VIEWS: 10 PAGES: 27 POSTED ON: 11/13/2011
SES Effectiveness 1 Running head: NCLB’S SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES (SES) DEBATE No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Debate of SES Effectiveness: Do District Run Supplemental Educational Services Make an Impact on Student Achievement? Tracy Alberry California State University San Bernardino. SES Effectiveness 2 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Debate of SES Effectiveness: Do District Run Supplemental Educational Services Make an Impact on Student Achievement? Public school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) are two options under the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” (NCLB) for parents to improve the educational opportunities for their children. Since the passage of the NCLB Act of 2001, schools in Year 2 of Program Improvement or above must offer SES to low-income students (those students on free or reduced lunch). Year 2 Program Improvement schools are schools which receive Title I funds and have not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for three consecutive years. SES is tutoring services offered by companies that are either for profit or nonprofit or even school districts acting as SES providers. Each school district must set aside a minimum of 5% of their overall Title I to pay for SES. In addition, the district must spend up to 20% of their Title I budget to pay for school choice and SES combined to service all qualified students who apply. There is a state set per pupil rate that each district must spend on each student. Costs charged by tutoring companies (referred to as a providers) ranged from as high as $80 to as low as $20 per hour for one on one tutoring. Districts may reduce their total 20% spending by 5% if they use the 5% to spend on public school choice transportation. Public school choice is when the district pays for students attending a Program Improvement School to be transported to a school not in program improvement. Districts must by law offer school choice to all Title I schools in program improvement. Interestingly, a school may opt out of the SES requirement of NCLB by choosing to not accept Title I funds, thus excluding themselves from NCLB mandates such as SES and choice. SES Effectiveness 3 SES is designed to increase student achievement by giving students tutoring in math, reading or language arts. School districts do not have to fund the total number of students eligible for SES. The districts may chose to fund students until they have spent 20% of their total title 1 budget. Should more students apply then they can service, priority is to go to the lowest achieving low income students. Riverside Unified School District (RUSD) in 2005 applied directly to the state to become an SES provider as a district. RUSD called their program RUSD Academy. SES providers are separate from school districts and though RUSD Academy was part of the school district, it would be considered a separate provider and was listed as a provider on the California state list of approved SES providers. RUSD Academy provided group tutoring services to 283 Elementary school students at six different elementary schools. Outside SES providers serviced approximately 500 additional students. The total number of students who received SES services represented only about one third of the number of students eligible for SES services. It was the purpose of this report to present findings regarding the effectiveness of RUSD Academy by studying the students at one of the six RUSD Academy sites, to be referred to as “RUSD SES site 1”. The English Language Arts (ELA) scores will be used as students were only tutored in English Language Arts. Whether SES increases students achievement is still open to debate. Current research on SES is limited and lacks conclusive evidence of the relation between SES and student achievement. Some research analyzes evidence relating to the effectiveness of SES in relation to student achievement, yet many fail to compare the effects on student achievement of district run SES programs to nonprofit or for profit tutoring companies offering SES. NCLB requires states to monitor all providers and track their effectiveness. Monitoring by states is often sporadic and SES Effectiveness 4 is not adequately funded. “Five years after the No Child Left Behind Act became law, there’s still a dearth of research evidence to show whether one of the federal measure’s least-tested innovations—a provision that calls for underperforming schools to provide after-school tutoring—has an impact on student achievement,” (Viadero, 2007, p. 7). According to a California Department of Education Official, to remain anonymous, the state of California is investigating improving the monitoring process of SES though the