|
|
|
 |
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingNew Research Synthesis Finds After-School or Out-of-School Time (OST) Programs Improve Student Math and Reading ScoresA new research synthesis of fifty-six scientifically based research studies conducted by the Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (MCREL) has concluded, "OST strategies can have positive effects on the achievement of low-achieving or at-risk students in reading and mathematics." More importantly are some of the strategies and characteristics of programs that contribute most to such achievement scores. The researchers MCREL reported that "The overall effect sizes ranged from .06 to .13 for reading and from .09 to .17 for mathematics, depending upon the statistical model used for meta-analysis. Though numerically small, these results are important because they are based on strategies to supplement the regular school day and to prevent learning loss." Some implementation variables or program characteristics are more effective than others in improving student achievement. For example, the largest effect size (.26) occurred for students in grades K-2, while in mathematics the largest positive effect size (.44) was for high school students. For mathematics, a strategy that included both academic and social activities has a higher mean effect size than programs that were mainly academic.
Length of intervention also made a difference. For example, larger effect sizes were associated with programs that were more than 45 hours; yet programs longer than 210 hours for reading and more than 100 hours for mathematics had the lowest effect sizes. Studies conducted by USED during the late 1990s and in 2000 found that the average after-school program at the elementary level consisted of about 100 hours of instruction, compared to 120 hours at the middle and secondary level. In terms of strategy, the largest positive effect (.50) occurred in reading after-school programs that used one-on-one tutoring. The research also attempted to identify common features among the studies in each content area. For example, in reading the report notes "these were the links between student attendance and student achievement, the importance of staff quality, the development of academic and social skills, the implementation of a well-defined reading curriculum, and the prevention of learning loss. Common features highlighted in the mathematics studies were additional time for remediation, the use of tutoring, the use of counseling and mentoring, and the combination of recreation with mathematics instruction." Firms and other groups with products and services that provide or support one-on-one tutoring interventions should be pleased with the findings from this meta-analysis, as well as from another USED report entitled "Identifying And Implementing Education Practices Supported by Rigorous Evidence: A User-Friendly Guide (December 2003)." This report noted "…the following have been found to be effective in randomized control trials – research’s ‘gold standard’ for establishing what works:
The bad news for firms providing or supporting one-on-one tutoring, however, is that, even though NCLB explicitly allows Reading First funds to be used for one-on-one tutoring and family literacy, USED has not approved any state Reading First proposal (as of September 2003) that included one-on-one tutoring as an allowable activity. Rather, it has chosen to allow products and programs that include the five essential components, of which phonemic awareness and phonics are two. USED’s "User-friendly Guide" attempts to provide "tools" and questions to ask about evidence-based reports on the effectiveness of certain products and services and interventions. For example, if a potential user is considering a one-on-one tutoring intervention, the Guide states "The study should clearly describe (i) the intervention, including who administered it, who received it, and what it cost; (ii) how the intervention differed from what the control group received; and (iii) the logic of how the intervention is supposed to affect outcomes." The USED User-Friendly Guide is important for several reasons. The What Works Clearinghouse within USED was supposed to have begun publishing evidence-based reports on seven topical areas (including curriculum-based interventions for K-12 math and peer-assisted learning in elementary schools) beginning in September. As of this date, none of these reports are available because procedures for reviewing and analyzing evidence-based reports to identify "interventions" and "best practices" that work continue to be refined. The Center for Education Policy found that implementation of scientifically based research provisions in NCLB were among the lowest priorities among states. With the exception of "Reading First lists" few such lists of effective practices, which are scientifically based, exist for Title I and other programs. Therefore, the USED User-Friendly Guide could be used by district Title I and other officials in guiding discussions and raising questions with software and other publishers that present evidence on the effectiveness of their products. For that reason alone, many supplemental publishers would benefit from reviewing the User Friendly Guide. Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Dave Gladney at 856-241-7772 or dgladney@AEPweb.org.
|
Click here for a copy of the MCREL research synthesis. A User-Friendly Guide is also available. |
|
©2007 The Association of Educational Publishers |
||
