r:4

ID 1115 1624

°MONIST 1113012

00 020 -356

AUT-HOR Hill, Paul T.TITLE . What Do W Know about Teaching and Learning in Urban

Schools? Volum 7: Sasser Drop-Off and the .

Eftectiveness of Compensatory Lnstruction.INSTITUTION 1 Central Midwestern Regional Educational Lab., Inc.,

.St. Louis, MO.SPONS AGENCY National InAt. of Education (DHEW) Washington,

D.C., NOTE 38p.; Paper prepared for the Urban Education Program,

CEMREL, Inc.'s National Conference on Arban Education*(St.'Lettais; 1104 July 10-144 1978). For relate4documents see UD 020 351-361 and UD 020 363.

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.Academic Achievemlant: *Achievesent Gains; *BasicSkills; *Compensatory Educations .*EducationellyDisadvantaged; Elementary Sebondary Education;*Learning Plnteaus; *Skill'Development; SummerPrograms: Urban Schools

Evidence collected through comparison of compensatoryeducation students' callndar year and school year, gains implies thatsummer irop-off of basic skills is a common vhenbsenon. There are two

,possible'intetpretations of this finding. The first, %forgetting,"assumes coepeelktory education students know less in the fall thanthey lid the previous spritg. This "no growth in summer"interpretation assumes that the students do know as much in VIII fallas in the previous spring. The results of the National Institute ofEducation's Instruotional Dimensions Study prtvide strong viden,ce infavor of %like "no growth in summer" model. Students whose initial testscores verge at or above the national norms make substantial gainsduridg the summer, bat compensatory education stullents do not.Compensatory education programs are therefore doing some good andshould be continued until effective alternatives can be fc:aind. Summerschool programs might foster achievement gains during the summermonths, but they do not attract many disadvantaged students And theirprogramming is not focused on bastc skilli inStruction.. Publicprograms may be unable to overcome the problem of summiar drop-offentirely. Further research into the summer drop-off phenomenon isneeded to understand the limtts of public policy and maximize thaeffectiveness of compensatory education programs. (Author/MK)

. ,

*********************************************************************. * R.product4ons sapplied by !DRS are the best that can be made

from the original. document.**************** ****************************** ***********************

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUTv.:TEACHING AND LEARNINGIN URBAN SCHOOLS?

Isp

t--4u-N

i) kimt

Surmer Drop4i1f and the Effectivenessr-4

01 Compensatory fristructipn

,i(11 Hill

1 h Alia_12.)tpta.,111()11

S OP PARTMIE NT OF NEAL TNEDUCATION& WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE Or

,'. oc,!. I N7 4Ak N

Do( (1 T, A., 14( ( ( ; 1.4().%

Pt' k?..,.)NA N Y I...) ry I );

( P1.4N ;)I o( NA 1

URBAN .

cza. PROGRAM

cYz

19()

rq

A.,

A'

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT AND LEARNING IN URBAN SCHOOLS?

Volume 7

Summer Drop-Off and the EffectivenessOf Compensatory Insfruction

Paurt HillThe,Rand 'Corporation

Paper prepared for the National Conference on Urban Educa'tion,heldJn St. Louis, Missouri, duly 10-14, 1978.Conducted. by the Urban Education Program, CEMREL,with sup.port from the National 'Institute of Education.

MI CEMREL, Inc., St Louis, Missouri FE0 2 6 iggo

-Nes,

Preparedby CEMREL, Inc., a privatenonprdfit corporation supported inpart as an educational laboratory byfunds from the National Institute ofEdugation, Department of Health,Education and Welfare. The opinionsexprissed in this publication do dot,4necessarily reflect the position or v)

'policy of the_National Institute ofEducation, and no official.endorsement should be inferred.

Copyright on this document isclaimed only during the period of

.development, test, and evaluation,unless additional authorization isgranted by the National Institute ofEducation to claim copyright on thefinal version. For information on thestatus of the copyright claim, contacteither the copyright proprietor or theNational Institute-of Education.

Copyi.ight 1979, CEMREL, Inc.

Library of Cpngress catalog cardnumber 79-54744Manufactured in theUnited States of America

CEMRELt Inc.3120 5gth StreetSt. Louis, MO 63139

lap

4

a

a

/

4

Table. of Contents

V.

ACKkOWLEDGMENTS v i

FOREWORD

SUMMER DROP-OFF- NiD-THE EFFECTI VENESS OF COMPENSATORY INSTRUCT ION. .

L INTRODUCTION

I I EV,IDENCE FOR THE SUMMER DROP-OFF 4

I I I . INTERPRETATION OF SUMMER DROP-OF 6

IV. IMPLICATLONS FOR COMPENSATaRY EDUCATION POLICYAND RESEARCH 13

REFERENCE NOTES

REFERENCES

5

e--

a

0

vii'

Acknowledgments

The Urban E,ducation Progrim,.CEHRIA., Inc., Would like to thank the National4

$nstitute of Education anb the Regional Joint Pianning Group of the,yrban

_Education Program for its support and aisistance in planing the conference.

Conference Chairperson

Warriet Doss WilisDirectorUsban Education Program

Conference Partictpants

Nettie S. Ammer /Research Associate (St. Lnuis University

EVa BakyrDirectorCenter for the Study of EvaluationUCLA Graduate School of Education

Clyde E. Bash .

Division of COmmunity ProgramsUrban League of St. Louis.

Isabel BeckCo-directorLanguage & Communications Unit -

Learning Research and Develop-ment Center

University of,Pittsburgh

Jaffe, Cheatham BellUrban/Ethnic Studies CoordinatorIndiana DePartment of Public

Instruction

6

David BennettDeputy SuperintendentMilwaukee Public Schools

Edward BinkleyDirector of Research & EvaluationMetro SchoolsNashville, Tennessee

Milton BinsSenior AssociatePolicy DevelopmentThe Council of Great City SchoolsWashington, D.C.

Dean BoWlesDirectorHome-School-Community ProjectWisconstn Research and Develop-Mont Center

Ronald A. BoydAssociate SuperintendentDepartment of EducationState of Indiana

A 1

Emerson BrownBoard of DirectorsCEMREL, Inc.

L.D. BufordPrincipalSt. Louis Public Schools

WiTlipm D. Callien", Jr.Assistant SuperintendentCurriculum InstructionMemphis City Schools

Angeline P. CarusoAssociate Superintendent

:Department of.CurriculumInstructional;Services

Board of EducationCity of Chicago

Cburtney CazdenSchool of EducationNarvat;$ University

Ned ChalkerTeaching & Learning ProgramNational Institute of Education

Francis S. ChaseDirector of Urb n EducationDallas, Texas

Rosemary ChrlsthfsenDirector of Indlan EducationMinneapolis Public Schoo)s

Doris J. ClemonsRegion Five OfficeDetrOt Board of EdUcationDetroit, Michigan

Frances CoeBoard of.DirectorsCEMREL, Inc.