hiring of an outside identity to be determined. Based on various measures, studies have demonstrated little if any gains on state achievement tests by students attending SES. There is a need for additional quantitative studies examining student progress and the effectiveness of SES over several years, including studies on what measurement should be used to measure SES effectiveness, Arguments on the effectiveness of the SES programs exist due to limited number of students serviced(in RUSD only one third of the qualified students applied for and received services), lack of state monitoring of SES tutoring providers, and lack of pre and post assessments to adequately monitor SES provider effectiveness and lack of alternative measures to measure overall student performance eon state standardized tests.. The researcher proposed that the effectiveness of outside providers needs to be compared to the effectiveness of school district offered SES programs. The first step in this process was to examine the effectiveness of a district offering SES by measuring the student’s increase on ELA CST scores after receiving tutoring. RUSD Academy’s students’ scores on the California Standardized Test (CST) were examined to see if there was an association between hours tutored and change in California Standardized Test scores. District run SES programs may only be offered if the school district is not a program improvement District unless special dispensation is granted, as was the case with SES Effectiveness 5 the Chicago Public Schools (CPS). The Chicago Public Schools was granted special dispensation by Margaret Spelling, Secretary of Education, and was able to offer SES, regardless of being in district PI status. They had demonstrated growth for its district run SES program. Showing effectiveness of SES programs may lead to more school districts offering their own SES programs even if they are in program improvement. Many questions have been raised about SES; Are SES services an effective use of federal money for increasing student achievement? Who is the best provider of tutoring, outside free enterprise providers who compete with each other for students and hire tutors without hiring guidelines or school districts themselves who hire teachers who are considered “highly qualified”? How can the effectiveness of SES providers be reliably and consistently monitored on federal, state and district levels? The first step in the process of answering these questions was to study students at one school district by examining their increase on the ELA CST. Current research and current data on SES from RUSD Academy was examined in order to document SES effectiveness in increasing student achievement. Specifically, one school’s Elementary students CST scores were examined. The hypothesis was that RUSD Academy located at School A, as a district run SES provider, was associated with an increase of CST scores for students who attended 20 or more hours of SES tutoring. Specifically, scores of students from grades 3-6 of the “2006-2007” school year were examined. Review of Literature History of SES 2002-2003 marked the first year schools in Program Improvement (PI) status Year 2 were required to offer SES. California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) published a special issue of the California Curriculum News Report on No Child Left SES Effectiveness 6 Behind Supplemental Services and Choice in February of 2004 containing articles on SES. This report discussed procedures for districts to follow in setting up SES services and was an excellent source for information on SES. In the report, according to Carol Brush (2004) a notable specialist on SES, her “district believes that the supplemental services program can assist students to attain state standards” (p. 3). The article failed to describe how this will be achieved, as well as failed to mention how effectiveness will be measured. To date, no specific measurements of effectiveness have been published. If there were studies or findings, the school districts and states have not made public any of the findings of providers’ effectiveness, in a manner useful to parents for selecting providers. Rita Brogan (2004) discussed two basic reasons for the Imperial County Office of Education in California, wanting to become a SES provider: to increase student achievement as measured on achievement tests and to increase a students desire to learn. Though by design attendance and commitment is established, the program lacked effective monitoring procedures. The SES designs found in this article reflected the same weakness found in the NCLB law on SES which shows a lack of any sort of mandated and consistent monitoring requirements, suggesting that programs will only reflect the weaknesses and limitations found in the NCLB law itself. His findings