companies want changes in NCLB tutoring policies.
Education Week. p. 10.

Bouffard, S. (2003). Doing what works: Scientifically based research in education.
The Evaluation Exchange, 9(1). Retreived March 9, 2007 from
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue21/bbt1.html.

Bouffard, S. M., Wimer, C., Caronongan, P., Little, P. M. D., Dearing, E., &
Simpkins, S. D. (2006). Demographics differences in patterns of youth out-of
–school time activity participation. Journal of Youth Development, 1(1).

148
Bronson, Po. (2007). How not to talk to your kids: the inverse power of praise. New
York Magazine, February 12, 2007.

Burch, P. (2007). Supplemental education services under NCLB: Emerging evidence
and policy issues. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Education Policy
Research Unit (EPRU). Retrieved May 7, 2007 from http://epsl.asu.edu/
epru/documents/EPSL-0705-232-EPRU.pdf.

Caro, R. (2006). Different voice lessons in power: Lyndon Johnson revealed.
Harvard Business Review. April 2006, pp.47-52

Center on Education Policy. (2007). Moving beyond identification: assisting schools
in improvement. A Report in the series from capital to the classroom: year 5
of the No Child Left Behind Act. July 2007.

Crandall, D., Datnow, A., Lieberman, A. Supovitz, J. & Wohlstetter, P. (2006).
Organising Success: Dimensions of creative operationalism in networked
learning communities. International perspectives on networked learning.
National College for School Leadership. Cranfield, England.

Christensen, C. (1997). The innovators dilemma: when new technologies cause great
firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press.

Clark, R. & Estes, F. (2002), Turning research into results: a guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. CEP Press.

Cohen, J. (2003, May/June). Supplemental education: six essential components.
Principal, 82(5), 34-7.

Cohen, Rebecca. (2007). Personal electronic mail communication on survey
methods.

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (January 2006). Extended
Learning Opportunities: Policy Statement Executive Summary. Retrieved
February 17, 2007 from http://www.ccsso.org/publications/index.cfm.

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (May 2000). Extended Learning
Initiatives: Opportunities and Implementation Challenges – Profiles of Six
Selected State Sponsored Initiatives. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from
http://www.ccsso.org/publications/index.cfm.

149
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (August 2005). The Finance
Project: Using NCLB Funds To Support Extended Learning Time:
Opportunities for Afterschool Programs – Strategy Brief. Retrieved February
17, 2007 from http://www.ccsso.org/publications/index.cfm.

Datnow, A., Park, V., and Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with Data: How high
performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary
students. Center for Educational Governance. Rossier School of Education.
University of Southern California. NewSchools Venture Fund.

DeHoog, R. (1990). Competition, negotiation or cooperation. Administration and
Society, 22(3), 317-340.

Delamaide, D. (July 19, 2007). Nobel learning communities going after the prize.
Retrived July 31, 2007 from
http://www.smallcapinvestor.com/articles/investing_strategies/small_cap_spo
tlights/07/19/2007/nobel_learning_communities_going_after_the_prize.

Dixit, A. (2002). Incentives and organizations in the public sector: an interpretative
review. The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 37, No. 4, (Autumn, 2002),
pp. 696-727.

Dynarski, Mark. (2004) When Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation of
the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. Mathematica Policy
Research. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from http://www.mathematica.org/
publications/PDFs/21stnewfindings.pdf.

Edsource. (2007a). Brief: Quality Education Investment Act embodies a new
approach to interventions. February 2007.

Edsource (2007b). Report: Worthy goals, limited success: Intervention programs in
California. February 2007.

Edsource (2007c). Resource Guide: A glossary of accountability terms. February
2007.

Education Industry Association (EIA). (2007a). Supplemental Education Services
Coalition. Education Industry Association 2007 Membership Directory.

Education Industry Association (EIA). (2007b). Code of Professional Conduct and
Business Ethics for Supplemental Educational Service Providers. Education
Industry Association 2007 Membership Directory.

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

151
Hanna, J. (2006). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act: 40 Years Later.
Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved March 17, 2007 from
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2005/08/esea0819.html.

