Jump to:Page Content
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.
Program Description
Overview | During the 1995–1996 school year, the Extended-Day Tutoring Program was implemented with first through fourth graders in Title I Memphis City Schools. The program used a curriculum based on Success For All (SFA) with the purpose of improving participating students' literacy skills. |
Start Date | 1995 |
Scope | local |
Type | after school |
Location | urban |
Setting | public schools |
Participants | elementary school students |
Number of Sites/Grantees | 13 Title I sites |
Number Served | 656 (1995–1996) |
Components | The Extended-Day Tutoring program was developed by the Memphis City Schools' Success For All (SFA) coordinator in collaboration with faculty experts from the University of Memphis and Johns Hopkins University. The program ran for two school years, 1995–1996 and 1996–1997. It used a Success for All (SFA) curriculum as its basis. SFA is a school-wide research-based reform model developed by Robert Slavin and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University based on the notion that all students can and must succeed in the early grades. Founded on the idea that reading is fundamental to other skill areas, the program targets students in lower elementary school grades. The SFA approach includes intensive instruction in language arts for students, professional development to help teachers effectively work with all students, and an active family support component (www.successforall.com/index.htm). The tutoring program was offered three days a week for one hour after school to selected students in grades one through four. Students were nominated for participation by their teachers due to the teachers' perceptions that the students were likely to benefit from the program, but program participation was voluntary. For the first 15 minutes of the program, students were led in SFA Story Telling and Retelling (STaR) and/or Listening Comprehension, depending on their grade level. Next, the children spent 30 minutes reading and doing related follow-up activities using Scott Foreman Book Festival kits. These kits provide multiple copies of each book so that students can engage in partner reading. The final 15 minutes of the program were spent focusing on any of the following activities which are alternated depending on the day: writing, Book Club, computer skills, and test-taking strategies for the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP), the state-mandated standardized achievement test. During the first year of implementation, the 1995–1996 school year, the tutoring program began in December due to the time required for program design, obtaining materials, and recruiting teachers. |
Funding Level | N/A |
Funding Sources | Title I federal funding |
Evaluation
Overview | Ross et al. conducted an evaluation to identify the program's strengths, weaknesses, and preliminary process and achievement outcomes after the first year of implementation. |
Evaluators | Steven M. Ross, Tracey Lewis, Lana Smith, and Allan Sterbin, University of Memphis |
Evaluations Profiled | Evaluation of the Extended-Day Tutoring Program in Memphis City Schools: Final Report to CRESPAR |
Evaluations Planned | not available |
Report Availability | Ross, S. M., Lewis, T., Smith, L., & Sterbin, A. (1996). Evaluation of the Extended-Day Tutoring Program in Memphis city schools: Final report to CRESPAR. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis. |
Contacts
Evaluation | Steven M. Ross Associate Director and Senior Researcher Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall The University of Memphis Memphis, TN 38152 Tel: 901-678-3413 Email: smross@memphis.edu |
|
Program | Not available since the program was discontinued in 1997. | |
Profile Updated | June 6, 2002 |
Evaluation: Evaluation of the Extended-Day Tutoring Program in Memphis City Schools: Final Report to CRESPAR
Evaluation Description
Evaluation Purpose | To identify the strengths and weaknesses of the program as well as to examine preliminary academic outcomes after the first year of implementation. |
Evaluation Design | Quasi-Experimental: The evaluation employed a matched-pair design in which one student in each pair participated in the tutoring program while the other student did not. Students in grades two through four were matched by the principal using the 1995 Total Reading Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores on the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) as the primary criterion for matching and attitude and behavior as secondary matching criteria. There were 328 matched pairs included in the analysis. While first graders also participated in the tutoring program, they were not included in part of the evaluation since they do not undergo TCAP testing. The intention of the researchers was that one member of each pair would be randomly assigned to the program; in fact, it is unclear whether principals executed random assignment or whether they selected students for participation in the program and then found a matching student who would not receive tutoring. Nonetheless, comparisons of treatment and comparison group students reveal no significant differences in pre-program TCAP NCE scores. |