David ColtonGraduate Institute of EducationWashington UniversitySt. Louis, Missouri,

Lloyd M. CookeVice ChairmanEconomic Devlopment Council ofNew York City

Dallas DanielsDirectorEgual Employment OpportunityIndianapolis Department'of Public

Instruction

A. W. WksDirk-torResearch, Planning & DevelopmentWichita Public Schools

Lorenzo DixonCurritulum CoordintorIndianapolis Public Schools

Ahn W. DobbsAssistant SuperintendentSchool & Community Affairs.Department of Educatton _-

State of Michigan -P4

Domingo DominguezDirectorBilingual.& Migrant ProgramSouthwest Educational DevelopmentLgoratory

Ronald Edmonds ,DirectorCenter for Urban StudiesGraduate School of EducationHarvard University

Nancy EversDepartMent of Educational

AdministrationUniversity of Cincinnati

Joseph L. FelixDirectorProgram gvaluatiqnCincinnati Public Schools

OP

Marian Kilbane-FlashSupervisorResearch & DevelopmentCleveland Public Schools

Anita FordCo-chairmanCitizens Education Task ForceSt. Louis, Missouri

Ruges R. FreemanCoordinatorSecondary Student Training .

Southern Illinois UniversityEdwardsville, Illinois .

Gary GappertNew Jersey Department of Education

Booker GardnerWisconsin Research & DevelopmentCenter for Individualized SchoolingMadison, Wisconsin

,Howard GholsonPolicy AnalysisTitle IU.S. Office of Education

.Henry Givens .

Assistant CommissionerDepartment of Elementary &

Secondary EducationState of Missouri

Edmund GordonDirectorInstitute for Urban &Minorities Education

Teachers CollegeColumbia University

iMilton Goldberg,Educational Organizations &

InstitutionsNational Institute of Education

John H. GrateDirectorPlanning &"Development AI

Cincinnati'. Public Schools

Eldon GrossherManager

,- LEA tervicesIllinois Office of Education

p.

8

ix

Rex HagansNorthwest Regional EducationalLaboratory

Robert J. HavighurstDepartment of EducationThe University of Chicago

Garland M. HawkinsDirectorMusic Education .

Curriculum Center_School Dist. 1189East St. Louis, Illinois .

*

Paul HillThe Rand Corporation

Keith HydePlanning & DevelopmentDes Moines Public Schools

John IngramWisconsin Research & DevelopmentCenter for Individualized Schooling

Barbara JacksonAssociate DeanDepartment of AdMinistration &

SupervisionSchool of EducationAtlanta University

,

".

James N. JacobsSuperintendent.Cincinnati Public Shools

Sylvia K. Jonei \

State & Federal GrantsTOlado Public Schools

Preston C. KronkoskyField Services & DisseminationSouthwest Educational,Development

Laboratory

Daniel U. Levine -

Director.$

Center for the Study ofMetropolitan Problemsin Education

University of Missour4-Kansas City

a

Joseph D. LigginsAssistant Superintendent for Staff

Development ,

Houston Independent SchookDistrict

Reece LittleDirector of Curriculum Development-Jefferson County Public SChool'sLouisville, Kentucky

Irene loberSuperintendentUniversity City,Public SchoojsSt. Louis, Missouri

William LoboscoESEA Title IU.S. Office or Education

4

Catherine LyonCenter for the Study o# EvaluationUCLA Graduate School ofIducation

Mary MeehanDistrict CoordinatorThe School District of Kansas City

CaMar Miller^Director of Secondary EdutationNew York University

Len NachManDivision of Planning & DevelopmentMinnesota Department of Education.

Tom OdnealDirectorTitle IVMissouri Department of Education

Joan OrenderProject Coordinator for,Distribution of InformationNebraskaDepartment of Education

George A. ParryGeorge A. Parry & Associates

River Forest, Illinois

William PhillipsMinneapolis Public Schools

Andrew C. Porter.Institute for Research on TeachingCollege of IducationMichigan State Univers-fty

Ilectra PriceOakland Unified SchoQl .DistrictOakland, California

Walter E. RichardsonSupervisorCompemsatory InstructionColumbus'PUblfc SchOols

J. Robert SampsonAssistant.ManagerProgram Planning & DevelopmentIllinois Office of Education

I

Judah L. Schwartz-Profesor of Engineering, 'Science

and EducationMassachusetts Institute of

Technology

Cleona,ShortridgeSt. Louis Public Schools

Barbara Shull .

Conference on EducationSt. Louis, Missouri

Edward E. SmithRight to Read EffprtWashington, D.C.

Douglas SmithAdministrative Assistant'to

the GovernorState of Michigan

Frank SobolBasic Skills GroupNational Institute of Education

George SpicelyU.S. Office of Education

Jane StallingsStanford Research Institute

9

Jom Stefonek . .

Dfrectoi. of Planning' & Evaluatitin

ResearchWisconsin DiOartment of Public

Instruction

Vera John-SteinerDeliartment of EducationalFoundations

College of EducationThe University of New Mexico

Ronald StodghillAssociate SuperintendentSt. Louis Public Schools

Marilyn Suydam . ,

ERIC Information Analysis Centekfor Sciedce, Math &Environmental Education ,

The Ohio StatesUniyersity .

3

Maud ThomaSU.S. Office of EducationKansas CitV Regtonal Office

Concepcion ValadezGraduate School of EducatibnUniversity of CaliforniaLos Angeles'

Mamie WandickProgram-OfficerU.S. Off ce. of Education

Kansas ity Regional Office

Phy is Yeaver .

Sch oJ oT EducationHa yard University

illy-Belle WeberWeber,,Fuhrmann & AssociatesEast St. Louis, Illinois

Joyce WeddingtonDirectorResearch and EvaluationMemphis CitxSchoels

. 10.5

Rachel T. Weddington'University Dean for Teachdr,-EducAtioh

The City Untversity of New Yorlt

Lores'Wells.Harris Teactivrs Colle eSt.l.ouis, 'Missouri' .

Robert Weniz,SuperintendentSt. Louis Public-Schools

Bditari Woo4 4Afro=American-StudiesSt. Louis lihiyerstty

Saul YanofskyNational Institute bf.Education

.,.

