SummerLearningLossforMainePublicSchoolElementaryStudents

Reporttothe

JointStandingCommitteeonEducationandCulturalAffairs

MaineStateLegislature

DavidL.Silvernail

BrianMazjanis

MaineEducationPolicyResearchInstitute

UniversityofSouthernMaine

January2015

1

Summer Learning loss for Maine Public School Elementary Students

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The goal of this research was to determine if there are statistically significant differences in learning between different categories of students apart from the influences of school. The foundational assumption is that student academic achievement is a product of both in-school and out-of-school factors. While there are many breaks from schooling during the calendar year, the largest by far is the summer recess. This study examined student achievement data measured at the end of one school year and then again at the beginning of the next school year. The study took advantage of the natural experiment that arose when the State of Maine changed from assessing students’ progress toward meeting the standards of the MLR from the spring administered MEA to the fall administered NECAP.

A preliminary analysis revealed that while the MEA and NECAP tests were comparable, they did not yield equivalent test score. Accordingly, a process was used to create equivalent test score calculations. Using these adjusted test scores, MEA and NECAP test scores for Maine elementary students in grades 3-8 were analyzed for both mathematics and reading. The analysis revealed: (1) there was some summer learning loss for both economically advantaged and economically disadvantaged students; (2) summer learning loss was greater for economically disadvantaged students; (3) summer learning loss was less than in other national research; (4) summer learning loss was greater in mathematic than in reading; (5) summer learning loss was greater in mathematics in the earlier grades and in reading in the later elementary grades; and (6) summer learning loss was greatest for students who had demonstrated meeting proficiency by the spring test administration.

2

SummerLearningLossforMainePublicSchoolElementaryStudents

DavidL.Silvernail BrianMazjanisIntroduction

ThepurposeofthisstudywastodetermineifMainepublicschoolstudents

experiencedanysummerlearningloss,andifso,didthelossdifferbyacademicdiscipline

orthesocio‐economicstatus(SES)ofMainestudents.Forpurposesofthisstudysummer

learninglosswasdefinedaslostinacademicperformanceoverthesummerbetween

schoolyears.Studentlearninglossduringthesummerrecessanditseffectonstudent

achievementhasbeendocumentedinmanystudies,buttheextenttowhichthefindings

fromthesestudiesareapplicableinMainehasnotbeenestablished.

Untilrecentlyitwasnotpossibletodocumenttheeffectsofsummeronstudent

academicperformanceinMainebecauseMainelackedawaytocomparespringandfall

learning.ThepresentstudywasmadepossiblewhentheMaineDepartmentofEducation,

withapprovalfromtheMaineLegislature,decidedtoreplacetheMaineEducational

Assessment(MEA)withtheNewEnglandCommonAssessmentProgram(NECAP).The

MEAsweretraditionallyadministeredtoallMainestudentsingrades3‐8inthespringof

eachschoolyear.TheNECAPswereadministeredinthefallofeachschoolyear,beginning

withfall2009.Thus,thischangeintestadministrationbytheMaineDepartmentof

Education(MDOE)createdanaturalexperimentthatallowedfortheisolationandmeasure

ofstudentlearningfordifferentcategoriesofMainestudentsduringthesummerrecessof

2009.MaineEducationPolicyResearchInstitute(MEPRI)researchersusedthis

opportunitytoexplorethefollowingresearchquestion:Duringthesummerof2009did

studentsingrades3through8havedifferentsummerlearningratesinmathematicsand

readingandweretheredifferencesforeconomicallydisadvantagedstudentsand

economicallyadvantagedstudents?

