Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

8/14/2019 Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eunetra-ellison-simpson-phd-proposal-defense-dissertation-chair-dr-william 1/50

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TITLE I

TUTORING PROGRAMS INELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Eunetra Ellison-Simpson

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis – Dissertation Chair

PVAMU

JULY 2008



Proposal Committee Members

• Dr. William Kritsonis – Dissertation

Chair

• Dr. Camille Gibson – Member• Dr. David Herrington – Member

• Dr. Tyrone Tanner - Member



Chapter I

INTRODUCTION



Introduction

• Federally mandated public after-school tutoring

is not always reaching the children it's intended

to help, and when it does, it does not always

help as much as it could (Toppo, 2008).

• Questions are being raised about the

effectiveness of tutoring for underachieving

students, the accountability of tutors, andacademic return on this investment (Buczynski,

2008).



Introduction (con.)

• 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 (Evidence Thin on Student Gains,

2007).



Background of the Problem

• Not surprisingly, 40% of all urban districts are required

to offer supplemental services (Ascher, 2006).

• Gewertz (2005) says that states must evaluate the

effectiveness of free tutoring under the federal No

Child Left Behind Act, but a lack of resources might

force them to compromise on the rigor of those

evaluations.

• By anecdotal accounts, most states are not far along in

designing evaluations and many experts question theircapacity to design and implement high-quality

evaluations (Gewertz, 2005).



Statement of the Problem

• Saulny (2006) asserts that even for those

students who are getting tutored, there has yet

to be a scientific national study judging

whether students in failing schools are receivingany academic benefit, and there is no

consensus on how that progress should be

judged.



Research Question # 1

What is the relationship between

tutoring effectiveness and student

achievement based on anelementary school’s rating on the

Characteristics of Effective

Tutoring Scale and its TAKSCumulative Met Standard in

reading?



Research Question #2

What do administrators report

about the effectiveness of

implementing Title I tutoringprograms in elementary schools

as indicated by their rating on

the Characteristics of Effective

Tutoring Scale?




What do elementary school teachersreport about the effectiveness of implementing Title I tutoring

programs in elementary schools asindicated by their rating on theCharacteristics of Effective Tutoring

Scale?




Is there a difference in the

ratings of administrators and

teachers on the Characteristicsof Effective Tutoring Scale?



Null Hypotheses

• H1 - There is no relationship between tutoring

effectiveness and student achievement based

on an elementary school’s rating on the

Characteristics of Effective Tutoring Scale andits TAKS Cumulative Met Standard in reading.

• H2- There is no difference in the ratings of

administrators and teachers in their overall

scores on the Characteristics of EffectiveTutoring Scale.



Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study will be to investigate thestructure of tutoring programs currently employed bypublic schools. Faculty members will rate theeffectiveness of the campus tutoring programs bycompleting the Characteristics of Effective TutoringScale. Descriptive data will be included in the study toindicate factors that may be associated with theimplementation and evaluation of Title I tutoring andfurther analysis will determine if any significantrelationship exists between the quality of a Title Icampus tutoring program and its TAKS Cumulative MetStandard. The study will also investigate whetheradministrators and teachers differ in rating theircampus tutoring program.



Significance of the Study

• Results of the study will provide an overview of theeffectiveness of the tutoring methods that are utilized.

• Implications for school administrators extractedthrough the study may substantiate the currentpractices that are in place.

• On the other hand, the study may serve as an apparatusof transformational change in streamlining the contentand structure of tutoring programs.

• Ensuring that compensatory education programs areeffective will enable educators to advance a stepfurther in the quest to ameliorate the achievement gapbetween at-risk students and students of mainstreamAmerica.





Conceptual Framework

What is “tutoring effectiveness?”

• 6. Formal/informal assessment needs to be used throughout thetutoring process.

• 7. Mentoring/coaching students on learning how to learn throughproviding guidance on study habits, test taking, attention to school,and learning in general is a significant informal part of effectivetutoring.

• 8. Mentoring/coaching each student's parents on sustaining the day-to-day learning process in the home after the tutoring ceases is animportant role for effective tutors.

• 9. To facilitate the coaching of parents, it is desirable to conduct thetutoring in the student's own home outside of school hours. If this isnot possible, a community center or library can be used, but an effort

to provide mentoring to the parents should still be made.• 10. Throughout the tutoring, tutors must collaborate closely witheach student's classroom teacher. The final measure of theeffectiveness of the tutoring is the short-term and long-termimprovement of the student's day-to-day classroom achievement.Close tutor-teacher collaboration will help maximize effectivetutoring.