Savannah M. Young.St. LoUis Public Schools

Allen.F. ZondlakDirector of PlanningDetroit Public Schools

I

* )URBAN EDUCATION PROGRAM STAFF

John Bass *

Resource Coordinator

Alfreda Brown'Wesource Soecialist

Pameltii CoeResearch Associate

Eileen-HamiltonSecretary'

Nellie H. AarrisonD1sSem1natien7Curriculum Specialist

DonekMillerResearell AdEisor

Harriet'Doss WtllisDirector

Aitacia WrightResearch Assistant

Loo

STAFf FOR WHAT DO WE.KNOW, ABOUTTEACHING AM 1iARNIlia1lUktANscLsT

Harriet Doss Willismpitor

Margaret SolomonManuscript EditorProductton Coordinator

Linda-Cantell--Office Manager

Marlene DandridgeFloor Clerk

Arneita GraySecretary

Angela ReedSecretary

Dian TaylorSkretaryOffice Manager,

XKareh TemmenSecretary

0

4'

Foteword

,

4

4

This monograph is one of a sertes of oapers.on the issues of instructioo-ind

learning in urban schools,that were presented at a confettence held July, ,

1044, 1978, in St. Louis, Missouri, Sponsored by the Urban Education

Program, CEMREL, Inc., and supported by the National Institute of

Educaticm. It-is our hope that both the conference and the series of .

fourteen monographs that resulted frOm it will assisteducational

researchers-and school practitioners in identifying and analyzing

instructional and learning probleam in urban school settings,' and.will

contribute to the development of strategies for the improvement of sChooling.

for students..

Titled "What Do 4e Know About Teathirkand Learning in Urban Schoolsr, thjt.

. 1978 Conference focused on an'exaMination of research f6d1ngs 9,10 the

teaching-learntng process in areas most germiine:Wand under contrctl, ofAhe

sghools. The key probleMs to which the papers are.addrested are the

assessment of learning outcomes iand the analysiv,of the re)Ationships

between instructional and other inputs and learning-ioutccmar Important

contextual issues not'uhder.the, full control of schools, Such.as Community

.and peental involvement7and the impact of federal and'state governments In

iMprOvihg educational opportunities, were addressed at the conferqncvkas

well.-

A

The conference was.conceived, in part, As an initial step in the development'

of a state-of-the-art review of the most critical issues' faced by educators

in urban schools.wha struggle with.the morass of general educational

problems, exacerbated by,decreasing puhlic confidence In large city schools,-

declining student enrollment, and inci-easing numbers of poor and minority

studentS. While the.conference does not exhaust discussiop of\i-K6 problefis

12

a

xiv

that:are particularly siOificant in tpe urban school settfng, it forms a

convenient focus for viewing the larger isiues affect,Ing.education in our .

cities.t

S.

'The educational innovatiom and change growing' out ofmore than ten years.of

effort since the' passage of the Elementary and Secondry Education Adt of'

1965 -- the-primary stimulus for federal support df yesearch and development

in education -%-'has had the least impact 'on the stUdept popila,tiOns typical-

0,the/dcban school 'settihg. (With.thii concern at. a:Primary consideration,

ten'months prior-to Convening the conference, CEMRWs Urban Education.

PrograM had 1;oegun work with a network 'of twentyjolg-city.school districtt .

and state departmenis of edOdation in Illinois, Indita", Iowa, Karihs,

Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, MiStOuri, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, and

Wisconsin. Thus,.the conference-and the research-findings, of national

authorities was Undertaken to lay a foundation for fut6re work in urban

educational researchand development and to undergird present efforts at

improvement of schools in the region.

, The Conference Design

,

r To guide the development of.the presenters' preparation Of their papers,. .

topical questions were prepared for them by Urb,an Education Program Staff

and a paper'format was recomMended. Each presenter prepared a full paper

based on the topical questions and results were summarized by the writers

during general sessions of the confATence. Because of a wide range'of

pers6ectives held on the _conference issUes, discussions precipitated by

reactor panels composed of other prominent researchers', practitioners, and

-community leaders in education followed each general conference session.

More than one hundred educational researchers and practitioners from across

the country attended the conference. The invited participants,came from

school districts and state de ments of education from nineteen states;

,thfrteen institutions of higher' ducation; four, federal agencies; numerous

educational laboratories and rese h and development centers; and seven

social service agencies.

XV

The conf,rence was divided into two types of sessions: general sess4s,

whertin.the nationally recognized speakers who wrote Papers prOsented their

*summaries; and forum sessions, wherein react6s helped analyz the

presentations and examine the concrete recommendations put.forth by the

general-session speakers. . All participants were encouraged to present

questions and reactions during these forum sessions.

Francis S. Chase, Director_ of Urban Education Studies,-Dallits, Tekas, gave

the keynote.addresS at the opening session Of the conference, a.banquet pn

MOnday eyeningrJuly 10. His topic, "Proinising Developments in Ur6an

Education,", summarized field studies that he was conducting under

sponsorship of the Council of Great Cities Schools and the University' '

CoUnCil for EdUcational Administration under a grant from the Spencer

Foundation. Chase is ProfesiOr Efnerftus of the University of Chicago, where

he also seryed as Chairman and Dean of Esducation for ten-years.

The Conference Tdpics

Each of the presenters had been asked to design a paper by-responding to

salient topical questions, drawn up by CEMREL's Urban Education Staff. The

Aquestions that were posed originally for each of the writers are presented,

below: Most'of the resulting papers were developed into monographs for this

series.

Compensatory Education: A

CongreAssiónaf 'PerspectiveT. Cross

Minori y Staff DirectorCommi ee on Education andLaborU.S: House ofRepresentatives.

What is the current state of the evidenceconcerning projected changes inlegislative mandates, and what may weexpect.related to changes in policygoverning federally funded compensatoryeducation programs?

14

1

/

xvi

Effective Teacher-Supportystems tol/mproveInstructional Conditions inSchools

LigginsAssistant Superintendentfor Staff DevelopmentHouston Independent SchoolDistrict

,Assessmeht That RespectsComplexity in Individualsand -ProgramsJudah L. SchwartzProfessor of Engineering,Science and EducationMassachusetts Institute ofTechnology

Achievement Tests in UrbanSchools: New NumbersEva BakerDirectorCenter for the Study ofEvaluationUniversity of-California,Los Angeles

Summer Drop-off and TheEffectiveness oftomsensatory Instruction1W- T. HalThe Rand Corporation

4'

What teacher support systems are mosteffective in improving instructionalconditions for students? What is the roleof in-service training, and what type of

in-servide.training can be recommendeb to

urban educators? What other resources--sbch as additionat curricular materials,support from teacher aides and volunteers,time re-allotations, team teachingarrangements% etc.--can Wdemonstrated tobe effective in improving students'learning opportunities? What is the state

of the evidence?

How can we best'measure an0 analyze theeffects of instruction. ,students'learning in the ma,jorsfiool subjects:What are the most appr riate times andstrategies for measur ng the effects ofschooling on student Jearning? What do welearn from means of assessment other thanstandaisdized achievement testing? When

and under What cirCumstances is it mostappropriate to use a1ternative orcomplementary strategies for assessingprogram effectiveness?