Harmon, J., Ross, S., & Potter, A. (2006). Evaluating Supplemental Educational
Service Providers: Suggested Strategies for States (2
nd
Edition): A Guidebook
Prepared for the Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved March
10, 2007 from http://www.centerii.org/resources/SES%20evaluation
%20guide%20b%20&%20w.pdf

Hentschke, G. & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. The
age of accountability and the need for data driven decision making. UrbanEd.
USC Rossier School of Education (Spring/Summer 2004). Retrieved August
12, 2007 from http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/news/urbaned04/17.pdf.

Hess, F. & Finn, C. (2004). Leaving No Child Behind? Options for Kids in Failing
Schools. Palgrave Macmillan.

Hess, F. & Finn. C. (2007). Held back: no child left behind needs some work.
Policy Review. August/September 2007. Hoover Institution. Stanford
University. Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://www.hoover.org/
publications/policyreview/8815732.html

Immordino-Yang, M. & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: the
relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and
Education. Volume 1, Number 1. International Mind, Brain and Education
Society.

Institute of Educational Sciences (IES). (2007, October). National Assessment of
Title I: Final Report, Summary of Key Findings. U.S. Department of
Education. National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional
Assistance. NCEE 2007-4014. Retrieved February 3, 2008 from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20084014_rev.pdf

Jennings, J. (2000, March). Title I: its legislative history and its promise. Phi Delta
Kappan, 81(7), 516-22.

Jensen, M. & Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior,
agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3,
305-360.

152
Juvonen, J., Le. V., Kaganoff, T., Augustine, C., & Constant, L. (2004). Focus on
the Wonder Years: Challenges Facing American Middle School. RAND
Corporation.

Kane, T. J. (2004). The impact of after-school programs: Interpreting the results of
four recent evaluations. New York: W. T. Grant Foundation. Retrieved
March 9, 2007 from http://www.wtgrantfoundation.org/usr_doc/After-
school_paper.pdf.

Kerridge, D. (1996, December). Dr. Deming’s cure for a sick system. Journal for
Quality and Participation.

King, W. & Marks, P. (2006). Motivating knowledge sharing through a knowledge
management system. Katz Graduate School of Business, University of
Pittsburgh. Omega-The International Journal of Management Science,
Omega 36 (2008), 131-146

Kugler, M. (Sept 2001). After-school programs are making a difference. National
Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP).

Kreider, H. (2005). Studying contextual predictors of participation in out-of-school
time activities. The Evaluation Exchange, 11(1).

Lauver, S., Little, P. M. D., & Weiss, H. B. (2004). Moving beyond the barriers:
Attracting and sustaining youth participation in out-of-school time programs.
Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved March 9, 2007 from
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/content/projects/afterschool/resources/issue
brief6.pdf.

Levinthal, D. (1988). A survey of agency models in organizations. Carnegie-Mellon
University, Pittsburgh. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 9
(1988), 153-185. North-Holland.

Lezotte, L. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation.
Retrieved March 7, 2007 from http://www.effectiveschools.com/
Correlates.pdf.

Linquanti, R. (1999). Fostering academic success for English language learners:
what do we know? WestEd. Retrieved March 18, 2007 from
http://www.wested.org/policy/pubs/fostering/.

153
Little, P. M. D., Lauver, S., & Harden, S. (2005). Engaging adolescents in out-of-
school time programs: learning that works. Remarks presented at the
American Youth Policy Forum, Washington, DC.

Long, R. (2007). National Association of State Title I Directors Honors
Distinguished Title I Schools-U.S. Department of Education Honors
Distinguished Title I Schools. National Association of State Title I Directors
(NASTID). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from http://www.titlei.org/
documents/2006DSPR.html.

Mahoney, J. L. (2000). School extracurricular activity participation as a moderator in
the development of antisocial patterns. Child Development, 71(2), 502–516.

Mantel, B. (2005, May 27). No child left behind. CQ Researcher, 15, 469-492.
Retrieved March 14, 2007, from http://library.cqpress.com/
cqresearcher/cqresrre2005052700.

Marsh, J., Barney, H., & Russell, J. (2005). Accountability elements of the No Child
Left Behind act: Adequate yearly progress, school choice, and supplemental
educational services. RAND Education Working Paper. (WR-258-EDU).

Mathews, J. (2000, May). Privatizing Title I. American Association of School
Administrators. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from http://www.aasa.org/
publications/aarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=3996&snItemNumber=950&tnI
temNumber=951.