3

ReviewofExistingResearch

Manyresearchershaveattemptedtoexaminethedifferentialeffectsofsummer

recessonstudentlearning(Bruene,1928;Cook,1942;Stanovich,1986;Heyns,1978,1987;

Cooperetal.,1996;Downeyetal.,2004;Alexanderetal.,1997,2001,2007;Entwisleetal.,

1997,2001;Valesetal.,2013).TheDowney,vonHippelandBroh(2004)investigation

usingTheEarlyChildhoodLongitudinalStudy,KindergartenClassof1998‐99(ECLS‐K)

datasuggestedthat,“…forstudentsinatypicalschool,thenon‐schoolenvironment

encouragesadvantagedchildrentopullahead…”(p.623).Cooper,Nye,Charlton,Lindsay,

andGreathouse,intheir1996meta‐analysisof39studiesconcluded,“…middleclass

studentsappearedtogainongrade‐equivalentreadingrecognitiontestsoversummer,

whilelowerclassstudentslostonthem”(p.265).

Intheir1997foundationalbookChildrenSchoolsandInequality,Entwisle,Alexander

andOlsonhypothesizedthatresourcesthatarenecessaryforchildrentolearnarelike

waterpouringoutofafaucet.Thatis,“whenschoolisinsession,thefaucetisturnedonfor

allchildren,theresourceschildrenneedforlearningareavailabletoeveryone,soall

childrengain.Whenschoolisnotinsession,childrenwhosefamiliesarepoorstopgaining

becauseforthemthefaucetisturnedoff”(p.37).Whilethispatternofresourceaccess

termedthe“faucettheory”doesnotdelveintothe“blackbox”ofwhatresourcesare

disproportionatelymissinginSESdisadvantagedhomesandneighborhoods,itnonetheless

simplifiestheinvestigationbysuggestingthegeneralunderpinningsofdifferentialsummer

learning.

Theimpactoffactorsoutsideofschoolthatinfluencestudentachievementbegins

evenbeforeachildentersschool.Whenchildrenenterschoolatagefourorfivetheyhave

hadtheequivalentofafourorfiveyearvacationfromschoolinwhichtheschoolresource

“faucet”hasbeenturnedoff.Duringthistimetherearelargedifferencesinexperiences

thatleadtolargedifferencesinstudentachievement.Intheir2007bookAnnualGrowthfor

AllStudents,Catch‐UpGrowthforThoseWhoareBehind,Fielding,Kerr,andRosierassert,

“Onthefirstdayofkindergarten,therangebetweenstudentsinthebottomandtop

quartilemidpointsissixyearsinreadingskillsandfouryearsinmath”(p.226).

Alexanderetal.,(2007)hypothesizedthatoneoftheotherkeydifferencesbetween

lowerandhigherSESstudentsistheirstartingpointinfirstgrade;thefirstdatapointof

4

theirstudy.Intheirstudy,startinginthefalloftheirfirstgradethestudentsinthehigh

SEScohortscoredonaverage26.48pointshigherontheCaliforniaAchievementTest

(CAT‐R)testthandidtheirlowSESclassmates.IntheECLS‐Kstudy,Ready(2010)found

thatchildrenfromhighSESbackgroundshaveasizableadvantageininitialdevelopment.

Thisdifferenceatthestartofkindergartencreatesa“head‐start”forthehighSEScohort

thatthelowSESstudentscontinuetolosegroundeachsummerinspiteoftheirgains

duringtheacademicyear.

In1978,Heyns’bookSummerLearningandtheEffectsofSchoolingandsubsequent

1987paper“SchoolingandCognitiveDevelopment:IsThereaSeasonforLearning?”Heyns

createdaframeworkfromwhichmuchofthemodernresearchonsummerlearningover

thelastthirtyyearshasbeenbased.TheimportanceofHeyns’workwasbothher

investigativeapproachaswellasherconclusions.CitingheavilytheColemanReport

(1966),Heynsattemptedtodeterminetheeffectthatoutofschoolinfluenceshadon

individualstudentachievement.Shereasonedthattoisolatetheeffectthatschoolandout‐

of‐schoolfactorshadonachild’seducation,onehadtocontrolforonefactorwhile

measuringtheother.

