Making Summer Count


Book Description

Students typically lose knowledge and skills during the summer, particularly low-income students. Districts and private providers can benefit from the evidence on summer programming to maximize program effectiveness, quality, reach, and funding.




Pursuing Excellence


Book Description




The Effects of the Elevate Math Summer Program on Math Achievement and Algebra Readiness


Book Description

To raise math success rates in middle school, many schools and districts have implemented summer math programs designed to improve student preparation for algebra content in grade 8. However, little is known about the effectiveness of these programs. While students who participate typically experience learning gains, there is little rigorous evidence evaluating the effects of the programs on math achievement or readiness for algebra content. This study fills that void by rigorously examining the effects of one such summer program (the Elevate summer math program) on student achievement. In summer 2014, the Silicon Valley Education Foundation (SVEF), the research team, and several Silicon Valley school districts collaborated on a randomized controlled trial to assess the effects of the Elevate Math summer program on math achievement, algebra readiness, and attitudes toward math. The study focused on three primary questions: (1) What is the impact of the Elevate Math summer program on the math achievement and algebra readiness of rising grade 8 students?; (2) What is the impact of the Elevate Math summer program on math achievement in the math topic areas most closely aligned with the program's curriculum?; and (3) What is the impact of the Elevate Math summer program on the math interest and math self-efficacy of rising grade 8 students? The randomized controlled trial was conducted in summer 2014 at eight schools in six districts in California's Silicon Valley. Participating districts identified eligible students based on existing grade 6 California Standards Test (CST) data. The districts' enrollments range from 2,487 to 13,162, with an average of 9,426. The percentage of English learner students in each district ranges from 19% to 53%, with an average of 38%. Students were randomly assigned to a treatment group that received access to the program at the beginning of the summer or to a control group that received access to the program later in the summer. Math achievement was measured using the Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project (MDTP) Algebra Readiness test, which was administered to the treatment and control groups on the first and last days of their participation in the summer program. The Elevate Math summer program significantly improved math achievement and algebra readiness among participating grade 7 students. The program improved the math achievement of the treatment group compared with the control group across several metrics. The Elevate Math summer program also had a positive, statistically significant effect on algebra readiness. Despite the Elevate Math summer program's effects, students' math achievement at the end of the program suggested that many students were still not ready for the algebra content in grade 8 math courses. There were no significant impacts on math interest or math self-efficacy. The estimated level of interest in math for the treatment group was higher than that of the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant. [The Silicon Valley Education Foundation and several Silicon Valley school districts collaborated on this study. For the Regional Educational Laboratory West report, "The Effects of the Elevate Math Summer Program on Math Achievement and Algebra Readiness. REL 2015-096" (2015), see ED558157.].




The Summer Slide


Book Description

This book is an authoritative examination of summer learning loss, featuring original contributions by scholars and practitioners at the forefront of the movement to understand—and stem—the “summer slide.” The contributors provide an up-to-date account of what research has to say about summer learning loss, the conditions in low-income children’s homes and communities that impede learning over the summer months, and best practices in summer programming with lessons on how to strengthen program evaluations. The authors also show how information on program costs can be combined with student outcome data to inform future planning and establish program cost-effectiveness. This book will help policymakers, school administrators, and teachers in their efforts to close academic achievement gaps and improve outcomes for all students. Book Features: Empirical research on summer learning loss and efforts to counteract it. Original contributions by leading authorities. Practical guidance on best practices for implementing and evaluating strong summer programs. Recommendations for using program evaluations more effectively to inform policy. Contributors: Emily Ackman, Allison Atteberry, Catherine Augustine, Janice Aurini, Amy Bohnert, Geoffrey D. Borman, Claudia Buchmann, Judy B. Cheatham, Barbara Condliffe, Dennis J. Condron, Scott Davies, Douglas Downey, Ean Fonseca, Linda Goetze, Kathryn Grant, Amy Heard, Michelle K. Hosp, James S. Kim, Heather Marshall, Jennifer McCombs, Andrew McEachin, Dorothy McLeod, Joseph J. Merry, Emily Milne, Aaron M. Pallas, Sarah Pitcock, Alex Schmidt, Marc L. Stein, Paul von Hippel, Thomas G. White, Doris Terry Williams, Nicole Zarrett “A comprehensive look at what’s known about summer’s impact on learning and achievement. It is a wake-up call to policymakers and educators alike” —Jane Stoddard Williams, Chair, Horizons National “Provides the reader with everything they didn’t know about summer learning loss and also provides information on everything we do know about eliminating summer learning loss. Do your school a favor and read this book and then act upon what you have learned.” —Richard Allington, University of Tennessee




A Case Study on the Comparison of Fourth-grade Students' Mathematics Achievement as Evidenced by the Measures of Academic Progress Assessment


Book Description

This dissertation was designed to examine whether fourth-grade students who received instruction in a self-contained setting were more likely to meet their target score on the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test than students who were taught in a departmentalized setting. Fourth-grade students in ALPHA School District took the MAP test in the fall and spring of the academic calendar year. Target scores were originated by the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA). These target scores showed the typical growth for a student in the particular grade level as calculated by national norms. The MAP test growth norms were very precise. Due to the enormous number of students involved in the norming study, NWEA staff was able to calculate the mean growth of similar groups of students from each grade level (2–10) who scored at each RIT level in the initial testing season. For this study, the researcher focused on students in the fourth grade. -- Fourth-grade students from ALPHA School District were tested in the fall of 2015 and the spring of 2016. Scores of students taking both tests were obtained and categorized into two groups: self-contained and departmentalized. Once this process was completed, the researcher analyzed the target scores to determine whether or not there were significant differences in scores of self-contained and departmentalized classrooms. Teacher participants were asked to respond to a collection of survey questions to determine which factors were key contributors to students finding success in the math program in their classroom structure (self-contained, departmentalized). The researcher followed up by utilizing a group of volunteer interview participants to partake in a brief interview based on the findings to determine the identifiable cultural classroom differences in environments in comparing self-contained and departmentalized settings. -- An analysis of the data determined that all students grew equally well regardless of their target growth and classroom structure. Through a survey, it was determined that self-contained teachers place the highest importance on the factors of human relationships and individualized instruction, while departmentalized teachers place their importance in engaging lessons and content specialization. It was discovered that teachers are better when they teach toward their strengths; that math is most effectively taught in a structured environment where routines are evident; and the value in the importance of engaging students with relevant, creative instruction.




Resources in Education


Book Description







Research in Education


Book Description