are supported by other researches cited in this paper. Participation Rates versus Funding Availability Currently nationwide, according to NCLB, school districts are required to set aside 20% of their Title I budgets to pay for School choice and Supplemental Educational Services (SES), with a minimum of 5% going to each program. This funding availability does not come close to being able to service all students eligible for SES services. In Riverside where $1.9 million was put aside for services for the 2007-2008 school year to include transportation costs for “Choice” and SES Effectiveness 7 a per pupil amount of $1244.00 per student is state mandated to be spent on SES tutoring services. The current amount set aside could service only 1527 students out of the possible 3000 students eligible, if all of the funds went to SES and none to Choice transportation costs. This is less than a third of the over 3,000 students who would be eligible for the services should they chose to apply. For the current school year, in reality only 700 students are applying for SES services from outside the district providers, down 400 from the 900 of the prior 2006-2007 school year when the district was able to offer SES services through the district and hosted at Riverside schools. As of 2006-2007, RUSD Academy no longer exists and the district does not offer any SES services except for those tutoring services provided by outside tutoring providers which could account for the dropping of the number of students applying for SES. Chicago Public Schools, CPS SES Shows Highest Gains The CPS High School Supplemental Education Services (SES) Tutoring Program study is the evaluation of the 3rd year of SES programs in the Chicago Public School district. Put together by the Chicago Public Schools (2007) the study examined the 2005-2006 academic year, 55,600 students across 324 schools. Standardized Tests data was used to gauge student achievement. A small increase was seen in Reading but only a negligible gain in math. “Participation in the SES program resulted in a small but significant improvement in reading achievement performance compared to other low-income, low-achieving students, attending the same schools,” (Office of Research, Evaluation, and Accountability; Office of Extended Learning Opportunities, 2007, p. 2). Also examined was the evidence of success found in each individual provider. The Chicago Public School’s own district sponsored tutoring program showed the most growth in student achievement. This study is unique in its criticism of outside providers. A subsequent report published in August 2007 by CPS examines all providers in SES Effectiveness 8 relation to 9th grade students. Interestingly, this report claimed there were no significant gains in student achievement for students attending SES tutoring. The CPS report models effective research strategies and would serve as a model for other districts to measure SES effectiveness. PI Districts Lose the Option to Offer District provided SES Federal guidelines state that once a school District enters PI status as a district, the district may no longer be an SES provider of tutoring services. This mandate has resulted in Fontana, Riverside, Chicago Public schools and other school districts not being able to offer their own SES tutoring. Chicago Public schools were able through a special dispensation from the Federal Secretary of Education to offer SES District services by showing data that proved their programs effectiveness and by agreeing to certain terms of implementation. CPS agreed to have an outside provider evaluate their program (a sanction not put on outside providers) open their school campuses to outside providers and to collect and share assessment data. Other school districts such as Riverside and Fontana have found it necessary to not offer district SES programs. Initial Program Effectiveness Debate Current studies are inconsistent on their results with some providers showing growth while others not. There has been no consistent measure of effectiveness of the SES in relation to student achievement. SES providers also vary on the pre and post tests they use to track student achievement. Methods and curriculum used by each tutoring service also varies. One company may offer 1:1 tutoring in one district and 1:3 tutoring in another district. Each provider uses its own unique tutoring program ranging from “Hooked on Phonics” a marketed program, to computer-based applications. On measuring the effectiveness of the provider on student achievement, one is essentially measuring also the effectiveness of the materials being used by the provider. Much research today calls for additional research as there is no consistent SES Effectiveness 9 measurement within states to accurately track effectiveness. It is extremely disturbing