Examining the long-term effects of the Horizons National Student Enrichment Program on student academic outcomes
Scher, L. (2018). Concentric Research & Evaluation. https://www.horizonskids.org/Customer-Content/horizonsnewcanaan/news/PDFs/Horizons_National_Retrospective_Study_Report_November_2018.pdf.
-
examining1,324Students, gradesPK-10
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Horizons Student Enrichment Program)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Proficient in reading |
Horizons Student Enrichment Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in middle school;
|
0.44 |
0.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Proficient in mathematics |
Horizons Student Enrichment Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in middle school;
|
0.33 |
0.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendance rate |
Horizons Student Enrichment Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.96 |
0.95 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Attendance rate |
Horizons Student Enrichment Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in elementary school ;
|
0.97 |
0.96 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Chronically absent |
Horizons Student Enrichment Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in elementary school ;
|
0.04 |
0.09 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Chronically absent |
Horizons Student Enrichment Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.08 |
0.12 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attendance rate |
Horizons Student Enrichment Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in high school;
|
0.95 |
0.93 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attendance rate |
Horizons Student Enrichment Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in middle school;
|
0.96 |
0.95 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Chronically absent |
Horizons Student Enrichment Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in middle school;
|
0.08 |
0.10 |
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.
-
23% English language learners -
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
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
Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Virginia
-
Race Black 44% Other or unknown 50% White 6% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 47% Not Hispanic or Latino 53% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted across 13 public school districts in 7 states and Washington, DC. The districts included a total of 15 Horizons National Student Enrichment Program affiliate sites.
Study sample
The study included 1,324 students in elementary, middle, and high school, although the samples for some findings differed. In the largest analytic sample, there were 662 students in the intervention group and 662 in the comparison group. At the time of baseline, students were in pre-kindergarten through grade 5; at the time of analysis, students were in grades 4 through 10. The analytic sample included 380 elementary school students (grades 4–5), 640 middle school students (grades 6–8), and 304 high school students (grades 9–10). All students were low-income.
Intervention Group
The Horizons National Student Enrichment Program is a multi-year summer learning program that aimed to improve students’ academic outcomes and broader school success over time. The program is intended for students from families eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Horizons programs offer instruction in reading, writing, STEM, and swimming. Horizons sites also offer tailored enrichment activities, such as art and recreation. Students attend the program six hours per weekday for six weeks during the summer. Sites are located at private schools, colleges, or universities near the students’ public schools. The program provides supports to students during the school year as well. Students typically enroll in the summer after kindergarten and are invited to return each summer through at least grade 8, with most participating for multiple summers. This study measures the effects of participation for four to five years.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group attended schools in the same districts as the intervention students and did not participate in Horizons. They received school districts’ regular academic program and any standard services available to them. They participated in their usual summer activities.
Support for implementation
Certified teachers implemented the program during the summer. The study does not describe the training or support provided to the teachers.
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).