Review of theReview of the

LiteratureLiterature



The Evolution of Tutoring

• The tutor-student model is patterned after the

relationship that existed between the student

and sage during the age of Socrates (McDonald,

2004).• Gordon (1990) contends that tutorial philosophy

and methods were forgotten or quietly

absorbed by tax-supported public schools.



The Achievement Gap

• While Americans are mixed on the urgent need toaddress the racial achievement gap, the school'sresponsibility for the gap, and the practice of disaggregation, the Bush administration and NCLB

proponents have aggressively wielded the law'semphasis on achievement gaps as a political tool (Hess,2006).

• English (2003) asserts that current methods ineducation have not solved the major sociopolitical and

instructional problems of race or class, and they havenot reduced the gap between the socioeconomic havesand have-nots.



Compensatory Education: Title I

• Title I, the best known of the Act’s six titles

was included for the purpose of meeting the

special educational needs of children of low-

income families (Kritsonis, 2002).• For decades, people have argued about

whether Title I in itself can be praised for

raising test scores among broad groups in

society, or whether it should be condemned fornot closing the gap between poor and rich

children (Borman, Stringfield, & Slavin, 2001).



21st Century Educational Reform: No Child

Left Behind

• As a result of No Child Left Behind (NCLB),substantial new federal spending is allocatedfor supplemental education services, whichmost often mean tutoring (Buczynski, 2008).

• Underlying supplemental services is theassumption that academic instruction providedoutside the regular school day by public andprivate organizations will be able to do whatschools cannot - raise the achievement of students in consistently poorly performingschools (Sunderman, 2006).



Shortcomings of Tutoring Programs

• In the 299 districts surveyed by the Center on

Education Policy (CEP) in 2005-06, 20% of

eligible students took advantage of

supplemental services; however, extremely lowpercentages of eligible students enrolling in

supplemental services have been reported in

Houston (3%) and Philadelphia (5%) (Ascher,

2006).




Students could get better access to federally

funded tutoring programs if lawmakers

streamlined the sign-up process, gave states

and districts money to monitor and evaluatethose services, and took steps to make sure

districts actually spent money for tutoring on

tutoring (Borja, 2007).




In a study conducted by the U.S. Department of

Education from 2003-2005, Anderson and LaGuarda

(2005) found impediments regarding the state of free

tutoring programs:

• Some providers were unable to describe any strategy

for aligning their services with state standards.

• Student attendance at after school tutoring was a

challenge.

• Provider communication with parents and teachers was

seldom very effective.




• Similar findings were observed by Ascher (2006):

Although NCLB mandates "highly qualified" teachers for

every classroom during the school day, the law is silent

about qualifications for tutors. Most tutors are

certified teachers, but some are college graduates

without teaching experience, and 7% are high school

students. Some, but not all, providers prepare their

tutors to work with their instructional programs -

preparation ranges from four to 20 hours. Some, butnot all, providers evaluate their tutors.



The Need for Title I Tutoring Program

Evaluation

• The lack of tutorial program supervision by public orprivate regulatory agencies resulted in some tutors makingunfair claims regarding academic improvement that undulyraised student and parent expectations (Gordon, 1990).

• As tutoring programs of various types receive attention aspossible solutions to modern educational problems, itbecomes necessary to evaluate them in terms of theirbenefits to the students involved (Von Harrison & Guymon,1980).

• Few research studies, for example, include a control groupof students, prohibiting clear conclusions on the effects of the tutoring; therefore, the long-term effects of readinginterventions need to be investigated (Senesac &Silberglitt, 2008).



Investigating Tutoring Effectiveness

• The demand for proven results, extensive evaluations, and

data-driven decision-making has moved the role of thesuperintendent from the sideline to the frontline of supporting student achievement (Peterson & Young, 2004).

• As great as the need is for similar quantitative studies fromother districts, including those that follow students over

more than one year, there is also need for programobservations that facilitate an understanding of howsupplemental services classrooms are over time and howchildren experience tutoring (Ascher, 2006).

• It is imperative that resources be allocated to design andimplement sophisticated evaluations of tutoring efforts(Pearson, 2000).

• Tutoring programs must be evaluated rigorously andsystematically in order to determine: which produce thestrongest and most reliable effects on student learning,which produce negligible effects, and which produce no or

even negative effects (Slavin & Calderaon, 2000).



Characteristics of Effective Tutoring

Programs

• Effective programs require adequate training

for tutors, whether these are college students,

community volunteers, or other children;

second, supervision of tutors is essential(Pearson, 2000).