that the state of California does not publish findings when they require each SES provider to collect CST scores for all students tutored as well as the number of hours the student was tutored. In 2005 Riverside Unified collected data from approximately 200 students from their district-run tutoring program along with CST scores, yet no published findings by the state of California could be located. Potter, Ross, Paek, & McKay, (2007) in the publication, “Supplemental educational Services: 2005-2006 (2004-2005 Student Achievement Results)” studied the implementation of SES services in six school districts across the state of Tennessee required to offer SES in the 2006-06 school year. The major goal of the program was to evaluate the perceived progress and outcomes of the SES program. In addition the report included a focus on provider services and outcomes and the Local Educational Agencies (LEA) implementation of SES services. Rubrics were designed to help evaluate SES providers. There were 33 providers analyzed in this study. Surveys were used as the main instrument for the study. Though the report looked at Tennessee schools it was not a statewide study. According to Burch (2007) only Minneapolis and Chicago school districts have completed studies attempting to assess SES’s impact on learning outcomes; “Research to date offers only limited understanding of what kinds of assessment might be useful in determining the costs and benefits of various SES models” (p.15). There is a need for all states to find effective means for measuring SES effectiveness. The evaluation of SES providers is a “relatively new and emerging endeavor” (Ross, Potter & Harmon, 2006, p. 22). They stated, “Assuming that not all eligible students participate in SES, maintaining information about “eligible but not participating” students could lay the groundwork for a possible quasi-experimental (e.g., matched samples), SES Effectiveness 10 student-level design” (p.14). Though there is no standard nationwide assessment measure for assessing SES effectiveness, it is possible to use assessments such as the California Standardized Tests as one marker of possible SES effectiveness to assess SES on the California state level. The state or a school district could use matched samples of CST scores to measure SES effectiveness. Fusareli (2007) reviewed the provisions of SES, school districts’ implementation of SES, resistance to SES and obstacles to SES. Solutions to weaknesses in the program were presented. There is an overall call for more research and recommendations for future studies are made by Fusareli. His conclusions were based on 13 other studies and research papers. NCLB gives states the responsibility of measuring and reporting student improvement and deciding who should be eligible to be a SES provider. Yet, current research illustrates the floundering of states in their search to adequately monitor and measure SES effectiveness. If the federal government fails to have a national standard, districts such as RUSD should measure and present their own findings of provider effectiveness if states fail to do so, though the best case scenario would be to have a national standard of measurement or at least state standards. According to the Electronic Education Report, “Thirty-eight states report they are unable to monitor the quality and effectiveness of supplemental education service providers, most often because they have insufficient staff and inadequate funding to do so, according to a study released this month by the Center on Education Policy,” (Bowker, 2007, p.7). NCLB is currently up for reauthorization. If changes are not made and adopted by the legislators, NCLB will remain as it is with the same lack of adequacy. It could possibly be years until any radical changes are made to the legislation, and people realize that a goal of 100% proficiency in math and English language arts for all students just might not be realistic for all SES Effectiveness 11 students and school districts. For now SES is in place to help move students towards their 100% Additional Evidence of Achievement, Effective to Inconclusive Miners (2007) in “SES Effectiveness Is a Matter of Debate” reviewed two recent reports on SES with differing opinions using data from different sources. One reported SES is giving gains in student achievement while the other reported evidence is inconclusive due to states’ lack of monitoring capabilities. It shows how data from different sources can be used to see two completely different outcomes. The article highlights states abilities to monitor SES programs. The article failed to go in depth regarding the data used in the studies. Pascopella (2004), in “Signs of Improvement with SES”, reported SES success in 2004. It reviewed a prior study of 33 schools districts across 47 states. It