Heynslogicallyreasonedthatastudent’scognitivegrowthisafunctionofbothin

schoolandoutofschoolfactors.Shewrote,“Thecentralpremiseofthisstudyisthat

achievementisacontinuousprocess,whereasschoolingisintermittent”(1978,p.43).She

continued,“Asaquasi‐experimentalcontrolfortheeffectsofeducation(schooling),the

summermonthsrepresentaplausibleintervalinwhichtocontrastpatternsoflearning”

(1978,p.43).Shecontendedthatthesummerrecessis,“atemporalcontrolfortheeffects

ofallfactorslinkedtocognitivegrowththatoperateyear‐roundsuchasfamily

background”(Heyns1987,p.1156).Ineffect,bymeasuringstudentgrowthwhenschool

wasnotinsessiontheHeynsstudyfoundanusefulwaytomeasureColeman’s“external

divergentinfluences”(1966,p.20).

TomeasureacademicachievementHeynsusedtheMetropolitanAchievementTest

(MAT)asheracademicmeasure.Hersamplewas1,499sixthgradersand1,460seventh

gradersintheAtlantapublicschoolsfromspringof1971untilthefallof1972.Thisgave

Heynstwomeasuresofsummerlearningforbothsixthandseventhgraders–spring1971

tofall1971andspring1972tofall1972.Bycomparingstudentspringscorestotheir

5

subsequentfallscoresHeynsmeasuredstudentachievementduringthesummermonths;a

timewhenschoolfactorsarecontrolledforandthusshearrivedatameasureofnon‐

schoolfactors.Shealsomeasuredstudentachievementduringtheschoolyearwhenboth

non‐schoolandschoolfactorspresumablyeffectedstudentachievementbymeasuring

achievementdifferencesusingfall1971scoresandcomparingthemtospring1972scores.

Notsurprisinglyherdataindicatedthatforbothlow‐SESchildrenandtheirhigh‐

SEScounterpartthemostproductivelearningoccurredwhileschoolwasinsession.Heyns

commentsonthisfinding,“Thedataclearlysupportthecontentionthatschoolingmakesa

substantialcontributiontocognitivegrowth(p.187).”Whileallstudentslearnedmore

duringtheschoolyearthanduringthesummerbreak,Heynsalsofoundthatduringthe

schoolyear,therelativegrowthofstudentswassimilarregardlessofSES.

EntwisleandAlexander,buildingontheworkofHeyns,authoredseveralstudies

andreportsbeginningin1992thatcontendthatdifferencesinachievementbetweenhigh

andlowSESstudentscanbelargelyattributedtodifferencesduringthesummervacation.

Intheir1992studyEntwisleandAlexanderarguedthat,“Theseasonalpatternofscores

emphasizesthepointthathomedisadvantagesarecompensatedforinthewinterbecause,

whenschoolisinsession,poorchildrenandbetter‐offchildrenperformatalmostthesame

level.”Theycontinue,“Itismainlywhenschoolisnotinsessionthatconsistentlossesoccur

forpoorerchildren”(1992,p.82).ForstudentswhocomefromlowSESfamilies,timeaway

fromschoolappearstobethegreatcognitivedivider.

BuildingontheirearlierworkAlexander,EntwisleandOlson(2007)quantifiedthe

cumulativeeffectsthatdifferencesinnon‐schooltimehaveonchildren.Theyagainused

theBeginningSchoolStudy(BSS)thatbeganin1982andtrackedBaltimoreelementary

schoolchildren’sprogressthroughtheirschoolingusingthereadingsub‐testofthe

CaliforniaAchievementTest(CAT‐R)during11differenttestingperiods.FortheBSS

cohort,studentprogresstrackingbeganinthefalloffirstgradeandcontinuedtograde

five.IntheirstudyAlexanderetal.,reviewedthedatafrom787studentsincluding397

childrencategorizedaslowSES,204childrenclassifiedasmiddleSESand186children

classifiedashighSES.

