This study used a mixed-methods approach to explore the heterogeneity of effectiveness between supplemental educational services (SES) providers in the Chicago Public Schools (CPS). Using surveys of schools and SES providers, and statistical modeling, providers using college graduates and teachers as tutors were found to be more effective than those using college students. Contrary to what research on tutoring suggested, group size was unrelated to student achievement. Furthermore, school ratings of providers were not related to provider effectiveness. The results suggest that part of improving the overall effectiveness of SES may involve increasing the qualifications of tutors. Furthermore, educators should consider the qualifications of tutors when choosing SES providers to work in their schools. Additional formative research on SES should be done to identify additional levers for increasing its impact.
BarleyZ.WegnerS. K. (2007). Access to supplemental services in the central region states (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 007). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Central.
Chicago Public Schools. (2006). SES tutoring programs: An evaluation of year 3 in the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL: Office of Research, Evaluation and Accountability, Chicago Public Schools.
4.
ElbaumB.VaughnS.HughesM. T.MoodyS. W. (2000). How effective are one-on-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605-619.
5.
HeinrichC. (2010). Third-party governance under No Child Left Behind: Accountability and performance management challenges. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(Suppl.), i3-i19.
6.
HeinrichC.MeyerR.WhittenG. (2010). Supplemental Education Services under No Child Left Behind: Who signs up, and what do they gain?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 273-298.
7.
IversenS.TunmerW. E.ChapmanJ. W. (2005). The effects of varying group size on the reading recovery approach to preventive early intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 456-472.
8.
JonesC. (2007). The 2007 Supplemental Educational Services Program: Year 4 summative evaluation. Chicago, IL: Office of Research, Evaluation and Accountability, Chicago Public Schools.
9.
JonesC. (2009). The 2008 Supplemental Educational Services Program: Year 5 summative evaluation. Chicago, IL: Office of Research, Evaluation and Accountability, Chicago Public Schools.
10.
KoyamaJ. (2010). Making failure pay: For-profit tutoring, high-stakes testing, and public schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
MuñozM. A.PotterA. P.RossS. M. (2008). Supplemental educational services as a consequence of the NCLB legislation: Evaluating its impact on student achievement in a large urban district. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 13, 1-25.
14.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110, 107th Congress, 2nd Session, Jan. 8, 2002.
15.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2007). HLM 7 for Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
16.
RitterG. W.BarnettJ. H.DennyG. S.AlbinG. R. (2009). The effectiveness of volunteer tutoring programs for elementary and middle school students: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 3-38.
17.
RossS.PotterA.PaekJ.McCayD.SandersW.AshtonJ. (2008). Implementation and outcomes of Supplemental Educational Services: The Tennessee State-wide evaluation study. Retrieved from http://www.memphis.edu/crep/publications.php#SES
18.
RyanS.FataniS. (2005). SES tutoring programs: An evaluation of the second year—Part one of a two part report. Chicago, IL: Office of Research, Evaluation and Accountability, Chicago Public Schools.
19.
SlavinR. E.LakeC.DavisS.MaddenN. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6, 1-26.
20.
SteinbergM. P. (2011). Educational choice and student participation: The case of the Supplemental Educational Services provision in Chicago Public Schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 159-182.
21.
TanC.ChanC.HeistadD. (2007). Evaluation of the Supplemental Educational Services in Minneapolis Public Schools—Third year study. Minneapolis, MN: Research, Evaluation, and Assessment Department, Minneapolis Public Schools.
22.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS. (2003). Group sizes and time allotted to intervention: Effects for students with reading difficulties. In FoormanB. (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 299–324). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
23.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2008, December). WWC Intervention Report: Reading recovery. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
24.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2009, August). WWC Intervention Report: Success for all. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
ZimmerR.GillB.RazquinP.BookerK.LockwoodJ. R.III, & U.S. Department of Education. (2007). State and local implementation of the “No Child Left Behind Act.” Volume I—Title I school choice, supplemental educational services. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
