States collected and used data to track participation, evaluate quality, improve programs, and advocate for funding¶

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? Case study states collected participation, program content, and outcome data through varied methods and used it for continuous improvement, evaluation, and advocacy for ongoing investment. → 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?

Cross-case finding from interviews and document analysis across the nine states. Data methods included "end-of-year grant reports, provider and participant surveys, interviews and focus groups, site visits, standardized assessment and evaluation tools, and other techniques."

"States collected data for a number of purposes, namely to understand participation, unmet demand, program content, and academic impact. They mobilized these data to evaluate provider quality and inform continuous improvement, identify implementation strengths and challenges of the state program, and advocate for ongoing state investment."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• States targeted summer learning access by naming priority groups in legislation or grant RFPs — related
• Alder operates a continuous improvement cycle using multiple data sources documented in an Annual Data Cycle Calendar and public Annual Program Assessment Report — related
• States used four approaches to generate political support for summer learning investment — related
• Program content focused on instruction, collegial organizations, and data use is associated with positive school outcomes — related