Out-of-school clubs linked with better outcomes

A new working paper from the Centre for Longitudinal Studies investigates whether taking part in out-of-school activities during primary school is linked with end-of-primary-school achievement and social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes for all children, and specifically for children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

The analysis is based on the UK’s Millennium Cohort Study (MCS), a national longitudinal study of more than 11,000 children born in the year 2000. This was linked with administrative data on the children’s attainment scores at ages 6-7 and 10-11. In addition to looking at achievement (total point score, English and math) at ages 10-11, researchers also investigated social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) total difficulties and prosocial skills scores.

Results showed that sports clubs and “other” (unspecified) club participation was positively associated with achievement outcomes at age 11, when controlling for prior achievement. Participating in organized sports or physical activity was also positively linked to social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes. Among disadvantaged children, after school clubs emerged as the only organized activity linked to child outcomes; participation was linked to both higher achievement at ages 10-11 and prosocial skills.

New findings on the Teacher Incentive Fund Program

A new report from Dr. Alison Wellington and colleagues, published by the Institute of Education Sciences, looks at the implementation and impacts in schools who offered pay-for-performance as part of their 2010 Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grants. These grants, now named the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program, support performance-based compensation systems for teachers and principals in high-need schools.

An experimental study design was used to assess the impacts of pay-for-performance on educator and student outcomes. Elementary and middle schools within the evaluation districts were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. The treatment schools were to fully implement their performance-based compensation system. The control schools were to implement the same performance-based compensation system with one exception—the pay-for-performance bonus component was replaced with a one percent bonus paid to all educators regardless of performance.

For the 10 evaluation districts that completed three years of TIF implementation (the 2011–2012, 2012–2013, and 2013–2014 school years), key findings showed that pay-for-performance had small, significant positive impacts on students’ math and reading achievement. The report notes that after three years of TIF implementation, the average math score was 2 percentile points higher in schools that offered pay-for-performance bonuses than in schools that did not. The average reading score was 1 percentile point higher in schools that offered pay-for-performance bonuses than in schools that did not. This difference was equivalent to a gain of about four additional weeks of learning.

Examining the results of SIG funding

Former President Obama’s American Investment and Recovery Act of 2009 included $3 billion of funding for School Improvement Grants (SIG). SIG awards went to states’ lowest-performing schools who agreed to implement improvements using either the turnaround, transformation, restart, or closure models, and using four main improvement practices: adopting comprehensive school reform programs; developing teacher and principal effectiveness; making more time for learning and creating community-oriented schools, and providing support and operational flexibility for schools.

Given the size and expense of the SIG program, The Institute of Education Sciences at the Department of Education commissioned a report by Lisa Dragoset and colleagues at Mathematica Policy Research, and Cheryl Graczewski and colleagues at the American Institutes for Research, to investigate to what extent the SIG-funded schools used the recommended practices, how these schools compared to non-funded schools, the effect of SIG funding on student outcomes, and which of the intervention models was most effective.

Researchers found that the use of SIG funding had no effect on student outcomes in math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or likelihood to attend college. No SIG model was associated with more gains than another at the elementary level, although in grades 6-12, SIG-funded schools using the turnaround model were associated with higher student math achievement than the transformational model. More recommended improvement practices were used in SIG-funded schools than in non-funded schools, although not significantly so, and were implemented most often in schools using the school reform model. These findings indicate that SIG funding did not significantly impact student achievement outcomes or increase the use of recommended practices, at least for schools near the SIG funding cutoff. They noted that results might be different for schools not near the SIG-funding cutoff.

Does playing chess improve math ability?

An article published in Learning & Behavior examines whether learning to play chess can help improve children’s mathematical ability. To test this hypothesis, Giovanni Sala and Fernand Gobet, from the University of Liverpool, conducted two studies with primary school children in schools in Italy.

The first experiment involved 233 children from eight schools (mean age = 8.5 years). The experimental group (N=53) attended 25 hours of chess lessons during school hours (although not necessarily during math lessons), along with regular school activities, and were then given a test to assess their mathematical ability and a questionnaire to assess their metacognitive ability. The results were compared to both an active control group (who were similarly taught to play checkers) and a passive control group (who continued with regular school activities). The results showed no significant difference between the three groups in mathematical or metacognitive ability.

For the second experiment, 52 children (mean age = 9.32 years) in three classes of a primary school in Italy participated. Classes were randomly assigned to the three experimental conditions, but this time the active control group learned the game of Go instead of checkers, and both the chess and Go instruction replaced some of the time originally dedicated to learning math (approximately 15 hours). The results showed no significant effects of learning chess on mathematical ability. Children in the passive control group seemed to benefit slightly more than those learning chess or Go. There was no difference between the three experimental groups on metacognitive ability.

The study concludes that the results of the two experiments do not support the hypothesis that learning chess benefits children’s mathematical ability. The effects of chess, if any, appear to be minimal and too limited to provide any educational advantage over traditional teaching methods.