Three remedies for summer learning loss
Three approaches to preventing summer learning loss are offered most often: extending the school year, providing summer school, and modifying the school calendar.
Extended School Year. Most of the arguments offered in support of an
extended school year invoke international comparisons showing that the
number of days American students spend in school lags behind most other
industrialized nations. For example, the NCETL (1993) reported that most
students in the United States spend between 175 and 180 days in school
each year, while students in Japan spend 240 days in school.
Arguments against extending the school year generally question whether
more time in school automatically translates into more time on task. For
example, the National Education Association (1987) questioned whether
additional time in school might simply lead to additional fatigue for
students. Many argue that unless additional time is accompanied by
changes in teaching strategy and curricula, the added time may be
frittered away (Karweit, 1985). Related to this argument is the notion
that adding, for example, 5 or 6 days to a school year represents only a
3% increase in school time. Hazleton and colleagues (1992), based on
work by Karweit (1984), suggested that 35 extra days would be needed to
produce a noticeable change in student achievement. Thus, given other
options for spending education dollars, opponents ask whether money
might not more effectively be spent on improving the quality of
instruction or reducing class size.
Summer School. Summer learning loss also can be used to argue for
increasing students' access to summer school. A research synthesis
reported by Cooper et al. (2000) used both meta-analytic and narrative
procedures to integrate the results of 93 evaluations of summer school.
Results revealed that summer programs focusing on remedial, accelerated,
or enriched learning had a positive impact on the knowledge and skills
of participants. Although all students benefited from summer school,
students from middle-class homes showed larger positive effects than
students from disadvantaged homes. Remedial programs had larger effects
when the program was relatively small and when instruction was
individualized. As would be expected from the summer learning loss
literature, remedial programs may have more positive effects on math
than on reading. Requiring parent involvement also appeared related to
more effective programs. Students at all grade levels benefited from
remedial summer school, but students in the earliest grades and in
secondary school may benefit most.
Modified Calendars. Finally, summer learning loss also could be used to
argue for modifying the school calendar to do away with the long summer
break. Many proponents of school calendar change call for modified
arrangements in which children might or might not attend school for more
days, but the long summer vacation is replaced by shorter cycles of
attendance breaks.
A meta-analysis by Cooper et al. (in press) focused on studies of school
districts that modified their calendars but did not increase the length
of their school year. The most important finding of the synthesis was
that the quality of evidence available on modified school calendars made
it difficult to draw any reliable conclusions. Moreover, the evidence
from the meta-analysis revealed ambiguous results. First, 62% of 58
districts reported that students in the modified calendar program
outperformed students in the traditional calendar program. Second, the
effect for 39 school districts favored modified calendars, but the size
of the impact, though significant, was quite small. There was stronger
evidence that (1) modified calendar programs do improve achievement for
economically disadvantaged or poor-achieving students; (2) programs
implemented more recently may be showing improved results; and (3) the
students, parents, and staffs who participate in modified calendar
programs are overwhelmingly positive about the experience. There are
also specific actions that policy makers can take to improve community
acceptance of modified calendars, such as involving the community in
planning the program and providing high-quality intersession activities.