Theresultsfromthestudyrevealedthatfromgradeonethroughgradefive,

studentsoflowSESimprovedoverthefivewintersanaverageof191.30pointsontheCAT‐

6

R.TheirmiddleSEScohortimprovedabout19pointsmorethantheirlowSESclassmates

(210.19).ThehighSEScohortimprovedonly186.11pointsor5.19pointslessthanthelow

SEScohort.Thuslookingattheeffectthatschoolhadonthesechildren,whilemiddleSES

studentsdidmuchbetterthanbothgroups,childrenfromlowSESfamiliesdidsomewhat

betterthanthosestudentsfromhighSESfamiliesduringthefirstfewyearsofelementary

school.

WhilethelowSESstudentcohortdidslightlybetterthanthehighSESstudent

cohortduringthefirstfiveyearsofschoolingduringtheschoolyear,theyhadsignificantly

lessgrowthduringthetimethatschoolwasnotinsession.Duringthesummerrecess,

studentsfromthehighSESgroupgained46.58pointsasmeasuredbytheCAT‐R.Thisgain

occurredoverfoursummerswhenschoolwasnotinsessionandrepresentsgrowth

greaterthantheone‐yearaveragegrowthforanygroupduringthestudy.Incontrast,

childreninthelowSESgrouphadasummerregressionof1.90points.Thisdifferenceof

48.48pointsontheCAT‐Rissubstantialandrepresentsabouttwothirdsofthedifference

betweenCAT‐RscoresforhighandlowSESgroups.Differencesbetweenthetwogroups

duringtheschoolinstructionaltimewerenearlynon‐existent.AccordingtotheBSSdata,

themajority(twothirds)ofachievementdifferencesbetweenhighandlowSESgroupsat

theendoffifthgradewereattributedtodifferencesinsummerlearning.

Anothersetofdatathatprovidesrichinformationaboutchildren’sentryintopublic

educationistheEarlyChildhoodLongitudinalStudy–Kindergarten(ECLS‐K).Thedatain

thisstudycamefromchildrenaroundthecountrywhowereeducatedinpublicandprivate

schools,attendedfullandhalfdaykindergartenandwerefromdiversecultural,ethnic,and

socioeconomicbackgrounds.Takenfromasampleofover13,000childrenacrossthe

UnitedStates,theadvantageofthisdataovertheBSSdataisthatitrepresentsagreater

geographicandsocioeconomiccross‐sectionforstudy.

InformationfromtheECLS‐Kdatasethavebeenanalyzedbyseveralresearchersin

ordertomeasuretheeffectofsummeronstudentlearningduringtheearlyelementary

grades.Ready(2010),usedtheECLS‐Kdatatoquantifystudentlearningbothduringthe

schoolyearaswellasduringthesummer.Tomoreaccuratelymeasuretheeffectsthat

schoolhadonastudent’slearningheadjustedthedatatolookatgroupsofstudentsfrom

differentSESwithcomparableabsenteeismduringtheschoolyear.InhisstudyReady

7

foundthatlowSESchildrenlearnmoreduringtheirfirsttwoyearsofschoolthantheir

highSESclassmates.HealsoconcludedthatwhilestudentsofaverageSESstayatabout

thesamecognitivelevelduringthesummerrecess,childrenofhighSESshowgainswhile

childrenoflowSESshowliteracyskilldecreases.Thisfindingsupportsthepremisethat

achievementdifferencesbetweenlow‐SESchildrenandhigh‐SESchildrenarenota

functionofwhathappensinschool.

Insummary,thenationalresearchliteratureonsummerlearningrevealsthat,in

manycases,somestudentexperiencegreatersummerlearninglossthanotherstudents,

andthatmostoftenitiseconomicallydisadvantagedstudentswhosufferthegreatest

summerlearningloss.Giventhesenationalresearchfindings,thequestionbecomes,Are

theyapplicableinMaine?DoMainestudentsexperiencesummerlearninglost,andifso,

howmuch?Anddoestheamountoflossvarydependingupontheacademicdiscipline,

socio‐economicstatus,genderorotherstudentcharacteristics?Thegoalofthisstudywas

toanswerthesequestions.

Methodology

Theprimaryresearchdesignusedinthisstudywasanex‐postfactodesign.Thatis

tosay,achievementscoresontwostatewideassessmentsadministeredin2009were

analyzedbydiscipline(mathematicsandreading)andselectedstudentcharacteristics.