Data Collection Methods | Observations: Observations of the program were made by four Memphis city teachers working as consultants for Title I. All four teachers had expertise with the SFA reading program. They made a total of 153 separate observations of program activities, rating the quality of each observed activity as: “not observed,” "poor,” “satisfactory,” or “good.” The observers also provided accompanying comments to justify their ratings. In addition to these formal observations, two evaluators made a total of six informal observations in order to gain a general impression of the program. Observations were made throughout the 1995–1996 school year. Surveys/Questionnaires: Teachers who taught in the after school tutoring program, of whom there were 62, were surveyed regarding their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the program. The survey also elicited suggestions for program improvement. The surveys had a response rate of 77%. Surveys were conducted in the spring of 1996. Tests/Assessments: In addition to using 1995 TCAP NCE test scores to place students in matched pairs, 1996 TCAP NCE scores of students in both the treatment and comparison groups were studied to determine if there was an impact of the program on children's reading abilities. The TCAP is given in the spring. |
Findings:
Formative/Process Findings
Activity Implementation | Generally, observers felt that the program was well implemented by teachers in all of its components, citing satisfactory quality and fidelity to the planned activities. Some teachers were observed to be more skilled than others and more conscientious about adhering to the program plan. Three problems that appeared to come up again and again in observations were: (1) time management, (2) less emphasis on writing and TCAP skill-building than had been intended, and (3) an overemphasis on teacher presentations at the expense of active student learning. First Grade Observations
|
Recruitment/Participation | Ninety-seven percent of the tutored students were promoted to the next grade at the end of the 1995–1996 school year. The mean attendance rate for the program was 75%; 71% of the children attended more than 80% of the sessions. |
Satisfaction | According to teacher surveys, the most frequently cited strength of the program was the books, frequently described as high-interest material that met student needs, with 43% of teachers reporting this strength. The second most common strength noted was the program materials (25% of teachers), closely followed by cooperative learning (17%), the training program (15%), the partner reading/discussion (11%), and the small groups/classes (11%). The most frequent survey response from teachers when asked about program weaknesses was to omit answering the question (26%). Of the answers actually given, 15% of teachers noted that the program should have begun earlier in the year, 15% mentioned behavior problems, 9% felt that there was not enough teacher input in the program, 9% felt that students had too few skills, 7% felt that the program was not congruent with SFA, 7% felt that groups were too large, 7% felt that kids were tired and bored, 4% felt that erratic attendance was a problem, and 2% felt that math skills need reinforcement too. The most frequent of the suggestions for improvement made by teachers in surveys were to begin the program earlier in the year and to provide more money for material and supplies. Also, there were recommendations from teachers that they increase their flexibility to adapt the program to individual children's needs, involve parents more, and have smaller groups. |
Staffing/Training | Teachers reported that the training they received was effective and that they felt ready to implement the program when they began. |
Summative/Outcome Findings
Academic | The evaluators used ANCOVA, with the covariate specified as 1995 TCAP sores, and found that the pretest (1995) scores were significantly (p<.001) related to posttest (1996) scores. They were then able to control for this in subsequent analyses to determine the program effect. The evaluators analyzed the TCAP test results by doing two major analyses: the first analysis compared a treatment group of students assigned to tutoring who attended at least 50% of the time against a comparison group of students originally assigned to the treatment group who attended less than 50% of the time and students who had originally been assigned to the comparison group. The second analysis compared only those students in a matched pair where both students had taken the pretest and posttest (1995 and 1996 TCAP) to each other. Within these two main groups, evaluators looked separately at students who attended more than 80% of the time and students who attended more than 50% of the time and alternately included and left out two schools which showed discrepancies between the pretest scores of the matched pairs. At one of the two “outlier” schools, there was only a .47 correlation between the 1995 TCAP scores of the matched pairs and at the other there was a correlation of -.10; all the remaining schools had correlations of at least .94 between the two pretest scores of the matched pairs. First Analysis: Participants Attending More Than 50% of the Time Versus Low- or Non-Attenders (Less Than 50% of the Time) Plus the Original Comparison Group
|