includes the finding that some aspects of NCLB are unworkable. It recommends that states lack the resources to carry out the NCLB laws. The article further supports the argument that more studies on SES effectiveness is needed. Sunderman (2006), in “Do Supplemental Educational Services Increase Opportunities for Minority Students” goes so far as to argue that supplemental services actually are detrimental to schools. It makes the point that there is scant research on the effectiveness of SES programs. The article also claims that money used for SES services would be better off spent elsewhere. He suggested classroom approaches would be more effective than individual tutoring due to the lack of support for any relationship between increased student achievement and SES. He reported though that all students attending a school in year two of program improvement, are eligible for SES services. Only low income students who are usually on free or reduced lunch are eligible for SES services. If they pay for students who are not low income, Title I funds may not be used to pay for those services and the money used may not be counted toward the district’s required SES Effectiveness 12 spending for SES. The article overall offers subjective opinions and not enough of objectives facts, though he lists a long list of references; his article’s finding may be open to debate. Proposed Solutions to NCLB Weakness There seems to be no consistency between states on implementing and monitoring SES programs. The policy brief by Patricia Burch (2007) called “Supplemental Services Education Services under NCLB”, examined several studies and national information to make recommendations for SES, which is as of 2007, is entering its sixth year of implementation. Highlighted are the facts that states and districts often face limitations such as lack of funding, in implementing and monitoring the effectiveness and policies of SES programs. Patricia Burch (2007) recommended the NCLB law be redesigned. She suggested there be federally funded evaluations of SES. Also suggested is an examination of the feasibility and desirability of reallocating Title I funds to state reform efforts. In addition, a closer look should be made of the inconsistencies of NCLB high stakes accountability imposed on schools and the lack of accountability on the high stakes tutoring that is supposed to improve student achievement and improve the status of schools. This article was very clear and concise. Patricia Burch is a reputed SES specialist who trained new SES coordinators in California during the 2006-2007 school year. Riverside does though offer its former SES services to low-income student attending schools in danger of program improvement. A question that may be asked is, is it the program a district offers that makes the tutoring successful or is it the fact that the students are being tutored in their schools by their teachers? This question may not be easily answered. Current research is inconclusive to whether or not SES has an effect on student achievement as measured through their increase on standardized tests. Companies vary on the pre and post test used, the materials SES Effectiveness 13 used to tutor and there are no clear federal guidelines for state’s to monitor SES effectiveness. In order for a district to measure SES effectiveness they may be left with no choice but to measure it themselves using student achievement scores on the CST and the number of hours a student attends tutoring. A district study may show that an increase in student achievement may correlate to the number of hours students attend a provider’s tutoring sessions. For the studied completed in this paper, it was believed that the CST Score change mean of students who received tutoring would be higher than that of students who did not receive tutoring. Hypotheses #1 It was predicted that students at a given Elementary school in grades 3 to 6 of the 2006- 2007 school year, attending District run RUSD Academy for more than 20 hours of SES tutoring, would demonstrate a positive effect of SES by scoring higher on the 2007 ELA CST as compared to the 2006 ELA CST than students from the same school not attending SES tutoring. Students with less than 20 hours of tutoring were excluded from the study. HA = StutoredELACSTscores > SnottutoredELACSTscores A comparison of California Standardized Test scores in English Language Arts between students attending District run SES tutoring and students not attending tutoring, should demonstrate that District SES run tutoring is associated with an increase in 2006-2007 CST scores. In addition, the study may show that an increase in student achievement may correlate to the number of hours students attend a provider’s tutoring sessions. The difference in ELA CST scores from 2006 to 2007 will be used