Join the conversation

Fall’s arrival heralds the start of school and classroom teachers are excited to welcome back their students for another year of learning. At the same time, they are faced with the reality that students seem to know less than they did last spring. On average, all students lose ground and begin the year a month behind where they performed in the spring. One study suggests that two-thirds of the achievement gap for low-income students entering ninth grade can be attributed to summer learning loss. The gap is particularly pronounced in reading, where low-income students lose ground, as opposed to high-income students who maintain or gain ground.

The achievement gap is a widely recognized reality in American public education. It is troubling, persistent, and continues to elude remedy. When a potential solution arises, it is difficult to maintain realistic expectations, and that is exactly what must be done when it comes to summer learning programs. We can take heart that evidence from studies to evaluations shows the promise of such programs in reducing the achievement gap that separates low-income and minority youth from their more privileged peers.

But summer learning programs face a number of restrictions, including high costs, which prevent widespread implementation. Given the reality of education funding, summer learning programs and their successes raise a number of questions moving forward: When are summer learning programs a feasible, and ideally cost-effective, choice for districts; what would an appropriate program structure look like and who would it target; and of course, what results can parents, district administrators and policymakers realistically expect? A recent RAND Corporation study, “Making Summer Count,” provides valuable commentary that helps move this dialogue in a positive direction.

The National Association for State Boards of Education (NASBE), which helps strengthen state boards as effective education policymaking bodies for students and citizens, recently hosted a public webinar on preventing summer learning loss with Christine Augustine, an author of this report, which I was fortunate enough to participate in.

This report both reviewed previous studies on summer learning programs with regards to costs and collected some data from on the ground evaluation of six summer learning programs, some of which were mandatory while others were voluntary and one was home-based. A majority of the programs surveyed were literacy based, and a number had enrichment programming to accompany the academic portion. 

Authors found that some summer learning programs outperformed others, and not all produced achievement gains. Program quality, enrollment and attendance were all critical factors. They found that key features of a quality program included smaller classes and individualized instruction as well as motivated teachers who were eager to participate in the program. These programs also aligned curricula to state standards and included content beyond remediation. For example, students in New York and Chicago that were in danger of being held back in 3^rd grade attended mandatory summer programs; they were successful in earning higher scores when they were retested and consequently were able to progress.

Immediate effects are encouraging, but since the cost of these programs is high, districts and superintendents are interested in learning long-term student gains.  According to RAND, a handful of studies indicate the effects persist for two-years, which could carry implications for districts as they assess the benefits and feasibility of offering these programs. While it is possible that long-term benefits exist, the research to support that hypothesis does not.

The study concludes with a series of recommendations for policymakers and school leaders which include: ideal program structure, planning advice, stakeholders to include from the initial stages, approximate cost estimates and funding suggestions. Some programs that focused on engaged learning had no statistically significant outcomes to report, but nonetheless provide a holistic experience for students who might otherwise not have access to such summer opportunities that combine hands on learning with fun activities. Suggested results include increased self-confidence and self-esteem as well as exposure to high-quality relationships with adult authority figures. RAND also recommends continued research to provide a broader picture of the benefits derived from summer programs and possible long-term effects

With regards to shaping the debate moving forward, one might conclude that investments in summer learning are smart investments for districts with a specific set of needs. If benefits persist for two years, perhaps summer school for those entering 8^th grade would help ensure entry into high-school. In an effort to address the achievement gap, perhaps focusing on literacy for second or third grade students would prove effective.  A district’s goals will ultimately shape the program and those encouraged to participate in it.  Ultimately, without a productive synergy among all the parties involved, new and existing summer programs risk falling short of results needed to justify continued funding in future years. I see a great deal of potential in the work done so far, and we can only benefit from continued efforts to develop best practices and broaden implementation.