Why do middle school students have a special need for high-quality summer learning? According to NSLA’s website, “Middle school is a time of great risk for children, especially those who are low-income. Summer learning loss contributes to dismal middle-school indicators, causing low-income students to lag as much as 2.5 years behind their higher-income peers by the end of fifth grade. Without summer learning experiences, the achievement gap in literacy between the youth who eventually drop out of high school and those who enter a four-year college widens to almost seven years by ninth grade, creating an unswimmable gulf.”

Smarter Summers is being delivered by four providers. All provide between 150 and 240 program hours (typically 6-hour days for five weeks), free meals for participants, and opportunities for physical activity as well as academics. The average daily attendance rate among participants ranged from 81.5% to an incredible 99.6%, with staff-to-participant ratios of 1:10 to 1:15. The areas served include Los Angeles, Sand Diego and Sacramento counties in California, Detroit, Boston, New York, Baltimore, Chicago, Indianapolis and Washington, DC.

Among the highlights of the results so far:

• Students in Building Educated Leaders for Life programs gained an average of 7.5 months of grade-level equivalency in literacy skills and 7.2 months in math skills.

• 65% of Higher Achievement Program’s participants increased their math grades or maintained an A or B average, while 59% did so for reading.

• Summer Advantage USA students gained an average of 2.1 months of grade-level equivalency in literacy and math skills.

• 87.5% of THINK Together sites demonstrated student growth in math vocabulary – a 25% increase for seventh graders across all sites.

Parents also responded very positively to the Smarter Summer experience. Based on over 2,000 responses, two out of three parents stated that Smarter Summers was the only affordable summer learning option for their children. 93% of parents would recommend the program to other parents. 82% felt the program helped them focus on their job, job search and/or school work.

76% of survey respondents also felt more involved in their child’s education. Across the programs administered by Summer Advantage USA, for example, 61% of parents participated in two or more program events, and 91% had one or more contacts with a teacher to discuss their child’s performance.

The report summarizes Smarter Summers’ first-year results as follows: “Instead of falling off track during the critical transitions to middle school and high school, these young people are gaining academic ground and invaluable exposure to colleges, careers, and a network of supportive adults.”

At a time when school districts and communities face financial resource constraints, Smarter Summers is providing an excellent option to reduce summer learning loss and guide vulnerable children towards greater academic success.

Do you have experience with summer program and their benefits for middle school kids? Please comment and share what you’ve experienced.

In a highly competitive college admissions environment, every advantage counts – and that can include a higher standardized test score. Knowing clearly which exam could give you an edge is a key first step in the test prep process.

Of course, to be advantageous a diagnostic test must be accurate! In this regard there is no substitute for learning analytics combined with expertise and experience with the tests themselves.

Test expertise supports construction of the most authentic and accurate sample tests. Learning analytics give “insights beyond scores” so you get the most for your time and money. Some of the data you should expect from a top diagnostic test like The SAT/ACT Diagnostic include: your raw score, scaled scores, percentile ranks, score summaries by section, a response summary, and your performance by question type and question difficulty.

The best diagnostic tests can tell you accurately which test you’re stronger on, or if it’s too close to call. The test should also provide guidance on identifying specific problem types where you have weaknesses. Thirdly, a test should give you a top-level breakdown of your scaled scores by test section, with the statistics weighted for question difficulty – again, pointing the way towards where you need improvement. A graphical representation of this data is particularly useful.

What does all that data get you? Here are three advantages that taking a SAT/ACT diagnostic test can confer in the college admissions scramble:

Advantage #1 – You save time and money.

It’s a lot easier and cheaper to prep for one exam than two – especially when you know exactly where you need to focus your energy to improve, and where you’re already well prepared. If you know the topics and core concepts where you’re weak, tutoring and other forms of test prep can be much more effective. For example, standardized SAT prep programs allocate predetermined amounts of time to Algebra I and Critical Reading. If you know for sure you’re comparatively much stronger in algebra, you can put more energy into improving your reading skills.

