1 / 29

Supplemental Educational Services Approving, Monitoring, Evaluating

Supplemental Educational Services Approving, Monitoring, Evaluating. Chair: Steven M. Ross , Center for Research in Educational Policy; Center on Innovation & Improvement Collaborating Researchers: Jen Harmon , Center on Innovation & Improvement

ryann
Download Presentation

Supplemental Educational Services Approving, Monitoring, Evaluating

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Supplemental Educational ServicesApproving, Monitoring, Evaluating Chair: Steven M. Ross, Center for Research in Educational Policy; Center on Innovation & Improvement Collaborating Researchers: Jen Harmon, Center on Innovation & Improvement Kenneth Wong, Brown University; Center on Innovation & Improvement

  2. Promising Practice Briefs:Approving, Monitoring, and Evaluating Providers • Commissioned by the Office of Innovation and Improvement • To be developed and released in fall 2008

  3. Promising Practice Briefs Sources of data • State SES Director Survey Completed by All States • National Meetings • Site Visits to States • Interviews with SES Directors • Authors’ Experiences as SES Consultants and Researchers

  4. Recruitment Two-thirds of the states actively (14%) or informally (52%) recruit providers via: • Direct invitations • Web announcements • District publicity • State meetings and other means

  5. Application Requirements Aside from core application information, states include as optional components: • Attendance at informational meetings • Recommendations from former clients • A detailed plan for communicating with teachers, parents, and district coordinators • In-person interview • Demonstration/description of a tutoring lesson • Identification of minimum tutor qualifications

  6. Strategies Used in the Approval Process

  7. The Most Successful Practices • Application review using independent review teams (f = 19) • Clear scoring rubrics (f = 9) • Technical assistance to applicants (f = 5) • Requesting curriculum and tutoring descriptions (f = 2) • Provider interview (f = 2)

  8. Challenges

  9. Desired Improvements Multiple states want to improve their process by: • Requiring submission of lesson plans • Adding an interview process • Strengthening scoring rubric • Improving reviewer training

  10. Increased Federal Assistance Increased federal assistance is desired in the areas of: • Specific guidance in practices and policies • Facilitating networking and information sharing between states

  11. Monitoring Focus Nearly all states view the main focus of monitoring to be: • Provider compliance with rules and regulations (93%) • Districts’ implementation of SES (84%)

  12. Applications • Three-fourths (74%) of the states use a “formal” monitoring process • Almost 80% use monitoring results formally (38%) or informally (40%) in evaluating providers

  13. Feedback and Capacity • Feedback • 55% of states produce a written report • 23% have face-to-face meetings • Capacity • 45% monitor all providers each year • 75% monitor at least half yearly

  14. Types of Technical Assistance

  15. On-Site Monitoring Activities (33%) • Visits may be announced or random • Includes online and in-home providers • Review of tutoring documents, materials, etc. • Uses checklist, rubric, or rating scale • May be one person or a team • Tutors or students may be interviewed • Most often at school or community site

  16. Desk Monitoring • End-of-year fiscal and participation report • Quarterly reports • On-line implementation tracking • Provider self-evaluation • Parent and student satisfaction surveys • Complaints regarding provider compliance • Comparison of provider vs. district enrollment data

  17. District Monitoring • Supplementary for some states • The only monitoring done in other states

  18. Most Successful Practices

  19. Challenges

  20. Desired Improvements

  21. Implementation of Provider Evaluations • 30 states “regularly” evaluate • 15 are still in planning stages • Remainder “informally” evaluate

  22. Is the Provider Evaluation Effective?

  23. Evaluation Component

  24. Evaluation Component

  25. Student Achievement Analysis Approaches

  26. Most Successful Evaluation Practices

  27. Challenges

  28. Desired Improvements

  29. Contact Information • Sam Redding, sredding@centerii.org • Marilyn Murphy, mmurphy@centerii.org • Steven Ross, smross@memphis.edu • Jen Harmon, jharmon@centerii.org • Kenneth Wong, kenneth_wong@brown.edu Visit our web site at www.centerii.org

More Related