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.

www.HFRP.org

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.

Terms of Use ▼

Program Description

Overview Read to Achieve Summer Literacy Camp was a summer day camp in south Los Angeles, California, designed to prevent economically disadvantaged children from losing academic ground in reading when school was not in session. To ensure that research-based teaching practices and effective curricula were implemented, camp teachers taught direct, explicit, and systematic decoding, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing skills. The camp also cultivated exploration, creativity, discovery, and play.
Start Date summer 2000; completed 2003
Scope local
Type summer/vacation
Location urban
Setting public school
Participants elementary school students (exiting first graders)
Number of Sites/Grantees 3
Number Served about 50 in 2000; 100 in 2001; 200 in 2002; and close to 300 in 2003
Components The camp took place 5 days per week, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., over a 7-week period. Children participated in 2 hours of daily reading instruction with the remainder of the day dedicated to summer camp activities (sports, arts and crafts, swimming, theme-of-the-week activities, video arcade, and closing assembly). The camp was free of charge and included a free snack and lunch. Each site was located in an elementary school where 100% of students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch.

Credentialed elementary school teachers taught reading using a commercially available curriculum (Open Court Series 2000) and additional basal readers. Open Court Series 2000 directly and systematically teaches phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension skills. The reading instructional block included 10 minutes of whole class teacher storybook reading, 15 minutes of whole class phonics instruction, 15 minutes of independent work activities to practice the phonics skills, 10 minutes of paired reading of decodable books (where applicable), 40 minutes of small group reading using the Open Court reading anthologies and additional basal readers, and 30 minutes of writing activities during which a variety of comprehension skills (e.g., summarizing, creating concept maps, answering questions about the text, connecting what children learned from the text to their everyday life experiences, creative writing, etc.) were practiced. Children were grouped to match skill levels during reading groups and paired reading instruction.

Reference:
McGraw Hill (2000). SRA Open Court Reading Series 2000. Dallas, TX: McGraw Hill.
Funding Level $500,000 (summer 2001 through summer 2003)
Funding Sources Milken Family Foundation (year 1), United States Department of Education 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program (years 2 and 3)


Evaluation

Overview In the 2001 evaluation (published in 2003), evaluators examined whether camp participants performed better than a control group on decoding and comprehension assessments immediately after the program, as well as 3 months and 9 months later.
Evaluators John Schacter, The Teaching Doctors

Booil Jo, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
Evaluations Profiled Learning When School is Not in Session: A Reading Summer Day-Camp Intervention to Improve the Achievement of Exiting First-Grade Students Who Are Economically Disadvantaged
Evaluations Planned None
Report Availability Schacter, J. (2003). Preventing summer reading declines in children who are disadvantaged. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 47–58.

Schacter, J., & Jo, B. (2005). Learning when school is not in session: A reading summer day-camp intervention to improve the achievement of exiting first-grade students who are economically disadvantaged. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 158–169.


Contacts

Evaluation John Schacter
President
The Teaching Doctors
22 Pearce Mitchell Place
Stanford, CA 94305
Email: schacter@sbcglobal.net
Program John Schacter
President
The Teaching Doctors
22 Pearce Mitchell Place
Stanford, CA 94305
Email: schacter@sbcglobal.net
Profile Updated April 20, 2006

Evaluation: Learning When School is Not in Session: A Reading Summer Day-Camp Intervention to Improve the Achievement of Exiting First-Grade Students Who are Economically Disadvantaged


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To evaluate the camp’s impact on children’s reading performance.
Evaluation Design Experimental: At each of the three participating schools, 54 first graders were randomly selected for the study. Of these, 24 were randomly assigned to the camp and 30 to the control group. Control group children did not receive any summer services. Statistical analysis did not indicate any significant pretest differences between program and control groups. Both groups were administered tests at pretest and several posttest dates—once immediately following the program (September) and on two additional occasions 3 and 9 months later (December and May).

The mean age of the 162 first graders selected was 7 years 1 month, ranging from 6 years 8 months to 7 years 9 months; 97 were African American and 65 were Hispanic. By the first posttest, the program sample consisted of 54 children (27 boys and 26 girls, 34 African American and 20 Hispanic, with a mean age 7.2), and the control group consisted of 64 children (40 boys and 24 girls, 40 African American and 24 Hispanic, with a mean age 7.3). Since the first posttest was given the 2nd week in September at each school, children who were not enrolled in the same school the following year were not assessed. Study attrition rates were consistent with mobility rates at each school, which ranged from 29% to 41%. By the second posttest, the program sample consisted of 51 children; the control group consisted of 57 children. By the final posttest, the program sample consisted of 48 children and the control group of 57 children.
Data Collection Methods Test/Assessments: The Gates-MacGinitie assessment was administered to all program and control group children at pretest and the first two posttests. The Word Decoding Levels 1 and 2 Form S is a 43-item subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie that requires children to identify the one word that fits a picture from among words that look alike. The Level 1 test was given during pretest and the first posttest. The Level 2 test was administered during the second posttest. The Comprehension Level 1 and 2 Form S is a 39-item subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie that requires children to read stories and nonfiction passages each divided into short segments. The task is to choose the picture that illustrates a segment or that answers a question about it. The Level 1 test was given during pretest and the first posttest. The Level 2 test was administered during the second posttest.

The Stanford Achievement Test Version 9 Decoding and Comprehension Primary 2, Form T was administered at the third posttest and consists of 48 multiple choice items that assess word study skills and 40 items that test reading comprehension.

Evaluators examined the effect of the camp based on children’s performance on 6 posttest outcome measures, controlling for pretest performance. The posttest measures were September Decoding Posttest, September Comprehension Posttest, December Decoding Posttest, December Comprehension Posttest, May Decoding Posttest, and May Comprehension Posttest.

References:
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (2000). GMRT validity and reliability statistics. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement (1997). Stanford achievement test series ninth edition: Technical data report. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected in June 2001 (pretest), September 2001 (first posttest), December 2001 (second posttest), and May 2002 (third posttest).


Findings:
Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic The camp had a significant effect on 5 of the 6 outcome variables assessed: Children in the program group performed significantly better than those in the control group on decoding at immediate and 3-month posttests (p = .0001 for each) and on comprehension on all three posttests (p = .0001 for immediate and 3-month posttests and p = .002 for 9-month posttest).

Program participants’ comprehension increased 41% compared to control group children directly after the program. Participants maintained a 39% advantage for 3 months and at the end of the year were performing 18% better than control group children.

Program participants’ decoding skills increased 33% compared to control group children directly after the program, 22% 3 months later, and 0% at the study’s completion.

© 2016 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by Harvard Family Research Project