Date post: | 25-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | elinor-pearson |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 3 times |
Evaluating SES Providers
Steven M. RossAllison Potter
Center for Research in Educational PolicyThe University of Memphis
http://www.memphis.edu/crep
Supplemental Educational Services Supplemental Educational Services (SES)(SES)
• Required under No Child Left Behind (NLCB) for Title I Schools that have not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for three consecutive years.
• Low-income students from identified Title I schools are eligible to receive free tutoring services.
• Students are prioritized by greatest academic need if district funds are limited.
• Potential service providers apply to serve students and may be approved by the State Department of Education.
Service ProvidersService Providers
• Providers contract with Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) to provide tutoring services to students.
• Providers are paid for their services - an amount not to exceed the Title I per pupil allotment.
Effectiveness:
Increased student achievement in reading/language arts or mathematics.
Customer satisfaction:
Positive perceptions by parents of SES students.
Service delivery and compliance:
Positive perceptions by principals, teachers, LEA staff, etc.
Determining Evaluation MeasuresDetermining Evaluation Measures
Effectiveness (Student Achievement)
ServiceDelivery and Compliance
CustomerSatisfaction
ProviderSurvey
District CoordinatorSurvey
Principal/LiaisonSurvey
Teacher Survey
Parent Survey
AdditionalTests
StateTests
Figure 1. Components of a Comprehensive SES/Evaluation Modeling Plan
Overall Provider Assessment
1. Student-level test scores from state-mandated assessments
Effectiveness MeasuresEffectiveness Measures
Considerations:• availability only for certain grades (e.g., 3-higher)?• Lack of pretest scores prevents gains from being
determined
2. Supplementary individualized assessments in reading/language arts or math
Effectiveness MeasuresEffectiveness Measures
Considerations:• Without pretest scores and comparison students, SES
gain cannot be determined• Validity may be suspect if assessments not
administered by trained independent testers
3. Provider-developed assessments in reading/language arts or math
Effectiveness MeasuresEffectiveness Measures
Considerations:• Test results may not be valid or suitable for state’s
evaluation purpose• Tests may favor provider’s strategies
1. Parent and family perceptions
Customer Satisfaction MeasuresCustomer Satisfaction Measures
Considerations:• Parent respondents may not be representative of the
population served by provider• Sample sizes will vary due to provider size• Comparisons limited due to parent familiarity with only
one provider
2. Student perceptions
Customer Satisfaction MeasuresCustomer Satisfaction Measures
Considerations:• Young students may have difficulty judging quality of
services and communicating impressions• Time consuming and may require parent permission to
obtain
1. Records of services provided, student attendance rates, and costs
Service Delivery and Compliance MeasuresService Delivery and Compliance Measures
Considerations:• States may obtain data from a variety of sources,
including providers, teachers, principals, and district staff
• Corroborating data from multiple sources can increase accuracy of evaluation conclusions
2. Feedback from SES customers
Service Delivery and Compliance MeasuresService Delivery and Compliance Measures
Considerations:• First-hand impressions or observations may be
lacking• Translation may be needed to reach parents who do
not speak English• Obtaining representative samples may be difficult
3. Feedback from district staff
Service Delivery and Compliance MeasuresService Delivery and Compliance Measures
Considerations:• Districts may lack firsthand impressions or
observations of tutoring services• Some districts may also be SES providers
4. Feedback from school staff
Service Delivery and Compliance MeasuresService Delivery and Compliance Measures
Considerations:• Teachers may also be SES instructors or lack first-
hand impressions of providers• Teachers may need to provide information on multiple
providers, which may be confusing and time consuming
• Identifying teachers to solicit responses may be difficult
A. Benchmark Comparison
Rating = ++ (Low to Moderate rigor)
Percentage of SES students by provider attaining “proficiency” on state assessment
Evaluation Designs: Student AchievementEvaluation Designs: Student Achievement
A. Benchmark Comparison
Evaluation Designs: Student AchievementEvaluation Designs: Student Achievement
Upgrades
• Percentage of SES in all performance categories (“Below Basic”, “Basic”, etc.)
• Comparison of performance relative to prior year and to state norms
• Comparison to a “control” sample
A. Benchmark Comparison
Evaluation Designs: Student AchievementEvaluation Designs: Student Achievement
Advantages• Inexpensive and less demanding• Easily understood by practitioners and public• Linked directly to NCLB accountability
Disadvantages• Doesn’t control for student characteristics• Doesn’t control for schools• Uses broad achievement indices
B. Multiple Linear Regression Design
Rating = +++ (Moderate rigor)
Compares actual gains to predicted gains for students enrolled in SES, using district data to control for student variables (e.g., income, ethnicity, gender, ELL, special education status, etc.).