Advantage #2 – It can improve your chances of admission to your top-choice school.

Based on anecdotal evidence, it’s not uncommon for a student to score 20 percentile points higher on either the SAT or ACT. That could be significant! The higher your standardized test score, the better for your college applications.  Many schools report that they’re decreasing their emphasis on standardized test scores. But when admissions officers at top colleges are making choices about who to accept and who to wait list or reject, any potential advantage could make the difference. One thing is for sure: knowing which test your likely to score higher on can’t hurt.

Advantage #3 – It could increase your chances of receiving “meritorious” scholarship money.

One way that the highest possible standardized test score can benefit you is the opportunity to be awarded “meritorious money” – the money that schools offer students whose stellar SAT or ACT scores will serve to increase the school’s average test score – and hence it’s national ranking. With education loan debt so much in the news lately, and student loans outstanding approaching $1 trillion, many students want to go to schools where their tuition costs will be lower.

Featured image courtesy of Chloe’s World

But while it’s generally recognized that neither test is “easier” or “harder” than the other overall, their formats are different – so one might be better suited to a particular student than the other. But which?

The goal of the ACT is to evaluate overall educational development. The SAT, however, is geared toward evaluate general thinking and problem-solving skills. In short: the SAT emphasizes reasoning more than content, while the ACT emphasizes content over reasoning. Another key difference is that the ACT requires you to complete more work in a shorter amount of time.

The college prep company College Planning Partnerships does a great job explaining in clear, understandable terms all the most important ways in which the two tests differ – and what kind of learner these differences favor. Better yet, College Planning Partnerships has developed an affordable and comprehensive SAT/ACT Diagnostic test, which includes a 9-page, learning analytics driven comparison report that details why a student will likely do better on one test versus the other. (The Socrato learning analytics engine is used to process the report.)

The diagnostic test was developed through experience gained over tens of thousands of hours tutoring and testing students. It consists of seven sections (ACT English, SAT Critical Reading, ACT Mathematics, SAT Writing, ACT Reading, SAT Mathematics, and ACT Science), each of which is designed to mirror the corresponding section of the actual SAT or ACT exam. Time allotted for each section also mirrors the actual tests.

The balance of questions and concepts presented in The SAT/ACT Diagnostic likewise reflect the actual tests, having been developed by analyzing the occurrence of each topic over 50 actual exams. The diagnostic is further refined through ongoing calibration, analysis and updates against the actual exams, to ensure accurate results and incorporate new concepts and questions.

Taking The SAT/ACT Diagnostic is easy, and results are available immediately. Taking the test requires about three hours, and is best done under conditions similar to how the SAT or ACT is administered (e.g., in a quiet, low-distraction space; using a timer on each section; etc.). It’s important not to exceed the allotted time for completing each section, as this could reduce the accuracy of the result.

Students can take the diagnostic and receive the report for just $50. An optional 1-hour online consultation about your report with a tutor or consultant “versed in both the SAT and ACT” costs an additional $100. This later option helps learners identify clearly where they need to focus their energy to improve their SAT or ACT score the most, and includes valuable strategies and a customized study plan to guide test prep.

A program — included materials with your own brand or logo on them — is also available for tutors and other educators, designed to help students identify strengths and weaknesses, determine which test is right for them, and get the highest possible score on the test of their choice.

The SAT/ACT Diagnostic and learning analytics report identifies whether a student is likely to score stronger on the SAT or the ACT, and provides first-hand, realistic experience with taking both exams. For many students, this offering will be a highly valuable, cost-effective and time-efficient “first step to successful prep” for a standardized college admissions test.

The argument for STEM, not surprisingly, is that STEM learning focuses on helping students learn to think critically, solve complex problems, and participate in advancements in science and technology (with resulting economic benefits). STEM proponents assert that science and engineering jobs are growing much faster than other occupations, giving STEM school students a potential advantage when competing for high-tech jobs.

