In Connecticut, low-income students in fourth and eighth grades lag significantly behind their non-low-income peers in reading and math, with an achievement gap of 34 points, the largest in the U.S. Studies indicate that while schools provide greater gains for low-income students during the school year, the lack of educational opportunities during summer contributes to persistent achievement gaps. To address this issue, it is suggested that rigorous summer programs be implemented to provide necessary instruction and support for low-income students, potentially closing the achievement gap.

1. Worst in Nation "In Connecticut fourth and eighth grade, low-
income students are on average roughly three grade levels behind non-low-
income students in reading and math," said Yvette Melendez, Commission
on Educational Achievement. “The gap in Connecticut's low-income and
non-low-income students is 34 points, the largest of the 50 states …,"
explained Dudley Williams, Commission on Educational Achievement.
(http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/education/hartford-achievement-gap)
Statements like that don’t make me happy, but they do make me think.
Are they true? And, if so, what can we do about it? Is it specific to certain
demographics or prevalent throughout our state? Should a shoreline upper-
scale community like Branford be concerned?
I have completed several studies that refer to the achievement gap in
Branford. (For more complete reports about the 2 studies of grade level and
cohort groups go here and here or go to http://www.slideshare.net/ and
search users for tsalvin13).
The table below shows Branford’s longest running cohort (non-
matched) achievement gap for the 4th Generation Connecticut Mastery Test
(Free/Reduced lunch program vs. Non Free/Reduced lunch program scale
score differences for 2006-2011) for Math and Reading.
Achievement Gap (difference scores: non-low-income students minus low-
income students for Math and Reading CMT Scale Scores). Cohort (same
kids over time, but transfers may make the groups differ slightly).
Achievement Gap in Branford
Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8
Math
Gap 23 36.1 35.3 31.6 28.3 30.7
Read
Gap 23.8 37.2 39 47.4 38.2 35.1
Evidently we should be concerned. The gap is real and prevalent.
Our low socioeconomic kids sometimes have gaps as large as or larger than
Connecticut’s average. The question becomes: What can we do about it?

2. A sociologist, Karl Alexander, from Johns Hopkins University studied
650 students in the Baltimore Public Schools from 1st through 5th grade by
tracking their scores in reading (Karl L. Alexander; Doris R. Entwisle, 2003,
“The Beginning School Study, 1982-2002"). The instrument, the California
Achievement Test, was administered in June of each year. The first table
shows results of end of year (June) CAT for each grade level.
End of School Year Achievement Test Scores by Socioeconomic Level
(June-Baltimore)
3rd 5th
SocEcoClass 1st Grade 2nd Grade 4th Grade
Grade Grade
Low 329 375 397 433 461
Middle 348 388 425 467 497
High 361 418 460 506 534
Look at the scores of the first grade students in June of the year and
you will see that the low socioeconomic group scored lower than the middle
and high socioeconomic groups. For various reasons this could be expected.
The gap grows through the five grades. The achievement gap being due to
poor teachers and poor schools would be a likely conclusion.
The unique and very telling occurrence that allows a secondary
analysis was the test was given twice a year—at the beginning and end of
the school year. Gains during the school year were measured and shown in
the chart below.
Gains During the School Year by Socioeconomic Level (September to
June-Baltimore)
st 2nd 3rd
SocEcoClass 1 Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade
Grade Grade
Low 55 46 30 33 25
Middle 69 43 34 41 27
High 60 39 34 28 23
This table shows the gains of each socioeconomic group September to
June school year first through fifth grades. These numbers indicate the
achievement gains made by each group during the school year.

3. If you take a cumulative total of the gains during the school year by
socioeconomic groups, you will see that the Low Group gained 189 points
during their time in school besting the High Group gain of 184 points.
Looking at the first chart for end of year scores could easily result in the
suggestion that “schools are failing our low socioeconomic kids.” While
looking at the second table shows us that schools are providing better gains
for low socioeconomic kids than high socioeconomic kids. Why the
paradox?
Due to the advent of a pretest and posttest scenario, achievement can
be calculated due to the summer break. These difference scores from the
end of previous grade (June) to the beginning of next grade (September) are
shown below. The results show what effect the summer break had on the
students’ achievement.
Effect of the Summer Break on Student Achievement by Socioeconomic
Level (June to September-Baltimore)
SocEcoClas
1st-2nd 2nd -3rd 3rd-4th 4th-5th Total
s
Low -3.67 -1.70 2.74 2.89 .26
Middle -3.11 4.18 3.68 2.34 7.09
High 15.38 9.22 14.51 13.38 52.49
This table is crucial for the explanation of the conundrum of how a
school system can be successful with groups of kids while simultaneously
failing the same groups of kids. By providing learning opportunities during
the school year to kids, schools are successful, by not providing learning
opportunities during the rest of the year—particularly the summer break,
schools are failing. And the failure is registering vividly in the reported
achievement gap leveled by socioeconomics, ethnicity, English as a second
language, and other categories.
The solution is to provide reading and math instruction for several
weeks during the summer. Not “remedial” light duty
phonics/comprehension and basic math facts practice morphed from several
lower grades but contiguous rigorous instruction. “These summer school
programs typically differ significantly from the regular school program in
terms of curriculum, goals, and rigor.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_learning_loss)

4. Students exit school around the second week of June. Let them
vacation until a week after the Fourth of July celebrations. Beginning on or
about the tenth of July, open schools to all until the second week of August.
To provide incentive and means for the gap kids (low-income), grant money
should be sought. Regular income kids would be required to pay. Volunteer
teachers working with college students who intend to become teachers could
be an additional resource that should be explored. (This is not out of the
question. A few years ago I wanted to volunteer to help begin a summer
reading and math program primarily aimed at kids who needed the extra
instruction. I talked to a few colleagues and 2 administrators. Besides
myself, I found 2 teachers who were interested, and both administrators
thought it a real possibility.)
If the math and reading instructional content was “from the regular
program…curriculum, goals…” and directed toward identified achievement
gap students (the needy ones), but offered to all, the effect might be dramatic
while cost effective. Using data-driven common sense and needed
incentives, our schools could become summer community learning centers
for anyone interested, with special emphasis on low-economic students and
equal opportunity education for others. The achievement gap might become
a thing of the past, and summer break would still be a satisfying 5-week
holiday.