States used four approaches to generate political support for summer learning investment¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across case study states, support for summer investment was generated through setting goals linked to broader state priorities, capitalizing on leadership, building coalitions, and identifying consistent funding sources. → Fitz 2025

Evidence¶

Fitz 2025¶

Fitz, J., Woods, J., Duran, N., & McCombs, J. (2025). How states are expanding quality summer learning opportunities. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/910.329

q2 · i? · qualitative · r?

Findings from 30 semi-structured interviews with 28 participants across nine states, supplemented by document analysis. Interviewees reported that coalitions generated "buy-in for investment through information sharing, collaborative planning, and collective advocacy," alongside goal-setting, leadership, and funding-source strategies.

"Additionally, coalitions of key summer stakeholders—including advocacy organizations, state government leaders, and program providers—helped to generate buy-in for investment through information sharing, collaborative planning, and collective advocacy."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Colorado uses a local-first, state-supported model in which districts and local providers initiate cross-sector work and state policy scales successful innovations — related
• States targeted summer learning access by naming priority groups in legislation or grant RFPs — related
• States collected and used data to track participation, evaluate quality, improve programs, and advocate for funding — related
• Pilot projects serve as a pathway for testing models, gaining organizational footholds, and building political support before scale-up — related