A lack of STEM learning, conversely, is seen as a major hurdle to getting one of these good job. The Coalition for Science After School quotes in a newsletter that “No one tells [students] or their parents that by failing to enroll in a rigorous, math-oriented college prep curriculum, they’re effectively making a life decision to forego the opportunity to pursue a career as a scientist or engineer.” This group advocates using afterschool time – presumably with the help of skilled tutors – to “get more students on the STEM path.”

2011 was named “The Year of Science in Afterschool” by the Afterschool Alliance, the National AfterSchool Association and the National Summer Learning Association. Similarly, “green” coursework focused on renewable and alternative energy is becoming more popular all the time across the country as a way to engage with students’ concerns about the environment.

This article in Education Week today was my inspiration for today’s post. It highlights an after-school program called Techbridge that fosters interest in STEM among girls. Overall the program has served thousands of girls in grades 5-12 since 2000. Among many projects, Techbridge has a “STEM curriculum in a box” that is being used by Girl Scout troops nationwide.

Who else is teaching STEM after school? The New York Academy of Sciences, for instance, has developed a STEM mentoring program that matches afterschool program providers around NYC and New Jersey with graduate student members of its Science Alliance. Academy staff and “curriculum partners” collaborate to train grad students and then place them in afterschool programs as instructors and mentors. The goal is both to support science education and to help young researchers learn to communicate more effectively about the science they’re doing.

In her Education Week blog “Beyond School” (which I really like), Nora Fleming notes that the most successful after-school STEM programs are those that increase students’ interest – and enrollment in classes relating to – careers in STEM subjects. She cites a report from the Afterschool Alliance, released back in September 2011, entitled “Stem Learning in Afterschool: An Analysis of Impact and Outcomes. This report evaluated programs around the country, with an eye toward improving STEM curricula in after-school programs – especially since many such programs give access to STEM learning to underserved populations like minorities and women.

The highest-quality programs “have the potential to shift attitudes about STEM-related careers, increase test scores and knowledge of STEM subjects, and improve the likelihood of high school graduation and college readiness,” summarizes Fleming.

Are you a tutor or other educator at the forefront of the move to strengthen STEM curricula? Please let us know how your work is being received by students and the wider community.

Featured image courtesy of Idaho National Laboratory.

But what has not been a credible part of the standardized testing debate in the US is the idea of making such a test a high-stakes, make-or-break determinant of students’ professional aptitude, college admissions, etc. Indeed, even the relevance of standardized college admission tests like the SAT and ACT can be seen as slowly on the wane these days, as more and more top schools evolve test-optional policies.

In stark contrast is the situation in China, where a national, government-administered, two-day exam called the gaokao pretty much entirely determines each student’s academic and professional future. For example:

• Admission to colleges in China is based solely on the results of this brutal test
• Wealthy, highly motivated students spend hours each day – for up to four years – prepping for the test.
• Poor kids, knowing they can’t compete, simply go through school feeling hopeless, leading to depression, cheating and probably suicide.
• High school curricula in China are focused entirely on supporting kids to do well on the gaokao, to the exclusion of virtually all other learning objectives.
• The testing process is strongly biased towards students whose families can afford to pay for private test prep.
• The wealthiest Chinese prefer to rescue their children from the gaokao entirely, by sending them abroad to college if at all possible.

Blogger Michael Levy, who has first-hand experience teaching in China, points out that even the gaokao’s strongest defenders acknowledge that the test – and the educational system that has evolved to support it – “robs Chinese students of their curiosity, creativity and childhood.” It has been argued that this kind of high-stakes testing damages kids, making it harder for them to thrive in an innovative economy.

Like many people, Levy is skeptical of the value of the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” competitive grants, arguing that this system distorts the curricula of underfunded schools by using standardized test results to determine how money is allocated. The danger of this approach is that America could end up with one all-powerful, high-stakes test like the gaokao.

I was interested to learn that China has a very long history of applying standardized examination systems, such as its imperial examination system. No doubt there are many reasons why these systems have worked in China. For example, today’s gaokao system is arguably the most efficient method possible for allocating China’s scare resources for higher education.

The US is facing an educational crisis that has at its heart scarce financial resources. Can high-stakes “bubble testing” really help improve educational standards and results in this country?

Please comment and let us know what you think.

Featured image courtesy of albertogp123.

No one would doubt that today’s college students are “super-connected” and wired into learning far more than any prior generation. But how deeply are they embracing the spectrum of technology choices, from software to iPads to online classrooms?

Like me, you’ll probably be surprised at some of the stats. (Some of the data comes from “an Educase study” and some has no obvious source attribution.) Here are a few of the tidbits I found most interesting:

• Only 5% of learners would choose a lecture class that was completely online as their “preferred learning environment,” versus 36% that would prefer seminar-size classes with some online component.
• Only 43% of students agree their institution needs more technology. (I would’ve thought almost every student would want his or her school to have more technology – however much it already had.)
• Only 25% of students considered e-books to be among their most important software and applications, while 46% found content management systems (CMS) indispensible.
• Fully 81% of students list a laptop among their most important devices (and 87% own one), versus 53% owning desktop systems.
• 55% of students own a smartphone but only 33% consider it important for education.
• So far, only 8% of those surveyed owned an iPad.
• 90% of college students believe that wi-fi is as essential to their education as a classroom or computer.
• 60% of students say they wouldn’t attend a college that didn’t offer free wi-fi. (Good thing wi-fi is projected to reach 99% of campuse by 2013.)
• Only 3% of students consider Facebook to be “the one website or online resource they couldn’t live without.”
• 86% of students use social networking sites, but only 58% are comfortable communicating with other students about coursework via social networking sites.
• Education faculty reported a “high” use of technology more than instructors in any other discipline.
• By a narrow margin, most felt it wasn’t appropriate to “friend” their instructors on Facebook.

Check out the graphic and let us know what you think.

Featured image courtesy of Chiratan Patnaik.

Click the graphic to enlarge.

Via: Online Colleges Guide

Our family is fortunate: my partner’s teenage daughter (she’s a freshman) goes to one of the top public high schools in our state, in terms of both academics and services. She’ll get solid support on college admissions from a well-trained counselor who has perhaps 150 -200 students to deal with.

But many students struggle with the college application and admissions process, and may turn to their teachers and tutors for advice. This is no surprise given the statistics on college admissions counseling the NACAC has recently released:

1. On average, the counselor to student ratio in US public schools (including K-12 schools) is 460 to 1. For secondary schools taken alone, the ratio including part-time staff is 272 to 1. That’s a huge caseload! Many guidance counselors simply don’t have time to advise each college-bound student on his or her applications, given their many other duties. Most also don’t have much, if any, training in the college admissions or financial aid processes.
2. Only 26% of US public schools have a counselor (full- or part-time) who works exclusively on college counseling. In contrast, 73% of private schools have a dedicated college counselor.
3. The average public high school counselor spends 23% of his or her time on college counseling – versus 55% for the average private school counselor. According to a 2005 study by the NACAC, the average public high school student got 38 minutes of college advising per year from his or her guidance counselor.
4. In a recent survey from Public Agenda, funded by the Gates Foundation, 67% of students surveyed gave their high school counselor a fair or poor rating for help in deciding which college to attend. 54% rated their counselors poor on help with the application process.
5. The percentage of high school graduates going directly to college varies widely by state – but it continues to rise even as the total number of high school graduates has peaked and is leveling off. In 2010, 68.1% of high school graduates enrolled directly in a college or university. In 2008 (love this graph), 77.4% of Mississippi grads went to college, versus 45.7% in Alaska. The national average that year was 63.3%.
6. The number of applications being submitted to colleges is insane! One out of four college-bound grads submitted seven or more college applications. Perhaps this is an indication of how difficult it has become to navigate the college admissions landscape.

In response to the great and growing need for admissions counseling, a number of independent college counselors offer a wide range of services via the Internet. These include “boutique” admissions consulting practices, like Bolger Strategic, for those targeting highly prestigious programs. College Admissions Partners has a “less aggressive” approach to helping students “improve their chances of admission to their first choice college.” Independent college admissions counselors work not only with US teens and their families, but also with clients from all over the world.

What’s the bottom line for tutors on this topic? Be aware that many kids aren’t getting much counseling. If possible, develop connections that enable you to make referrals to private/independent counselors if requested. Remember that kids are stressed by the applications process and be supportive. Here’s a helpful post that advises students on how to get the most out the admissions support they get from their high school guidance counselor.

Do you find yourself talking about college admissions with your students? How do you handle it? Please comment and share your impressions.

Featured image courtesy of Tawheed Manzoor.

Colleges have always weighted grades, curriculum and other factors more highly than standardized test scores for these and other reasons. SAT and ACT scores remain important – but how much so? And what’s up with the trend of more schools becoming “test optional”? Are SAT and ACT scores really becoming less relevant as college admissions becomes more and more competitive? These are questions that learners might well ask their tutors or teachers.

According to FairTest, “the national center for fair and open testing,” which monitors this issue closely, as of the 2011 application season a total of 843 accredited, bachelor-degree granting schools – nearly 40% — no longer require the SAT or ACT. These include some of the top liberal arts schools in the nation, including Bowdoin, Smith, Dickinson and Holy Cross.

Some other top-tier universities, such as Providence College, Wake Forest and Worcester Polytech, are “test flexible” – they’ll accept some type of test scores, such as advanced placement tests or SAT subject tests, in lieu of the SAT or ACT.

But is this “holistic” approach to admissions really about students? Or is it about the competitive marketing to college-bound students among the schools themselves? Studies show that test optional policies tend to increase both the number and diversity of applicants. Admissions officers can thus choose from applicants that appeal to them for a wider range of reasons (athletics, ethnicity) who wouldn’t make the cut otherwise.

And are test scores really optional at top-tier institutions just because the school’s policy says so? Or does not submitting test scores hurt your chances of admission? For students whose profiles are respectable but not amazing, a test score (or lack thereof) might remain a differentiating factor to help them stand out in highly competitive situations.

The bottom line, says insightful Ask the Dean, is that while failing to submit an ACT or SAT score might not penalize a student, it’s hard to believe that standardized test scores wouldn’t be used as “tie-breakers” at top institutions. According to subject expert Lynn O’Shaughnessy at The College Solution, at some schools up to 50% of applicants may not reveal their scores.

There are also reports that some schools that are “test optional” continue to use standardized test scores to apportion merit scholarships. For this reason it might be a good idea for students to inquire about specific policies at their top schools if this is a factor for them.

What are your thoughts on the benefits and drawbacks of “test optional” policies for admissions? Please comment and let us know.

Featured image courtesy of stevendepolo.

There are quite a few definitions of learning analytics in operational use. In his ELEARNSPACE blog, thought leader George Siemens states that learning analytics “is the use of intelligent data, learner-produced data, and analysis models to discover information and social connections, and to predict and advise on learning.”

George Siemens also references the definition adopted by the EDUCAUSE Next Generation Learning Challenges initiative: “the use of data and models to predict student progress and performance, and the ability to act on that information.” This multi-year grant program (backed by the Gates Foundation and other notable institutions) aims to “dramatically increase college readiness and completion through applied technology.” Personalized courses and blended course delivery models are among the focal areas of the current requests for proposals. (EDUCAUSE offers a wealth of resources on the topic of learning analytics here.)

