An Analysis of the Effects of an Academic Summer Program for Middle School Students
Somers, Marie-Andrée; Welbeck, Rashida; Grossman, Jean B.; Gooden, Susan (2015). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558507
-
examining919Students, grades6-9
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL) Middle School Program)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Engagement Survey (Skinner 2008) |
Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL) Middle School Program vs. Business as usual |
40 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.10 |
3.10 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Engagement Survey (Skinner 2008): Behavioral Engagement subscale |
Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL) Middle School Program vs. Business as usual |
40 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.45 |
3.46 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Engagement Survey (Skinner 2008): Emotional Engagement subscale |
Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL) Middle School Program vs. Business as usual |
40 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.05 |
3.06 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) Score |
Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL) Middle School Program vs. Business as usual |
40 Days |
Full sample;
|
91.60 |
91.50 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL) Middle School Program vs. Business as usual |
40 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.30 |
90.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL) Middle School Program vs. Business as usual |
40 Days |
Full sample;
|
94.70 |
94.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Examination (GMADE) |
Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL) Middle School Program vs. Business as usual |
40 Days |
Full sample;
|
87.60 |
86.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GMADE): Math Operations subtest |
Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL) Middle School Program vs. Business as usual |
40 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.30 |
87.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GMADE): Process and Applications subtest |
Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL) Middle School Program vs. Business as usual |
40 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.30 |
84.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GMADE): Math Concepts subtest |
Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL) Middle School Program vs. Business as usual |
40 Days |
Full sample;
|
88.30 |
88.60 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
9% English language learners -
Female: 44%
Male: 56% -
Rural, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South, West
-
Race Asian 9% Black 45% Other or unknown 41% White 6% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 34% Not Hispanic or Latino 66% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 90% No FRPL 11%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in summer school classes in grades 6, 7 and 8 in three districts: one in the western part of the United States and two in the southeastern United States. Across the districts, 90% of the schools were in urban areas, 10% were in rural areas, and 93% were Title I. On average, the schools enrolled 702 students.
Study sample
The study sample consisted of 919 middle school students (585 in the intervention group and 334 in the comparison group) who were performing below grade level.
Intervention Group
Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL) is a voluntary summer learning program designed to improve middle school students’ literacy and mathematics skills. The program provides students with engaging math and literacy instruction during summer school that also emphasizes community and positive social development. This program took place during summer school, five days a week for five weeks. Each summer school day lasted 6 and a half hours. In the mornings, students participated in one hour of math instruction using the On Core curriculum, and one hour of reading using Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Summer Success. Additional morning instruction included two hours of project-based literacy and math activities with the hours distributed across the week. In the afternoons, students participated in enrichment activities in science, physical education, the arts, and other creative subjects. In addition, teachers brought in guest speakers or took students on field trips. In total, across all five weeks of the program, BELL offered 30 hours of reading instruction and 30 hours of math instruction.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition were not invited to participate in the BELL program and participated in business-as-usual summer activities available to them.
Support for implementation
All teachers in the BELL program were certified, and all received a pacing guide to use with the program’s curriculum materials. A program manager, selected from among the district’s principals and assistant principals, oversaw operations at each school. Each school also had an assistant program manager who served as a lead teacher focused on instructional fidelity.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).