Thestudycomparedastudent’sMEAscoreinthespringwiththatsamechild’sNECAP

scoreinthefallandthuswasawithinsubjectsanalysisusingarepeatedmeasures

independentvariableanalysis.The“treatment”inthisstudywasthesummerrecessof

2009thatcreatedasituationinwhichin‐schoollearningfactorswerecontrolledforand

thereforeoutofschoollearningfactorswerethesoleagentsactingonstudentacademic

achievement.

ThesampleusedinthisstudyincludedallMainestudentswhotooktheendofyear

MEAassessmentinthespringof2009andthebeginningofyearNECAPassessmentinthe

fallof2009.InaccordancewithMaineStatestatute,“Eachschooladministrativeunitand

eachstudentenrolledinaschoolcoveredbythisruleshallparticipateintheMaine

EducationAssessment(MEA)ingrades4,8(Chapter127§4.1).”Table1onthenextpage

reportsthesub‐samplesexaminedinthisstudy.Inthespringof2009the70,497students

whowereenrolledingradesthreethroughsevenwererequiredtotaketheMEA.Inthe

8

followingfall70,622wereenrolledingradesfourthrougheight(Table1).Fromthisdata

set,studentswhodidnottakeeitherofthetwoassessments,studentswhowereretained

orskippedagrade,studentswhomovedinoroutofthestateandstudentswhotookthe

alternativePersonalizedAlternativeAssessmentPortfolio(PAAP)wereexcludedfromthe

studysample.

Table 1: Study Samples 

School Year  Grade 3  Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 

2008‐09  13,782  13,822 14,146 14,272 14,475 

School Year  Grade 4  Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 

2009‐10  13,753  13,891 14,221 14,337 14,420 

        

Difference  (29)  69  75  65  (55) 

Twostatewideacademicassessmentswereusedasmeasuresofstudent

performance.TheMaineEducationalAssessment(MEA)wasadministeredtoallstudents

ingradesthreethrougheightfrom1985until2009.TheMEAwascreatedbyMeasured

Progress,anassessmentcompanybasedinDover,NewHampshire.Studentrawscoresare

thenscaledonaneightypointscaleandcutpointsaremadeforthevariousachievement

levels.

Thesecondassessment,theNewEnglandCommonAssessmentProgram(NECAP),

wasalsocreatedbyMeasuredProgress,thesamecompanythatcreatedtheMEA.Itwas

createdincollaborationamongtheNewEnglandstatesofNewHampshire,RhodeIsland

andVermontandwasdesignedtomeasurestudentachievementandmeettheannual

studentassessmentrequirementsofNCLB.

UnliketheMEAtheNECAPisadministeredinthefall.LiketheMEA,theNECAP

consistsofmultiple‐choice,shortanswerandconstructedresponseitems.Andlikethe

MEA,studentrawscoresontheNECAParescaledonaneighty‐pointscaleandcutpoints

aremadeforvariouslevelsofachievement.

Fundamentaltothisstudywastheassumptionthatbothassessmentswere

designedtomeasurethesamelearningstandards,asreportedbytheassessment

developer,MeasuredProgress.Thatis,thespring3rdgradeMEAassessmentwas

constructedtomeasure3rdgradelearningstandards.Whenthosechildrenwerepromoted

9

to4thgradethefollowingyear,theyweretohavetakenthe4thgradeNECAPassessment.

The4thgradeNECAPassessmentwasconstructedtomeasuretheprioryear’slearning

standards:3rdgradelearning.Therefore,duringtheyearthatMaineswitchedfromthe

MEAtotheNECAP,inthefallof2009thechildreningradesfourthrougheightwere

assessedtwiceonthesamelearningstandards;onceinthespringoftheprioryear(School

Year2009)andthenagaininthefallofthecurrentyear(SchoolYear2010).