Garner et al. (2002) provides a framework for effectivetutoring:

• Organizational support is one of the most importantaspects to a successful after-school tutoring program.

• Providing adequate space to conduct the tutoringprogram and appropriate materials such as books and

writing supplies to implement the program, andproviding a designated person or people to be in chargeof implementing the program are key to programsuccess.

• In all of the effective after-school programs reviewed,training of the tutors was a consistent factor.

• An after-school tutoring program needs to haveappropriate materials to implement a high-qualityprogram.

• Incentives are important to keep tutors and tuteesinvolved in the program.



Summary of the Literature

• In conclusion, the literature suggests that tutors

must be equipped with ample training,

resources, and evaluative feedback in order to

produce an effective impact on studentachievement.

• Education reform measures promoting research-

based programs should encompass tutoring so

that this important form of education canbecome a more potent resource in improving

student performance (Gordon et al., 2004).



MethodsMethods



Research Methods

• Current conditions of tutoring programs will be described

and analyzed for relationships between tutoring

effectiveness and academic achievement.

• For the purposes of establishing a relationship between

variables, no logical causal ordering can be implied;student achievement is the criterion variable while level of

tutoring effectiveness is the predictor variable.

• In addition, two independent variables, the rating scores

indicating the perceptions of administrators and staff

members will also be compared through a t-test.



Subjects of the Study

• Houston, Texas has a low enrollment of eligible

students in Title I tutoring (3%) according to

Ascher (2006).

• For this reason, it is the interest of the study todiscover how teachers and administrators in the

Houston area regard Title I tutoring programs

based upon the Characteristics of Effective

Tutoring.




• The study will be conducted in Harris County,the most populous county in the state of Texas.

• Harris County includes 23 school districts;nonrandom, purposive and conveniencesampling methods will be used to invite 2school districts to participate.

• The two districts invited to participate in the

study will be purposely selected based on thefact that a large number of their schools areconsidered Title I.




• Schools will be invited through cluster

sampling.

• Approximately 45 elementary schools reside in

Districts I and II combined.• Ten schools will be selected from the school

districts (n=10) by placing all 45 elementary

campus names in a hat to retrieve the desired

sample size.




• Once ten schools have been selected, teachers

and administrators will be invited to participate

in the study via email.

• Convenience sampling will be used in selectingadministrators and teachers.

• At least two administrators and 20 teachers per

campus is the desired sample size (n=220).



Instrumentation

• Thirty statements regarding program administration,

program design, family involvement, and tutoring

sessions are included in the survey.

• Together, these four components of the survey will be

combined to elicit an overall score that will determinewhether a school’s tutoring program is deemed as

highly effective, efficient, emergent, or in need of

improvement.

• Information about the reliability and validity of theCharacteristics of Effective Tutoring Scale as a web

survey will be addressed in a pilot study.



Instrumentation

• Cooperation in completing the survey is likely due to itsbrevity, readability of responses and the use of Likert-responses; furthermore, “if a survey request isperceived as interesting and easy, the likelihood of obtaining cooperation will increase” (Biemer & Lyberg,

2003, p. 107).• Confidentiality of respondent’s identity and letters sent

to participants to explain the significance of participating in the study may increase the responserate.

• In completing electronic surveys, “confidentialitymust be assured and guarantees must be provided that

installment of the communication package will not leadto virus attacks” (Biemer & Lyberg, 2003, p.201).



Instrumentation

• Additional benefits of web survey designs such

as Survey Monkey include “controlled routing

and embedded edits” that may “decrease

measurement error and item nonresponse”(Biemer & Lyberg, 2003, p.201).



Pilot Study

• In its original form, Characteristics of Effective Tutoring

is a checklist of 30 standards that effective tutoring

programs may have (see Appendix C).

• Likert-type responses will be added to the checklist and

will be converted into a web survey on a secure siteusing Survey Monkey in order to elicit responses from

administrators and staff members regarding the

tutoring practices of each campus.

• A pilot study will be conducted to ensure thatconverting the checklist by adding Likert-type

responses yields a reliable and valid survey.



Pilot Study

• Through convenience sampling, five teachersand one administrator will be invited tocomplete the survey.

• Respondents’ answers as well as any commentsregarding the flow, readability, and relevancyof the questions will be analyzed in the pilotstudy.

•Appropriateness of the scale will be evaluatedfor the purposes of the study.

• Attention to the layout of the questionnaire willalso be addressed to ensure that the instrument

is clear to respondents.



Procedures

• Respondents will be introduced to the Characteristics of

Effective Tutoring Scale through a link provided in an

email.

• All submissions will be completed online via the World

Wide Web.

• Respondents will choose the location in which to

complete the web survey.

• Identifying information will not be obtained.

• Staff members and administrators will respond to each

item on the survey by indicating the extent to which

each statement is representative of the campus.



Research Question

#1

Hypothesis Criterion Variable Predictor Variable Statistical

Measurement

What is therelationship

between tutoringeffectiveness and

studentachievementbased on anelementary

school’s rating onthe


Tutoring Scale

and its TAKSCumulative MetStandard in

reading?

H1 - There is norelationship

between tutoringeffectiveness and

studentachievementbased on anelementary

school’s rating onthe


Tutoring Scale

and its TAKSCumulative MetStandard in

reading.

Studentachievement

Level of tutoringeffectiveness

Pearson’s rcoefficient of correlation



CORRELATIONAL STATISTICS

• The first hypothesis, H1, involves correlational research. Foreach of the 10 campuses included in the study, the first variable,TAKS Cumulative Met Standard value, will be collected via AEISreports.

• TAKS Cumulative Met Standard values for will be listed in a SPSS

spreadsheet.• Using the values emanated from the descriptive research portion

of the study, the arithmetic mean of each school’s rating scale willbe listed in an adjacent column in SPSS.

• The Pearson r correlation coefficient will be calculated todetermine whether a significant relationship exists between acampus average score on the Characteristics of Effective Tutoringscale and its TAKS Cumulative Met Standard for TAKS reading.



Research Question

#2

Statistical

Measurement

What do administrators report aboutthe effectiveness of implementing

Title I tutoring programs inelementary schools as indicated by

their rating on the Characteristics of Effective Tutoring Scale?

Descriptive statistical measuresincluding a frequency polygon andgrouped frequency distribution willbe used to summarize the results of

the survey.



Research Question

#3

Statistical

Measurement

What do elementary schoolteachers report about the

effectiveness of implementing TitleI tutoring programs in elementaryschools as indicated by their ratingon the Characteristics of Effective

Tutoring Scale?

Descriptive statistical measuresincluding a frequency polygon andgrouped frequency distribution willbe used to summarize the results of

the survey.



DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

• To determine any emerging trends, a grouped frequency distribution willbe prepared for each of the 10 schools involved in the study.

• Participants’ scale scores will be placed in rank order from high to low.Visual representation of the data will be graphed in a frequency polygonin which the shape of the distribution of scores demonstrates theskewness of the data.

• Descriptive data will be useful in reporting whether respondents rate their

schools on the higher end (effective) or the lower end (in need of improvement).• Measures of central tendency will also be tabulated to summarize the data

presented in the frequency distribution. The arithmetic mean will becalculated by adding up each of the respondent’s scores and dividing bythe number of scores (n=220).

• For each school, the mean of all respondents’ scores will be calculated

in order to determine the overall level of effectiveness of each school(highly effective, efficient, emergent, needs improvement).• In addition, the mean of the scores from all 10 campuses will be

calculated to ascertain the average level of effectiveness for Title Itutoring programs.



Research Question

#4

Hypothesis Independent Variable Independent Variable Statistical

Measurement

Is there adifference in the

ratings of administrators

and teachers onthe


Tutoring Scale?

There is nodifference in the

ratings of administratorsand teachers in

their overall

scores on theCharacteristics of

EffectiveTutoring Scale.

Administrators’scores on the


Tutoring Scale

Teachers’ scoreson the


Tutoring Scale

T-test of Independent

Means



INFERENTIAL STATISTICS

• The second hypothesis, H2, involves inferential research.Statistical procedures used in the data analysis of the research willenable one to draw conclusions regarding the impact of freetutoring.

• A t-test of independent means will be applied to determinewhether there is a significant difference in the responses of

administrators and staff member on the Characteristics of Effective Tutoring Scale.• Rating scale scores of administrators and faculty members will be

listed into two separate columns for analysis in SPSS.• Using SPSS 15.0, a t-test will be calculated for the two sets of

scores.

• To determine the statistical significance, the null hypothesis willbe restated.

• An independent-means t-test will be applied at the standard alphalevel of .05.



In Conclusion…

• Research has provided little evidence to guide policymakers and educators on the benefits of supplementaleducational services, particularly in improving theeducation of low-income and some minority students(Sunderman, 2006).

• The study will fulfill the gap in the research to date byinvestigating whether administrators and teachers ratethe tutoring programs implemented on their campusesas effective or in need of improvement.

• Whether the level of effectiveness of tutoring programsis related to student achievement will also beinvestigated.

Documents

Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis