The purpose of this study was to determine the immediate and long term impact of participation in the 2009 Third Grade Summer Reading Camp, as well as determine the cost-effectiveness of providing this program in comparison to the cost-effectiveness of other reading interventions as identified by Yeh (2010). All students in this study scored an achievement level one on the 2009 FCAT Reading assessment and either attended the summer reading camp or received a good cause exemption for promotion to the next grade level. Data was not available to determine immediate impact of summer school. To determine long term impact of summer school participation, 130 students who attended the program and passed were compared to a random sample of 130 students who received another good cause exemption. Results of an independent t-test indicated students who passed summer school by performing at or above the 50th percentile on the alternative assessment outperformed students who received another good cause exemption on the 2010 FCAT Reading assessment, t(258) = -9.50, p = .000, effect size r = 0.51,and 2011 FCAT Reading assessment, t(258) = -7.43, p = .000, effect size r = 0.42. Ninety percent of students who attended summer school and passed the alternative assessment for promotion made learning gains on the following year’s FCAT Reading assessment; however, the majority of students performed below grade level on the 2010 and 2011 FCAT Reading assessment. Based on school district records for the cost of salaries, benefits, transportation, materials, and supplies, the total cost of summer school was calculated and adjusted for iii inflation to 2006 dollars so a comparison could be made to Yeh’s (2010) costeffectiveness analysis of summer school and other reading interventions that annualized the cost to 2006 dollars. The adjusted cost for the 2009 summer reading program was calculated at $872,681.23. Using this number and dividing by the total number of summer school student, which were 3,012 students, the cost per student annualized to 2006 was $289.74. Data to determine the immediate impact of summer school were not available, therefore, student performance on the 2009 FCAT Reading assessment was compared to their performance on the 2010 FCAT Reading assessment by calculating a paired samples t-test, t(1225) = 40.82, p = .000, d = 1.23, effect size r = 0.52. The effect size d was divided by the cost per student which calculated an effectiveness-cost ratio of 0.004245 compared to that derived by Yeh (2010) of 0.000125. Caution should be taken when interpreting these results as methodology was not in alignment to Yeh (2010) due to the lack of an immediate post-test measure after participation in summer school and an additional year of interventions and education is reflected in the test scores. The cost per student was calculated to be $1,225.26 less than the amount of money reported in Yeh’s (2010) calculations. Based on this information, the diminishing effect of the summer school program on student reading performance in subsequent years, and the majority of students performing below grade level one and two years after summer school participation, it cannot be determined that this program is cost-effective in raising student reading achievement. It is recommended that this study be replicated with adjustments made to address the limitations identified. Further investigation should be made at the state level to iv determine if the current practice of good cause exemptions and summer school offerings perpetuates the achievement gap in reading

This study sought to determine if the 2012 Eighth Grade Summer Reading Camp curriculum was aligned with the students’ needs. To determine if curriculum alignment existed, the researcher completed a qualitative and quantitative study. The qualitative study consisted of interviewing the school district program development team to ascertain how the curriculum was designed. The quantitative segment involved running descriptive statistics for student performance on the Pre-program Benchmark Examination. The determined student knowledge voids were compared to the amount of instructional time spent taught teaching those individual benchmarks to ascertain if the curriculum was aligned with student need. The curriculum was determined to not be aligned with the performance deficiencies of the students.