One of the most straightforward definitions is on Wikipedia: “… the measurement, collection, analysis, and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs.” This definition is leveraged in a recent paper on Learning and Knowledge Analytics to look at ways to “… view and plan for change at individual learning paths and educational institutions’ courses.”

As the concept of learning analytics and the tools, terminology and methods surrounding it develops a more coherent identity and focus, how might it benefit tutors and teachers in their work with individual students – in either academic or business settings? How can teachers and tutors use learning analytics to 1) know how individual students are doing and 2) decide how to tailor instruction to their needs?

These are the kinds of questions that the 2011 Horizon Report seems to be asking. In this context, learning analytics are seen as “the interpretation of a wide range of data produced by and gathered on behalf of students in order to assess academic progress, predict future performance, and spot potential issues.” Analysis models that process, format and display the data assist educators in interpreting it, with the goal of “tailoring educational opportunities to each student’s level of need and ability.” Ideally, in this view learning analytics would “create a far more robust and nuanced profile of students, in turn offering faculty members more insight.”

Likewise, the upcoming Learning Analytics and Knowledge conference references that learning analytics has the potential to address key aspects of an individual’s educational experience, like: identifying students in need of special help, reducing student attrition, and enhancing teaching methods.

So where is learning analytics being applied today to personalize learning? The School of One program uses learning analytics “playlists” on an everyday basis to dynamically develop personalized mathematics learning programs.

Socrato is also on the leading edge of developing learning analytics tools for both teachers and learners, in the realm of standardized testing. Socrato technology analyzes performance on online practice tests to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses, so that tutors and teachers can focus their energy where help is most needed.

What are your thoughts on the topic of learning analytics and how it can support learning – individually and collectively, now and in the future?

Featured image courtesy of dougclow.

For the toughest college admission season ever, the NACAC report highlights the following trends:

1) Increased number of applications

While the number of high school graduates is currently declining from its peak in 2009, the number of college applicants continues to increase.

2) Growing importance of wait lists

In line with the growing number of applications, colleges are increasingly relying on wait lists. 48% of colleges now use wait lists – up from 39% since 2009. And for many schools has become larger, due to factors like accepting more non-resident students and lower percentage of accepted students matriculating. But the number of students admitted from wait lists is actually dropping: the average is 28%, with lower figures for more selective schools.

3) Grades still count most
Great grades in honors level classes is still the most important single factor in college admissions. College entrance test scores, overall GPA and “the essay” are other key factors.

4) Demonstrating interest in a school is becoming a bigger factor
A fast-growing number of schools consider the demonstration of interest in a school to be a relevant admission decision criteria. This is especially true among smaller, private schools. (Here’s a great post on how to “demonstrate interest” to get on a college’s radar.) This trend may be building due to longer wait lists and lower acceptance rates.

A wide range of interesting analysis has likewise appeared around the blogosphere in the wake of the report. Here are some additional trends cited:

5) More applications submitted online

85% of students’ applications were submitted online in 2010, with more and more schools making their application process “online only.” More and more schools are likewise looking to boost application numbers by offering “snap apps” –  streamlined applications that may not require a fee or an essay.

6) International student applications are soaring

An increase in the number of international student applications is another reason the process has become so competitive. For example, among the 31,000 applicants to Brown University in 2011, the largest since source of applicants was overseas (many from China), followed by California. One reason cited for this trend is that overseas students often can pay full price, and colleges need the cash.

7) More out-of-state applicants

With budget cuts sweeping many state schools – especially California — more students are applying to out-of-state schools.

8] Students are applying to more schools

Nationwide, almost 18% of college-bound students applied to eight or more colleges – up from about 8% ten years ago. Online applications, common applications and perhaps more aggressive recruiting could be fueling this trend. As a result, admission yields are down somewhat (currently hovering close to 40%).

How do you feel about these trends — and how do you see them impacting your tutoring practice? Please comment and share your thoughts.

Featured image courtesy of AVID @ Rogers.