Closing the summer learning gap for vulnerable junior kindergarten students

Under current academic calendars across North America, summer vacation creates a significant gap in the learning cycle. I t has been argued that this gap actually decreases student achievement levels over the course of the summer. In a synthesis of 39 studies Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay, & Greathouse (1996) indicated that summer learning loss equaled at least one month of instruction as measured by grade level equivalents on standardized test scores whereby children's test scores were at least one month lower when they returned to school in the fall than scores were when students left in the summer. Specifically, Cooper et aI., (1996) found that the summer learning loss phenomena may be particularly troublesome for less advantaged children including those with speech and language delays, children at-risk for reading disabilities, children from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and children learning English as a second language. In general, research illustrated clearly that the summer learning gap can be particularly problematic for vulnerable children and furthermore, that literacy skills may be the area of achievement that is most affected. A foundational pillar to this research project is including primary caregivers as authentic partners in a summer literacy program designed to support their children's literacy needs. This pillar led the research team to use the Learning Begins at Home: A Research-Based Family Literacy Program Curriculum designed by Antoinette Doyle, Kathleen Hipfner-Boucher, and Janette Pelletier from the Ontario Institute for the Studies of Education. The LBH program is designed to be flexibly adapted to suit the needs of each individual participating family. As indicated by Timmons (2008) literacy interventions are most powerful when they include authentic family involvement. Based on this research, a requirement for participating in the summer literacy program was involvement of a child and one of their primary caregivers. The participating caregiver was integrally involved in the program, participating in workshop activities prior to and following hands-on literacy work with their child. By including primary caregivers as authentic partners, the research team encouraged a paradigmatic shift in the family whereby literacy activities become routine within their household. 5 Participants in this study were 14 children from junior kindergarten classrooms within the Niagara Catholic District School Board. As children were referred to the program, they were assessed by a trained emergent literacy specialist (from Speech Services Niagara) to identify whether they met the eligibility requirements for participation in the summer program. To be eligible to participate, children demonstrated significant literacy needs (i.e. below 25%ile on the Test of Preschool Early Literacy described below). Children with low incidence disabilities (i.e. profound sensory impairments, severe intellectual impairments, developmental disabilities, etc) were excluded as participants. The research team used a standard pre- and posttest design whereby all participating children were assessed with the Test of Preschool Early Literacy (Lonigan et aI., 2007), and a standard measure of letter names and sounds. Pretests were administered two weeks prior to the commencement of the program and the first set of posttests was administered immediately following the program. A second set of posttests was administered in December 2009 to measure the sustainability of the program. As a result of the program, all children scored statistically significantly higher on their literacy scores at the post-program assessment point immediately following the program and also at the Dec-post-program assessment point. These results in general indicated that the summer family literacy program made an immediate impact on the emergent literacy skills of participating children. All participating children demonstrated significant increases in print and phonological awareness as well as their letter sound understanding.

Closing the Summer Learning Gap for Vulnerable Children: An Examination of a Summer Family Literacy Program for Junior Kindergarten Children At-Risk for Reading Difficulties

The learning gap created by summer vacation creates a significant breach in the learning cycle, where student achievement levels decrease over the course ofthe summer (Cooper et aI., 2000). In a review of 39 studies, Cooper and colleagues (1996) specified that the summer learning shortfall equals at least one month loss of instruction as measured by grade level equivalents on standardized test scores. Specifically, the achievement gap has a more profound effect on children as they grow older, where there is a steady deterioration in knowledge and skills sustained during the summer months (Cooper et aI., 1996; Kerry & Davies, 1998). While some stakeholders believe that the benefits of a summer vacation overshadow the reversing effect on achievement, it is the impact of the summer learning gap on vulnerable children, including children who are disadvantaged as a result of requiring special educational needs, children from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and children learning English as a second language, that is most problematic. More specifically, research has demonstrated that it is children's literacy-based skills that are most affected during the summer months. Children from high socioeconomic backgrounds recurrently showed gains in reading achievement over the summer whereas disadvantaged children repeatedly illustrate having significant losses. Consequently, the summer learning gap was deemed to exaggerate the inequality experienced by children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Ultimately, the summer learning gap was found to have the most profound on vulnerable children, placing these children at an increased chance for academic failure. A primary feature of this research project was to include primary caregivers as authentic partners in a summer family literacy program fabricated to scaffold their children's literacy-based needs. This feature led to the research team adapting and implementing a published study entitled, Learning Begins at Home (LBH): A Research-Based Family Literacy Program Curriculum. Researchers at the Ontario Institute designed this program for the Study of Education, University of Toronto. The LBH program capitalized on incorporating the flexibility required to make the program adaptable to meet the needs of each participating child and his or her primary caregiver. As it has been well documented in research, the role primary caregivers have in an intervention program are the most influential on a child's future literacy success or failure (Timmons, 2008). Subsequently, a requirement for participating in the summer family literacy program required the commitment of one child and one of his or her primary caregivers. The primary caregiver played a fundamental role in the intervention program through their participation in workshop activities prior to and following hands on work with their child. The purpose of including the primary caregiver as an authentic partner in the program was to encourage a definitive shift in the family, whereby caregivers would begin to implement literacy activities in their home on a daily basis. The intervention program was socially constructed through the collaboration of knowledge. The role ofthe author in the study was as the researcher, in charge of analyzing and interpreting the results of the study. There were a total of thirty-six (36) participants in the study; there were nineteen (19) participants in the intervention group and seventeen (17) participants in the control group. All of the children who participated in the study were enrolled in junior kindergarten classrooms within the Niagara Catholic District School Board. Once children were referred to the program, a Speech and Language Pathologist assessed each individual child to identify if they met the eligibility requirements for participation in the summer family literacy intervention program. To be eligible to participate, children were required to demonstrate having significant literacy needs (i.e., below 25%ile on the Test of Preschool Early Literacy described below). Children with low incident disabilities (such as Autism or Intellectual Disabilities) and children with significant English as a Second Language difficulties were excluded from the study. The research team utilized a standard pre-test-post-test comparison group design whereby all participating children were assessed with the Test of Preschool Early Literacy (Lonigan et aI., 2007), and a standard measure of letter identification and letter sound understanding. Pre-intervention assessments were conducted two weeks prior to the intervention program commencing, and the first set of the post-intervention assessments were administered immediately following the completion of the intervention program. The follow-up post-intervention assessments took place in December 2010 to measure the sustainability of the gains obtained from the intervention program. As a result of the program, all of the children in the intervention program scored statistically significantly higher on their literacy scores for Print Knowledge, Letter Identification, and Letter Sound Understanding scores than the control group at the postintervention assessment point (immediately following the completion of the program) and at the December post-intervention assessment point. For Phonological Awareness, there was no statistically significant difference between the intervention group and the control at the postintervention assessment point, however, there was a statistically significant difference found between the intervention group and the control group at the December post-intervention assessment point. In general, these results indicate that the summer family literacy intervention program made an immediate impact on the emergent literacy skills of the participating children. Moreover, these results indicate that the summer family literacy intervention program has the ability to foster the emergent literacy skills of vulnerable children, potentially reversing the negative effect the summer learning gap has on these children.