How can we best measure and analyze theeffects bf instruction on students'learning,in the major school subjects?What are the most appropriate times tomeasure the effects of schooling onstudent'learning? What are the cautionswhich should be taken into account beforeany attempt to evaluate the effectivenessof programs primarily on the basis onstandardized achievement datzl, especiallywhen the number of individuatimplementations is large and the actualconditions under which the implementationstook place are not well documented?

What has the era of compensatory educationprogram development contributed toknowledge about achievement in the besicschool stigats in -urban schools? Where

is the evidence? What, if anything, does '

the evidence indicate about methods forimproving basic skills adhievement? What,

if any, recommendations can be,made toschool district planners on the basis ofexisting evidence?

Instructional Insiredientsfor the Development of.BeginnIng:keadingCompetenceIsabel BeckCo,DirectorLearning Research andDevelopment CenterUniversity of Pittsburgh

A Discussion of TheCiterature and rssuesRelated to EffectiveSChoofingRonald EdmondsDirectorCenter for Urban StudiesGraduate School ofEducation

\Harvard University .

1

The Edutational Promise oCUlturaT PlurilismVera John-Steiner and,Larry Smithepartment of Educationaloundationsllege of Education

sT e University of' New Mexico

4

Much reseprch, program development, andImplementation of efforts to improve -

achievement in basic school subjects hasbeen tonceatrated in the area of reading.Wpat apprOshes to,instruction in readinghave been s4cessful in Ocreasingachievement? Is there eidence thatcertain approaches are best suited to theneeds of particular populations? Do theseeffects generalize to other areas ofschool learning, such as mmthehatics,social studies; and pcienge?

Are there schOols that have dellonstrated ahigher degree of effectiveness in the.delivery of instruction in the basicschool subjects than others servingsimilar student popplations1(in terms 0socioeconomic backgratds family)characteristics, minority populations)etc.).? What characteristics distinguishthese schools from less successful schoolsin similar situationi? What is theevidence that thecharacteristics have been co ectlyidentified,,,and how strong is thatevidence?

How can we approach problems of teachingand learning in urban schools so that theracial and cultural diversity of theschool population is recognized,respected, and utilized constructively, tothe extent possible? How do wedifferentiate between basic academicskills, which all students need to acquirefor successful participation in ourhétergeneous society, and curriculumdecisions which can and should be tailoredto the needs and interests of differentsub-cultUral groups? Do students benefitfrom participation in racially andculturally hetero-geneous classrooms, orkperhaps from certain kinds ofheterogeneous instructional settings butnot others? What is known about theseissues, and how much consensus )s thereabout the cultural values on whichschooling must be based?

A'

New Perspectives on SchoolDistrict Retearch andEvaluationtatherine LyonCenter for the Study ofEvaluationUniversity of'California,Los Angeles.

Effective Teaching_andLearning in:Uebin SchoolsJane A. Stallingt andShirley W. HentzellStanford.Research Institute

deik,

Mathematics and The.UrbanChildMarilynn SuydamCenter for Stience,Mabbematics, andEnvironmental Education .The Ohio State University

Basic Skills in Urban .

Sc400ls:., A View From The'BilIngual ClassroomConcepcion Valadez \

.Graduate School ofEducationUniversity of California,Los Angeles

What is the role of riesearch anddevelopment processei in improvement ofinstruction and learning. in basic schoolsubjec4 in large urban systems? In whatform are these prOdesses being applied tothe'teaching and learning process in urbanschools? Whet is the evidence and howsolid are the indications that use ofthese prOceses has resulted in improvedstudent ghievement?

Lookipg specifically. at the interaction ofstUltento teacher, curricular nd schoolorganization'tharacteri,tics, vhat .

ihstructional conditions entou ageachievement/in basic school su jedts?What evidence is there, and how good isit? How are the effects of instructionalconditions on student achievementmeasured? On the basis of existingevidence and trends, what recommendationscan be made 'for improving students'instructional environments?

Mathematics is a school subject which isgenerally considered basic, insofar asmathematical skills are required forsuccessful adult functioning in ourcomplex society. What evidence As thereto indicate which approaches toinstruction in mathematics have been

, sutcessful in increasing achieiement? Is

there evidence that certain approaches arebest suited to the needs of particular

, populations? Do these effects generalizeto other areas of school learning, such asreading, social studies, and science? .

Since the second largest,minoritypopulation served by many urban schooldistricts is a bilingual population, whatis the current state of the evidence aboutthe effetts of programs developed

1especially f bilingual students? What,if anything does the evidence indicateabout the ffects of such programs onbasic skills achievement?

School -Ciinqni t Relations.

i The Urban SrchôoDean gOwlesDireCtorHome-School-CommunityProjectWisconsin Research andDevelopment Center forCognitive Learning

1

Frank Sobol---"NBasic Skil ls GrdUp

National Institute ofA

Education

A Summary of The Conference

EtiTitals_Edthdrd AGordonDirectorInstitute for Urban andMinority EducationTeachers CollegeColumbia Uniyersity

Dr. Francis S. Chase,Director of Urban EducationDallas, Texas

ixx

What do we know or what can we learn aboutthe influence of parental and communityinvolvement in schooling on studentachievement? Wow does parental 'andcommunity involvement affect theteaching-learning procesi? If information

is not available to answer these questionson even a tentative basis, what types of

research are recommended to study thisaspect of students' lives more effectively?

Are there research and developmentproducts whiih have contributed to 1impreved instruction and increased 'studentachievement in basic school subjects inlorge urban school systems? What is.theevident and how solid ire the indicationsthat use of these products bas resulted inimproved stWent achivement?.

In light of the evidence produced byexamination of these issues, what concreterecommendations can be made to school

districts concerning the improviament ofinstruction and learning in basic schoof

subjects? In light of the same evidence,what research and development agendashould be'the focus of future study andprogram development?

Keynote Speaker for Conference Banquet:"Promising Developments in Urban Education"

-7HarMet Doss WillisDirectorUrban Education Program

Suinivier;Diop-Off andthe'Effectiveness.Of Compensatory Instructibn

Paul T. Hill

The Rand Corporationa

rn recent years no discussion of the effects of compensatory instruction has

begn complete without a refer6nce to the summer drop-off phenomenon. The

knowledge that disadvantaged studentAfall farther behind national norms

during the summer months has greatly complicated efforts to understand how

much compensatory education students are learnini and how much good

compensatory programs are doing.

Many researchers and policymakers have taken the evidence of summer drop-offA

to mean that cousatory instructional programs are not doing children any

good. The summer drop-off phenomenon thus has important implications for

the future of .compenstory educatiOn. My purpose in thi's paperls to

explain the meaning and significance of summer drop-off. I shall argue that

the drop-off is more apparent than real--that is, that compensatory

educationsstudents do not.suffer ahy absolute decline in their academic

skills during the sumiler.

Paul T. Hill is Director of the Center for Educational Finance and Gover-

nance, The Rand Corporation.

194

2,

After a brief general introduction, the paper will treat the following: (1)

evidence for th* existence of summer drop-off; (2) different-interpretationl

of the phenomenon; (3) the significance of the different interpretations;

and (4) implications for policy and resecch.

I. INTRODUCTION

Early efforts to evaluate compensatory.instruction Oald little or no\.

attention to summer drop:L.off;.they were Concerned with estimating students';

gains during the school year. Because the early studies were generally',

negative, no one thoug4t to ask whether disadvantaged students'lost their

school-year gain during tRe summer. More recent studies, however, have

produced far more favorable estimates of the-amount that compensatory

eduation students learn during the school year. The series of studies

conducted by SRI's Education Policy Research Center (Thomas & PeThvin

(1966); Pelavin & David (1977); and David and Pelavin (1977)), has

repeatedly shown that students who receive compensattiry reading and

mathematics instruction learn at orkabove the "normal" rate of 1.0 months

per month of instruction during the school year. The Study kof Instructional

Dimensions, conducted as part of the NK Compensatory Education Studyrfound

even greater rites'of gain during the school year for students in selected

"well implemented".Title I programs. Early results of the Mil)ti-year

USOE/SDC Sustaining Effects Study appear to be consistent with this pattern.

Though none of these studies showed cominsatory instruction to be working

uniformly well all across the country, they do indicate that many

disadvantaged students are learning at a deiirable rate during the ,school

year. On those grounds (especially in light of the very discouraging

results of early Title I evaluations)i compensatory instruction might be at

least tentatively called a success. But researchers, ever cautious, have.

found good reasons to continUe withholding judgment. Thomas and Pelavin

(1976), for example found that compensatory education students, in the

aggregate were 'still not keeping.pate With the norms for children their

age: ThOugh Title.I.students had_attained normal rates of growth.during the

school year, the gaps between their performance and that of students at the

50th percentile continued to widen es the children got older. Thomas and

.Pelavin reasoned that the widening geW could be caused by a "summer loss."

In a later 'study, Pelavin and David (19771.demonstrated that Compensatory

education students' grade eiuivalent scores declinecCover.the sumer.' !They

concluded thet "large increases in school year achieveMent are not sustained,

eVen until the.

As a result,of these and similar2findings, discussions about the

effectiVeness of compensatory instruction have become'both complicated and

confused. Some have argued that the:high rates degain during the ichool

year are 0 of that.studentS are benefiting; they regard the recent

improvements n 6tudent Performance'On the basic literary tests administered

by the National es nt of Educational progress as corroborating evidence

that overrides any questions about*summer drop-off. On the other side, some

agree with David and Pelavin (1977) that "evaluations should measure program

effectiveness over a period of time longer than the ichool year'," and that,

due to. summer drop-off, compensatory instruction cannot be judged'a succesS.

1

. The latter view has had a definite impact on policymakers' views of the

validity of the national compensatory education strategy. During

*preparations for ee-authorization of Title I with 1978 Elementary and

Secondary Education Amendments, several high-level HEW officials cited the

summer drop-off findings as grounds for thinking that current compensatory

education programs are "doing no good." Though such doubts are unlikely to

cause the-federal government to decrease its funding for elementary and

secondary education, they are eroding support for th current programs of

special educational services for individual educationally.disadvantagedii

children. Alternative federal strategies, based on less precisely targeted

4

aid 19ir the general improvement of instruction in selected school buildings,

are gaini.ng strong support snong high officials,in USOt and other parts of

HEW.

II. EVIDENCE FOR THE SUMMER DROP-OFF

The best evidence is Orovidea by two of the SRI reports cited above.

Pelavin and David (1977), an0 David-and 1Pelavin (1977) used lo'ngttUdinal

files.of fest scores obtained from a number. Of compensatory edutation

prograMs to compare Title I-students' gains in grade-equivalent.scores for

two tlme periods: the standard academic year anethe calendar year between

. entry tnto one grade and entry into the next. Gains for the academic year '

were comPUterr/as the difference in grule equivalent srore's' between fall and

spring testing. Gains for the calendar year were tomputed as the difference

between fall test scores in one year and fall test scores in the succeeding

year. Table. 1, taken from'Pelavin and David, ives 1 representative example

of their results4 Table 2 (also from Pelavin kd Da0d) gives a summary of

the amounts and rates of gain for the same students.,

In general, compensatory education students tn City M gained more than a

grade-equivalent year between their entry into a grade arib the beginning of

the following summer vacation. Their calendar-year gains,,however, were

much smaller... Most gained less than a grade-equivalent year in.a calendar

year. The difference between the largir school year gain and the smaller

calendar year gain is what Pelavin and David called the summer dro0-off.

For students in Cityll, the iummer drop-off was at least 2.9

grade-equivalent months (5th grade) and as great as 5.1 grade-equivalent

months (3rd grade).

"l*ble 1

MEAld AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS IN GRADE EQUIVALENTS FOR THE

GATESI-MacGINItTES READING TESTS 0 GRADE FOR

PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH AT LEAST THREE CONSECUTIVE TEST POINTS

Grade N Fall Spring Fall

3 272 2.23 3.29 2.78

(1.04) '0.42)

4 931 - 2.65(0.83)

.5 980 3.26(0.99)

6 316 3.85(1.2 )

7 128 4.35(1.24)

3.58(1.19)

3.18(0.96)

4.30 4.01

(1.38) (1.30)

4.78 4.42

(1.47) (1.32) ,4

5.25 4.95

(1.68) (1.41)

Table 2

I.

CITY M ACHIEVEMENT GAINS AND MONTHLY RATES BASED ON TWO

DIFFERENT PERIODS OF TIME FOR PUBLIC

SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH AT LEAST THREE CONSECUTIVE TEST POINTS

(Grade-Equivalent Metric)

* The achievement is based on the means in Table 1.

23

Achivement in Grade-. Erivalent Months* Monthly Achievement Rates

II III INT

Grade N Fall to Spr.1n 9. Fall to Fall Fall fO S ring Fall to Fall

II 1.- ) (II 4 il!g

3 272 16.6 5.5 1e5 0.6

4 931 9.3 5.3 1.3 0.5,

5 980 10.4 7.5 1.5 0.8/

6 316 9.3 5.7 1.3 O.

7 128 9.0 6.0 1.3 0.6,

6

s\

4Pelavin and 'David repeated the .analysit for several cities'. compensatory

education programst, and most, but not all; shoged compensatory' education

student* be farther behind at the end ofthest.mimer thanat the

beginning.* they concluded that ,the drop-off phenomenon is common, if not

universal, among compensato'ry Aducation students.e.

III. INTERPRETATION OF SUMMER DROP-OFF

The data ln Tables 1 and 2 appear to demon-strate that compensatory education

students know less when they report for school in the fall than when they

leave in the 'spring. Pelavin (1977) has drawn that conclusion expressly,

-Writing that stUdents suffer an "achievement loss" and that during the

summer, skills are "forgotten."

Within the past few months, however, new evidence has called the

"forgetting" interpretation int6 question. The best recent research has

shown that many compensatory education students are not suffering

oerfoilmance declines.during the 'summer. Two studies of achievement during

'the 1976-77 and 1977-78'school years (NIE's Instructional Dimensions Study

and USOE's Study of the Sustaining Effects of Compensatory Education) have

A

* The gap between compensatory educatton'students and the-national norms canwiden during the summer even if compensatory students' skills.do notdecline. If the norm group's Average performance rises over an Interval of ,

. time (say, the summer),,.a given student's performance must riseproportionately if he is to matntain his relative position. A student whoseperformance does not rise will receive a.lower -score on any norm-referencpdtest (as, of course, will those whose pernTilince, has either fallen or risenless rapidly than the norm group's), 'From norm-referenced scores alone, it.

,is'impossible to know whether a particular student's performance hasdeclined, risen, or stayed the.same. Since most norm-referenced tettsassume sonle growth during the summer, students'whose performance is constantcan indeed receive lower norm-referenced scorel. In fact, as Stenner et al.(Note 1) have demonstrated, many tests assume fhaf students' performancewill increase faSter duriAg the summer than during the school year. Thus,

substantial sUEIFii:Tosses in norm-referenced'scores can occur for studentswhose performance has not declined.

0

4%

7

produced fallLspringfall comparisons for longitudinal samples of

*4compensator:y education students.. These.studies are importot because,they

,

wOre both.expressly designed to trace individual thildren's achievement

lrowth. over the summer months and to provide data on students!2vbsolute

achievement levels- and on their norm-references scores. Unlike earlier

studies, which ,had to rely on data collected by school districts and state

.education agencies, these studies obtafned their own'test scores under,very

rigoi-ous control. The OE Sustaining EffeCts ikudy, in addition, tested a

very large ntittonaily:t4pre-semtatfve- sample-of- compentatory-eddcatiOn

students. Tables 3 and 4 are derived from the Sustaining Effects Study's

first public report on summer arop-off.

Table 3

MEAN READING AND MATH,SCORES FOR FIVE COHORTS'

OF STUDENTS OVER THREE TEST ADMI4ISTRATIONS

Cohort Grades October 1976 May 1977 October 1977

Reading

1-2 331 397 407

2-3 375 419 425

. 3-4 411 450 449

4-5' 440 472 476

5-6 461 488 494

Math

1-2' 312 374 380

2-3 353 410 412

3-4 399 459 455

4-5 448 501 498'

5-6 477 526 529

(Adapted from Hoepfner, 1978)

Table 4

SPRING F I. CHANGES.1N MEAN READING AND ,-

MATH .4.ES FOR.FIVg COHORTS OF STUDENTS

Cohort Gradek Reading Mathematics

'10

2-3 6

3-4 -4

4 -3

5-6 6 3

(Adapted from Hoepfner, 1978)

Table 5 provides similar data from the NIE study.

. Table 5

11EAN ACHIEVEMENT GAIN SCORES FOR.COMPAIRTORY dOUCAI.4N

STUDENTS IN THE NIE INSTRUCTIONAL DIMENSIONS STUDY

Grade 1

N

(In Expanszd Standard Scores)

Fall-to-Spring Gain Spring-to-Fall Gain

i

'Fall-to-Fall Gain

Reading 395 64 0 64

Grade 1Math 143 37 2 9

Grade 3Reading 565 43 9 52

Grade 1Math 314, 64 0 64

(Adapted from Frechtling and Hammond, 1978)

9.

The two most'recent studies therefore lireSent a very different picture of

tpe.summer drop-Off phenomenon from thet inferred from Tables 1 and-2.

Disadvantaged'students' achievement sCorei change verylittle during the

summer: A few changes are Oositive but all the changes are very small. The, .

best conclpsion from these data is that children's echievement neither

increeses nor'decreases during the summer.

4

Two very different interpretations of the summer drop-off phenomenon are

therefore possible. The first, illustrated by Figure 1, can be called

"forgetting." Compensatory'education students know less in the fall than in

the previous spring. The second, illustrated in Figure 2, can be called "no

growth in summer." Compensatory education'students know as much in the fall-

as in the previous spring. Under either interpretation, 50th percentile

students are assumed to fearn at a steady rate year-round. Compensatory

education students fall farther behind 50th percentile students each year,

but they fall back more dramatically under the "forgetting" interpretation.

Ihe crucial difference between the two is that the "forgetting"

interprkation says that a great part of what students learn during the

4 school year is lost ih the summer.*

The "forgetting" and "no7summer gain" interpretations have very different

implications for judgmetits about the value of compensatory instruction. To

demonstrate those differences, itois.important to understand the standards

-'of judgment now being used in 'policy dlsoussions:

- The first, more modest, standard is whether the program is doing any

gOod for individual_students.. If students are learning more than

they would without compensatory instruction,-that standard is met.

.

* Practicing educators who are familiar with all children's return to the

State of nature daring the summer months may find it hard to believe that

children do not truly "forget." It is important to remember that most fall

testing tekes place in October or later, long after the readjustment to '

school has taken place. The "forgetting" interpretation thus assumes a true

loss of skills,,not just a short-lived rustiness in the first week of school.'

A

4

10

,The second, more ambitious, standard is whether the program is

bringing students up to the aver4gi achievement levels of children

their age. This standard is met only if the ichievement levels of

compensatory education students are converging on the national

norms.**

The "fOrgetting model strongly implies that compensatory instruction meets

neither of these standards. As Thomas has argued, the large school-year

gains resulting froA compensatory instruction are offset by summer losses,

to the effect that students will have learned no more.after several years of -

compensatory instruction than they would have done without it. Thus, the

investment--of public money and children's time--in compensatory instruction

is wasted'.

In contrast,,the,"no4Amer gain" model implies that disadvantaged children

make real gains during the school year. Unlike 50th percentile students,

whose skills grow even when'they are out of school, disadvantaged students

learn only when they are receiving formal instruction. Compensatory

programs that increase students' learning rates when they are in school are

thus vitally .important..

The NIE study results provide very strong evidence in favor of the "no

sIMAer gain" model. As Table 6 shows, students whose initial test scores

were at or above the national norm make substantial gains during the summer

months, butucompensatory leducation students do not.

** A third standard, suggested by Thomas and Pelavin (1977) is whethercompensatory instruction is improving the life chances of disadvantagedstudents. That standard cannot be given a simple quantitative meaning,since the linkage between achievement levels and life chances is unknown.If one assumes a close relationship between achievement levels and lifechances,, then the first and third standards are equivalenti if one assumesthat life chances are enhanced only by achievement at or above the nationalnorms, then compensatory instruction must meet the second standard.

Test

Performance

Test

Performance

FIGURE I: FORGETTING

50 Percentile Studenti

Compensatory Education.Students

School Yr. School.Yr. School Yr. School Yr.

FIGURE 2: NO GROWTH IN SUMMER 4

50 Percentile Students

Compensatory Education Students

chool Yr hoo1 Yr. t71717777 School Yr.

9

.

).

12

Tibia 6

COMPARISON OF GAIN SCORES OF COMPENSATORY EDUCATION STUDENTS AND

STUDENT WHOSE PRETEST SCORES WERE AT OR A8OVE'THE NATIONAL NORMS

(In Expanded Standard Stores)

Grade 1 ReadingN

Fall to Spring toSpring Gain Fall Gain

Fill toFall GeOn

Compensatory Ed, Students 344 69 0 69"Others 296 55 10 66

Grade 1 MathCompensatory Ed.Others

Students 97

43543

56

8 ,

10

52

66

Grade 3 Reading,Compensatory Ed. Students 512 44 . 8 52

Ofhers .

.

305 36 21- 57

Grade 3 MathCompensatory Ed. Students 3O 64 -1 63Others 178 62 7 69

5

(Source: Frechtling and Hammondc WS)

.

On this evidence, compensatOry instruction a4ears to meet the first-.-

standard, and not the second. It is thus ,doing some good,ibutnot,

'according to the highly desirable second siandard, doing enoUgh good to be

Judged an unqualified success.

The recent scholarl.V and political discussion of summer drop-off has not

recognized the difference between the "forgetting" and "no-summer gain"-

interpretations. Most, but nqt 611, participants have implicitly adopted

the "forgetting" model because it was intuitively consistent with SRI's

data. _ (It also seemed to be the only explanation for the ever widening gap

between the achievement levels of compensatory education students and the II S-.

national norms. An inspection of Figures 1 and 2, however,,will demonstrate

p.

13

that,the "no-summer gain" modef also explainsAthe'gap. If the term "summer

drop-off" is to retain anY moving, it should be redefined to refer to this

relative, not absolute, deeline in disadvantaged students learning.)

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 'POLICY AND RESEARCH

This section reviews the implications of the eilidence about summer drop-off

for three guestions:',I) whether to continue supporting compensatory

-1 nstruction;-(2)-how to increase the gains-children derive-fromeompensatOry

instruction; and (3) what may be the limits of public programs of

compensatory instruction.

Whether-to Continue'Supporting Compensatory Instruction

A loese restatement of the conclusiods of the preceding section ii that

compensatory instruction is doing some good, but not enough to make A

prOound difference in the educational Plerformance of disadvantaged

students. Whether support for compensatory instruction should be continued

depends first on the importance of the objective of raising the achievement

levels of disadvantaged children, and second on'the exfstence of more

promising alternatives.

About the first, there seems to be little doubt about the strength of the

national commitment to improving education for the disadvantaged. E,SEA

Title I, Follow Through, and state compensatory education programs haile

flourished through years of criticism and many discouraging evaluations.

Congresi'has just reUthorized Title I, and funded it at more than 'three

times the level appropriated in 1965. Those actions reflect the strength of

the political coalition's behind Title I at least as much as any of the

program's technical successes. But no amount of cynicism about the

legislative process can refute the conclusion that Congress supports Title I

because an imperfect effort on behalf of disadvantaged children is better

than done at all.

14

f

If there are mOre promising alternative ways'of improving the achievAment of

disadvantaged children they are not widely known. Years of resetrch on

instructional processes has produced some progress (see, for exaMple,'

Resnik, Note 2) but most of it has refined coMpensatory instruction rather

than built revolutkonary alternatives to it. California's Early Childhood

Education program (ECE) embodies an alternative approach, a general -

reseructuring of classroom processes for all students, in hopes that

disadvantaged children will benefit along with the others. This alternative

is more congenial to the normal organization of schooling than the ,special

services model normally followed in compensatory education, and it might

help many students not now eligible under Title I and similar programs.

There is, however, little evidence about its specific effectiveness for

disadvantaged children. An evalyArtfcci of/ECE now betng initiated by the

State of California will tiel0 determine whether classroom restructuring is a

serious alternative to compensatory instruction.

Possible Ways. of Increasing the Gains Children Derive from Compensatory

Instruction

Aside from technical refinements in the quality of compensatory instructton,

+he way to help disadvantaged children learn niore is to increase the rates

of learning during the summer. If childi-en gain only when they are

receiving instruction, an obvious course is to give them instruction year

round. Pelavin (1977) and other proponents of the "forgetting"

interpretation are strongly in favor of summer programs; the "no-summer

gain" interpretation leads (albeit less urgently) to the same.prescription.

There are, unfortunatefy, some serious problems wtth the summer school idea.

One is that existing summer programs do not appear to be effective antidotes

to summer drop-off. Table 7 presents data from the Sustaining Effects Study

on the school-year and summer growth of disadvantaged students who attended

*summer school. Though many students made small gains during the summer, no.

32

15

cohort (4-5 in readirig)'came anywhere near to learning ore-third as much

, from summer school as feWregular school-year instruction. The NIE study's

results are virtually identicai to these.

Such data confi4/the common belief that existing summer school programs do

not have strong effects on children's test performance. This may reflect

' the fact that.existing summer programs are not sharply focused on basic

skills instructiOn. If summer programs were designed as'exact continuitions

of schoo,l-year AnstRiction, the results might be more positive.

Table 7

RATIO OF-SUMMER TO SCHOOL YEAR GAINS FOR DIS-

ADVANTAGED STUDENTS WHO ATTENDED SUMMER solo%

Cohort Reading Math

1-2 .15 .18

2-3 .14 .00

'3-4 .00 .00,

4-5 .23 .06

5-6 .30 .10

(adapted from Hoepfner, 1978)

Cost 1s other problem. Few school di,tricts can afford large summer

d Title I does not provide additional money for summer

ope School districts can elect to use Title I funds for summer

instrUct on, but must reddce their regular school-year effort to do so.