McCubbins, M., Noll, R., & Weingast, B. (1987). Administrative procedures as
instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and
Organization, 3, 243-277.

McKenzie, R. & Lee, D. (1998). Managing through incentives: How to develop a
more collaborative, productive and profitable organization. Oxford
University Press.

Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitatitve data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Second edition. Sage Publications.

Muhlhausen, D. (2006). School choice and supplemental services: Administration
slow to hold districts accountable under NCLB. Heritage Foundation.
Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://www.heritage.org/Research/
Education/wm1041.cfm.

154
National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk:
The imperative for educational reform. A report to the nation and the
secretary of education. United States Department of Education. Retrieved
March 21, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.

National Association of State Title I Directors (NASTID). (2007). Avenues to
excellence: 2007 National Title I conference distinguished schools. Retrieved
March 7, 2007 from http://www.titlei.org/documents/dsprog06.pdf.

National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). (2007). Tough choices or
tough times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the American
workforce. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

National Archives and Records Administration. (2006). President Lyndon B.
Johnson’s Biography. Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum.
Retrieved March 17, 2007 from http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/
archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp#1960

No Child Left Behind (NCLB A) Act of 2001. U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved March 17, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/
leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB B). (2007). Choices for Parents: Helping Families by
Supporting and Expanding School Choice. U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved March 22, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/choice/
schools/choicefacts.html.

New Jersey Department of Education (NJ DOE). (2005) Supplemental Educational
Services Provider Self-Evaluation Survey Results 2004-2005 Project Period.
Trenton, NJ. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from http://www.state.nj.us/njded/
title1/program/ss/results.shtml.

Nieto, Sonia M. (Dec. 2002/Jan. 2003). Equity and Opportunity: Special Section
Profoundly Multicultural Questions. Educational Leadership v. 60 no4, p. 6-
82.

Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic
Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA). (2005). The
Growing Numbers of Limited English Proficient Students: 1993/94 to
2003/2004. Retrieved March 18, 2007 from http://www.netc.org/focus/
images/pdf/ell.pdf.

155
Patton, Michael. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Third edition.
Sage Publications.

Potter, Allison and Steven M. Ross. (2005). A Review of Implementation of
Supplemental Educational Services in Virginia and Recommendations for
Future Implementation: 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Center for Research in
Education Policy. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/nclb/SESreview.pdf.

Pratt, J. and Zeckhauser, R. (1985). Principals and Agents: The Structure of
Business. Harvard Business School.

Questions and Answers on Choice and Supplemental Educational Services. U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from
http://www.ed.gov/parents/schools/choice/choice.html.

Rentner, D., Chudowski, N., Fagan, T., Gayler, K., Hamilton, M., Kober, N. (2003)
From the capital to the classroom: state and federal efforts to implement the
No Child Left Behind Act. Center on Education Policy.

Robelen, Erik W. (July 26, 2006). GOP Proposes New National Voucher Plan.
Education Week. Volume 25, No. 45, p. 29.

Ross, J. G., Saavedra, P. J., Shur, G. H., Winters, F., & Felner, R. D. (1992). The
effectiveness of an after-school program for primary grade latchkey students
on precursors of substance abuse. Journal of Community Psychology, 20(1),
22–38.

Saifer, S., & Spether, T. (2007). Supplemental educational services implementation
challenges in the Northwest Region states. (Issues & Answers Report, REL
2007-No. 006). Washington, DC: Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Retrieved July 16,
2007 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

Sappington, D. (1991). Incentives in principal-agent relationships. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives. Vol. 5., No. 2 (Spring, 1991), pp. 45-66.

Schneider, M., Teske, P; Marschall, M., Mintrom, M. & Roch, C. (1997, March).
Institutional arrangements and the creation of social capital: the effects of
public school choice. The American Political Science Review, 91(1), 82-93.

156
Schwendiman, Jeff and Jennifer Fager. (1999). After School Programs: Good for
Kids, Good for Communities. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
(NWREL). Retrieved March 23, 2007 from
http://www.nwrel.org/request/jan99/Afterschool.pdf.

Simpkins, S. D., et al. (2005, October). Supporting children's development in and out
of the classroom. In P. Davis-Kean (Chair), The changing role of parenting
across the life span. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the
Society for the Study of Human Development, Asilomar, CA.