Letter to S.D. Woodruff from John I. Mackenzie saying that he is closing up the commissariat accounts at Long Point

Letter to S.D. Woodruff from John I. Mackenzie saying that he is closing up the commissariat accounts at Long Point. There is still an amount outstanding and he asks Mr. Woodruff to send a cheque. He hopes that Mr. Woodruff had a good time at Long Point (2 pages, handwritten), Nov. 23, 1881.

McKinnon Columbus Chain Limited Records 1948, 1958-1960, 1963-1969, 1971, 1974-1975, 1978, n.d.

Ontario Editorial Bureau (O.E.B.)

Deinstitutionalization and its Effects on Social Inclusion, Choice-Making, Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities: Case Studies Analysis

In the past three decades institutions for persons with intellectual disabilities (ID) have been downsizing and closing in Ontario, Canada. This trend is reflective of the changes that have occurred in society. As of March 2009 the last institution operated by the Ontario government for persons with ID closed, placing the remaining approximately 1000 persons into the community. The current study was an analysis of part of one study in a four-study research project, called the Facilities Initiative Study, to explore the impact of the closures on the lives of individuals who have been reintegrated into community settings. The goal of the current case study analysis was to describe the impact of changes in social inclusion, choice-making/autonomy, and adaptive/maladaptive functioning of four individuals prior to and following transition to the community. The results suggested that, in most cases, community integration was related to more social inclusion opportunities and autonomy in choice-making, a wider range of adaptive behaviors and fewer maladaptive behaviors. In some cases, the evidence suggested that some of these indices of quality of life were not improving. Overall, the study found that the differences observed were unique to each of the individuals who participated in the case study analysis. Some generalized themes were generated that can be applied to future deinstitutionalization endeavors.

Managing Risk in a Culture of Rights: Providing Support and Treatment in Community-Based Settings for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities who Sexually Offend

People with intellectual disability who sexually offend commonly live in community-based settings since the closing of all institutions across the province of Ontario. Nine (n=9) front line staff who provide support to these individuals in three different settings (treatment setting, transitional setting, residential setting) were interviewed. Participants responded to 47 questions to explore how sex offenders with intellectual disability can be supported in the community to prevent re-offenses. Questions encompassed variables that included staff attitudes, various factors impacting support, structural components of the setting, quality of life and the good life, staff training, staff perspectives on treatment, and understanding of risk management. Three overlapping models that have been supported in the literature were used collectively for the basis of this research: The Good Lives Model (Ward & Gannon, 2006; Ward et al., 2007), the quality of life model (Felce & Perry, 1995), and variables associated with risk management. Results of this research showed how this population is being supported in the community with an emphasis on the following elements: positive and objective staff attitude, teamwork, clear rules and protocols, ongoing supervision, consistency, highly trained staff, and environments that promote quality of life. New concepts arose which suggested that all settings display an unequal balance of upholding human rights and managing risks when supporting this high-risk population. This highlights the need for comprehensive assessments in order to match the offender to the proper setting and supports, using an integration of a Risk, Need, Responsivity model and the Good Lives model for offender rehabilitation and to reduce the likelihood of re-offenses.