Findings

Descriptiveandinferentialstatisticsprocedureswereusedinansweringthecentral

researchquestion.Analysisofstudentperformanceonthetwoassessmentsindicatedthat

therewasadegreeofsummerlearninglossforelementarystudents.Assessmentscale

scoresforeconomicallyadvantagedanddisadvantagedstudentsinreadingappearinTable

1and2.Similarscorepatternswerealsofoundformathematics.Assessmentscoresare

reportedasthelasttwodigitsofscalescores,andascoreof42isconsideredbythestateas

meetingproficiency.

Thedatarevealseveralpoints.First,economicallyadvantagedstudentsscoreconsiderable

abovethestatedesignatedproficiencylevelsinbothmathematicsandreading,andthese

studentsconsistentlyscoreaboveproficiency.Economicallydisadvantagedstudents,on‐

36384042444648505254565860

3 and 4 4 and 5 5 and 6 6 and 7 7 and 8

Table 2: Longitudinal Reading Performance of Grades 3‐8 Students

EconomicallyAdvantagedStudents

Economically Dis‐advantagedstudents

10

the‐other‐hand,scoreconsistentlybelowthestatedefinedlevelofMeetsProficiency.

Second,thegeneralpatternforeconomicallyadvantagedstudentsisthattakenasawhole

group,thereappearstobelittlesummerlearningloss,withtheamountofsummerlearning

lossbeingsomewhathigherforeconomicallydisadvantagedstudentsandslightlymorein

theupperelementarygrades.Third,itappearswhenexaminedasawholegroup,Maine

schoolsarenotexperiencingsuccessinnarrowingtheachievementgapbetween

economicallyadvantagedandeconomicallydisadvantagedstudents.Thegapin

performanceremainsfairlyunchangedbetweengrades3and8forMainestudents.

Furtheranalysisoftheassessmentdatarevealedthatamorenuancedpictureofthe

impactsofthesummermonthsonstudentsmaybeseenbyexaminingstudents’levelof

proficiency.Tables3‐6reportthemathematicsperformanceofstudentsingrades3‐7for

eachofthefourstatedesignatedproficiencylevels.Theperformanceisreportedinterms

ofpercentilechangesfromspringtofallof2009.Thefourproficiencylevelsare:(1)

substantiallybelowproficient;(2)partiallyproficient;(3)proficient;and(4)proficient

withdistinction.

Themathematicsassessmentdatarevealsaninterestingphenomena.Forthose

studentsbelowproficiency(Levels1and2),thepercentilechangesarepositivefrom

springtofall.Studentsattheselevelsshowedsomeimprovementinperformance.Andfor

bothLevel1andlevel2,theimprovementsweregreaterforeconomicallyadvantaged

students.

However,thereversewasthecaseforthestudentsthatwereatorabove

proficiency.PerformanceforLevel3(proficient)andLevel4(proficientwithdistinction)

studentsdecreasedfromspringtofall.Thepercentilechangeswereallnegative(exceptfor

one)forbothlevelsandallgrades.Performanceofstudentswhowereproficientinthe

springwasslightlylowerafterthesummer.Inaddition,theperformanceofeconomically

disadvantageddecreasedconsiderablymorethantheperformanceoftheeconomically

advantagedstudents.

11

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

�Grade 3 � Grade 4 � Grade 5 � Grade6 � Grade 7

Percentile Chan

geTable 3: Spring MEA 2009 Performance Level 1 Math Percentile 

Change on NECAP Fall 2009 

SES 0 MEA 1

SES 1 MEA 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

�Grade3 � Grade 4 � Grade 5 � Grade 6 � Grade 7

Percentile Chan

ge

Table 4: Spring MEA 2009 Performance Level 2 Math Percentile Change on NECAP Fall 2009

SES 0 MEA 2

SES 1 MEA 2

12

ThesamepatternofperformancewasfoundforReading.Tables7‐10reportthe

percentilechangesforeachofthefourlevelsofproficiencyandforgrades3‐7.

