Policy considerations for states supporting summer learning¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 1 study (1 qualitative), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The report's concluding recommendations for state actors include: "Set statewide goals for summer investments that reinforce other priorities"; build stakeholder coalitions; identify sustainable funding streams beyond ESSER; minimize administrative burden to maximize grant uptake; balance requirements with flexibility; use legislation or RFPs to expand access for priority groups; target funding toward known obstacles such as "program cost, transportation challenges, and, particularly in rural areas, lack of available summer program providers"; require quality practices as a condition of funding; and align data collection with state goals.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• State actors including legislators, governor's offices, agencies, boards of education, and statewide networks

Constraints¶

• Recommendations draw on the experiences of the nine profiled states and do not comprehensively describe practices across the country

Target Learners¶

• K-12 students, particularly priority groups such as students performing below grade level and students from low-income families

Target Learning Goals¶

• academic recovery and enrichment
• equitable access to summer programming

Claims¶

• States targeted summer learning access by naming priority groups in legislation or grant RFPs [+W]
• States used four approaches to generate political support for summer learning investment [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• Design summer programs with purposeful curriculum, stable staff, and cultural relevance, sustained over multiple summers

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• 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