IN CONTEXT

For more than a decade, demand for summer school has been on the rise nationwide. From 1991 to 1999, the percentage of public elementary schools eligible for aid under Title I that use federal funds to subsidize summer school programs rose from 15 percent to 41 percent (Cooper, 2001). From 1998 to 2000, the 10 largest districts in the country saw summer school enrollment swell from 600,000 to 850,000 students (Cooper). Currently, approximately 10 percent of all students—or 5 million students in elementary through high school—enroll in summer school.

In both rural and urban communities, grants from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) Program are helping to pay for summer programming. The federal program reauthorized under Title IV, Part B, of the No Child Left Behind Act is designed to provide extended opportunities for academic enrichment to help students—especially those who attend low-performing, high-poverty schools—meet state and local achievement standards in core subjects, such as reading and math. In addition to offering academic support during the after-school hours, community learning centers may offer students a broad array of additional services and activities, including youth development activities; drug and violence prevention; counseling; art, music, and recreation; technology education; and character education. New grants totaling $325 million will be awarded to state departments of education under the new state-administered program. About 6,800 rural and inner-city public schools in 1,420 communities—in collaboration with other public and nonprofit agencies, organizations, local businesses, postsecondary institutions, scientific/cultural and other community entities—are now participating as 21st Century CLCs.

More information about this program including a list of state contacts is available on the 21st CCLC Web site at www.ed.gov/21stcclc/

The 21st CCLC Program encourages collaboration between schools and community-based organizations. Many districts leverage resources and link funding streams to extend CCLC Program offerings into the summer months. This strategy allows schools to tailor their programs to meet local needs. Rural communities, for example, may have few community-based agencies available to enlist as rural program partners; however, school may serve as a hub of services for the community, making it a natural site to locate summer programs. Urban schools may have a wealth of potential community partners, but also families who are not being reached by existing organizations because of language barriers or cultural factors.

Harris Cooper of the University of Missouri-Columbia is one of the few researchers who has taken a serious look at summer school. He predicts the increased demand that began a decade ago will continue for several reasons, including:

• A shift in family dynamics, with more single-parent families and more working parents in need of child care during the summer months than in years past
• Concern among policymakers about global economic competitiveness and the need for an educated workforce for the future
• Emphasis on higher academic standards nationwide
• Growing concern about the achievement gap and resulting efforts to raise achievement among children from less-advantaged backgrounds (Cooper, 2001)

In particular, research about summer learning loss has prompted many schools to seek ways to halt the slide in students' skills or knowledge during the traditional vacation months. In a meta-analysis of 93 summer school evaluations, Cooper and his colleagues found that students lost the equivalent of a month of instruction during their summer hiatus from school (Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay, & Greathouse, 1996). In practice, this means teachers must spend the first month of the school year "reviewing" material covered during the previous school year.

Researchers have found that this "summer slide" is not equal for all subjects, nor for all learners. Learning losses are more pronounced for math facts and for spelling than for more conceptual areas, such as reading comprehension and problem solving (Cooper, 2001). And while children from middle-class families show gains on reading achievement during the summer, children from lower-income families tend to lose ground on reading (Cooper).

The U.S. Department of Education explains the pattern this way:

Children of the middle class appear to rely on school for only a portion of their academic learning. Their proficiency in basic and advanced academic subjects is boosted by parents' instruction, extracurricular activities (e.g., private lessons, voluntary associations such as scouting or sports), and family activities that reinforce education even when they are construed as entertainment.

Children in poor families, on the other hand, rely primarily on school for academic learning (U.S. Department of Education, 1993, p. 2).

This reflects the long-term Beginning School Study, which has tracked Baltimore students from differing family backgrounds since 1982. Johns Hopkins University researchers Karl Alexander and Doris Entwisle suggest that summer learning differences, rather than differential school-year learning rates, explain the widening of the achievement gap as students progress from grade to grade. "For children in poverty, every summer meant a loss; for those not in poverty, every summer meant a gain" (Entwisle & Alexander, 1992, p. 82).

To elaborate on their findings about seasonal learning patterns, they offer what they call a "faucet theory":

When school was in session, the resource faucet was turned on for all children, and all gained equally; when school was not in session, the school resource faucet was turned off. In summers, poor families could not make up for the resources the school had been providing, and so their children's achievement reached a plateau or even fell back. Middle-class families could make up for the school's resources to a considerable extent. ... Home resources matter mainly—or only—in summer (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2001, p. 12).

What's more, the effects of summer school appear to vary according to students' family backgrounds. Middle class students are more likely than their less-advantaged peers to benefit from summer school. The disproportionate achievement effects may result from middle class families tapping additional resources to supplement the activities taking place in the classroom in ways that boost the impact of summer school (Cooper, Charlton,Valentine, & Muhlenbruck, 2000). Although higher family income provides easier access to resources—books, games, computers, trips, and so forth—money does not tell the whole story. Researchers also cite the importance of family expectations for achievement and attitudes toward learning as factors that relate to student achievement during the summer months (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2001).