Andthedifferenceinperformanceofeconomicallyadvantagedandeconomically

disadvantagedstudentsisevenmorepronouncedthanformathematics.Economically

disadvantagedstudentsexhibitingLevel3andLevel4proficiencylostthemostintermsof

learningoverthesummermonths.

‐7

‐6

‐5

‐4

‐3

‐2

‐1

0

1

�Grade 3 � Grade 4 � Grade 5 � Grade 6  Grade 7

Percentile Chan

geTable 5: Spring MEA 2009 Performance Level 3 Math Percentile 

Change on NECAP Fall 2009

SES 0 MEA 3

SES 1 MEA 3

‐14

‐12

‐10

‐8

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

�Grade 3 � Grade 4 � Grade 5 � Grade 6 � Grade 7

Percentile Chan

ge

Table 6: Spring MEA 2009 Performance Level 4 Math Percentile Change on NECAP Fall 2009

SES 0 MEA 4

SES 1 MEA 4

13

.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

�Grade 3 � Grade 4 � Grade 5 � Grade6 � Grade 7

Percentile Chan

geTable 7: Spring MEA 2009 Performance Level 1 Reading Percentile 

Change on NECAP Fall 2009 

SES 0 MEA 1

SES 1 MEA 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

�Grade3 � Grade 4 � Grade 5 � Grade 6 � Grade 7

Percentile Chan

ge

Table 8: Spring MEA 2009 Performance Level 2 Reading Percentile Change on NECAP Fall 2009

SES 0 MEA 2

SES 1 MEA 2

14

Discussion

Thecoreresearchquestionisstudywasdesignedtoanswerwas:

Duringthesummerof2009didstudentsingrades3through8havedifferent

summerlearningratesinmathematicsandreadingandweretheredifferencesfor

economicallydisadvantagedstudentsandeconomicallyadvantagedstudents?

Thedatasuggestthattheanswertothisquestionissomewhatcomplex.Therewassome

summerlearningloss,butoverall,thelosswaslessthanexpectedgiventhenational

‐7

‐6

‐5

‐4

‐3

‐2

‐1

0

1

2

�Grade 3 � Grade 4 � Grade 5 � Grade 6  Grade 7

Percentile Chan

geTable 9: Spring MEA 2009 Performance Level 3 Reading Percentile 

Change on NECAP Fall 2009

SES 0 MEA 3

SES 1 MEA 3

‐14

‐12

‐10

‐8

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

�Grade 3 � Grade 4 � Grade 5 � Grade 6 � Grade 7

Percentile Chan

ge

Table 10: Spring MEA 2009 Performance Level 4 Reading Percentile Change on NECAP Fall 2009

SES 0 MEA 4

SES 1 MEA 4

15

research.Thiscouldbethecaseforseveralreasons.First,itmayinfactbethecasethat

Maineelementaryagestudentsexperiencelesssummerlearninglossthanstudentsin

moreurbansettings.Second,theactuallearninglossmaybegreaterbutthatthestatewide

assessments,designedprimarilyforaccountabilitypurposes,arenotpreciseenoughin

measuringchanges.Third,thetwoassessments,althoughdesignedtobeequivalent,may

notbeequivalent.Infact,inexploringthisequivalencywedidinfactfindthanscalescores

werenotalwaysequivalentonbothtests.Thus,thesecondaryanalysiswasconducted

usingpercentilescores.Thesedonotrequiretheassessmentstobeequivalent,butthey

alsocarrywiththemtherealitythatpercentilescoresareessentiallyranksandranksdo

nothaveequaldistancebetweenpercentilescores.

Anadditionalfindingwasthatwhilethedegreeofsummerlearninglossdoesnot

differsubstantiallybygradelevel,itdoesdifferbyproficiencylevels.Studentswhowere

lessthanproficientinspring2009scoredhigheronthefallassessment.Butstudentswho

wereatoraboveproficiencyinthespringof2009slippedinperformancebythefallof

2009.Again,partofthisphenomenonmaybeexplainedbytheproblemswiththe

assessments,butnotallofit.Thus,itisunclearwhytheperformancevariesdepending

uponproficiencylevels.Additionally,itisunclearwhytheproficientlevelofperformance

differsdependingupontheeconomicstatusofthestudents.Clearly,additionalresearch

andanalysisisneededinthisarea.