Simpkins Chaput, S., Little, P. M. D., & Weiss, H. B. (2004). Understanding and
measuring attendance in out-of-school time programs. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved March 7, 2007 from
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/content/projects/afterschool/resources/issue
brief7.pdf.

Spence, A. Michael. (2001). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure
of markets. Nobel Prize lecture, December 8, 2001. Stanford Business
School.

Stark, D. (2003, May). First Signs of the New Accountability. Principal Leadership
(Middle School Ed.), 3(9), 10-12.

Stecher, B., Hamilton L., and Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no
child behind: practical insights for school leaders. RAND Education White
Paper.

Sunderman, G. (2006, October). Do supplemental educational services increase
opportunities for minority students? Phi Delta Kappan. 88(2), 117-122.

Sunderman, G. & Kim, J. (2004, February) Increasing Bureaucracy or Increasing
Opportunity? School District Experience with Supplemental Services. Civil
Rights Project, Harvard University. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from
http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu.

Supplemental Educational Services and State of Pennsylvania’s Educational
Assistance Program. RAND Education Working Paper. (WR-451-PPS).

Supplemental Educational Services: Provider Self-Evaluation Survey Results
2004-2005 Project Period. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from
http://www.state.nj.us/njded/title1/program/ss/results.shtml.

157
Title I, Section 1116(e): Supplemental Educational Services. Retrieved February 17,
2007 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsvcsguid.doc.

U.S. Department of Education (US DOE NRG). (2005). Supplemental Educational
Services, Non-Regulatory Guidance. June 13, 2005. Retrieved February 14,
2007 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsvcsguid.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education (US DOE). (2007). State and local implementation of
the No Child Left Behind Act. Volume I – Title I School Choice,
Supplemental Educational Services, and Student Achievement. Retrieved
July 13, 2007 from
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/implementation/achievementanalysis.
pdf

U.S. Department of Education (US DOE Part A). (2002). Title I – Improving the
Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, Choices for Parents (Part A) –
Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies.
Retrieved February 18, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/
elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html.

United States Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement (May
2004). No Child Left Behind Supplemental Education Services Status Report.
Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental Educational
Services. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from http://www.sandi.net/board/
reports/2007/0123/12c.pdf.

United States Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement (US
DOE OII). (May 2004), Innovations in Education: Creating Strong
Supplemental Educational Services Programs. Retrieved February 17, 2007
from http://www.ed.gov/admins/comm/suppsvcs/sesprograms/report.pdf.

United States Governmental Accountability Office, Report to Congressional
Requesters (August 2006). No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions
Needed to Improve Local Implementation and State Evaluation of
Supplemental Educational Services. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06758.pdf.

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2006). No Child Left Behind Act:
Education Actions Needed to Improve Local Implementation and State
Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services. GAO-06-758. Retrieved
February 17, 2007 from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06758.pdf.

158
Vergari, S. (2007). Federalism and Market-Based Education Policy: The
Supplemental Educational Services Mandate. American Journal of
Education 113 (February 2007). University of Chicago.

Weischadle, D. (2002). Extended learning opportunities: Some lessons from the
field. Education. 123(1), 73-81, 95.

Weiss, H. B. (Chair). (2005). Critical issues in adolescent participation in out-of-
school time activities. Symposium presented at the Society for Research on
Adolescence Bienniel Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

Wimer, C., Bouffard, S. M., & Caronongan, P., Dearing, E., Simpkins, S. D., Little,
P. M. D., & Weiss, H. B. (2005). What are kids getting into these days?
Demographic differences in youth out-of-school time participation.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

Wimer, C., & Simpkins, S. D.(2005). Adolescent out-of-school time participation:
Contextual predictors and developmental differences. In H. B. Weiss (Chair),
Critical issues in adolescent participation in out-of-school time activities.
Symposium submitted to Research on Adolescence 2006 Biennial Meeting,
San Francisco, CA.

Zhou, X. (2002). A graphical approach to the standard principal-agent model.
Journal of Economic Education. Summer 2002. pp 265-276.

Zimmer, R., Christina, R., Hamilton, L., & Weber Prine, D. (2006). Evaluation of
Two Out-of-School Programs in Pittsburgh Public Schools-No Child Left
Behind’s Supplemental Educational Services at State of Pennsylvannia’s
Educational Assistance Program. RAND Working Paper. (WR-451-PPS).