Evaluation Designs: Student AchievementEvaluation Designs: Student Achievement
B. Multiple Linear Regression Design
Evaluation Designs: Student AchievementEvaluation Designs: Student Achievement
Advantages
• More costly than Benchmark, but relatively economical
• Student characteristics are statistically controlled
Disadvantages
• Doesn’t control for school effects• Less understandable to practitioners and public• Effect sizes may be less stable than for Model C.
C. Matched Samples Design
Rating = ++++ (High Moderate to Strong rigor)
Match and compare SES students to similar students attending same school (or, if not feasible, similar
school)
Use multiple matches if possible
Evaluation Designs: Student AchievementEvaluation Designs: Student Achievement
C. Matched Samples Design
Evaluation Designs: Student AchievementEvaluation Designs: Student Achievement
Advantages
• Some control over school effects• Easily understood by practitioners and public• Highest potential rigor of all designs
Disadvantages
• More costly and time consuming• Within-school matches may be difficult to achieve
D. Combination (Hybrid) Design
Evaluation Designs: Student AchievementEvaluation Designs: Student Achievement
• Uses a mixture of three main designs to meet special data situations within the State
• State level analysis may be benchmark for most districts and matched samples for largest district(s)
• Accommodates different student-level data and statistical staff resources
• Surveys for LEAs, principals/site coordinators, teachers, parents, and providers.
Data Collection ToolsData Collection Tools
• Common core set of questions from all groups to permit triangulation.
• Open-ended question, “Additional comments”
Rubric of Overall Evaluation of Provider Effectiveness
OutcomeInsufficient Information
Below Standards
MarginalQuality
Acceptable Above Standards
1. Student Achievement
There is insufficient information available to determine student achievement outcomes.
Students have not shown gains related to tutoring received from service providers.
About half of the students have made some gain related to tutoring received from service providers.
There has been some gain for the majority (over 60%) of students related to tutoring received from service providers.
The effect size for students in the provider’s program is in the top one-third of all the effect sizes demonstrated by providers meeting standards for student achievement.
2. Communication There is insufficient information available to determine communication outcomes.
Provider has not communicated with the principals, teachers, and parents of students served.
There has been limited communication throughout the year between the provider and at least two of the following: principals, teachers, and parents.
There has been some regular communication throughout the year between the provider and the principals, teachers, and parents of students served.
There is an ongoing and sustained system of communication between the provider and the school-level educators as well as parents of students served.
3. Instructional Plans
There is insufficient information available to determine instructional plans of the provider.
Provider does not plan instruction explicitly geared to student needs or to reinforce their regular academic program.
Provider is in the planning stages of gearing instruction to student needs, and reinforcing the regular academic program.
Provider has made some attempt with the majority of students to plan instruction explicitly geared to student needs and to reinforce the regular academic program.
Provider instructional plans are explicitly geared to the needs of most or all students and reinforce the regular academic program.
4. Local and State Standards
There is insufficient information available to determine alignment with local and state standards.
None of the instructional plans used by the provider are aligned with local and state academic standards for students.
Provider is in the process of aligning instructional plans with local and state academic standards for students.
Some of the instructional plans used by the provider are presently aligned with local and state academic standards for students.
Most or all of the instructional plans are presently aligned with local and state academic standards for students.
5. Special Ed/ELL students
There is insufficient information available to determine special ed/ELL student outcomes.
Provider does not offer accommodations for addressing the needs of special ed or ELL students.
Provider has made limited accommodations for addressing the needs of special ed and ELL students.
Provider has made some accommodations for addressing the needs of special ed and ELL students.
Provider offers appropriate services, if needed, to special education and ELL students.
6. Provider Overall
There is insufficient information available to determine provider overall outcomes.
There is overall dissatisfaction with the provider at the district and school levels.
There is more dissatisfaction than satisfaction with the provider at the district and school levels.
There are mixed but mostly positive reactions about the provider at the school and district levels.
There is overall satisfaction with the provider at the district and school levels.
NO YES
YES
Positive Indeterminable
YES NO
Negative
Positive
Negative
NO YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
Negative
NO
YES
Positive
NO
COMPLIANCE? Serious? Removal
Achievement?
Minor Compliance Violations?
Implementation?
Probation I Probation II
Implementation?
Probation II Last Year?
Removal
Full StandingSatisfactory Standing
Implementation Improved?
Probation II
Achievement Improved?
Probation I
Removal
Probation I Last Year?
Decision Tree for SES ProvidersDecision Tree for SES Providers
Probation I
CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION
• Each state should begin its SES evaluation planning process by identifying
a) the specific questions that its SES evaluation needs to answer, and
b) the resources that can be allocated reasonably to support further evaluation planning, data collection, analysis, reporting, and dissemination.