Under the "forgetting" interpretat'ion, it may be worthwhile to reduce

school-year instruction in order to support summer programs, because the

school-yeai- gains can be seen as ephemeral. Under the "no-summer gains"

16

interpretation, however, summer instruction is a poor trade for the existing

school-year programs: reducing the level of school-year instruction risks

known'real gains for unpredictable effects of summer instr:uciion. A major

emphasis on summer programs should therefore await new funding..

The third problem.with summer programs is ensuring that the right students

Participate. There is no selective compulsory summer attendance law for'

low-achi'eving cdAn, and disadvantaged groups are not generally in the

habit_of sending_their_chfldren.to_summer school. At present, the students

most likelWo receive summer schooling are the economically and

educationaffy advantaged, whose parents pay for special training in areas of

personal interest,.and children Of working mothers who can afford an

expensive form of day care. Public summer schools would be attractive to

- many members of these groups. Low-income families, not now in the habit of

using summer schools, might be slow to respond td the opportunity. To be

successful, a summer school program must cope with these facts. To my

knowledge nobody has thought much about how to guarantee that the children

most in need of summer instructiOn would receive if.

On the Limits of Public Programs

As we learn more about the summer drop-off phenomenon, we may discover the

limits'of the ability of public programs to overcome the achievement

problems of disadvantaged children. Evidence from the most positive recent

studies indicate that disadvantaged children make achievement gains only

where they are receiving formal instruction. Unlike other children, they do .

not gain a "momentum" from their scho91,-year experiences to carry them,.

through the summer. Continual exposue to instruction is therefore very

important; when that is not possible, either because of lack of funds or

because the children themselves need relief from the regimen of schooling,

the children apparently stop learning. Publlc programs may.therefore be

ubable to overlcome the problem of summer drop-off entirely. Until we

understand 'how summer drop-off occurS,'it will be impossible to know how,- or

whether, it can be cOmbatted.

34

17

The most plausible explanations for the phenomenon concern ,either the

children's non-school environment-or their own personal aptitudes for

learning. One possible explanation is that the non-school environment of

disadvantaged children is not conducive to learning--that Is, that unlike

more advantaged children, they are not stimulated to practicd their reading

end mathematics skills at home or at play. A second possible explanation is

.that low-achieving children have high thresholds for relponding to academic

information: intense formal instruction can get through to them, but other'

less intense learning situations cannot.

Neither'explanation appears to fit'alhe facts. For example,

high-achieving children in Title I schools .apparently do not suffer a summer

drop-off;.those children live in the same ilsighborhood and thus experience

puch the same out-of-school environment, as the students whose academic

skills do not grow during the summer. It seems'clear, however, that the

explanation for summer drop-off lies, somewhere outside the children's

schooling experience.

Developing an understanding of summer drop-off will require a mode of

research t4at social sc.intists have come to label as dangerous. An

examination Of children's habits, ,attitudes, home envirents.4 and use of

/leisure'time will expose researchers to he accusation that they ari trying

to blame the deficiencies of the educational system on the victims of

inadequate school'ing. Such research'is, however, the only way to understand

the summer drop-off problem. Without it we can neither understand the

limits of public policy or maximize the effectiveness of coapensatory

instruction. If we do not pursue these questions, only the children stand

to lose.

18

REFERENCE NOTES

Motel. A. J. Stenner, J. 0. Bland, E. E. Hunter, & M. L. Cooper. The

standardized growth expectation: .Implications for educational

evaluation. ^Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada, 1978.

Note 2. L. Resnick. Theory and practice in beginning reading instruction.

Report .to the National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C.

REFERENCES

19

David, J. L., & Pelavin, S. H. ...eLor.RsearcltegfrilteuIssofcompensatory

education programs:, A reanalysis of data. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI

Inlernat1ona1", 1177%

Frechtling, J., & Hammond P. The instructional dimensions folloo-up. In

Compensatory education study: A final report from the Mat4011Instilufe of Education. Washington, V.C.: The National Institute of

tducation, 1978,

Hoepfner, R. A study of achievement scores over,the !tamer manths. -Santa

Monica, Calif: Systems Development Corporation, 197t.

Pelavin, S. H.,.& David, JA. ,Evaluating longrterm achievement: An'

analysis of longitudinal data from'compensatory educationyrograms.MrenTo Park, Calif: SRI International, 1977.

Pelavin," S. H. Statement before the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary,

and Vocational Education, U.S. House of Representatives, November 8,

1977 (95th Congress: Hearings on H.R.. 15c Part 19: Title I - Funds

Allocation, pp. 492-502.)

Thomas, T. C., & Pelavin, S. H. Patterns in ESEA Title I reading

achievement. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI, 197r.

OTHER TITLES IN THE SERIES

Volume 1

Comoensatory Education: A

noressional Pet'spectfve.nristoo)ler T. Cross, fhe U.S.House of Representatives

Volume ?Effective Teacher-Support Systemsto Tm rove Instructional

t ons n School-s

1-oseltWT). Upoins, HoustonIndependent School DiS-triCt

VolumeAssessment That RespectsCompfei-iTy in InFii-Oduals and

ProgramsTiirrah L. Sthwartz; Massachusetts

Institute of Technology,

Volume AAchievement Tests in Urban SchoolsFva Baker, Unic-/-(?rsity of

California, Los Angeles

Volume rsInstructional In redients for the

"-ev(-.71-6-pment o esi-ing ReadingCompetence

Beck, Uniyersity ofPittshurqh

VolumeA Discussion of the Literatureand Issues Related to Effective7-chooTinoRonald nmonds, Harvard

University and New YorkCity Public Schools

Volume 7Summer Drop-Off and therffectfveness of CompensatoryInstructionPaul-77 gill, The Rand Corporation

'Volume 8The Educational Promise ofruItural PTuraTIsmVera John -Steiner and Larry

Smith, The University of NewMexico

Volume 9New Perspectives on SchoolDistrict Research and ElpiluationCatherine 1.4on, Unfversity of

California,--Los-Angeles-

Volume 10Effective Teaching_ and Learningin Urban SchoolsJane A. 'Stallings and Shirley W.Hentzell, SRI International

Volume 11Mathematics and the Urban Child:A nevi ew of- ResearchMarilyn N. Suydam, .:The Ohio'Stae

University .

Volume 12Basic Skills in Urban Schools: _AView from the Bilingual ClassroomConcepcion M. VaTadez, University

of California, Los Angeles

Volume 13School-Community Relations andStudent AchievementJdhh E. Ingram, Jr. and Lois I.Bartels, St. Ouis PublicSchools and CEMREL, Inc.

Volume 14What Do We Know About Teachingand Learnin In Urban Schools: A

ummary o t e on erence n ngs

Edmund-A. 6-ord-on,

University