How should education officials define success for K-12 summer school programs? This question has become increasingly salient in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many states and districts implemented summer programs to help students recover academically and re-engage with school. Now, as ESSER funding dries up, states and school districts face tough decisions about which programs to keep, amend, or discontinue.
We argue that education officials should define success for summer school programs primarily based on their ability to help students connect with and re-engage in school. These outcomes are particularly important given the rising tide of chronic absenteeism and concerns with student mental health. Through this lens, summer school programs are benefitting students in need.
The Summer School Story in North Carolina
In the summer of 2021, school districts across North Carolina offered a six-week or 150-hour summer school program targeted to at-risk students. State officials required that these programs provide in-person instruction, focus on learning acceleration, and incorporate both social-emotional supports and enrichment activities. Nearly 250,000 students attended. These programs were lengthy and engaged many students across the state.
Our analyses show that these programs had small positive effects on math test scores and no effect on reading scores in the following school year (2021-22). These achievement findings are consistent with the broader literature on summer school impacts. It is very hard to boost academic achievement, even with relatively long summer school programs.
However, we found meaningful impacts on students’ engagement with school. Across grade levels, summer program attendees were absent less often and less likely to be chronically absent in the following year. For example, middle school students who attended at least 75 percent of the summer 2021 program were approximately five percentage points less likely to be chronically absent in the subsequent year. This is especially welcome news given that thirty percent of middle school students were chronically absent in 2021-2022. Among high schoolers, we found that program attendees were less likely to repeat a grade, less likely to retake a course, and slightly more likely to pass their English and math courses in the following year. Program attendance helped these students advance—to the next grade or course—and succeed.
In the summer of 2022, North Carolina school districts offered two distinct programs—a summer bridge program primarily geared towards students transitioning across school levels (e.g., elementary to middle) and a career accelerator program focused on connecting students to jobs and their communities. Relative to summer 2021, these programs were much shorter in length and served fewer students. However, school engagement results remained strong. Students attending these summer 2022 programs were 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points less likely to be chronically absent in the 2022-23 year. Even a short summer program—approximately two weeks long—moved the needle on students’ attendance.
Summer School Builds Connections
While we lack definitive answers about why summer programs impact students’ engagement with school, survey and interview data point to one clear possibility: summer school helped build the connections that students were craving. Survey data reveal that students participating in summer programs feel connected to school, know more adults who could help them at school, make new friends during summer programming, and feel better prepared for the next grade.
Similarly, interviews with school personnel and students speak to the ways in which summer programs help students feel comfortable and create relationships. For example, summer bridge programs offered opportunities for students transitioning across school levels to get acquainted with new teachers, peers, and buildings before the start of the school year. Flexibility in summer program requirements also allowed school staff more time to engage students in non-traditional learning activities (e.g., field trips, project-based learning) and attend to students’ social-emotional needs. Students and educators see value in summer programs.
What Should Policymakers, Practitioners, and Researchers Do Next?
Expectations often shape the narrative around the “success” of educational programs. This is a challenge that summer school programs currently face. Right now, many students across the country are still struggling academically, still scoring below pre-pandemic levels of achievement. These students need effective academic supports. Research suggests that summer school is unlikely to solve these achievement concerns. Even long, intense summer programs rarely result in more than small academic gains.
However, summer school is an effective approach to help students connect with and re-engage in school. Summer programs need to be acknowledged (and celebrated) for these positive impacts. With student connectedness as the definition of summer school success, educators will have greater flexibility to plan summer programming that meets the needs of the whole child—e.g., enrichment activities, social-emotional learning. With student connectedness as a focus, researchers have a responsibility to assess a comprehensive set of outcome measures, to estimate longer-term impacts of summer school attendance, and to identify the summer school features leading to success.
As pandemic relief funding ends and K-12 education faces a post-COVID and post-ESSER landscape, it is important to focus on the academic and connectedness needs of K-12 students. Summer school programs are an effective approach to boost student engagement with school. We encourage state and local education officials to view student engagement as success and as a foundation for on-going efforts to promote student recovery. Viewed through this lens, summer school programs are worth keeping even as ESSER funding goes away.