Afinalobservationfromthefindingsinthisstudyisthattheachievementgap

betweeneconomicallyadvantagedandeconomicallydisadvantagedstudentsremainsfairly

stableovergrades3‐8.Thegapisstableoverthecourseoftheschoolyearandthroughthe

summermonths.Thissuggeststheneedforsomemajorchangeswithinschoolsoverthe

courseoftheschoolyear,andfurther,itsuggeststhepotentialimportanceofthe

implementationofsomeeffectivesummerschoolprogramming.

16

References

Alexander,K.L.,Entwisle,D.R.,&Horsey,C.S.(1997).Fromfirstgradeforward:Earlyfoundationsofhighschooldropout.SociologyofEducation,70(2),87‐107.

Alexander,K.L.,Entwisle,D.R.,&Olson,L.S.(2001).Schools,achievement,andinequality:Aseasonalperspective.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,23(2),171‐191.

Alexander,K.L.,Entwisle,D.R.,&Olson,L.S.(2007).Lastingconsequencesofthesummerlearninggap.AmericanSociologicalReview,72(2),167‐180.

Bruene,E.(1928).Effectofthesummervacationontheachievementofpupilsinthefourth,fifthandsixthgrades.TheJournalofEducationalResearch,18(4),309‐314.

Coleman,J.S.,Campbell,E.Q.,Hobson,C.J.,McPartland,J.,Mood,A.M.,Weinfeld,F.D.,&York,R.(1966).Equalityofeducationalopportunity.Washington,dc,1066‐5684.

Cook,M.D.,&Evans,W.N.(2000).Familiesorschools?explainingtheconvergenceinwhiteandblackacademicperformance.JournalofLaborEconomics,18(4),729‐754.

Cooper,H.,Nye,B.,Charlton,K.,Lindsay,J.,&Greathouse,S.(1996).Theeffectsofsummervacationonachievementtestscores:Anarrativeandmeta‐analyticreview.ReviewofEducationalResearch,66(3),227‐268.

Downey,D.B.,VonHippel,P.T.,&Broh,B.A.(2004).Areschoolsthegreatequalizer?Cognitiveinequalityduringthesummermonthsandtheschoolyear.AmericanSociologicalReview,69(5),613‐635.

Entwisle,D.R.(1997).Children,schools,&inequality.socialinequalityseries.ERIC.

Entwisle,D.R.,Alexander,K.L.,&Olson,L.S.(2001).Keepthefaucetflowing.AmericanEducator,25(3),10‐15.

Entwisle,D.R.,&Alexander,K.L.(1992).Summersetback:Race,poverty,schoolcomposition,andmathematicsachievementinthefirsttwoyearsofschool.AmericanSociologicalReview,57(1),72‐84.

Fielding,L.,Kerr,N.,&Rosier,P.(2007).Annualgrowthforallstudents:Catch‐upgrowthforthosewhoarebehindL.Fielding.

Heyns,B.(1978).SummerlearningandtheeffectsofschoolingAcademicPressNewYork.

Heyns,B.(1987).Schoolingandcognitivedevelopment:Isthereaseasonforlearning.ChildDevelopment,58

17

Ready,D.D.(2010).Socioeconomicdisadvantage,schoolattendance,andearlycognitivedevelopment.SociologyofEducation,83(4),271‐286.

Stanovich,K.E.(1986).Mattheweffectsinreading:Someconsequencesofindividualdifferencesintheacquisitionofliteracy.ReadingResearchQuarterly,21(4),360‐407.

Vale,C.,Weaven,M.,Davies,A.,Hooley,N.,Davidson,K.,&Loton,D.(2013).Growthinliteracyandnumeracyachievement:evidenceandexplanationsofasummerslowdowninlowsocio‐economicschools.TheAustralianEducationalResearcher,40(1),1‐25.