159
APPENDIX A
Title I elementary school sites receiving SES after school tutoring services: 2007-
2008

School Site Students
Receiving
SES
SES Eligible Students CST
Below Basic/Far Below Basic
(Language Arts/Math)
Total School
Enrollment
Anderson
Heights
20 (226/187) 637
Benteen 7 (247/221) 819
Bart Street 32 (221/209) 686
Cahill 68 (179/159) 562
Del Lago 27 (199/175) 693
Eisenhower 38 (240/198) 780
Elm Place 4 (148/212) 627
Hacienda 56 (260/220) 569
Hillsborough 5 (203/199) 814
Ivy Creek 22 (269/253) 839
Kingsdale*** 160 (234/186) 751
Monte Verde 38 (269/253) 839
Michaelson 38 (248/227) 755
Rainwater 20 (148/132) 587
Sand Lane 24 (174/117) 651
Sunrise*** 153 (226/188) 731
Valley View 41 (184/161) 599
*** SES school included in this study. Source: California Basic Educational Data
System (CBEDS), California Department of Education (CDE) DataQuest, CDE
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) system

160
APPENDIX B
Annual School District Parent Survey of SES Services

San Angeles School District
School Accountability Department

PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO EVALUATE YOUR TUTORING
SERVICES

Student Name:_________________ School:
__________________
Grade:______

Parent/Guardian Name:____________________ Phone Contact:_________

Name of Tutoring Services Provider:_______________________________

Please circle: Reading Language Arts Math

Were you pleased with the tutoring services? Yes No

Was the tutor on time for your sessions? Yes No

Has your child improved in daily school tasks? Yes No

Is your child more motivated to learn? Yes No

Does your child have better study skills Yes No
(e.g. how to study, complete work, better test scores?)

Is your child enrolled in any additional programs at school? Yes No

Has your child shown improvement? Yes No

Parent/Guardian Comments:
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

______________________ ________________________
Parent/Guardian Signature Date

Please return the survey using the enclosed self-stamped envelope to:
Jane Smith, School Accountability, 323 Main Street, San Angeles, CA 91234

161
APPENDIX C
SES Tutoring Services Survey 2007-2008: Qualitative Data

Research
Question
Theme (T) Responses/
Percentages
Example Parent SES Survey
Comments
T1: Thank you 59 (37%) “It did my son a lot of good,
thank you for everything” (#42)
“Thank you very much for
having this program” (#8)
T2: Satisfied with tutoring or
tutor
110 (69%) “Natalie had the best tutor”(#6)
“Very pleased with the tutor”
(#116)
T6: Dissatisfied with tutoring
or tutor
9 (7%) “I am not satisfied with the
tutor for my daughter.”(#130)
“Tutor was easily distracted by
her cell phone..”(#1)
T5: Tutor starts too late in
year
3 (2%) “My son didn’t start until April
16 and that late?”(#35)
“…it would be good fro her to
learn, but she got it too
late”(#125)
RQ1:
Instructional
Strategies
T7: Want more tutoring or
longer tutoring program
29 (18%) “I would ask that if possible, he
could get more time…”(#116)
“The programs are very good,
but they are too short”(#45)
T3: Tutor was late 9 (7%) “He was late, or the day he was
supposed to be there he
wasn’t”(#130)
“Some days the teacher was not
punctual…”(#143)
T4: Tutor was punctual 6 (4%) “The tutor was punctual and he
learned much”(#13)
“The tutors were
punctual”(#27)
T10: Parent did not see
improvement from tutoring
14 (9%) “I was assured positive end
results”(#24)
“No improvement was made, I
wish I could have
switched…”(#114)
RQ2:
Accountability
T11: Communication and
scheduling problems with
tutor
21 (13%) “…but little by little she
stopped coming and she never
called”(#90)
“He would change his hours all
the time”(#126)
T9: Students have more
confidence, interest and
motivation in studies.
22 (14%) “He is enthusiastic with school
and school work”(#63)
“They have inspired my son to
do better…”(#21)
RQ3: Student
Participation
T12: Did not receive
contracted tutoring from SES
16 (10%) “I filled out an application but
never received an answer”(#59)

162
providers “I am very upset they never
bothered to call”(#158)
Notes:
The T8 theme “Student needs more help” was combined with theme T7.
Themes were formed around multiple responses in the same area.
Percentages represent the frequency in the sample of 160 parent SES survey comments.
Many parent survey comments contained references to multiple themes.