to measure gains. Hypothesis #2 Do the hours tutored predict 2007 CST scores above and beyond the variance explained by the 2006 CST scores? SES Effectiveness 14 Methods Subjects and Variables For this study student 2006 and 2007 ELA CST scores from RUSD ACADEMY School A were examined. The possible scaled score range for the ELA CST was from 150 up to 600 points, 150 being the lowest. There were 377 students total at the school with 23 of those students receiving tutoring. Students who did not have both 2006 and 2007 ELA CST scores were removed from the analysis. This left 291 students. There were 21 out of 291 students who received 20 or more hours of tutoring. Of the 291 students studied, 57% were female and 43% were male. There were 23.7 % 3rd graders, 24.7% 4th graders, 27.5% 5th graders, and 24.1% 6th graders (see Table 1). There were 220 (75.6%) of the students with low Socio Economic Status, with 71 (24.4%) who were not in the low Socio Economic Status category. Students were examined regardless of socio economic status. Some students had missing data in the gender and socioeconomic status column. These values were looked up on a separate file to verify Socio Economic Status and Gender. The missing values were then replaced. Table 1. Table of Grade levels of Students Studied Frequency Percent Valid Percent 3 69 23.7 23.7 Grade 4 72 24.7 24.7 Level of 5 80 27.5 27.5 Students 6 70 24.1 24.1 Total 291 100.0 100.0 SES Effectiveness 15 Results The data was examined for outliers. The 2007 ELA CST scores had a standard deviation of 43.02. There were no outliers more than 3.5 standard deviations from the mean of 333.83. The 2006 ELA CST scores had a standard deviation of 50.48 with no outliers 3.5 deviations from the mean of 333.13. The assumption of homogeneity of variance was met as the standard deviations were within four times of each other (see Table 2). The students were grouped into two groups. Those receiving 20 or more hours of tutoring were compared to the second group of students with 0 hours of tutoring. An independent t-test was run along with a hierarchal regression. Table 2. 2007 & 2006 CST ELA Test Scores Std. N Range Mean Skewness Kurtosis Deviation 2007 CST ELA Scaled 291 246-468 333.83 43.02 .50 .04 Scores 2006 CST ELA Scaled 291 234-490 333.13 50.48 .40 -.28 Score After examining changes in test scores there were found to be two outliers. Once the outliers were removed the following was found to be said about the changes in scores: There were 289 valid scores with a standard deviation of 34.65 and a mean of 0.71. The outliers removed were point changes of -130 and 129 (see Table 3). Figure 1 shows how the change in test scores fit a normal bell curve with a kurtosis of .06 and a curve that is skewed .07. SES Effectiveness 16 Table 3. Change in CST ELA test scores without Outliers N Range Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis Change ELA 289 -110 to 118 .71 34.65 .07 .06 CST Score Valid N (listwise) 289 Figure 1. Histogram of change in ELA CST scores from 2006 to 2007. SES Effectiveness 17 The Pearson Chi-Square was .706 which shows there were no significant differences in the expected and observed numbers of male versus females enrolled or not enrolled in tutoring. We expected 181.9 females to not be enrolled in tutoring. We observed 181 females not in tutoring, showing that there is no difference between the observed and expected females not enrolled in tutoring. We have 164 males to not be enrolled in tutoring. Males and females are equally dispersed across tutoring in enrolled tutoring versus not enrolled in tutoring (see Table 4). SES Effectiveness 18 Table 4. Information for Pearson Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- Value df (2-sided) sided) sided) Pearson Chi-Square .14a 1 .71 Continuity .03 1 .87 Correctionb Likelihood Ratio .14 1 .71 Fisher's Exact Test .83 .44 N of Valid Casesb 368 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.88. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table As part of data screening, a univariate analysis of variance was run. Table 5 demonstrates significance higher than .05 with Levene’s test of equality of variances; therefore the assumption homogeneity of variance was met. This showed that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. SES Effectiveness 19 Table 5. Independent Samples Test Mean Difference F SIG t df Sig. 2-tailed Change in Equal ELA CST variances .10 .75 1.89 287 .06 15.09 SCORES assumed An Independent samples t-test was used to compare means of students who received tutoring, labeled “Y” for yes, compared to those that did not receive tutoring, label “N” for no tutoring. The results indicate the two groups differed on their change in ELA scores, with students who received tutoring demonstrating greater gains (t (287) = 1.89, p = .03) (see Table 5). Table 6 shows the mean changes in ELA CST scores of students who were tutored and those who weren’t tutored. The mean was a 14.75 point increase for those tutored while those that weren’t had a mean of -.34 which meant that students on average went down .34 points or stayed the same on their scores if they did not receive tutoring. Mean difference showed a 15.09 difference in the positive direction. SES Effectiveness 20 Table 6. Group Statistics, Changes in CST ELA Scores Std. Tutored N Mean Deviation Changes in CST Yes 20 14.75 36.73 ELA Scores No 269 -.34 34.34 The mean scores of each test ELA CST 2006 and ELA CST 2007 were also examined. The 2007 scores showed only a mean increase of .71, which is not even a point increase on mean scores. This could be accounted for by the fact that many students went up in the scores while many went down as well (see Table 7). Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of Variables Used Std. Mean N Deviation 2007 CST ELA Scaled Scores 333.45 42.86 289 2006 CST ELA Scaled Score 332.74 49.73 289 In Table 8 we see that the only significant association is between the 2006 and 2007 ELA CST scores (p ≤ .00). Where as there is a positive correlation between 2006 (r = .73) and 2007 (r = 1.0) ELA CST scores, there is a negative association between ELA CST scores and hours tutored (r = -.09). SES Effectiveness 21 Table 8. Correlations 2007 CST 2006 CST ELA Scaled ELA Scaled Scores Score 2007 CST ELA Scaled 1.0 .73 Scores Pearson r 2006 CST ELA Scaled Correlation .73 1.0 Score Hours Tutored -.09 -.15 2007 CST ELA Scaled 1.0 .00 Scores Sig. (1-tailed) 2006 CST ELA Scaled .00 1.0 Score Hours Tutored .07 .01 2007 CST ELA Scaled 289 Scores N 2006 CST ELA Scaled 289 Score Hours Tutored 289 A Hierarchal regression was run. In the Hierarchal regression it was shown that you can SES Effectiveness 22 predict 2007 ELA CST scores based on the 2006 ELA CST test scores. It all showed that hours tutored does not predict students’ performance on the 2007 ELA CST scores once the 2006 ELA CST scores were accounted for. The effect size was 53.2% of the variance in 2007 scaled ELA CST sores is accounted for by ELA CST 2006 scaled scores. Regression results indicate an overall model of two predictors that significantly predict 2007 ELA CST scores. In table 9 the R2 are presented. (R2 = .53, R2 adjusted is .53, R2 change was .00, F (2, 286,) = 162.99, p 0 (see Table 10). This model accounted for 53.2% of the variance in 2007 ELA CST scores. Table 9. Hierarchical Regression Adjusted R R Square Sig. F Model R Square F Change df1 df2 Square Change Change 1a .53 .53 .53 326.29 1 287 .000 2b .53 .53 .001 .38 1 286 .54 a. Predictors: (Constant), 2006 CST ELA Scaled Score b. Predictors: (Constant), 2006 CST ELA Scaled Score, Hours Tutored In Table 10, according to the ANOVA, the relationships between the DV and the IVs is linear. The p< 0 showed that test scores can predict 2007 test scores. Table 10. ANOVA Sum of Mean Square Model df F Sig. Squares MS SES Effectiveness 23 Regression 281434.577 1 281434.58 326.2 .00a 1 Residual 247542.945 287 862.52 Total 528977.522 288 Regression 281763.875 2 140881.94 162.99 .00b 2 Residual 247213.647 286 864.38 Total 528977.522 288 a. Predictors: (Constant), 2006 CST ELA Scaled Score b. Predictors: (Constant), 2006 CST ELA Scaled Score, Hours Tutored c. Dependent Variable: 2007 CST ELA Scaled Scores Table 11 presents the standardized values with the Beta values. Table 11. Coefficients Standardized Model Coefficients t Sig. (Beta) (Constant) 10.62 .00 1 2006 CST ELA .73 18.06 .00 Scaled Score (Constant) 10.29 .00 2 2006 CST ELA .73 17.92 .00 Scaled Score Hours Tutored .03 .62 .54 SES Effectiveness 24 Standardized Model Coefficients t Sig. (Beta) (Constant) 10.62 .00 1 2006 CST ELA .73 18.06 .00 Scaled Score (Constant) 10.29 .00 2 2006 CST ELA .73 17.92 .00 Scaled Score Hours Tutored .03 .62 .54 a. Dependent Variable: 2007 CST ELA Scaled Scores Discussion The sample size may have included almost 300 students, but due to the fact that only 20 of them had 20 or more hours of tutoring suggests that a larger sample of students tutored needs to be examined before significant findings may be reported. It was shown though that the ELA CST scores from 2006 act as a predictor of 2007 ELA CST scores, though hours tutored do not act as a predictor and do not predict 2007 ELA CST scores. There was a significant gain in mean scores according to the t-test for students who received 20 or more hours of tutoring. Future studies may consider grouping students based on point increases to determine exactly how many students increased or decreased their scores. Means by themselves do not show how many students increased or decreased. SES Effectiveness 25 According to the Hierarchal Regression hours tutored does not predict an increase in student ELA CST scores. When one examines the mean scores though, students with 20 hours or more of tutoring did increase their scores by an average of 14 points whereas those with less than 20 hours had no mean increase in scores .The Hierarchal Regression may have had a small sample size of only 20 students participating in 20 or more hours of tutoring, which could predict why hours tutored did not predict 2007 test scores. Further research with larger sample sizes is needed. It is difficult to show associations between an effect and an outcome when students may be receiving outside effects. Had the data shown there was an effect on CST scores by tutoring there would have been the question of, were there outside effects at work here? The students who did not receive tutoring at the same school were therefore used as a control group to explain any variance there may have been from outside effects. Possible students from various schools could be examined at one time to increase the sample size, but students from different schools may experience different effects and the variance between schools would have to be accounted for. Overall, this study showed the difficulty in showing the association between ELA CST scores and hours tutored. The expectation that 2007 ELA CST scores would increase with hours tutored was shown in the independent t-test but there was significance for hours tutored when 2006 CST ELA scores were accounted for in the Hierarchal regression. The study also showed that 2007 scores can be predicted from 2006 scores. This information will help in accounting for variance when studying the effect of hours tutored in future studies. SES Effectiveness 26 References Ascher, C. (2006, October). NCLB's Supplemental Educational Services: Is This What Our Students Need? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 136-141. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database. Bowler, R. R. (2007, March). States Lack Funds and Staff to Monitor Supplemental Ed Services. Electronic Educational Reports. Burch, P. (2007, May). Supplemental education services under NCLB: Emerging evidence and policy issues. Retrieved February 3, 2008 from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice Web site: http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Burch_NCLB.pdf California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA). (2004, February). California Curriculum News Report, A Publication of the Curriculum & Instruction Steering Committee. 29 (3). Retrieved March 10, 2008 from: http://wwwstatic.kern.org/gems/ccsesaCisc/Just.29.3.pdf Department of Education, United States of America. (2005, June 13). No Child Left Behind, Supplemental Educational Services Non-Regulatory Guidance. Retrieved March 5, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guod/suppsvcsguid.doc Fusarelli, L. (2007, January). Restricted Choices, Limited Options-Implementing Choice and Supplemental Educational Services in No Child Left Behind. Educational Policy, 21(1), 132-154. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. Miners, Z. (2007, May). SES Effectiveness Is a Matter of Debate. District Administration, 43(5), 18-18. Retrieved February 2, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database. Office of Research, Evaluation, and Accountability; Office of Extended Learning Opportunities. (2007). SES Tutoring Programs: An evaluation of year 3 in the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Chicago Public Schools, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Accountability; Office of Extended Learning Opportunities. Retrieved February 3, 2008 from: http://www.cpsafterschool.org/SESreportyear3.pdf Pascopella, A. (2004, June). Signs of Improvement with SES. District Administration, 40(6), 21- 21. Retrieved February 3, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database. Potter, A, Ross, S, Paek, J, & McKay, D. (March 2007). Supplemental educational Services: 2005-2006 (2004-2005 Student Achievement Results). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy. Robelen, E. (2004, September 8). Ed. Dept. Says States Set Rules on Tutoring. Education Week, 24(2), 34-34. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. Robelen, E. (2007, April 25). House Panel Examines NCLB Supplemental Services. Education Week, 26(34), 23-23. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. SES Effectiveness 27 Sunderman, G. (2006, October). Do Supplemental Educational Services Increase Opportunities For Minority Students?. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 117-122. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. Viadero, D. (2007, June 13). Evidence Thin on Student Gains From NCLB Tutoring. Education Week, 26(41), 7-7. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
"APA 5th Edition Template"