Millions of pounds spent on summer schools and "catch-up" classes
have failed to make an impact evidence suggests. The findings will alarm
the Government, which has made the classes a major plank of its drive
to improve secondaries.
One of the drive's main aims is to boost the performance of borderline
pupils who missed the target grade in their final primary year. The
catch-up support is part of the investment to help schools reach the
new national targets for 14-year-olds.
The 200 schools piloting the key stage 3 strategy were given £10,000
each to run summer schools. Nationally, £22 million was spent
on summer schools. Many pilot schools also paid for even more classes
and extra learning assistants out of their £25,000 pilot budget.
The pupils who had taken the classes resat the key stage 2 English
and maths tests towards the end of their first secondary year. The results
were disappointing. An evaluation of 30 pilot schools across all 17
authorities just published by researchers at Kings College London found
that fewer than half of targeted pupils reached level four (the level
expected of 11-year-olds at the end of their primary schooling). Most
of those who did were already at the top end of level 3 or were level
4 readers who simply improved their writing.
Professor Margaret Brown, who led the research, said: "The results
seemed to show that if a child had not reached the level after intensive
coaching in primary school, they were unlikely to reach it.
"Summer schools are popular but their longer-term impact on achievement
is unproven. Teachers rated the catch-up material but some questioned
the underlying premise that all, or even most pupils at level 3 could
be pushed to level 4 in two terms."
(TES, 12 October 2001)
Evaluation of the summer 1998 Summer Schools
The NFER document 'The Evaluation of the 1998 Summer School Programme'
summary report published in December 1998 used a standardised reading
test to evaluated performance. The tests showed that there was a small
increase in standardised scores during the course of the summer schools,
a change that was not found to be statistically significant. However,
a closer examination of scoring patterns indicated that this overall
increase masked considerable variation from child to child, with just
over half of the scores increasing or remaining the same, and just under
half decreasing. There was no significant difference in the progress
made by boys and girls over the course of the summer school.
Children were also questioned about the attitudes to literacy and
numeracy. In literacy, the factors were reading enjoyment, reading confidence
and reading frequency. Children in the mainstream summer literacy schools
and the special educational needs pilot recorded significant increases
in their reading confidence and their reading frequency over the period
of the summer schools.
Target setting was, on the whole, still under development, with few
schools demonstrating a well-planned and carefully focused system. The
most successful summer schools set targets on the basis on good diagnostic
information from the primary schools, shared the targets with children
and parents, and provided high profile systems for monitoring their
achievement.
Summary:The evaluation of the 1998 scheme showed that 45% of
the 16,000 pupils went backwards between the start and the end of the
three-week programme. A total of 47% made small gains. Overall, mean
test scores rose from 13.3 to 17.3. Pupils started with a wide range
of abilities - rated from below level 2 to level 5 of the national curriculum,
but all improved equally.
Evaluation of the summer 1997 Summer Schools
In November 1997 a detailed report of the summer school programme
was released by the DfEE. The enthusiasm of staff, parents and pupils
for the scheme was striking. At least half the pupils taking part in
the pilot made reading progress of six months during the 3-week summer
school and the confidence of most participants was significantly boosted.
However, despite dramatic short-term gains from the three-week scheme,
pupils reading had declined by the same amount between May and September
whether they had attended a summer school or not. The report thus reiterated
the long-known problem that the process of transferring from primary
to secondary school hampers pupils' progress. The then Standards' Minister
Stephen Byers commented: "This result indicates that the design of summer
school programmes for 1998 will need to pay close attention to ensuring
continuity through the period of transition. Holiday reading and close
co-operation between primary and secondary teachers will be key elements
in facilitating transition." These findings re-opened the question of
the wisdom of having a long summer holiday.
A TES article of 12th September, 1997 concluded that the Government's
summer literacy programme may not have dramatically improved pupils'
reading skills but it has done wonders for their attitude, confidence
and self-esteem. The scheme organisers said the summer schools were
a wonderful opportunity for children to receive individual tuition using
new books and software donated by companies. Attendance was high and
most children said they enjoyed the experience.
However, there was concern that the children chosen were those most
liable to improve and the ones that did best of all were those with
supportive parents.
Both the 1997 and 1998 evaluations show how the schemes boosted children's
confidence and encouraged more positive attitudes.
(Independent 1 October 1998)
80px.gif)