163
APPENDIX D
Research Questions Cross Referenced with Parent SES Survey Results

RESEARCH QUESTION 1: INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
Were you pleased with the tutoring services? (Yes) 182 (No) 19
Has your child shown improvement? (Yes) 167 (No) 24

RESEARCH QUESTION 2: ACCOUNTABILITY
Was the tutor on time for your sessions? (Yes) 173 (No) 17
Has your child improved in daily school tasks? (Yes) 163 (No) 21

RESEARCH QUESTION 3: STUDENT PARTICIPATION
Is your child more motivated to learn? (Yes) 167 (No) 28
Does your child have better study skills? (Yes) 160 (No) 30
(e.g. How to study, complete work, better test scores)

Were you pleased with the tutoring services? (Yes) 182 (No) 19
Was the tutor on time for your sessions? (Yes) 173 (No) 17
Has your child improved in daily school tasks? (Yes) 163 (No) 21
Is your child more motivated to learn? (Yes) 167 (No) 28
Does your child have better study skills (Yes) 160 (No) 30
(e.g. How to study, complete work, better test scores)

Is your child enrolled in any additional (Yes) 81 (No) 122
programs at school?
Has your child shown improvement? (Yes) 167 (No) 24

164
APPENDIX E
Staff SES Survey of Student Levels
MEMO
To: All staff
From: Jane
Date: 12-5-06
Re: Parent workshop on understanding the district tutoring and maximizing the
services.

On Thursday, December 14, 2006, I will be presenting two workshops for parents of
students who qualified to receive district tutoring. One session will be at 8:30 a.m.-
9:30 a.m. and the other at 5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. This one hour workshop will
provide the participants with information regarding the following: complaint
procedures, identifying the area of need per STAR results, delivery of tutoring
services when more than one child is involved in the tutoring session, attendance
issues for the student and tutor, assessments, communication with tutor and agency,
and inclusion of needed skills identified by the student’s classroom teacher.

PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING:
• A minimum of 3 skills in Math the student needs to master
• A minimum of 3 skills in Language Arts the student needs to master

Please Note: the attached forms are only for those students that are strong candidates
for the tutoring per STAR results. The district will make the final selections per
district criteria. Some parents attempted to qualify their children by sending in an
application even though they were not far below or below basic. I am not including
a form for these students. Thank you for helping us to make the tutoring services a
successful and powerful intervention for the students.

*Please return the forms to Jane by Friday, December 8.

165
APPENDIX F
SES Memo to Teachers on Areas of Student Academic Need
Supplemental Educational Services
Tutoring services provided by district
Sunrise School
December 8, 2006

Please provide a minimum of three skills the student is in need of mastering. Any
added information to the tutor would be greatly appreciated. Thank You
*Please give this form to the High Point teacher if the student participates in the
program.

Name of student:________________________________ Grade _______

Teacher: ______________________________

STAR results: Language Arts: ____________ Math: _____________

Skills needed: Language Arts
1. _______________________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________________

*Additional information you would like to share with the tutor (optional)
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

Skills needed: Math
1._______________________________________________________
2._______________________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________________

*Additional information you would like to share with the tutor (optional)
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

This student is an English Language Learner (yes/no) Their CELDT level is _____.

For additional information regarding this student please contact Jane Smith,
Outreach Consultant, at 555-1234.

166
APPENDIX G
Parent-Provider Agreement for Supplemental Educational Services
Student’s Name:____________________ Student ID #:____________ Grade: ____
Name of School:____________________ Date of Consultation Meeting:_________
Selected Service Providers: _____________________________________________
1. Describe the specific achievement goals that will be established for this
student
Reading Language Arts:____________________________________________
Or
Mathematics:_____________________________________________________

2. How will progress towards achieving these goals be measured?
_ Pretest _ Post Test _ Quizzes _ Other:__________________
Name of assessment tool to be used to measure growth:___________________

3. What is the timeline for improving achievement? (In the case of students with
special needs, the timeline will be consistent with Individual Education Program
(IEP) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Act.)
The provider will benchmark progress after ___ hours of service.

4. Parents, district and school will be informed of student progress:
__ Monthly __ Bimonthly __ Other:________

5. Services to be provided:
Maximum number of hours of service per week:___
Location of services: _ Home _ Library _ School _ Tutoring Center _ Other:____
Type of services: _ Individual _ Small Group (less than 6) _ Other:_______

6. Attendance: Student must consistently attend supplemental services on a regular
basis. Absences in excess of 5 days will result in termination of services. The
Supplemental Educational Service Provider will notify district and parent that
services have been terminated.

7. Termination of Services: The parent, district representative, Supplemental
Educational Service Provider have a right to terminate services if Provider is unable
to meet stated goals and timelines. Parents will notify the district coordinator in
writing if they request to terminate the services of a supplemental educational service
provider.

8. Method of Payment: Each Supplemental Educational Service Provider will
submit a monthly Attendance Sheet indicating service for each student with a parent

167
signature. This Attendance Sheet will identify the hourly rate per student. The
district will pay up to a specified amount for the 2007-2008 school year for
supplemental educational services. Any request for additional funds in outside the
responsibility of the district and rests with the supplemental educational service
provider and parent.

Parent AGREES to release the above information regarding student to the parent-
selected Supplemental Educational Service provider:____

The supplemental educational services provider AGREES NOT TO DISCLOSE to
the public the identity of this student without written consent of the parent: ___

Parent signature:________________- Provider signature:________________
District representative:______________

168
APPENDIX H
The principal-agent (P-A) Organizational Relationships in SES and SES-type After
School Tutoring Systems

SES District SES Support-SES Provider
District SES Support-Parent
SES Provider/Tutor-Parent
SES Tutor-Student
Parent-Student
Expected Organizational
Relationships
SES-Type Classroom Teacher-Student
After School Tutoring Teacher-Student
Parent-Student
Unexpected Organizational
Relationships
SES Outreach Consultant-Parent
Outreach Consultant-District SES Support
Outreach Consultant-Teacher

169
APPENDIX I
Stakeholders in Organizational Relationships in SES and SES-type Systems

Role SES (Tutoring: Jan-May) SES-Type (Tutoring: Sept-May)
District SES
Coordinator
Coordinates SES providers; fields
parent and school Principal
information and issues
N/A
Tutor Qualifications? Tutoring services
delivered at home or library.
May be an outside provider; usually same
day classroom teachers; teachers taught in
pairs to share workload; tutoring services
delivered at school site
School
Principal
May provide information only to
parents
Direct site after school tutoring
Student If student is free and reduced lunch
at Title I school in program
improvement; needs to apply to
participate in SES
Grade levels meet to identify students to
participate, usually those that are at risk
of retention
Parent Parents must apply to apply for SES Parent notified student is invited to
participate in after school tutoring.
Outreach
Consultant
(ORC)
Not part of SES design; ORC
formed relationship bridge with
parents, teachers and students

Teacher No contact with SES provider or
tutor; usually not aware of SES
students
Teachers asked to recommend students
for after school; paid teacher volunteers
deliver after school tutoring
SES Provider Outside non-profit or private agency
offering after school SES tutoring to
students who apply for their
services.
N/A

Abstract (if available)

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.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies in rural single-school elementary districts

PDF

Organizational leadership and institutional factors related to the implementation of online educational programming in California community colleges

PDF

A comparative study of motivational orientation of elementary school English learners in a dual language immersion program and a transitional bilingual education program

PDF

Examining the effectiveness of the Why Try Program for children receiving residentially based services and attending a non-public school

Asset Metadata

Creator Tan, Thomas Anthony (author)

Core Title Organizational relationships in supplemental educational services (SES) and SES-type programs

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/08/2008

Defense Date 08/07/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag agent,education,Educational,elementary,K12,NCLB,OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal,services,SES,supplemental,tutoring

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee chair), Datnow, Amanda (committee member), Mafi, Gabriela (committee member)

Creator Email diandtom@sbcglobal.net,thomas_tan@jusd.k12.ca.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1643

Unique identifier UC1183692

Identifier etd-Tan-2371 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-120611 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1643 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Tan-2371.pdf

Dmrecord 120611

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Tan, Thomas Anthony

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu