[Senate Hearing 107-532]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-532
AVOIDING THE SUMMER SLIDE:
THE IMPORTANCE OF SUMMER SCHOOL TO
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING THE IMPORTANCE OF SUMMER SCHOOL TO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND
WELL BEING, FOCUSING ON SUMMER SCHOOL CUTBACKS AND IMPLICATIONS OF
RESEARCH POLICIES AND PRACTICES
__________
JUNE 21, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
80-478 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
TOM HARKIN, Iowa BILL FRIST, Tennessee
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
PATTY MURRAY, Washington PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
J. Michael Myers, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Townsend Lange McNitt, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut, opening statement................................. 1
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, a U.S. Senator from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 4
Feldman, Sandra, president, American Federation of Teachers,
prepared statement............................................. 8
Cooper, Harris, Professor, Department of Psychological Sciences,
University of Missouri, prepared statement..................... 14
Ramoglou, Christina, executive director, Rogers School Community
Center, Stamford, CT, prepared statement....................... 24
AVOIDING THE SUMMER SLIDE: THE
IMPORTANCE OF SUMMER SCHOOL TO
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
----------
FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in
room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher
J. Dodd, presiding.
Present: Senators Dodd, Clinton, and Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
Senator Dodd. The hearing will come to order. Good morning,
all of you. We apologize being a few minutes late getting
underway, but as I think all of you are aware, we had a vote a
few minutes ago, and so we are delayed getting over.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here, and others
who are in the audience, and I want to thank our colleagues,
Senator Sessions of Alabama, and my colleague, Senator Clinton
of New York, for joining us this morning for whatever time they
have available. I know these are busy schedules. They close out
the week here, and people are heading back to their States.
The title of today's hearing is Avoiding the Summer Slide:
The Importance of Summer School to Student Achievement and
Well-Being.
Let me just share a couple of moments of opening remarks,
and I will turn to my colleagues for any thoughts they have,
and then we will get to our witnesses.
We are here on the first day of summer, June 21st, to
discuss the critical issue of how summer school helps the
neediest of our children to reach their potential and the
impact on those children of budget cuts that are apt to slash
their summer school activities. Without summer activities to
keep their reading and math skills sharp, students start school
in the fall about a month behind where they finished in the
spring. That is the summer slide that everyone, I think, is
aware of.
The summer slide in math is about the same for low-income
students as for others, but it is steeper in reading for low-
income students because they do not have the same access to
books and reading opportunities as students from better-off
families.
As we will hear from one of our witnesses this morning,
some researchers have concluded that if you combine the
achievement gap that exists when low-income children start
kindergarten with the cumulative effect of summer slide over
the years, you will account for virtually all of the
achievement gap at the end of high school. Congress and the
President spent virtually all of last year writing the
bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act, which holds schools
accountable for closing that gap and for all students
performing at a high level.
Senator Craig and I, in particular, worked together to
reauthorize the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, but
more than schools need to be accountable. We--and the
President, obviously--need to be accountable as well. Promising
to leave no child behind means that we have to provide
resources so that all children at all ages get the support they
need to reach their potential--winter, spring, fall, as well as
the summer.
Unfortunately, because of the economy, States and cities
around the country are cutting billions of dollars from
education, including summer school. In New York City, the
estimate is 75,000 summer school slots. In Washington, our
Nation's capital, they will be eliminating some 12,000 slots.
Hillsborough County in Florida, which includes Tampa, has cut
out summer school altogether, and Portland, Oregon, has
eliminated summer school for elementary school students. These
are just a few of the examples from around the country.
But only 1 month after signing the No Child Left Behind
Act, the schools around the country in dire financial straits,
the President proposed cutting funding for education reforms,
including freezing funding for the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers, which would mean that 30,000 fewer students
would benefit from the program and fully serving only 40
percent of low-income students under Title I. That is not the
kind of accountability that I believe that our children need
and deserve.
The President said from the beginning that education is his
top priority, and I believe him, and he has done an awful lot,
I might add, from what we expected and saw only a few short
years ago. Providing enough resources for education, however,
should not be a choice. We do not, and should not, say that we
would like to do more about the national security, but the
times are tough. We do what we have to do to make the system
work.
We must provide schools with resources they need to meet
the goals that we set in last year's reforms, including
improving the quality and accessibility of summer schools so
that children could benefit from the education activities year
round. We must do more to improve the quality and accessibility
of early childhood education so that low-income children reach
kindergarten more ready to learn than they are, and we must do
more to improve family literacy and public libraries, so that
low-income children's homes and neighborhoods become more
conducive to learning.
Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island has done especially good
work in the area of improving our libraries in the country.
Finally, on top of everything else, summer school serves non-
academic purposes. It gives children a safe, productive
alternative to streets. A gang counselor said recently that
this summer's cuts are going to make recruiting easier for
gangs, because thousands of students will have no place to go
when the school year ends. Summer school cuts will cause
trouble for low-income working parents. A Washington, DC.,
Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner said that, in part because
of the cuts, many of her constituents who do not have adequate
child care arrangements will risk losing their jobs, their
ability to keep food on the table, and even their homes in some
cases.
These may not be the primary purposes of summer school, but
we if we do not make sure that students have summer
opportunities, we are going to have to deal with the serious
consequences, academic and otherwise.
So I think our witnesses this morning can add some valuable
information to this debate and discussion. Before I turn to
them, let me turn to my colleague from the State of Alabama,
and I thank you, Senator Sessions, for being with us, and then
to Senator Clinton for some opening comments, and we will get
to our witnesses.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much.
Summer school is an important aspect of education--of that,
I have no doubt--and we do know that there is a slide in the
summer if kids are not continuing to stay in connection with
their learning process. It is an odd thing that we have such a
long period and just drop educational process. I can remember
my own feeling of coming back in the fall and knowing that we
had to redo things we had on the front burner when we left.
We do know this, and one of the things I believe the
Federal Government should do is to study these programs to
identify what we know works, and make sure that millions of
dollars that are, indeed, being spent right now are spent
wisely and most effectively. It would be an unfortunate thing,
indeed, to double spending on summer school, but spend much of
that on programs that are not as effective as they could be. So
I think the Federal Government has an important role in that.
Senator Ron Wyden and I introduced an amendment last year
that passed the Senate to expend $25 million for summer school
programs, and I really wanted it to make sure that we had good
research, good information, good standards, and so we were
calling on the school systems that would receive that $25
million to participate in a good research project.
I will be curious to hear your views of what really works
in summer school, how we can spend the money that we are now
spending better, and if we can demonstrate the kind of progress
that may be possible in some schools, I believe that the
American people will support expanded summer school programs.
Of course, over 90 percent of funding and education is from our
State and local governments, and that is where education is
funded and run. We are going to need to sell them ultimately on
the wisdom of this project, and I would like to participate in
it.
Mr. Chairman, I think a study of summer school to analyze
what it contributes and how we can make it better is a good
hearing topic, and I thank you for doing it.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate
your presence, as well, too, and your help on this.
Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
join with my colleague, Senator Sessions, in thanking you for
highlighting the importance of this issue, and I especially
thank our witnesses for coming on this first day of summer.
Sandra Feldman is always there when discussions about
education and children take place, and I thank her for her
leadership. And, Dr. Cooper, I thank you for focusing attention
on an area that has not gotten enough, and I really appreciate
your bringing this to a point where we can look at what many of
us have believed for a long time and understand there is
evidence to support that belief. And, also, Ms. Ramoglou, thank
you for what you do and the program that you will be
describing.
Summer school and an extended school year has long been a
desired objective for those of us who have worked on school
reform for a long time, particularly because of the impact it
has on low-income children, on poorly achieving children, on
children who face challenges and difficulties because of their
environments.
It is such an important issue that even in a time of
tremendous budget difficulties in New York City, our new mayor
was persuaded to restore funding for summer school because the
evidence is really overwhelming that we have made some
important, albeit incremental, steps to raise achievement among
our students in the New York City school system, and we know it
will be wiped out if there is not some opportunity for
continuing educational experiences.
People like us fill our children's summers with all kinds
of activities. We enroll them in camps, and programs, and
recreational opportunities. We make sure they sign up at the
local library to read the books, and get credit for, you know,
little stars and caterpillar segments. We take them on family
vacations. We do the things that we know continues their
education.
Since I have been in the Senate, I have tried to apply the
Golden Rule to my public service, and that is if it is good
enough for my child, it should be available for everyone's
child, and there has got to be a way to drive that message
home. Certainly, what the chairman is doing today with this
important hearing is going to help us make the case, which many
of us make in our own lives and which many of us know works for
children in many difficult situations.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much. That is good news about
New York and about restoring those cuts. If any other community
has a bulletin they would like to share with this committee, I
have made note of other communities around the country that had
cuts, but they are welcome to let us know right away.
Let me introduce our witnesses, if I can, and I am
delighted you are all here.
Sandra Feldman, of course, is well-known to all of us here.
She is president of the 1.2-million member American Federation
of Teachers, and a terrific advocate for students, and parents,
and good education in the country, truly recognized as one of
the leading experts in the Nation on educational policy and a
very dedicated public servant. Sandra, we are, once again,
pleased to have you here with us. Your background, of course,
is tremendously valuable to us in discussing this subject
matter.
Harris Cooper is a professor of the Department of
Psychological Sciences at the University of Missouri, and this
month completed a 3-year term as department chair. I would also
note that he received a Ph.D. from the University of
Connecticut, and as we often say, ``come on home--all is
forgiven,'' whatever you did, Dr. Cooper--come back to the
State.
[Laughter.]
You have extensive experience in research synthesis and the
application of social psychology to educational policy, so we
are very interested in hearing your thoughts as well.
Christina Ramoglou is the executive director of the Rogers
School Community Center in Stamford, CT. Christina, we are very
honored to have you here this morning. She has held that
position since 1988. The center, which is known as ROSCCO,
administers and offers school-based child and family support
programs. Ms. Ramoglou is the former president, vice president
and current member of the board of directors of the Connecticut
School-Age Child Care Alliance. We have worked with each other
on those issues for a long time as well. So I thank you for
coming here this morning.
We will begin in the order I have introduced you. Sandra,
welcome to the hearing. Once again, you have been here many
times, and we are very interested in hearing what you have to
say.
STATEMENT OF SANDRA FELDMAN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS, WASHINGTON, DC.
Ms. Feldman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I really
appreciate you having this hearing. It is an extremely
important subject. Of course, I feel a bit like I really ought
to say ``amen'' and go, because I know I am talking to people
who know an awful lot about this subject. But I want to
emphasize some things and perhaps put it in a slightly
different context.
First of all, I think it is important to acknowledge that
the cuts that we are experiencing in summer school are really
just the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately, because all across
the States there are drastic cuts taking place in education,
and we have to do something about that as well, because we are
seeing achievement go up, we are seeing a lot of progress in
schools, and we are in danger of taking a serious step backward
with the cuts.
But summer school just cannot be considered a frill any
longer when money is tight. There was a time when the budgets
were tight, so you would cut summer school, you would cut after
school and focus on the school day. Well, it is no longer true
that summer school is a frill. It is certainly not a frill for
poor children. We have overwhelming evidence now that being out
of school during the summer has serious consequences for their
learning, and unless we start devoting serious attention to the
time that they spend out of school, we are never going to be
able to close the achievement gap. So I want to talk about it
from that perspective today, in terms of what we all have as a
tremendous goal, such as closing the achievement gap.
I think it is worth repeating that we know that at the
onset of school, poor children come behind. What most people do
not know is that they learn as much during that school year as
more advantaged children learn. The schools do a great job for
our children when they are in school. In fact, school is so
powerful that when they leave school, they begin to go
backward, and the research on this is absolutely, I think,
pretty convincing by now that the gap between poor children and
more advantaged children continues to widen.
Some people were saying: Well, you see these schools are
not doing their job. The kids are not achieving in terms of the
gap being widened. But we are finding now that it is the time
out of school, not the time in school that creates the widening
of that gap.
Dr. Cooper I am sure has studied this, and we will talk
about this, but there is a lot of research. I always like to
quote Johns Hopkins university professors, Doris Entwisle and
Karl Alexander, and here is what they say: ``The children from
poor and middle-class families make comparable gains during the
school year, but while the middle-class children make gains
when they are out of school during the summer, poor and
disadvantaged children make few gains or even move backwards
academically.'' It is exactly the kind of thing that Senator
Clinton was talking about; that advantaged, middle-class
families take their children to the library, make sure they go
to the library, take the months-long family vacations in which
children are constantly learning, provide them with access to
museums and other cultural activities, even organized sports,
which are tremendous learning experiences for children. Poor
children, more often than not, are sitting in front of the
television or being baby sat or watching videos or sort of just
hanging out, and they are not getting the same kind of learning
experiences as more advantaged children.
So for the advantaged children, their learning continues to
accelerate, and poor children either stop or even go backwards.
I think, Senator Dodd, as you said, that researchers have
calculated that when you add the achievement gap that exists at
the onset of kindergarten to the gaps that are created for poor
children when schools are not in session, you have really
accounted virtually for the entire achievement gap between
advantaged and disadvantaged children, which the schools have
been basically blamed for all of these years.
I think it is important to talk about the No Child Left
Behind Act. It was a strongly supported bipartisan measure. The
AFT is committed to working hard to help make it work, and it
is not going to take us where we need to go unless we act on
this evidence. So I think it is particularly painful, given
this evidence, and given the attention that is being paid to
education, and given the way that people came together in this
Act, to witness the decimation of summer school, especially in
needy communities.
It is especially hurtful, I think, because we are beginning
to see a restoration of summer school after many years, when
summer school was totally neglected, when the cuts were made,
and we are just beginning to get summer school back because of
the standards-based reform that is going on in a lot of States.
Instead of reeling from cutbacks, we had hoped to be working on
expanding summer school and improving the quality of summer
school in the way that the research indicates. Instead, we are
faced with these cuts.
In the face of higher standards, which we fully support and
which we want to make work for kids, we have to make sure that
the children who are not meeting those standards, who need the
extra time and the extra help to meet them, get that extra
time, and the evidence makes absolutely clear that the extra
time that they need primarily is summertime.
I think that this hearing is particularly helpful because
it is especially cruel that at a time we have this evidence,
when we were beginning to get a restoration of summer school,
when we are beginning to see achievement take hold, especially
in poor communities for poor children, we are seeing these
tremendous cuts, and you had some of them up on the board
there.
We did a survey which we are happy to share with you, and I
have a list in my testimony of some of the places, but you talk
about Washington, DC., cutting almost two-thirds of its summer
school--it is an absolute disaster--or Boston, MA, which is
looking at a summer school cut possibly of 60 percent,
Worcester is planning to cut summer school to help trim an $18-
million shortfall, and in Massachusetts, just as an example,
next year is the first year that passing the State examinations
is a condition of high school graduation. These are just a few
examples, and you have all of those, and we are happy to share
our survey with you.
I just want to say this, that the reason this is happening
is not out of malice; it is happening because there is not
enough money. It is not as if money is being badly spent or
poorly spent either, because we have a lot of knowledge about
what works in summer schools.
But losing summer school is really a betrayal of promises
that have been made by the standards-based reform movement. I
know that if school districts that are served, especially
school districts serving poor children, if they had the
resources, they would use the resources. You see it all over
the country. They are extending the school day. They are
providing Saturday mornings for kids, and they are providing
summer school when they can afford it.
I also just want to say that we are experiencing a
potentially distressing thing that is happening. The Department
of Education put out some preliminary guidance on the use of
supplemental services, which you know is an important part of
the No Child Left Behind Act.
While it is preliminary, and we are hoping to get it
changed, I wanted to make you aware of it that the guidance
that they issued that is out there now allows providers who are
providing supplementary services, and of course this is after
school, summer school, can use unqualified personnel for
remediation. They had some language that said they specifically
cannot prohibit States from letting providers who provide these
services use uncertified teachers. It makes absolutely no
sense, none, to do remediation with people who are not
qualified, when we are doing everything we can during the
school year to try to get kids taught by qualified teachers.
Precious resources should not be devoted to supplemental
service providers who do not have a record of success or do not
employ certified or licensed individuals. If it is a speech
therapist that is needed, it ought to be a licensed speech
therapist. If they are doing reading remediation, it ought to
be a reading teacher who knows what she is doing, and we have
the alternative of providing summer school in our much
underappreciated public schools that are already doing a pretty
good job for kids.
So I hope that you will take the lead--I know you will take
the lead in securing additional Federal funding and looking at
the whole package because we do not want to rob Peter to pay
Paul, and we do not want to take money away from much-needed
programs during the school year, from reducing class sizes,
from doing the things that children need during the school year
to pay for summer school.
We have to look at this overall, and the Federal Government
has a long way to go before it, I think, really does what needs
to be done for our kids, especially our poor kids. I know that
you want to do it, and I fervently hope that you will succeed.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Feldman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sandra Feldman, President,
American Federation of Teachers
On behalf of the 1.2 million members of the American Federation of
Teachers, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you about the
importance of summer school and the serious consequences of the
dramatic cuts we are experiencing in this program as a result of the
economic downturn. While I will confine my remarks to the summer school
issue, I think you are hearing from your constituents just what I am
hearing: summer school is just the tip of the iceberg of education cuts
our students face.
First, let me commend the Members of this Committee for your
decision to hold a hearing on this issue. Many people still think of
summer school as a frill, as something that is ``nice'' to offer but
non-essential and therefore dispensable when money is tight. By holding
this hearing, Committee members are giving the public an opportunity to
re-examine this perception, and the timing could not be more ripe. For
the evidence is by now overwhelming that what happens to children
during the summer months is almost as consequential to their academic
achievement as the time they spend in school. And in the case of our
needy children, those consequences are dire. In fact, until we start
devoting as much attention to what happens to poor children during the
68 percent of their waking hours when they are out of school as we do,
and correctly so, to the time they are in school, our hopes for making
greater progress in overcoming the achievement gap will continue to be
dashed.
Summer Learning Loss
It is ironic that during a time when the education watchword of the
day is ``scientifically or research-based,'' some of the most solid and
significant research findings about the achievement gap are being
ignored. (References to the evidence used in this section can be found
at the end of this testimony.) First, the gap is present at the onset
of kindergarten, before formal schooling begins, and gets substantially
narrower during the kindergarten year. Second, and contrary to myth,
poor children do not lose ground during the school year. In fact, the
research on this subject unanimously finds that, on average, poor
children make as much, and often more, progress while in school as
their more advantaged peers. The chief cause of the widening
achievement gap as children progress through school is what happens to
poor children, relative to non-poor children, when they are not in
school, that is, during the summer months.
As Johns Hopkins University professors Doris Entwisle and Karl
Alexander put it: ``. . . children from poor and middle-class families
make comparable gains during the school year, but while the middle-
class children make gains when they are out of school during the
summer, poor and disadvantaged children make few gains, or even move
backwards academically . . . The increasing gap in test scores between
children from families of high and low socioeconomic status over the
elementary-school period thus accrued entirely from the differential
gains they made when school was closed . . . [P]oor families could not
make up for the resources the school had been providing and so their
children's achievement plateaued. Middle-class families could make up
for the school's resources to a considerable extent and so their
children's growth continued, though at a slower pace than during the
school year.''
In other words, on average, our schools are so effective in
compensating for the effects of poverty that we cannot afford to have
them closed. According to New York University professor Barbara Heyns,
who pioneered the work on summer learning losses, ``Approximately 80
percent of the achievement gap between economic privileged and less
advantaged students occurs in the summer months, in the absence of
schooling. The general pattern is similar when black and white students
are compared, but family economic status seems to play a more important
role than race.'' Indeed, researchers have calculated that when you add
the achievement gap that exists at the onset of kindergarten to the
gaps that are created when school is not in session, you have accounted
for virtually the entire achievement gap between advantaged and
disadvantaged students at the end of high school.
Congress recently passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), a
bipartisan measure that the AFT will try hard to make work. It is in
this spirit that I say that the weight and solidity of the evidence
about poor children's need for quality early childhood education and
rich summer learning experiences tell us that NCLBA will not take us as
far as we can go in closing the achievement gap. We must act on it, for
the sake of the stated goals of NCLBA and, above all, for our
youngsters.
Moreover, since NCLBA launches a whole new round of testing and
accountability, there is a fresh opportunity to do it accurately,
usefully, and fairly and not, as the experts have repeatedly
demonstrated, in a way that obscures the root causes of the achievement
gap and the actual academic outcomes produced by our public schools. As
Entwisle and Alexander tell us, ``Standardized tests administered once
a year, the testing schedule followed in most schools, cannot
distinguish between children's progress in winter and summer. When
gains are calculated from one spring to the next, the seasonal
differences in growth rates are ignored. Therefore, yearly scores
convey the distinct but wrong impression that middle-class children
learn more over the entire year than poorer children . . . Rather,
[schools] are so effective that nothing else matters when they are
open. They enable poor children to overcome resource deficits in their
families and neighborhoods and progress at a rate equal to or faster
than that of better-off children.''
Summer School Cutbacks
In light of all this evidence about the negative impact on poor
children of being out of school-- and I have offered up only a small
sample--it is particularly painful to witness, once again, the
decimation of summer school, especially in needy communities. After
many years of budget-driven neglect, summer school was just beginning
to get its legs again, thanks to the standards movement. Instead of
reeling from cutbacks, we had hoped to be working on expanding summer
school and improving its quality in the way the research indicates.
But it looks like deja vu all over again. Summer school is usually
the first thing to go in a downturn, and, like the canary in the mine,
is also usually a harbinger of other cuts to come, which typically fall
disproportionately on the backs of poor children. But in the yo-yo
world of education funding, there is never any slack in the
responsibilities that our schools are expected to meet.
Today, those responsibilities are greater than ever, and the
standards that have been set for our students and schools higher than
ever. Though there are some who would like to believe that achievement
can increase and the gap narrow according to a rigid lockstep schedule,
anyone who has been around children knows that learning, much like
physical growth, does not take place that way, and that some children,
particularly those who are already struggling, need extra help and
time.
As the evidence I've presented makes so abundantly clear, for needy
children that time is the summer. For not only is that the most
sustained time available for remediation, it is also the main time when
poor children, unlike advantaged ones, fail to make academic gains.
Significantly, it is also when the considerable gains they make during
the school year get eroded, putting them further and further behind,
despite their best efforts and those of their schools.
I believe that what ultimately drove and united individuals and
groups from across the political spectrum to put aside their
differences and secure passage of the No Child Left Behind Act was a
shared commitment to overcoming America's shameful achievement gap.
That commitment means we must finally come to grips with the fact that
what happens outside of schools is as important, if not more so, than
what happens in them; the two go hand in hand.
Unlike many occasions when the scales fall from our eyes,
recognizing this fact is an occasion of hope because there is something
we can do about it--and must do if we are fully serious about leaving
no child behind or at least about ensuring that the law that proclaims
this in capital letters is workable, fair, and optimally effective. The
solution to the debilitating effect on needy children of not being in
school is more, and even more effective, schooling. And that is very
good news indeed, because not only does public education seem to be the
only institution that never turns its back on children, but our schools
also would welcome being enabled to do even more for their students.
How particularly cruel, then, that just when the combination of
scientific evidence about the achievement gap and the passage of NCLBA
dictate that we should be expanding and improving summer school
offerings, just the opposite is occurring. The evidence is not yet all
in, but here's a first look at an AFT survey of the effect that the $11
billion--and counting--that State legislatures have cut from education
budgets in the last year is having on summer school.
Washington, DC.--A two-thirds reduction in the summer
school budget.
Florida--A scene of particular devastation, with Broward
County cutting summer school in half this year and eliminating it
altogether the next; Leon County cutting $1.2 million in a summer
school program that, last year, kept 77 percent of its students from
being retained in grade; Pasco County sharply curtailing a program that
last year had employed more than 1,400 teachers and support personnel;
Dade County sure that it will have to cut summer school but not yet
certain about the extent; Columbia County looking at anywhere from a
33-66 percent cut in the summer school budget; Pinellas County needing
to eliminate summer school next year; and Hillsborough County
eliminating it already.
Oregon--The elimination of $35.4 million in State grants
for full-day kindergarten, summer school and gifted programs.
Colorado--A one-quarter reduction in the budget for the
Summer Scholars program for children who are behind in reading skills.
Indiana--Which had provided 80 percent of the funding for
summer school, will now only be able to cover 60 percent of the costs,
and the expectation is that the figure will be less.
Michigan--Will be cutting summer school for low-performing
students in 2003 as a result of a $500 million budget gap.
North Carolina--As a result of a $695 million budget gap
for the fiscal year starting July 1, schools will face a sharp
curtailment of summer programs next year. Wake County has already had
$15 million in budget cuts, which has affected summer school and high
school tutoring programs.
Kansas City, Kansas--Faces the total elimination of its
summer school.
Boston, Massachusetts--May have its summer school budget
for next fiscal year cut by 60 percent, while Worcester is planning to
cut summer school to help trim an $18 million shortfall. Next year is
the first year that passing the State exams is a condition of high
school graduation.
Los Angeles, California--Expects budget cuts that will
imperil summer school, as does Birmingham, Alabama.
Enid, Oklahoma--Is canceling its summer school because it
lacks State and local dollars to match Federal funding.
The list above is only a sample of what we have found so far, and
we doubt that the information still to come in will alleviate this
bleak picture. Moreover, since some districts will preserve all or some
of their summer school programs by charging fees, the full extent of
budget-induced cuts will likely be masked.
One thing we can predict with some certainty, however, is that
there will be few, if any, poor children in summer school programs that
must charge fees. And we cannot soothe ourselves about this by thinking
that these children will instead be in summer camps or in enrichment
programs run by museums and the like, because their parents cannot
afford the fees for these, either. Nor will we likely find our older
students in supervised summer jobs programs because budget cuts will
affect these, as well. In fact, they are likely not even to find
employment at a fast-food restaurant--hardly an academically enriching
experience--because during this overall economic downturn, they will be
competing with a lot of unemployed adults.
So instead of having their school lessons reinforced by their
summer experiences, which is the ``natural'' order of things for more-
advantaged children, our most vulnerable children will likely be
learning the lessons of the street. And when they return to school in
the fall, all too many of them will be academically behind where they
were when they left school the previous spring--a summer learning loss
for which our schools will be erroneously blamed.
Solutions
Clearly, the only way to end this vicious cycle is with money--not
only the money to make summer school available to every needy child,
but a sufficient amount to make sure that such programs mimic as
closely as possible the kind of enriching experiences that advantaged
children get by virtue of having advantaged parents and living in
resource-rich communities. Because the reason that States and school
districts are eliminating or cutting back summer school or, in some
cases, running poor programs, is not malice; it is money. And the
reason that school officials are doing so is not their stupidity; they
know that the combination of higher academic standards and summer
school cutbacks means that more students will be retained in grade,
which also dramatically increases the chance of their dropping out.
They also know that each, let alone both, of these consequences costs
schools and society more, financially and otherwise, than an investment
in stemming summer learning losses.
Rather, the reason we are losing summer school, and the reason we
are facing more such betrayals of the promises made by the standards
movement to students and schools, which continue to uphold their end of
the bargain, is the failure of political leaders to secure dependable
education funding and treat budget surpluses like seed corn for the
future instead of an opportunity for reckless tax breaks.
I also find it distressing that, while summer schools employing
fully certified teachers and other qualified personnel--the people who
make a demonstrable difference to students during the school year--are
being slashed, the U.S. Department of Education has just issued
preliminary guidance on supplemental services in Title I of NCLBA that
allows providers to use unqualified personnel for remediating our most
vulnerable youngsters. In light of the evidence that poor children gain
as much, if not more, than other children while they are in our public
schools, precious resources should not be devoted to supplemental
service providers that do not have a comparable record of success and
that do not employ qualified and appropriately certified or licensed
individuals, especially when there is a clear alternative: summer
school or after-school programs in our under appreciated public
schools.
I therefore urge the members of this Committee to join with the AFT
and others to urge the Department to reconsider and instead require
supplemental service providers to employ only certified teachers and
other fully qualified staff.
I also urge this Committee to take the lead in securing additional
Federal funding, either through a new or existing program, such as the
21st Century Schools program, to our distressed States for the express
purpose of providing high-quality summer school and/or extended-day
programs in our public schools, targeted especially on the youngsters
who need such programs to keep them on track academically. Regrettably,
the failure to provide emergency grants for this summer means that it
is too late to help the youngsters denied summer school this year. But
my proposal is not just intended as a stopgap measure during these hard
economic times; I am also proposing it as a permanent part of the
national education strategy for increasing academic performance and
closing achievement gaps. So, Congress can still make it up to the
youngsters who will get left behind this summer and also do right by
all needy children, and I fervently hope you will.
The strong support of the public for the No Child Left Behind Act
was not for political reasons. It was, and is, simply and purely
because, out of decency and pride, Americans want all our children's
academic performance to improve and the achievement gap to be overcome,
and they were persuaded that this legislation had the power to do so.
In many respects, the fate of any legislation is unpredictable. What we
can now say, however, and with considerable scientific assurance, is
that any education strategy whose goal is ensuring that all children
succeed must reckon as much with what happens to children when they are
not in school as it does with what happens when they are in school if
it is to be maximally effective.
If this is to be the Congress that is credited with making the most
substantial difference in our educational history in improving academic
performance and eliminating the achievement gap, it will make just such
a reckoning. And a good beginning would be to stanch the academic
setbacks that occur when children are out of school and maximize the
effectiveness of children's in-school experiences by increasing the
reach and quality of summer school programs.
References
Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., & Olson, L.S. (2001). Schools,
Achievement, and Inequality: A Seasonal Perspective. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 171-191.
Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center. (Summer
1993). Growth Through School. ETS Policy Notes, 5(3), pp. 1-4.
Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center. (Summer
1993). Home and School Differences. ETS Policy Notes, 5(3), pp. 6-8.
Entwisle, D.R., Alexander, K.L. & Olson, L.S. (2000). Summer
Learning and Home Environment. In R.D. Kahlenberg (Ed.), A Notion at
Risk (pp. 9-30). New York: Century Foundation Press.
Grissmer, D.W., Kirby, S.N., Berends, M., & Williamson, S. (1994).
Student Achievement and the Changing American Family. Santa Monica,
Calif.: RAND.
Heyns, Barbara. (1978). Summer Learning and the Effects of
Schooling. New York: Academic Press.
Heyns, Barbara. (2001). ``Summer Learning and Some Are Not.'' Paper
presented at After the Bell: Solutions Outside the School, organized by
the NYU Center for Advanced Social Science Research and The Jerome Levy
Economics Institute of Bard College, June 4-5, 2001.
Jencks, C. & Phillips, M., eds. (1998). The Black-White Test Score
Gap. Washington, DC.: Brookings Institution Press.
Phillips, M., Crouse, J., & Ralph, J. (1998). Does the Black-White
Test Score Gap Widen After Children Enter Schools? In C. Jencks & M.
Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White Test Score Gap (pp. 229-72).
Washington, DC.: Brookings Institution Press.
Phillips, M. (2000). Understanding Ethnic Differences in Academic
Achievement: Empirical Lessons from National Data. In D.W. Grissmer &
J.M. Ross (Eds.), Analytic Issues in the Assessment of Student
Achievement (pp. 103-132). Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
West, J., Denton, K., & Reaney, L.M. (2001). The Kindergarten Year:
Findings From the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten
Class of 1998-99. Washington, DC., National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.
West, J., Denton, K., & Germino-Hausken, E. (February 2000).
America's Kindergartners. Statistical Analysis Report, Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study. Washington, DC.: National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.
Senator Clinton. [presiding]. Thank you very much for
reminding us that this is part of a larger problem.
Professor Cooper.
STATEMENT OF HARRIS COOPER, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, COLUMBIA,
MO
Mr. Cooper. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today
about summer learning loss and the effectiveness of summer
school. I have studied this topic for a decade now, and I have
provided you with a written testimony that includes a policy
brief. It presents in greater detail many of the points that I
will make here today.
The first thing to note is that the current school calendar
was crafted at a time when about 85 percent of Americans lived
according to an agriculture cycle. Prior to standardization, it
was up to local communities to set the school calendar. In
urban areas, such as Philadelphia and Baltimore, school might
be in session for 11 months. In rural areas, students might be
out of school in May and June for crop seeding, go back to
school in July and August, and then have break again in
September and October to help with the harvest.
The 3-month hiatus in the current school calendar raises
the question about what impact the long summer break might have
on students. To find out, my colleagues and I undertook a
synthesis of research on summer learning loss, or more
specifically, whether students' standardized test scores
declined over summer.
We found 39 studies examining the effects of summer
vacation. Thirteen provided enough information for us to use in
a statistical analysis. The combination of these results, which
is called a meta-analysis, indicated that summer learning loss
equaled at least 1 month of instruction. On average, children's
achievement test scores were 1 month lower when they returned
to school in fall than when the students left in the spring.
The meta-analysis also suggested that summer loss was more
pronounced in math than reading. We speculated that children's
home environments provide more opportunities to practice
reading than math. Further, all students, regardless of their
resources in their home, lost roughly equal amounts of math
skill over summer. However, substantial economic differences
were found in reading. For reading comprehension scores, all
income groups declined, but far more so for disadvantaged
students.
On other reading measures, middle-class students showed
gains in achievement over summer, but disadvantaged children
showed losses. Again, the income difference may be related to
differences in opportunities to practice and learn reading
skills over summer. More books and reading opportunities likely
are available for middle-class children.
Next, my colleagues and I examined the effectiveness of
summer school. We looked at effectiveness not only for
preventing summer learning loss, but also for providing
remedial instruction for students falling behind during the
regular school year and for accelerated or enrichment
instruction for students wishing to spend their summer in
academic pursuits.
We found that summer school serves multiple purposes for
students, families and communities. For example, parents and
communities hope that, in addition to the academic instruction,
summer school will provide positive environments for students
and thereby diminish juvenile crime. The current need for
summer programs is driven by changes in American families, as
well as by calls for an educational system that embodies
highest academic standards.
We examined and integrated the results of 93 evaluations of
summer school. The synthesis revealed that summer programs have
a clear, positive impact on the knowledge and skills of
participants. The average student who goes to summer school
jumps over about 5 percent to 10 percent of similar students
who do not attend as measured by achievement test scores.
Although all students benefit from summer school, students from
middle-class homes showed larger positive effects than students
from disadvantaged homes. We suspect this is because
disadvantaged children often have multiple impediments to
learning. Even with these impediments, however, summer school
proved effective for children from poor families.
Students at all grade levels benefited from remedial summer
school, but students in the earliest grades and in high school
benefited most. Consistent with our summer learning loss
findings, remedial programs may have more positive effects on
math than on reading because kids would lose more if they did
not have math instruction, though, again, the effect on reading
was clearly positive as well.
Based on these results and others, we recommended that
summer programs be provided with a stable source of funds and
that funds be set aside to foster participation, especially
among disadvantaged youth. We also made numerous
recommendations for summer school implementers meant to ensure
that programs were delivered in the most effective manner
possible. The benefits of summer school for achievement are
clear, and its positive effect may extend beyond the schoolyard
gates.
Again, thank you for inviting me, and I look forward to
answering questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harris Cooper, Department of Psychological
Sciences, University of Missouri
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about summer learning
loss and the effectiveness of summer school. I have studied this topic
for a decade now and have provided you with a written policy brief that
presents in greater detail many of the points I will make here today.
The first thing to note is that the current school calendar was
crafted at a time when about 85 percent of Americans lived according to
the agricultural cycle. Prior to standardization, it was up to local
communities to set the school calendar. In urban areas, such as
Philadelphia and Baltimore, school might be in session for 11 months.
In rural areas, students might be out of school in May and June for
crop seeding, go back to school in July and August, and then have break
again in September and October to help with the harvest.
The 3-month hiatus in the current school calendar raises the
question of what impact the long summer break might have on students.
To find out, my colleagues and I undertook a synthesis of the research
on summer learning loss, or more specifically, whether students'
standardized achievement test scores declined over summer. We found 39
studies examining the effects of summer vacation. Thirteen provided
enough information for us to use in a statistical analysis. A
combination of these results, called a meta-analysis, indicated that
summer learning loss equaled at least 1 month of instruction. On
average, children's achievement test scores were 1 month lower when
they returned to school in fall than when students left in spring.
The meta-analysis also suggested that summer loss was more
pronounced for math than for reading. We speculated that children's
home environments provide more opportunities to practice reading than
math. Further, all students, regardless of the resources in their home,
lost roughly equal amounts of math skills over summer. However,
substantial economic differences were found for reading. Reading
comprehension scores of all income groups declined, but more so for
disadvantaged students. On other reading measures, middle class
children showed gains in achievement over summer, but disadvantaged
children showed losses. Again, the income differences may be related to
differences in opportunities to practice and learn reading skills over
summer. More books and reading opportunities likely are available for
middle class children.
Next, my colleagues and I examined the effectiveness of summer
school. We looked at effectiveness not only for preventing summer
learning loss but also for providing remedial instruction for students
falling behind during the regular school year, and for accelerated or
enrichment instruction for students wishing to spend their summer in
academic pursuits.
We found that summer school serves multiple purposes for students,
families, and communities. For example, parents and communities hope
that, in addition to academic instruction, summer school will provide
positive environments for students and thereby diminish juvenile crime.
The current need for summer programs is driven by changes in American
families as well as by calls for an educational system that embodies
higher academic standards.
We examined and integrated the results of 93 evaluations of summer
school. The synthesis revealed that summer programs have a clear
positive impact on the knowledge and skills of participants. The
average student who goes to summer school jumps over about 5 percent to
10 percent of similar students who do not attend, as measured by
achievement test scores. Although all students benefited from summer
school, students from middle class homes show larger positive effects
than students from disadvantaged homes. We suspect this is because
disadvantaged children often have multiple impediments to learning.
Even with these impediments, however, summer school proved effective
for children from poor families.
Students at all grade levels benefit from remedial summer school,
but students in the earliest grades and in high school may benefit
most. Consistent with our summer learning loss findings, remedial
programs may have more positive effects on math than on reading, though
again, the effect on reading is clearly positive as well.
Based on these and other results, we recommended that summer
programs be provided with a stable source of funds and that funds be
set aside to foster participation, especially among disadvantaged
youth. We also made numerous recommendations for summer school
implementers meant to ensure that programs were delivered in the most
effective manner possible. The benefits of summer school for
achievement are clear and its positive effectives may extend beyond the
schoolyard gates.
Again, thank you for inviting me. I look forward to answering your
questions.
______
Summer Learning Loss and the Effectiveness of Summer School:
Research-based Recommendations for Policymakers
PAPER TO ACCOMPANY TESTIMONY BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON
HEALTH, EDUCATION. LABOR, AND PENSIONS, JUNE 21, 2002.
Portions of this research were supported by a grant from the U.S.
Department of Education, National Institute on the Education of At-Risk
Students (R306F60041-97). This policy brief was published in 2001 by
the Southeastern Regional Vision for Education, Greensboro, NC
(www.serve.org). The opinions expressed herein are those of the author
and not necessarily the funding agency or publisher. Harris Cooper can
be contacted by email at: [email protected]
In 1999, a Cox Newspapers survey of the Nation's 10 largest school
districts revealed a 20 percent increase in summer school enrollment,
to well over 600,000 students (Mollison & Brett, 1999). By summer 2000,
the New York Times reported the number of summer school attendees in
these 10 districts had jumped to over 850,000 (Wilgoren, 2000). The Cox
Newspaper research also revealed that nationwide about 5 million
students, or 1 in 10 students attending elementary through high school,
was enrolled in summer school. Further, between 1991 and 1999, the
percent of public elementary schools eligible for Title I poverty aid
that used the Federal funds to subsidize summer school programs rose
from 15 percent to 41 percent.
There is good reason to believe that the demand for summer school
will continue to grow throughout the next decade. This prediction is
based on three national trends. First, the nature of the American
family has undergone dramatic changes. Reynolds Farley (1996), using
the last four U.S. Censuses, found that most common today is a family
headed by a single parent or one in which both parents work outside the
home. The changes in American families suggest that the years ahead
will bring increasing demands for Government-sponsored, school-based
services for children when regular classes are not in session.
Second, in the past two decades, many policymakers have become
concerned about the global competitiveness of the American economy and
the education system that drives it. Statistics from the National
Commission on Time and Learning (1993) suggest that students in the
United States spend less time in school than students in many other
industrialized nations and less time studying core subjects.
Finally, in addition to issues of global competitiveness, an
emphasis has emerged nationally on higher academic standards and
minimum competency requirements. The new standards and requirements
have provided impetus for increased use of summer schools. For example,
Chicago Public Schools has a policy that establishes district-wide
standards of promotion for students completing 3rd, 6th, and 8th
grades. If students do not meet minimum grade-equivalent reading and
math scores, report card grades, and attendance criteria, they are
either retained or must attend the Summer Bridge Program (Chicago
Public School, 1997). In all, 27 percent of the Nation's school
districts now impose summer school on poor-performing students as a
condition for promotion (Mathews, 2000).
In sum then, the push for more summer learning opportunities for
children and adolescents will gather momentum from changes in the
American family and from a focus on increasing the time children spend
in formal education as a means for meeting higher academic standards
and improving America's global economic position.
This policy brief reviews research on the effectiveness of summer
school programs. It begins with a short history of the current school
calendar and a summary of research examining the impact of the long
summer break on student achievement test scores. This is followed by a
history of summer school and its goals. Next, a review of research is
presented on whether summer school is effective and, if so, what
program characteristics are associated with the most effective
programs. Finally, the brief concludes with some recommendations for
policies makers and practitioners.
Historical Roots of the Current School Calendar
In the 19th century, school calendars reflected the needs of the
families and communities served by each school district (Richmond,
1977). Children who lived in agricultural areas rarely attended school
during summer, or during planting and harvesting, so they could be free
to help tend crops or livestock. If children lived in urban areas, it
was not unusual for them to attend school for at least 2 of summer's 3
months.
By the turn of the century, family mobility and the growing
integration of the national economy made it important to standardize
the school curricula. Families moving from one community to another
needed to find that children at the same age were learning and were
expected to know roughly the same things in their new community as in
their old one. This need for standardization resulted in the current 9-
month calendar compromise between town and country, and summer became a
time without school for children regardless of where they lived
(Association of California School Administrators, 1988).
Summer Learning Loss
The 3-month hiatus in the American school calendar raises the
question of what impact the long summer break might have on students.
To find out, Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay, and Greathouse, (1996)
undertook a synthesis of the research on summer learning loss, or more
specifically, whether students' achievement test scores declined over
the summer vacation. Thirty-nine studies were found examining the
effects of summer vacation, 13 of which provided enough information for
use in a statistical synthesis. A statistical combination of these
results, called a meta-analysis, indicated that summer learning loss
equaled at least 1 month of instruction. On average, children's
achievement test scores were at least 1 month lower when they returned
to school in fall than when students left in spring.
This meta-analysis also found dramatic differences in the effect of
summer vacation on different skill areas. Summer loss was more
pronounced for math facts and spelling than for other tested skill
areas. An explanation of this result rests on the observation that both
math facts and spelling skills involve the acquisition of factual and
procedural knowledge whereas other skill areas, especially math
concepts and problemsolving and reading comprehension, are more
conceptually based. Without practice, cognitive psychology suggests,
facts and procedural skills are most susceptible to forgetting (e.g.,
Cooper & Sweller, 1987).
The meta-analysis also suggested that summer loss was more
pronounced for math overall than for reading overall. It may be that
children's home environments provide more opportunities to practice
reading skills than to practice mathematics.
In addition to the influence of subject area, numerous differences
among students were tested in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was
little evidence to suggest that intelligence had an impact on the
effect of summer break. Likewise, neither the student's sex nor
ethnicity appeared to have a consistent influence on summer learning
loss. Educators expressed special concern about the impact of summer
vacation on the language skills of students who do not speak English at
home, but the literature search found little evidence bearing on this
issue.
Finally, family economics was examined as an influence on what
happens to children over summer. The meta-analysis revealed that all
students, regardless of the resources in their home, lost roughly equal
amounts of math skills over summer. However, substantial economic
differences were found for reading. On some measures, middle class
children showed gains in reading achievement over summer but
disadvantaged children showed losses. Reading comprehension scores of
both income groups declined, but more so for disadvantaged students.
Again, the income differences may be related to differences in
opportunities to practice and learn reading skills over summer, with
more books and reading opportunities available for middle class
children.
Table 1
Summer Learning Loss
Research reveals that:
On average, children lose 1 month on achievement test
scores over the summer vacation.
Summer loss is greatest in math facts and spelling.
Summer loss is greater in math than reading.
Summer vacation increases disparities between middle class
and disadvantaged students' reading scores
The loss in achievement test scores suggests that it might be
beneficial to continue summer remedial and enrichment programs. For all
students, a focus on mathematics instruction in summer would seem to be
most effective. Alternatively, if summer programs had the purpose of
lessening inequities across income groups, then a focus on summer
reading instruction for disadvantaged students would be most
beneficial.
It is important to point out, however, that the existence of summer
learning loss cannot ipso facto be taken to mean summer educational
programs will be effective remedial interventions. Summer school might
not change the educational trajectory of students who took part in such
programs. The impact of summer educational programs has to be evaluated
on its own merits.
Summer School
As with the school calendar in general, the impetus for summer
programs for school-aged youth first resided in economic
considerations. As the 20th century took hold, the economy of the
United States shifted from an agricultural base to an industrial one.
Most children were either immigrants from abroad who made their homes
in large urban areas or they were part of the great migration of
Americans from the farm to the city. Many children and adolescents held
jobs during the summer and those who were idle were a cause of concern
for city dwellers (Dougherty, 1981). However, the passage of the first
child labor law in 1916 meant that school-aged children had little to
do during their vacation from school. Community leaders demanded that
organized recreational activities be made available for students when
school was out. Today, the purposes of summer programs stretch far
beyond the prevention of delinquent behavior but this certainly remains
among summer school's latent, if not overt, functions.
By the 1950s, educators realized that summertime held opportunities
to remedy or prevent learning deficits (Austin, Rogers, & Walbesser,
1972). Because the wealthy were able to hire tutors for their children,
the educational summer programs made available through schools largely
served students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Goals of Summer School
Summer programs to remedy learning deficits can be grouped into
four categories. First, some summer programs are meant to help students
meet minimum competency requirements for graduation or grade promotion.
The Chicago Public Schools program mentioned earlier is of this sort.
Second, secondary school students who fail a particular course during
the regular academic year use summer school as an opportunity to retake
the course. This is the type of program most people think of when they
think of summer school.
A third type of remedial summer school occurs in response to the
movement to insure students with disabilities receive a free and
appropriate education. In 1979, the United States District Court ruled
that the Pennsylvania Department of Education had to provide a program
beyond the regular school year for children with disabilities. The
ruling was based on the premise that the long summer break would lead
to regression of skills in students covered by the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
Finally, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and its
successors recognized the special needs of students residing in areas
with high concentrations of poverty. These programs were meant to break
the cycle of poverty through the provision of supplemental educational
services. To accomplish this goal, the law suggested that children have
full access to effective high-quality regular school programs and
receive supplemental help through extended time activities. The latter
injunction has led to the establishment of educational summer programs
for disadvantaged youth.
With the passage of time, the purposes of summer school have grown
beyond the provision of remedial education. In 1959, Conant (1959)
recommended that boards of education provide summer opportunities not
only for students who were struggling in school but also for those who
needed more flexible course schedules or who sought enriched
educational experiences. Conant suggested that students who were
heavily involved in extra-curricular activities or who held work-study
positions could use summer school as a way to lighten their academic
burden without delaying their graduation. Students who wished to
graduate early could speed up their accumulation of credits. School
administrators in the 1960s, faced with the space crunch created by the
baby boom, saw the use of summer school to speed graduation as a way to
make room for the growing number of students.
Recently, summer vacation has also been embraced as an ideal time
to provide specialized programs for students with academic gifts and
other talents. Such programs often involve offering advanced
instruction that goes beyond the typical course of study. At the high
school level, the content of these courses might be based on college-
level curricula. Many enrichment and acceleration summer programs
operate out of colleges on a fee basis, sometimes with scholarships
available.
Finally, summer school provides opportunities for teachers. Summer
schools allow teachers to make additional money and to develop
professional competencies.
Table 2
Goals of Summer School
Prevent delinquent behavior.
Remediate or prevent learning deficits.
Help meet minimum competency requirements.
Repeat failed courses or grade levels.
Prevent regression for students with learning
disabilities.
Break the cycle of poverty.
Provide flexible high school course scheduling.
Accelerate progress for gifted students.
Offer teachers additional compensation.
The Effectiveness of Summer Programs
A meta-analysis of summer school research conducted by Cooper,
Charlton, Valentine, and Muhlenbruck (2000) summarized the results of
93 program evaluations. Five principle conclusions were drawn from the
research. First, summer school programs focused on lessening or
removing learning deficiencies have a positive impact on the knowledge
and skills of participants. Overall, students completing remedial
summer programs can be expected to score about one-fifth of a standard
deviation higher than the control group on outcome measures. This
conclusion was based on the convergence of numerous estimates of summer
school effects.
The overall impact of summer school should be viewed as an average
effect found across diverse programs evaluated with a wide variety of
methods. These variations influence the effect on programs in
significant ways. Put in practical terms, the overall estimate of
effect could guide policy decisions at the broadest level, say by
Federal or State policymakers. However, a local official about to
implement a specific summer program for a particular type of student
may find effects quite different from the overall finding. Generally
however, both the overall findings and those associated with specific
categories of programs suggested the effect of most programs is likely
to be greater than zero.
The second conclusion from the meta-analysis was that summer school
programs focusing on acceleration of learning or on other goals also
have a positive impact on participants, roughly equal to programs
focusing on remedial goals. However, because of the smaller number of
evaluations the robustness of these findings could not be tested across
student, program, and outcome variations.
The third conclusion from the meta-analysis was that summer school
programs have more positive effects on the achievement of middle class
students than on students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The
difference between the economic groups was significant whether or not
effects were adjusted for methodological confounds and regardless of
the assumptions used to model error variance. This finding may be due
to the availability of more resources for middle class families
supplementing and supporting the activities occurring in the classroom
in ways that may augment the impact of the summer program.
Alternatively, summer programs in middle class school districts may
have better resources available, leading, for example to smaller
classes. Heyns (1978) suggested that these economic differences in
summer school outcomes might occur because ``programs are less
structured and depend on the motivation and interest of the child'' (p.
139). Finally, the learning problems of disadvantaged youth may be
simply more intransigent than the problems of middle class students.
Two points should be emphasized. First, even though the effect was
larger for middle class students, all estimates of summer school's
impact on disadvantaged students were significantly different from
zero. Second, if summer programs are targeted specifically at
disadvantaged students they can serve to close the gap in educational
attainment.
The fourth conclusion of the meta-analysis was that remedial summer
programs have larger positive effects when the program is run for a
small number of schools or classes or in a small community, although
even the largest programs showed positive average effects. The size-
related program characteristics may serve as proxies for associated
differences in local control of programs. That is, small programs may
give teachers and administrators greater flexibility to tailor class
content and instruction to the specific needs of the students they
serve and to their specific context. Small programs also may facilitate
planning, and may remove roadblocks to the efficient use of resources.
Among the reasons cited by teachers and parents for the failure of
summer programs was the last-minute nature of decisionmaking and the
untimely arrival of needed materials. These problems may be more
prevalent when programs are large. As a caution to this interpretation,
the size-related program variables might also be related to the
economic background of the community being served, with larger programs
serving poorer communities. If this is the case then economics might be
the underlying causal factor, not local control.
Finally, the meta-analysis revealed that summer programs that
provide small group or individual instruction produced the largest
impact on student outcomes. Further, those evaluations that solicited
comments from teachers about the positive aspects of summer school
often suggested that small group and individual instruction were among
the program's strengths. There is no reason why the more general
educational literature showing a relation between class size and
achievement ought not apply to summer programs as well (Mosteller,
1995).
In addition to these principal conclusions, there were five other
conclusions drawn from the research, but with less confidence. First,
summer programs that required some form of parent involvement produced
larger effects than programs without this component. Second, remedial
summer programs may have a larger effect on math achievement than on
reading. It is possible to interpret this finding in relation to summer
learning loss. Recall that the review of summer loss research revealed
students' achievement scores in math showed more of a drop during
summer than reading achievement scores. If this is the case, then
control group students in summer school studies likely received less
practice in math than in reading. Thus, the difference in the
experiences of students not in summer programs may explain the
difference in summer school effects.
The finding that summer school may be more efficacious for math
than reading outcomes should not create the impression that promoting
literacy ought to be a secondary goal of summer programs. Summer school
has positive effects on reading as well as math. Further, illiteracy is
a strong predictor of negative social behavior in both children and
adults (Adams, 1991).
The third tentative conclusion from the meta-analysis was that the
achievement advantage gained by students who attend summer school may
diminish over time. However, this finding should not be taken to
indicate that summer school effects are themselves not long-lasting.
Multiple, subtle processes were uncovered that might serve to obscure
lasting effects, the most obvious of which is that students who do not
attend summer programs may receive similar programs during the school
year that are not needed by summer attendees. Also, summer school may
have positive effects on developmental trajectories that go unnoticed
because of how a study is carried out.
Fourth, remedial summer school programs had positive effects for
students at all grade levels, although the effects may be most
pronounced for students in early primary grades and secondary school
than in middle grades. The underlying cause of this finding may be the
existence of three largely independent approaches to summer instruction
associated with different grade levels. For example, the Albuquerque
Public Schools (1985) described the results of interviews with teachers
following a summer program for all students. The interviews revealed
elementary school teachers felt summer school gave them the opportunity
to be more creative and to individualize instruction. Middle school
teachers said they emphasized study and organizational skills more than
during regular session. High school teachers, because of the credit
structure, taught classes in a manner that adhered most closely to
regular session classes. If these differences in approaches to summer
school hold generally, we might expect the greatest achievement gains
in the earliest and latest grades because it is here that teachers
place the greatest emphasis on instruction in subject matter. Summer
school in the middle years may place more emphasis on the teaching of
subject-related study skills that eventually, but not immediately, have
an impact on achievement outcome measures.
Finally, summer programs that undergo careful scrutiny for
treatment fidelity, including monitoring to insure that instruction is
being delivered as prescribed, monitoring of attendance, and removal
from the evaluation of students with many absences may produce larger
effects than unmonitored programs.
There were two findings of the meta-analysis that deserve mention
because they did not reveal consistent or significant results. First,
there was inconsistent evidence regarding whether or how the
achievement label given to students was associated with the amount of
benefit they derived from remedial summer programs. As noted earlier,
one impetus for summer school is the Federal-mandate requiring that
extended year services be available to children with disabilities. The
meta-analysis showed clear and reliable benefits of summer school for
these children, but these benefits appeared no greater in magnitude
than the benefits for other students.
Second, summer school remedial programs that require attendance
appeared no less effective, and perhaps are more effective, than
programs that were voluntary. While volunteering may serve as an
indicator of motivation and engagement that would positively influence
the impact of the summer program, it may be that compulsory attendance
requirements are associated with student performance levels that are
most likely to benefit from summer school activities.
Table 3
Effectiveness of Summer School
Research reveals that:
Remedial summer school programs have a positive academic
impact on participants.
Summer school programs focusing on multiple goals or
acceleration also have a positive impact on participants.
Summer school programs have more positive effects on
middle class students than on students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Remedial summer programs have larger positive effects
when:
The program is run for a small number of students and
schools in a small community.
The program provides small group or individual instruction
Remedial summer programs may also have larger effects:
When parent involvement is required.
On math achievement than on reading.
In early primary grades and high school than in middle
grades.
When they undergo careful scrutiny for treatment fidelity.
The effect of remedial programs may diminish over time.
Implications for Summer School Policies and Practices
The research results can be used to propose some guidelines to
policymakers and program implementers concerning the funding,
development, and operation of summer schools.
Most obviously, Federal, State, and local policymakers should
continue to fund summer school programs. The research demonstrates that
summer programs are effective at improving the academic skills of
students taking advantage of them. Further, summer school likely has
positive effects well beyond those that have been measured in past
research. For example, summer programs may inhibit delinquency among
idle youth.
To ensure that summer programs are most effective and are accepted
by the general public, policymakers should require that a significant
portion of funds for summer school be spent on instruction in
mathematics and reading. For single-parent families and for families in
which both parents work outside the home, summer school will serve a
childcare function. For children who live in high crime and high
poverty areas, summer programs will provide safe and stimulating
environments clearly preferable to the alternatives. However, summer
programs are proven vehicles to remedy, reinforce, and accelerate
learning and this opportunity should not be missed.
Third, policymakers should set aside funds for the specific purpose
of fostering participation in summer programs, especially participation
by disadvantaged students. Summer programs often face serious problems
in attracting students and maintaining their attendance. They compete
for youthful attention with alternative activities that are often more
attractive, but less beneficial. Even the most well-conceived program
will fail if students choose not to enroll or attend. Policymakers
should earmark funds for transportation to and from summer programs and
for food service at the program site. Policymakers might even make
provisions for siblings to attend summer programs so that parents will
not keep older brothers and sisters home to provide childcare for
younger family members.
Policymakers should offset the mandate for reading and math
instruction by providing for significant local control concerning
program delivery. The research suggests the possibility that flexible
delivery systems may lead to important contextual variations that
significantly improve the outcomes of summer programs. Therefore,
policymakers ought to resist the temptation to micromanage programs and
give local schools and teachers leeway in how to structure and deliver
programs.
Finally, policymakers should require rigorous formative and
summative evaluation of program outcomes. Credible evaluations provide
the accountability that is called for to justify expenditure of public
funds. Policymakers can make a substantial contribution to future
decisionmaking by requiring and providing funds for systematic, ongoing
program evaluation.
Table 4
Implications of Research for Summer School Policies and Practices
Policymakers should:
Continue to fund summer school programs.
Require that funds for summer school be spent on
instruction in mathematics and reading.
Set aside funds for the purpose of fostering participation
in summer programs, especially by disadvantaged students.
Provide for significant local control concerning program
delivery.
Require rigorous formative and summative evaluation of
programs.
Practitioners should:
Plan early.
Provide program and staffing continuity from year to year.
Use evaluations to identify successful sites and program
content.
Integrate summer teaching with staff development.
There are numerous suggestions for how summer programs should be
implemented that can be gleaned from the research. For example, surveys
of teachers often point to a lack of planning time and late-arriving
program materials as two of the most severe impediments to the success
of a summer program. Thus, just as policymakers need to provide stable
and continuing sources of funds for summer schools, program
implementers need to plan early. The pragmatics of program operation
will take on a higher priority as summer schools come to be seen less
as ``add-ons'' and more as integral parts of the array of services
provided by schools.
Related to planning is the need for program implementers to provide
continuity from year to year. Priority for staffing should be based on
past participation in the summer program itself so that teachers,
administrators, aides, and support staff who took part in past years
are given the first opportunity to be involved again. Evaluations
should be used to continue successful elements of a program, from site
locations to program content, and to discontinue unsuccessful ones.
Finally, program implementers might also consider integrating
summer staff development activities for teachers with the teaching of
summer school. The relatively small classes and relaxed atmosphere that
many summer programs provide could make them an ideal laboratory for
teachers to experiment with new curricula or pedagogical approaches.
For example, teachers might learn about and discuss a new teaching
strategy in the afternoon and then practice the approach using the next
morning's summer school class. The coupling of staff development and
summer teaching might also increase the pool of teachers interested in
taking part.
Policymakers and practitioners might also consider more innovative
ways of recasting summer school to take advantage of what the research
reveals about summer learning loss and successful summer programs. For
example, a ``Running Start'' summer program might commence close to the
beginning of the new school year rather than follow on the heels of the
old year, as is typical of many current programs. It might also enlist
the participation of regular classroom teachers, although they need not
be full-time summer instructors. Regular class teachers might function
as the resource teacher who pulls out students from the ongoing summer
class routine. The teachers would meet with, get to know, assess the
strengths and weaknesses of, and begin instructing students who will be
in their class when the new regular session begins. This strategy would
seem most beneficial for students who are struggling in school, need
special attention, or have the potential to present behavior problems
when school begins.
This running start might smooth the transition to the new school
year by causing less time to be spent reviewing material when classes
begin and, hopefully, diminishing disruptions caused by struggling
students. These outcomes should benefit all class members, not just the
program participants.
Conclusion
The 9-month school calendar was adopted in America to accommodate
the needs of a family-based, agrarian economy. In areas of the country
where the 9-month school did not fit the economy, summer programs were
quickly developed to prevent the negative social behaviors associated
with idle youth. Educators soon discovered the potential of summer
programs to improve learning. Summer education programs were viewed as
especially attractive for children from homes with limited resources
and for students with special learning needs. Although the benefit
varies according to characteristics of the child and program content
and delivery, the generally positive effects of summer school for those
who participate are unmistakable.
References
Adams, M.J. (1991). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About
Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Albuquerque Public Schools. (1985). What I Did Instead of Summer
Vacation: A Study of the APS Summer School Program. Albequerque, NM:
Albuquerque Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
281 932).
Association of California School Administrators (1988). A Primer on
Year-Round Education. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Austin, G.R., Rogers, B.G. & Walbesser, H.H. (1972). The
Effectiveness of Summer Compensatory Education: A Review of the
Research. Review of Educational Research, 42, 171-181.
Chicago Public Schools (1997). Guidelines for Promotion in the
Chicago Public Schools. Chicago Public Schools: Chicago, IL.
Conant, J.B. (1959). The American High School. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Cooper, G. & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of Schema Acquisition and
Rule Automation on Mathematical Problem-solving Transfer. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 79, 347-362.
Cooper, H., Chalton, K., Valentine, J. & Muhlenbruck, L. (2000).
Making the Most of Summer School. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J. & Greathouse, S.
(1996). The Effects of Summer Vacation on Achievement Test Scores: A
Narrative and Meta-analytic Review. Review of Educational Research, 66,
227-268.
Dougherty, J. W. (1981). Summer School: A New Look. Bloomington,
IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Farley, R. (1996). The New American Reality: Who We Are, How We Got
Here, Where We Are Going. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Heyns, B. (1978). Summer Learning and the Effects of Schooling. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Mathews, J. (2000, June 13). A Hot Debate Over Summer School
Classes. The Washington Post, A-24.
Mollison, A. & Brett, J. (1999, July 6). Now More Than Ever,
School's in for Summer. The Atlanta Constitution, A1, A4.
Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee Study of Class Size in Early
Grades. Future of Children, 5(2), 113-127.
National Commission on Time and Learning. (1993). Research
Findings. ERIC Document No. ED372491.
Richmond, M.J. (1977). Issues in Year-Round Education. Hanover, MA:
Christopher Publishing House.
Wilgoren, J. (2000, July 5). Summer Classes Expanding in Push to
Improve Skills. The New York Times, A1, A14.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Professor Cooper.
Ms. Ramoglou, thank you for being here and being part of
this panel.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA RAMOGLOU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ROGERS
SCHOOL COMMUNITY CENTER, STAMFORD, CT
Ms. Ramoglou. Good morning. Thank you, Senator Clinton,
Chairman Dodd, for the opportunity to testify about the need
for summer school programs. I have to share with you this is
the first time I am in a hearing room, so I hope I am not too
nervous.
Senator Clinton. You are doing great.
Ms. Ramoglou. Today, I would like to share with you what,
in essence, is a tale of two cities named Stamford.
The families in the first Stamford are very affluent, they
have an average median household income of $61,000. The value
of their homes range from $500,000 to $1.5 million. Many of
their children attend public schools, some may attend private
schools. They have at least one computer in their home and use
it extensively for school projects. The children of these
families have the opportunity to attend extracurricular
activities and take advantage of all of the enriching, cultural
and arts experience that the city of Stamford and surrounding
communities, especially the greater New York metropolitan area
have to offer after school and during the summer.
These children most likely will not be required to attend
Stamford summer schools due to low grades or test scores. More
likely than not, they will be attending private summer day
camps or even sleep-away camps.
Now let us meet some of the other families in the other
Stamford. Their average median household income is $20,000.
This entitles their children to have free or reduced lunch in
the Stamford public schools where the children are students.
They probably do not own their own home. They are tenants and
meeting their rent is very difficult, since 1-bedroom studios
begin renting at $1,400 per month. As a matter of fact, if they
are not receiving Section 8 housing subsidies, they cannot
afford to live in Stamford unless they are sharing housing with
other relatives or friends.
These families are probably also making monthly visits to
the local food bank and receiving clothing and household
supplies from Person-to-Person, a local philanthropic agency.
More times than not, the children of these families go home
directly after school. Many of them are the caregivers of their
younger brothers and sisters since both of their parents or
other adults in the household are working, sometimes even 2 and
3 jobs paying the minimum wage.
These children do not have many, if any, opportunities to
attend the rich cultural arts experiences the city of Stamford
and surrounding communities have to offer. More likely than
not, they do not own a computer, and an adult is not at home
who can give them homework assistance when they need it. The
likelihood is that the adults at home have limited English
proficiency, attested to by the fact that 55 different
languages are spoken in the homes of Stamford children. The
most common are Spanish, Creole, Polish, Russian, French,
Chinese, Albanian, Portuguese and Bengali.
Let us also keep in mind the children of those families who
do receive free or reduced lunch, however, are not poor enough
to meet the income eligibility guidelines for childcare
assistance subsidies. These families cannot afford to pay the
going rate for after-school or summer camp programs offered by
many of our local agencies.
The good news is that some of the children will be able to
participate in an after-school or summer school program either
because their families meet the income eligibility guidelines
to receive child care subsidies or because they attend one of
the schools receiving Federal 21st Century Community Learning
Center funding. The disadvantage here is that Connecticut will
close the childcare subsidy program to new applicants at the
end of this month, and only two Stamford schools are 21st
Century CLC schools. The prospects of other schools receiving
funds look rather bleak, especially if there is no increase in
Federal funds, in light of proposed State cuts.
To continue our tale, approximately 2,500 children in
Stamford are eligible to receive free or reduced lunch, while
2,000 Stamford school children have received letters informing
them they are required to attend summer school. You might be
thinking, ``Excellent. We in Stamford are trying to help these
children, and we are working on closing the gap between the
haves and the have-nots, between the fortunate and the not-so-
fortunate.'' Yes, we are trying. However, due to budget
deficits, we are sending 1,000 less children this year. Just
this week, the Stamford Advocate, our local paper, has featured
front-page articles and editorials about our school system's
projected approximately $2.5-million deficit, citing unexpected
health insurance, special education, and summer school expenses
as the cause.
Senators, I have been involved with before- and after-
school and summer programs for many years. I have participated
in the Lights on After School Campaign sponsored by the After
School Alliance. I have served as past treasurer and board
member of NSACA, as vice president and current member of CSACA,
the Connecticut affiliate. Through my involvement and
experience in the field and, yes, even in the trenches, I know
you are familiar with the research on the positive impact of
affordable, quality after-school and summer programs on
children and the negative impact if these programs are not
available.
You are familiar with the research which states that the
quality of these programs directly impacts children's success
in school, also that the time in after-school and summer
programs is directly related to the rise or decline of
delinquency, juvenile crime, and teen pregnancy prevention, and
our others have spoken about the summer slide. So I am not
going to repeat that.
Our children deserve to have equal opportunities, equal
access. They deserve the tools and skills to help them succeed.
Please create the systemic reforms and allocate the funding
that will enable our schools and our social and community
organizations to help all children succeed. We need more after-
school programs, we need more summer school programs. Our
social service agencies and community organizations, such as
ROSCCO, need support and assistance to do their work and work
with the schools in collaboration. We serve 750 children in
before- and after-school and summer programs. Eighty-five
percent of these receive free or reduced lunch.
Last week, I was reminded of a ``Simpsons'' episode, which
satirically advocated holding prisoners in schools and using
the savings on prison costs for school programs, but this idea
is no joke. In reality, the most effective way to allocate
resources over the long run is to invest them in our children's
education, social and emotional development.
Can we of this great and most powerful Nation afford to
incarcerate, but not to educate? Can we, as a Nation, afford to
have high school graduates who cannot read; workers who are not
skilled; future citizens who are not productive members of this
great society? We must find the way to provide for the
education and success of our children--all of our children,
regardless of where they might live, what their language might
be or which language they speak at home or what their family
income might be.
In which Stamford would you want your children to live?
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ramoglou follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christina Ramoglou, Executive Director, Rogers
School Community Center, Stamford, CT
Good Morning. Thank you Senator Dodd, Chairman Kennedy, Senator
Gregg, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify
about the need for summer school programs.
My name is Christina Ramoglou; I am a citizen of the wealthiest and
most powerful country on earth. I am a resident of Connecticut, the
wealthiest State of this great Nation and my family and I live in
Fairfield County, Connecticut's most affluent. I have lived in the city
of Stamford since I was 3 years old. Stamford has a population of
110,000 and is located on Long Island Sound wedged between Greenwich
and Darien, Connecticut.
I am a graduate of the Stamford Public School System and my son
will be a senior at Stamford High School in September. I am here today
as Executive Director of the Rogers School Community Center
Organization, otherwise known in Stamford as ROSCCO Inc. ROSSCO is a
local not-for-profit organization established in 1975, which
administers and offers school-based family and children support
programs. Our board of directors is volunteer parents who are present
or past program participants. I am an educator and I have held the
position of ROSCCO Executive Director for 15 years.
Today, I would like to share with you what is, in essence, a tale
of two cities named Stamford.
The families in the first Stamford are very affluent; they have an
average median household income of $61,000. The value of their homes
ranges from $500,000 to $1,500,000. Many of their children attend
public schools some may attend private schools. They have at least one
computer in their home and use it extensively for school projects. The
children of these families have the opportunity to attend
extracurricular activities and take advantage of all of the enriching
cultural and arts experiences the city of Stamford and surrounding
communities and the greater New York metropolitan area have to offer
after school and during the summer. These children most likely will not
be required to attend the Stamford Summer Schools due to low grades or
test scores. More likely than not, they will be attending private
summer day camps or even sleep away camps.
Now let's meet some of the other families in the other Stamford.
Their average median household income is $20,000. This entitles their
children to have free or reduced lunch in the Stamford Public Schools
where their children are students. They probably do not own their own
home. They are tenants and meeting their rent is very difficult since
one-bedroom studios begin renting at $1,400 per month. As a matter of
fact, if they are not receiving Section 8 housing subsidies, they
cannot afford to live in Stamford unless they are sharing housing with
other relatives. These families are probably also making monthly visits
to the local food bank and receiving clothing and other household
supplies from Person-to-Person, a local philanthropic agency.
More times than not, the children of these families go home
directly after school. Many of them are the caregivers for their
younger brothers and sisters, since both of their parents or other
adults in the household are working, sometimes even two and three jobs.
These children don't have many, if any opportunities, to attend the
rich cultural and arts experiences the city of Stamford and surrounding
communities have to offer. More likely than not they do not own a
computer and an adult is not at home who can give them homework
assistance when they need it. The likelihood is that the adults at home
have limited English proficiency, attested to by the fact that 55
different languages are spoken in the homes of Stamford children. The
most common ten (other than English) are Spanish, Creole, Polish,
Russian, French, Chinese, Albanian, Portuguese and Bengali.
Let's also keep in mind the children of those families who do
receive free or reduced lunches however who are not poor enough to meet
the income eligibility guidelines for childcare assistance subsidies.
These families cannot afford to pay the going rate for afterschool or
summer camp programs offered by many local agencies.
The good news is that some of the children will be able to
participate in an afterschool or summer school program, either because
their families meet the income eligibility guidelines to receive
childcare subsidies or because they attend one of the schools receiving
Federal 21st Century Community Learning Centers funding. The
disadvantage here is that the State will close the Child Care Subsidy
Program to new applicants at the end of this month and only two
Stamford schools--the Hart Magnet Elementary and the Cloonan Middle
School--are 21st Century CLC Schools. The prospects of other schools
receiving funds look rather bleak, especially if there is no increase
in Federal funds, in light of proposed State and local cuts.
To continue our tale, approximately 2,500 children in Stamford are
eligible to receive free or reduced lunch, while 2,000 Stamford
schoolchildren in grades K-12 have received letters informing them they
are required to attend summer school. You might be thinking
``Excellent, we in Stamford are trying to help these children, and we
are working on closing the gap between the haves and the have-nots,
between the fortunate and the not so fortunate.'' Yes, we are trying.
However due to budget deficits; we are sending 1,000 less children to
summer school this year. Because of funding or lack thereof, only
children in targeted grades will be invited to attend summer school.
Just this week, the Stamford Advocate, our local paper, has featured
front-page articles and editorials about our school system's projected
$1,000,000-$2,800,000 deficit citing ``unexpected health insurance,
special education and summer school expenses'' as the cause.
Senators, I have been involved with before- and afterschool and
summer programs for many years. I have participated in the Lights on
After School Campaign sponsored by the After School Alliance. I have
served as a past treasurer and board member of NSACA, the National
School Age Care Alliance, and a vice president and current board member
of the Connecticut School Age Care Alliance. Through my involvement and
experience in the field and yes, the trenches, I know you are familiar
with the research on the positive impact of affordable, quality,
afterschool and summer programs on children, and the negative impact if
these programs are not available. You are familiar with the research,
which states that the quality of these programs directly impacts
children's success in school. Also, the time spent in afterschool and
summer programs is directly related to the rise or decline of
delinquency, juvenile crime and teen pregnancy prevention.
Our children deserve to have equal opportunities, equal access;
they deserve the tools and skills to help them succeed. Please create
the systemic reforms and allocate the funding that will enable our
schools and our social and community organizations to help all children
succeed. We need more afterschool programs. We need more summer school
programs. Our social service agencies and community organizations need
support and assistance to do their work. ROSCCO serves more than 750
children in before, afterschool, and summer programs. 85 percent of the
250 children in the ROSCCO summer programs receive free or reduced
lunches.
Last week, I was reminded of a ``Simpsons'' episode which
satirically advocated holding prisoners in schools and using the
savings on prison costs for school programs. But, this idea is no joke.
In reality, the most effective way to allocate resources over the long
run is to invest them in our children's educational, social, and
emotional development.
Can we of this great and powerful Nation afford to incarcerate but
not to educate? Can we, as a Nation, afford to have high school
graduates who cannot read; workers who are not skilled; and future
citizens who are not productive members of this great society? We must
find the way to provide for the education and success of our children--
all of our children, regardless of where they might live, what language
they might speak at home, or what their family income might be.
In which Stamford would you want your children to live?
Senator Dodd. [presiding]. Excellent, excellent testimony.
I am very proud to represent you.
Ms. Ramoglou. Thank you. I am very proud of you, also.
Senator Dodd. You do great work.
My colleagues, let me express Senator Sessions is going to
try and rejoin us, and Senator Clinton is heading up to New
York and so wanted to be here for as long as she could, but
apologizes for having to leave a little earlier. We are going
to leave the record open, by the way, for Members who have some
questions they would like to submit to all of you so we have a
complete record on this.
I have got to tell you, when I was getting ready for the
hearing, the notion of summer school, I almost have this sort
of a Pavlovian response to the word, as a lot of children may.
I guess the idea of summer school always conjured up in my mind
is things did not go well during the academic year, and so you
went to summer school, either to pick up in an area you had not
done as well as you should have. I remember a couple of courses
in Latin I had to do some summer work, and I dreaded it. It was
something I did not look forward to particularly.
I have got a relative of mine who has some learning
disabilities, and they are working, and so summer school
becomes an opportunity for this child to really be able to try
and stay up and to stay even. The notion of having time off in
the summer to be carefree and not having to worry about
academic exercises is sort of one reaction. But I think if we
look at it in a broader context, as you all have here, then I
think we begin the realize the value of it.
One of the things I wanted to begin the questioning with is
that notion, in a sense, if we can talk about this slide, in a
sense, and begin with you, Sandra, if I could, that the notion
I almost heard, I thought, was that this is something not just
for students who may not have performed well in a particular
course or courses, although it may do that as well, but that we
are talking about something more broad-based here than taking a
child who did not do as well in math or reading or whatever
else it might be and filling in, in that gap over the summer,
so that when it comes the fall, they are on an even, level
playing field with the student who did do well and left the
class in June.
I wonder if you might address that. Because, obviously, if
we are talking about eliminating these programs, the gap of
some, everyone who learned on the same level and starting up,
you are going to have a disparity between--as you point out--
between children who come from less-advantageous families
economically than others. But if you are a child that was a bit
behind, for whatever reason, either because of language
proficiency, slight learning disabilities, whatever it may be,
if you are a bit behind in June, and then there is no place to
fill in the gap, it seems to me that gap is even wider with a
child who is trying to catch up.
I wonder if you might just address that.
Ms. Feldman. Well, you know, if you are taking Latin, and
you did not do your homework, and you have to go to summer
school----
Senator Dodd. You sound like my mother. Please don't. I am
having this reaction here.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Feldman. So, you know, that should not go away. But
what we are talking about here, especially when you talk about
very young children, children learn in many, many different
ways. Children learn through playing, they learn through
sports, they learn through all kinds of recreational and
cultural activities, they learn from interaction with other
kids, they learn from seeing new places that they never would
have had the opportunity to see, they learn from learning about
animals that they otherwise might never have come into contact
with. They have the opportunity, if they are a city kid, to go
to summer camp in the country.
So the worst thing we could do is think about summer school
as punishment. Summer school should not be punishment and
especially when you are talking about very young children. The
years kindergarten, first grade, second grade, third grade, if
we had children during the summer--poor children in
particular--able to engage in the kinds of activities that more
advantaged kids just take for granted, you know, it is the
stuff that Senator Clinton was talking about, that families
just do with their children. They take them on family
vacations. Well, poor families may not be taking vacations
during the summer or have a weekend house to go to, or have the
wherewithal to take a picnic to a lake a hundred miles away.
So those are the kinds of experiences that we can organize
for children. The schools can do it in collaboration with
community-based organizations. It is happening in a lot of
places where children could actually look forward to it. I do
not think that for most children you want them to get the
feeling that, oh, you know, I am not going to get any kind of a
break here. You do need some kind of a break, and some children
will need to be in remedial classes, hopefully surrounded by
some pleasurable activities as well. But we need to think about
summer school much more broadly.
Senator Dodd. Dr. Cooper and Ms. Ramoglou, do you want to
comment on this at all?
Ms. Ramoglou. Yes, I would like to share our experience in
Stamford.
We have a citywide initiative with the Stamford Public
Schools where the academics are done in the morning from 9 till
11--they are offered by teachers in the school system--and from
thereafter, through collaboration with all of the community
agencies, the children are coming into summer programs. They do
not have to choose between going to school or daycare, as they
used to in the past. We have worked out transportation. So this
collaboration is in its third year, and each year it gets
better and better.
So we are talking summer programs, and it is not a
punishment, it is not a drill and kill, and then be sent home.
Because what happens at 11 a.m. if they were out of school?
Again, the children need somewhere to be, somewhere to go and
have their summer experiences.
Senator Dodd. Are you using school facilities for a lot of
this?
Ms. Ramoglou. Yes. I would say half of the programs are
extending the day with in-the-school facilities and the other
half are using the community centers.
Senator Dodd. I am wondering, and this has always been a
huge debate, obviously, about buildings and facilities that are
open for a few hours each day most of the months, but there are
periods when they are vacant during the day. I was wondering
how children's attitudes change about school if, in fact, they
spend part of the year in the very buildings where they are
doing something other than exactly learning in an academic
sense, so that the place becomes a place where not only you
learn, but also where you have fun. So you are going back into
that institution which causes different responses in you, as a
human being. I wonder if you have seen anything like that at
all?
Ms. Ramoglou. I can share with you that ROSCCO, as a
community agency, has been offering programs in the school
building for 25 years, and the children are in summer program
mode when it is summer. The atmosphere is set in such a way,
they are in summer program----
Senator Dodd. How about coming back to that school in the
fall, having had a good experience there and fun, do they react
to the institution as a building differently?
Ms. Ramoglou. As a matter of fact, I think they are even
more positive to the institution.
Senator Dodd. That is my point.
Ms. Feldman. I think that the point about being in summer
mode is very well-taken. A school building in the summer that
has got summer programs going on, even if some of them are
remedial, is just a different place.
Senator Dodd. Yes.
Ms. Feldman. It is a very different place. Remember, first
of all, you do not have a full complement of students usually,
so you have much smaller groups of kids with adults, and it is
just a different feeling. You know, a school is a living,
breathing place, and it becomes a summer school, and it is
quite different.
Senator Dodd. I understood that. I was just getting at the
notion because, like with parents, one of the problems I have
heard about over the years, particularly from parents who may
not have completed high school themselves or did not have an
educational experience here, to get them to show up at a school
during an academic year is hard. It is going back into an
institution where they did not have a good experience
themselves. They are visiting that facility in a ``non-
academic'' environment.
I am not using the right words here, I am afraid, but the
notion is something other than--I am curious as to whether or
not that is having the kind of positive effect on both the
student and the parent looking at that facility, that building,
that can cause one set of reactions from September to June, and
because they had a different relationship with that institution
from June to August, whenever it is, that come September there
is a more positive response to the facility, and I do not know,
I am just asking the question of whether or not there is any--
--
Ms. Feldman. Well, I think they would find the school more
approachable, more accessible.
Senator Dodd. Yes, that is a good word. Yes.
Ms. Feldman. By the way, putting parent programs in place
in the summertime is another thing that could be done that is
very helpful.
Mr. Cooper. There are a couple of things you mentioned
about the punitive nature of summer school----
Senator Dodd. That is a good word. There is the word I was
looking for.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cooper. It was clearly the case years ago, especially
for high school students that that would be the case, but I
think you would also find today that summer school has a very
different connotation. Lots of kids who are doing quite well in
high school use summer and go to summer school for enrichment
purposes or acceleration. So it does not really have that at
that level, obviously. If it is remedial, it is remedial, but
the notion of having to go to school in the summer for high
school kids is a little bit different today than it used to be.
Most of the programs that we looked at do not last the
entire 12 weeks, but will last between 4, typically 6, and up
to 8 weeks. So kids still do get some downtime, and I think
most parents will tell you that after 2 weeks of vacation,
their kids start to get bored.
Senator Dodd. Yes. You mentioned, obviously, some of these
issues of resources. Are there other things that we can do to
promote and help out the lower income parents? If we accept the
notion, and I think it is rather obvious, again, people have
fewer choices with less income, and so their opportunities of
doing the things that we are apt to do with our children, it
does not even necessarily mean vacations in some cases. I mean,
there are things that people can do that do not have the
opportunity to take vacations or go to some fancy place or a
weekend at the beach or a week at the beach that you can do,
parents can do. There are things that we can do here to help
promote ideas or things that would assist that lower income
family to help them hedge against that slide.
Mr. Cooper. There are a couple of things that we recommend
along those lines, and they deal with free opportunities,
especially in cities, but all over the country you can find
them. Most libraries will run reading programs that are free
during the summer for kids, museums are free and typically
quite available, and also businesses and factories will run
tours that can be very instructive.
What we suggest for parents, in that regard, is that before
their kids leave school at the end of the year, to speak with
teachers in the coming grade and discuss with them what it is
their kids are going to be studying the next year and use that
as a springboard for the kinds of opportunities that they might
build into their summer activities.
So, for instance, if you live in the city of Philadelphia
or near Philadelphia and you discover your child is going to be
studying the Constitution the next year, it makes a heck of a
lot of sense to jump on Amtrak--if it is still running at the
time--and take your kid down to Philadelphia and take them to
Constitution Hall. So those kinds of things are available and
can be done pretty cheaply.
Ms. Feldman. We have actually got a program that we try to
get out there of summer learning activities that we ask our
members to share with parents, and I can provide you with some
of those materials. I think they are full of ideas of the kinds
of ways that----
Ms. Ramoglou. Senator, can I respond----
Senator Dodd. I suspect you are working through public
service, getting your local TV stations, radio stations, others
to make people aware of what exists. A lot of time finding out
where to go to find out what is available can be not easy.
I was curious, and then I am going the turn my colleague
from Alabama, just one other question that gets to the finance
issue a bit. We have not completed the budget process here in
terms of the education budgets, but we all know--I do not know
what Alabama's situation is--I know in Connecticut we have had
a marked change in our fiscal picture in Connecticut, so that
we are now looking at a shortfall I think that it dipped into
our Rainy Day fund to the tune of around $300 million to meet
this year's obligations in the State.
I am wondering if budgets, if States or communities are
looking in terms of what is going to be required in addition,
and I am not sure how much we are going to make up, and, for
instance, the testing requirements in 3 through 8 and the like,
there is a lot of concern being raised about whether or not we
will come up with the resources to assist these schools in that
regard.
Is part of what we are looking at a reaction to that in
terms of budget allocations, holding back funds? Is there some
relationship between the cutbacks that I have mentioned here
this morning and the anticipatory cost or is it present costs
that we are looking at?
Mr. Cooper. Ms. Feldman said earlier about the notion of
the costs, and you have to be careful about whether it is
really a savings and the idea that summer school is actually an
add-on, whether it is really a savings or if it is just a
delaying in what would be a much larger expense if summer
school is cut back.
The perfect example is the districts and the movement to do
away with social promotion. It is clearly much more expensive
to educate a child for an additional year during the regular
school year, probably 3 to 4 times more expensive to retain a
student in a grade than it is, as in the Chicago experience, to
give them an intense summer program in reading and mathematics
and that that permits to continue at grade level.
So, if that program were to disappear, but the notion of
social promotion also disappeared and many more kids are being
held back or being retained in grade, the expense of educating
those children, if they finish school at all when retained, and
it is not clear that they do--the drop-out rate is higher--is
going to be much greater than is the expense of the summer
programs.
Ms. Feldman. I think what is happening across the States,
though, right now is that we had an economic turndown, most of
the States--almost all of them--require balanced budgets, and
they are finding that they simply do not have the tax revenues
coming in to provide the same level of service to education and
lots of other things that they were providing before.
So cuts that we are seeing, as I said, I mean, the summer
school, it cannot be considered a frill, but people still go
back to, ``Well, where am I going to cut? I will cut summer
school, I will cut after-school.'' They are experiencing cuts
across the board in the States, and it is pretty frightening.
It is very serious because we have been making progress. People
are being asked to meet higher standards. They have been trying
to meet those higher standards, and now they are going to be
looking at higher costs as a result of the Federal law, and we
have to find a way to help them meet those costs.
I mean, yes, there is some money for testing this year.
They will be getting a very good increase in 2003, which we
thank you all for, but so far the budget is not looking so good
for next year, I mean, for 2002 versus 2003. Next year, and I
know that the discussion is just starting, but there is a lot
of concern about whether we can carry forward the expectations
that I think everybody has, bipartisan expectations, for the
children in the schools in the coming years.
So I do not think people are setting some money aside; I
think they are experiencing huge shortfalls and trying to find
a way to live with them.
Now I do want to just take that opportunity, though, to say
that we do see something happening in relation to the
reauthorization, in relation to the Leave No Child Behind Act,
which we are a little concerned about. We do not have full
information on it. But in anticipation of potential
transportation costs, we are finding that some States are
holding back much more money than they should in anticipation
of needing to pay for transportation because of the public
school choice element in the law.
We are going to be studying that and trying to come to
grips with it. We also talked to the Department about that,
trying to discourage them from doing that. But that could end
up being a problem where the promise of funds, which this
Senate and the Congress made generally and the Administration
made generally, is not going to bear fruit because of the
holding back of some of those funds that they anticipate
needing to spend on transportation because of choice.
So we will see what happens with that, but I do not think
that is what the overall problem is. The overall problem we are
experiencing right now and the cuts that we are having in
summer school this summer have to do with economic downturn,
with the lack of tax revenues coming in. Some of it may have to
do with the tax cut that was enacted. That is what is going on.
Ms. Ramoglou. The need has not changed, and it is not going
away. So, if we are not investing in it currently, I believe it
is going to be paid for further on down the line. So we may be
saving now, but what is the actual cost?
Senator Dodd. I know, and every State is different. In our
State, in Connecticut, there is a tremendous dependency on the
local property taxes, our major funding source. That is what
most communities in most States--although others do it somewhat
differently, some are just pure State, and obviously we are
finding--I always say at the Federal level we cut taxes, and
the President, and the Congress, and the States do it. When it
gets down to the lowest level of Government, the local level,
they are not left with many alternatives because everything has
been cut back. The poorer communities, obviously, do not have
the base to begin with, and it makes it hard.
Let me turn to my colleague from Alabama. Thank you.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Our State budget has been squeezed, as most States have,
and it is a tough time, although the reductions are not
significant, but they are felt significantly--not significant
in terms of overall expenditures, but they are significant in
terms of the impact they have.
I would note that I think in the last 2 years, Mr.
Chairman, that we have got about a 30-percent increase in
Federal aid to education. I think it was 15 or 20 percent last
year and about that much the year before, and we got a nice
increase for next year. We may not be able to hold it because
the deficit is greater than we expected, but we have increased
funding many multiples of the cost of living in America. So the
Federal Government is enhancing its share of the funding. There
is no doubt about that, and President Bush has pushed for that.
Professor Cooper, we know we are spending a lot now. Most
systems do have summer school programs of some kind. Can you
tell us, have you studied what works, or have other
authoritative persons done it, and analyzed existing studies,
and conducted studies to determine what really works and what
amounts to a little benefit from summer schools?
Mr. Cooper. Yes. In fact, we titled our report, ``Making
the Most of Summer School,'' figuring that the more important
question, the real question was how to make these programs as
effective as possible. When we looked at these 93 evaluations
and looked at the impact that each one of the programs had, we
tried to sort them into different program characteristics and
see if larger effects were associated with programs that had
particular characteristics. So that was our way of going about
doing it.
Senator Sessions. Could I just interrupt? Did you feel like
the studies that were conducted, those programs were adequate
scientifically or, if you designed it yourself, could you have
designed it better?
Mr. Cooper. Most of the studies have deficiencies in them,
and it is unquestionably the case that we need to pay greater
attention to getting the best possible, sound scientific
evidence on these issues.
Senator Sessions. And objective. Because the truth is, and
I have seen it in the Department of Justice, where we study
every kind of idea to fight crime, whoever believes in that
idea somehow influences the study.
Mr. Cooper. Right.
Senator Sessions. It oftentimes turns out to be more
favorable, and then it confuses you about precisely what works
and what does not.
Mr. Cooper. I understand. We are looking across studies
with lots of different methodologies. I am not going to claim
that these are definitive answers, but that, in fact, they give
us some suggestions. And a lot of them will be very consistent
with the knowledge the teachers would have, but perhaps one way
to think about it would be to say, using these as guidelines,
now let us go out and give these really good tests, objective
tests of if these types of program characteristics are
important.
Senator Sessions. Do you think it would be good--before you
get into it--do you think it would be good for the Department
of Education to assemble a top group of researchers to
establish what needs to be determined about programs, what does
work and really conduct a substantial analysis nationwide?
Mr. Cooper. Yes.
Senator Sessions. Are we doing anything like that?
Mr. Cooper. I am not aware of any association, particularly
with summer school. Obviously, there are an enormous number of
topics in education that could benefit from that kind of study.
I am sure you are as aware, if not more aware than I am, of the
efforts in the Department of Education, the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, to increase the rigor and
the standards of educational research.
In fact, there is a bill in the Senate at the moment to
reorganize the research capacities in the Department. I think
it is a very positive step forward that requires the employment
of scientific standards. OERI is bidding for a ``What Works
Clearinghouse'' that would do the kinds of things that we have
been doing over a multitude of topics, trying to bring together
the best evidence available and synthesize it in support of
policymakers and policymaking decisions.
So I think that there is definitely a change in the ethos
within the Department of Education about getting evidence-based
practices and getting a lot of these practices out of the
advocacy mode and into hard evidence, the same way we use in
medicine.
Ms. Feldman. Can I just--I wanted to add to that, that
where we do have evidence, and I think the professor would
agree, is in early childhood, in the very early years. I mean,
there has been some astounding work done at Johns Hopkins, the
Entwisle work, which does point out--which I think is pretty
rigorous----
Senator Sessions. Preschool or early school?
Ms. Feldman. We are talking about the summers between, let
us say, before and after kindergarten, between kindergarten and
first grade, between first grade and second grade. Those
summers make a tremendous difference. There, we have
longitudinal evidence. We have the National Center on
Educational Statistics did this longitudinal kindergarten
study. These researchers at Johns Hopkins and others have
looked at it, and we can provide you with that.
So I think in early childhood we know that lengthening the
school year, giving the children more time during the summer,
doing the kinds of things with them that families who have the
wherewithal, the advantage to do makes a tremendous difference.
It enables them to catch up at those early years.
Now the other further years maybe the evidence is not as
rigorous. I am not familiar with that, but I think we can say
so about early childhood.
Senator Sessions. With regard to this, your research and
studies, have you determined that some things, if they are made
a part of the summer school program, seem to increase success?
Mr. Cooper. Yes, we have.
Senator Sessions. Can you share some of those ideas with
us?
Mr. Cooper. Sure. Ms. Feldman mentioned this as well.
Summer programs tend to have smaller class sizes, and the
programs that do have smaller class sizes tended to have larger
effects on kids. Parent involvement, also, getting parents
involved was associated with larger effect sizes.
What we would call ``monitoring fidelity,'' which is sort
of a fancy way of saying the program needs to be focused so
that there are clear goals and that those clear goals then are
assessed in a very precise way so that people know, when they
are going in, what it is they want to achieve, and their
outcome measures. Along the way, people check classrooms to see
that, in fact, the instruction is in the area, that proper
amounts of instruction are occurring, and then testing those
particular goals at the end of the program.
It is also the case--and let me just mention a couple of
other things that are less--they are more experience based,
that are based more on surveys that involve teachers who take
part and what they would see. One of these is very pertinent,
and that is that teachers need time to prepare. Because summer
budgets often await the end of the school year, teachers often
do not know until March, April, May, June and sometimes July
that they are actually getting the summer money.
There are instances where summer programs have failed
because the funding comes in so late that the materials for the
program do not actually show up until after the program has
begun. So that is one of the reasons why we said a stable
source of funds.
The notion that teachers who have seniority in summer
programs be given first opportunities to teach again, so that
there is some stability in the staffing, as well as in the
funding sources, can be very important. There are a lot of
school districts that use summer programs to institute or try
out innovative teaching methods, more informal teaching methods
and that have even incorporated teaching summer school with
teacher development, so that teachers can move up on the salary
scale because they are using it to learn new kinds of
techniques.
All of those activities, all of those aspects, the second
group being more informally based, the first group being part
of our statistical evaluation, suggest that those would be
important aspects for getting summer school to be most
effective.
Senator Sessions. You know, from the taxpayers' point of
view, I think the American people would like to know that we
have a vision for what we are going to reinforce in that summer
and what we are going to maybe learn anew and that there be
accountability in that process into that.
Do most summer school programs have a clear understanding
of what skills that they want the students to be reinforced in
or enhanced in?
Mr. Cooper. They vary. I think the most clearly focused one
is the Summer Bridge program in Chicago, which has been very
effective, and in an environment where you would anticipate
summer school would have a lot of trouble, but they have done a
fairly good job of implementing these kinds of principles. I
think Minneapolis is another one that has done it. Other school
districts pay less attention and probably get less ``bang for
the buck'' because of it.
Senator Sessions. One more question I might ask each of you
or whoever would like to share on it. Do you know to what
extent summer school is compulsory in the areas that have it?
Is it a compulsory program or, for the most part in the
country, a voluntary program?
Mr. Cooper. That also varies. Again, to point to Chicago,
the Bridge program is compulsory, and if you do not take it,
you are retained, you go back a grade or you do not get
promoted. Then, there are others in which it is voluntary.
What our research did show is that it really does not
matter. We were actually anticipating that the voluntary
programs, kids who go voluntarily would benefit more, but in
fact we did not find that at all. Making kids go maybe it is a
motivator in itself saying, ``You are going to have to go,''
and ``I better get through this, because I do not want to do it
again next summer.'' In fact, if anything, the programs that
were mandatory tended to have a slightly larger positive impact
than the ones that were voluntary.
Senator Sessions. You know, that is a big thing to think
about, Mr. Chairman--who is going? Are the people that need it
the most benefiting, or are there any thoughts on that?
Mr. Cooper. Actually, one of the things that we discovered
is that it is possible that the students who truly need it the
most, the kids who are really at the bottom of the
distributions are the ones who are most difficult to get into
the programs, likely because they are coming from the poorest
families, because issues of transportation, of lunch. One of
the interesting things that we found was a notion if--and it
was mentioned as well, I think Senator Clinton may have
mentioned it--that in a lot of instances, an older sibling who
needs summer remediation, the parents will not let them go
because they need them to babysit younger children in the
family. So, in a situation like that, it is not going to
matter. The parent just will not, either they have to leave
their job or they cannot send that child to summer school. They
need them there to take care of the younger siblings.
One of the things we suggest is the possibility, especially
where you can have that level of focused attention to families,
is to, in fact, look at the entire family need during the
summer and not only give summer school to the eighth grader,
but also to the fifth grader and the third grader in the same
family, even if the fifth and third grader might not actually
meet all of the requirements for the program, but to get the
whole family in and do some preventative work with the younger
children and at the same time permit the older kid to be able
to go.
Ms. Feldman. I think that, given the tremendous need out
there, that it would be useful to focus on where the need is
greatest and come up with a phasing in of a program which
starts, first, with the children we know will have the greatest
need and also the greatest benefit from such a program, and we
know enough now at least to begin. I think, as I said earlier,
it is also in the context of so many other needs that we owe it
to ourselves, to our citizens, to our children to make those
distinctions and to start where the greatest need is.
Ms. Ramoglou. Our summer school children are identified.
They are invited to attend summer school, but they are also
told if they do not make arrangements that are acceptable to
the school that they may be retained. I also wanted to say----
Senator Sessions. So it focuses on children in need.
Ms. Ramoglou. In need, absolutely.
I also wanted to respond to something Senator Dodd asked
earlier, in that when the school--and this also includes what
you just responded to--when the school is meeting the needs of
the family, as keeping the fourth grader along with the eighth
grader, the parents that had negative experiences when they
were students become very positive toward the school.
I also wanted to point out a perfect example is that we
have our president of our board, who is with me here today, and
can attest to the positive spirit that is in the school
building because of what is being offered to the families, to
the parents and how needs are being met. So it is really very
strong.
Senator Dodd. Anything else?
Senator Sessions. Do you want to do another round?
Senator Dodd. Yes, sure. These are excellent questions you
are raising and very good points. That was very valuable to
learn about that study on the voluntary and mandatory. That was
a very good question and very, very helpful to us.
Let us follow up on the family issue a little because I
think this is so important. I mean, I think one of the
frustrations, I think, Sandra, you have testified to this on
countless occasions in the past, that is what we all worry
about is how do you increase parental involvement?
Particularly, again, we are talking about the students who are
in need. Invariably, it seems that the ones who are doing well,
one of the factors that always sort of tracks that, not always,
but is their parental involvement. In fact, so much so that I
know from my sister who is teacher, some of them will drive you
nuts as a teacher because they just--they are so in your face
they do not give you a chance to teach sometimes, but it is
hard to argue with it if they care enough about it, they are
there all of the time and worried.
Getting the parent of the child who is not doing that well
to become engaged in the process is very, very hard. Under Head
Start programs, we have a requirement that there be parental
involvement, have for years. It is not perfect, but we end up
with about 80-percent, I think the numbers are, if my memory
serves me well, about 80-percent parental involvement in Head
Start programs. Those are the national numbers I think, and
then when you get to the first grade, that number drops. It
goes from 80 percent, I think, down to around 20 percent.
I am wondering what relationship this summer experience--
you mentioned having a place where younger siblings can go--it
addressed, Dr. Cooper, one of the points you made, what other
things can we do to utilize this time so that when September
rolls around and it does change, you go from a summer mode to
an academic year mode, that we can transition that parent who
may have had that pretty good experience over the summer to now
carry on so that when that fall starts with that same child,
they are going to feel less threatened by that building and
institution that they have not been willing to visit in the
past?
Ms. Ramoglou. It is interesting that you mentioned 80
percent in Head Start, and it falls down to 20 or 30. Are they
different parents? No. They are the same parents. So something
is not happening in school that was happening in Head Start.
One of the things is that with Head Start, with daycare,
child care, you see the teacher, you are in the building every
day because most likely you are dropping the child off and
picking the child up. The other is that schools, unfortunately,
have not been as inviting to parents as a daycare center. So
family resource centers, community centers in schools have
really embraced exactly what you are talking about, 21 CLCs,
and trying to create that environment in the school building--
--
Senator Dodd. Twenty-one CLCs, you better explain what that
is or you are going to lose people.
Ms. Ramoglou. Twenty-first Century Community Learning
Centers have become or are trying to be that inviting place. To
make the schools the place that the Head Start or the preschool
was, where the parents can come on in a daily, if not a daily,
a regular basis to meet the teacher, to be in the building, to
take part in activities that are planned for families and for
parents.
Ms. Feldman. There are a lot of models now that have had
success in getting parents into school and getting them
involved in a more intense way with their children's education.
They are few and far between, though. I mean, it is not done
enough at all, and it is something that could be built on.
Summertime might be a very good time to do it because there is
more time. It is sort of a looser schedule, and I think that it
would be one of the things, getting parents----
There are programs, for example, I mean, we could talk all
day about very good programs anecdotally, and I know programs
where the parents actually go to school with the children in
the summertime, parents who are in Welfare to Work programs,
for example, and who have very young children. So we have a
program for the young child in the school and a program for the
parent in that school.
There are lots of ways that we can increase parental
involvement of the neediest children. If we focus on the
neediest children and we do it intelligently, I think we can
make a tremendous difference because getting the parents
involved in this is essential.
Senator Dodd. Do you want to come in on this, Dr. Cooper,
at all?
Mr. Cooper. The only thing is a small note of caution that
parents, especially parents of limited means, with limited
education, you have to make sure the kinds of involvement you
ask for are within the capabilities of the parent. So you can't
ask a parent who has had difficulty in school themselves to act
as a mentor in the same way that you might a middle-class
professional parent. Likewise, a middle-class professional
parent with 5 kids cannot be asked to spend an hour a night
with each one of the children acting as a mentor.
So it is important for educators to be sensitive to the
types of families that they serve, and every parent needs to be
involved. There are always attitude components and support
components that even the poorest families ought to be held
responsible for, but you need to be careful about not turning
parents off by asking them to do just a little bit more than is
beyond their means.
Senator Dodd. You raised an interesting point, and I would
love you to respond to it, Dr. Cooper, here. You testified that
students in all grades benefit from summer school, but that the
benefits seem to be greater for students in earlier grades and
in high school.
Obviously, a couple of questions. First, which grades are
referred to by early grades and, second, what is your sense of
why the benefits seem to drop off and then pick up again so you
get the sort of test curve?
Mr. Cooper. That is a very good question. Most of the
research we looked at, summer school for kindergartners, first
graders, second graders just does not really exist in a lot of
places yet, and the evaluations obviously are for programs that
have been in place for at least a year. So there is very little
evidence at the very earliest grades.
So I would say upper primary grades is what we mean by the
earliest grades. We think that they work real well because they
function, as I said, on the basic skills. Kids who they see
falling behind in math and falling behind in reading, they
bring them in for remedial education in those specific topics.
In high school, it is sort of the same way. A student
flunks a course in geometry so it is very focused. They come
back to take geometry class, the curriculum is prepared, the
tests are there, so again it is very focused.
The middle-school programs tend to look more at the whole
child. They are not as focused on academic pursuits, in
particular, but will be more concerned about attitudes toward
school, helping kids transition as they move through puberty,
helping them in transition as they move from elementary school
to junior high school and more self-concept kind of issues.
So the focus of the programs is more diffuse in terms of
looking at the whole child and helping them through what is a
difficult transitional period, rather than focusing on specific
academic needs. So that is why I think that it falls off. It
does not necessarily mean those programs are less valuable for
those kids, but what educators have defined as the most
valuable thing to do with them during the summer is help them
learn how to be a junior high school or middle school kid,
where they will go from one class to another, as opposed to the
self-contained classroom, and then also as they are wondering
about who am I and what role will school play in my self-
definition.
Ms. Feldman. I do not disagree with that, but I just wanted
to put a marker on the problem of the achievement gap because
we know that the achievement gap continues, you know,
progresses through schools, and that, in some instances, it
appears even to widen as the kids go through school.
We also know that in the very earliest--of course, if you
get children before school, if you have got a high-quality
preschool program, it makes a tremendous difference. If you can
extend the time that very young children spend in school so
that they continue, that you accelerate their learning during
that period of time, you can narrow the gap early-on and
hopefully, keep it narrowing as they go forward.
So there are a couple of different purposes here. There is
the remediation purpose, and the evidence is there, but there
is also, I think, the very great concern that we all have and
that a lot of the premise of the Leave No Child Behind Act was
based on is about how to close the achievement gap, and closing
the achievement gap by providing very young children with
richer and longer school experiences is something that we just
should not lose sight of.
Senator Dodd. Let me, because I wanted to sort of, in a
polite way, challenge something that all of you sort of agree
with at the outset, and that is the notion that during the
academic year, that in the school year, in fact, in school
there is no difference. Time out of school, not in school, that
causes the gap. I think, Sandra, that was the quote.
I am curious, because if you are--let me see if I can
articulate this without sounding--it seems to me if you are all
performing basically in school pretty well and then you have
this gap over the summer because it is not there, the
assumption I was sort of left with is that, come the academic
year again, somehow everyone gets back up to that same level.
My assumption would be that if you were falling behind, you
did not get the summer school experience, that when you start
back up again in September, that your ability then to catch up
with people who have had those good experiences during the
summer, have not fallen behind, have not been sliding back,
widens. So that you get sort of an exponential growth in the
gap over the--so by the time you do reach the upper levels of
primary school or high school, that gap has really widened, not
just because of what you have missed in the summer, but the
cumulative effect of that, in terms of your ability to stay up
once the gap starts.
Did I say that----
Ms. Feldman. That is exactly right.
Ms. Ramoglou. Exactly right.
Senator Dodd. Why did I think you said something
differently earlier? I thought earlier you were saying
basically performing----
Ms. Feldman. I am talking about kindergarten, that children
during these very early school years, these kids are not
learning in lock-step, but poor children learn tremendously,
they learn at very high rates. When they get to kindergarten,
they accomplish what kindergarten children are supposed to
accomplish. Now they may not be at the same place as more
advantaged kindergartners, but then they fall back in the
summer, and then that is cumulative, just as you said.
Ms. Ramoglou. But we also find that children come to school
prepared at different levels, even beginning kindergarten, and
that is the purpose of the school readiness.
Ms. Feldman. I am talking about the rate that kids learn
at. There is nothing wrong with the kids is what I am saying.
They just need more time.
Senator Dodd. Yes. Obviously, I think that the gap, we have
learned now from I think the survey, as I recall it, we were
looking at the early learning issues, and I think a survey done
recently of kindergarten teachers, some 46, almost 50 percent,
indicated that the children in kindergarten are just not ready
to learn. So the assumption that everybody comes into
kindergarten sort of on a level playing field is now totally
wrong and that you are looking at very wide differentials
already at that earliest level. So that once the process really
starts with the formal education, if you are already behind the
curve when you start, it is awfully difficult to catch up.
Ms. Feldman. It is, but I think it is important to remember
that the children can learn, I mean, they do well. They are
behind because they started behind, but during the time that
they are learning, they are learning as well as any other
children.
Senator Dodd. One last question from me, and then we turn
to my colleague.
I am just curious if you might comment. I think you have
already indicated this, but I wonder if there is any evidence
to support this, and that is we have all talked about--at least
I did anyway--the beneficial effect, aside from the academics
of, obviously, it is a child care setting, it is an
alternative, it is keeping kids busy, less likely to be on the
streets getting in trouble and so forth, that all seems sort of
self-evident and obvious, but I wonder if there is any sort of
empirical data and evidence to indicate that, in fact, these
levels of activities also have a social benefit aside from the
academic benefits? I wonder if you could quickly comment on
that.
Ms. Feldman. Well, they do have social benefits, but as we
know, there is also a tremendous variation in quality that is
being looked and studied. In our opinion, there needs to be an
upgrading of the quality of a lot of the programs that children
are in. Some of the child care settings what you could say
about them is hopefully they are doing no harm. But a lot of
children are not getting what they need in many of those
settings.
We know that there has been tremendous improvement in Head
Start. There are studies to show that Head Start works, but
there is still a lot of what is called early childhood care
that needs tremendous upgrading and needs a lot more infusion
of quality.
Senator Dodd. Any other comments on that?
Ms. Ramoglou. Yes, I would like to address that.
NSACA has done pilots in standards and has published them,
addressing the quality in what we call school-age care programs
for children that are in elementary and spend time in school,
either in extended day or in after-school programs.
Senator Dodd. We mentioned, by the way, I said last, but
just one further point here, what goes into a quality program
and whether schools get that information about best practices.
I wonder if we are doing a very good job, speaking at the
Federal level, about collecting best practices and getting that
information out, then, to schools that are anxious for good
ideas.
Dr. Cooper, are you----
Mr. Cooper. There are regional laboratories that do that
kind of dissemination work. At the moment, as I mentioned
earlier, OERI is attempting to put together what they will call
a ``What Works Clearinghouse,'' which will bring together,
synthesize the best evidence on educational practices and then
have a web-based model as an opportunity to make that available
so that school district personnel will have sitting on their
desk, essentially, availability to an encyclopedia of what the
best evidence suggests practices ought to be. So there
definitely are efforts in that direction.
Senator Dodd. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Just to follow up this analysis of how the system works. I
wonder, in a business, people are intensive about the resources
they have invested to make sure they get the maximum benefit
from the resource they have invested. Social promotion, the
ending of that I think has a net healthy effect, in my personal
view, but it does, as you note, Dr. Cooper, require us to focus
on those kids that are in danger of being held back at the much
greater expense than summer school a whole additional year. So,
if you could move them forward, it would be better for them and
for the budget and a net gain.
My question is this: We do a lot of testing. The President
has required testing in third through eighth grades and that
sort of thing, and in IDEA you have an individual education
plan for each disabled student. Does anybody analyze a child's
deficiencies and strengths before summer school and could you
recreate a system in which those very deficiencies are
addressed more effectively through the summer?
Mr. Cooper. They do in IDEA. Each child who gets special
education has an individual plan. In fact, the legislation
includes that that plan examine what is called ``regression''
during summer. So that for children in most severe need of
additional educational interventions, the team of educators who
put together the program is required to say will this child
lose over summer and, if so, we need to provide services for
them during that time. So that is a model. In the best of all
possible worlds, every child would have an individual
educational plan, but obviously that is a resource-intensive
activity.
Senator Sessions. But it is not happening basically now.
Mr. Cooper. It is not happening now.
Senator Sessions. Would you consider reaching a higher
level if you had a sizable summer school program in a mid-size
to larger school that you could identify children in third,
fourth, fifth grades that have this kind of difficulty in
mathematics and a tract could be set aside--or an hour a day
that they would be sure to go through that kind of
reinforcement in their weak areas, or maybe it is reading or
other subjects, and a teacher would be able to teach a group on
about the same level?
Mr. Cooper. Yes.
Senator Sessions. Could we do that?
Mr. Cooper. I do not see why not. Obviously, we are
thinking it out here. We do not understand perhaps what all of
the logistical problems would be, but I think the model that
you have identified would be a very positive one.
Senator Sessions. I do not think it would be particularly
expensive. Probably a good educator could study a person's test
score numbers and their grades and identify their weaknesses
pretty quickly, and the perfect being the enemy of the good,
you would not have to have an absolutely perfect system, but
one that emphasized more effectively focusing on the needs of
each child should be achievable to me.
We have a lot of professionals that, frankly, consider
summer school to be glorified child daycare, you know, play
school. I have heard that said. I do not think that is what is
happening, but I do believe we can reach a higher level there.
Has any thought been given to high school students who may
be working in the summer? Have there been any programs for
night school for them in which they could come and do advanced
mathematics or basic math or science or reading courses and
that kind of thing? Have we done anything like that?
Mr. Cooper. I know there have been some programs that
incorporate both education in the classroom and work
experiences as part of a summer program. So they will do an
internship in an afternoon and have classes during the morning.
Even there a couple of programs---I believe I have got this
right--where the classes are actually held at the business.
They will open up the business.
I know in my school district there is a program where some
of the high school kids actually run a deli for a business, and
the business not only lets them do that so they get a sense of
operating a business, but they have also set aside a classroom
space. Teachers come in and teach the kids right in the work
environment.
Ms. Feldman. In New York City, we have high schools--I
think there are four now--that actually run all day and all
night. Kids who work different shifts, work all day, can come
to school after work, and kids who are starting at some early
hour can actually come to school right after that, at a very
early hour. So that is possible to do.
Senator Sessions. Work is good, I believe. You work in a
fast-food restaurant, you learn something about management, how
systems are organized, you learn a lot of things that people I
think fail to recognize.
I worry a little bit about that middle student, the C-plus/
B student who has a chance to go on to college, are they losing
too much in the summer? Do we have any numbers that show how
much it enhances their test scores maybe getting them into
college, that they would not otherwise do? Do you know about
that?
Mr. Cooper. I think the greatest impact of the summer is on
the kids who are struggling. They lose the most, and especially
if they come from families that do not speak English at home.
So, if you speak with special educators----
Senator Sessions. So, in priority, that would be your
first.
Mr. Cooper. I think it would clearly have to be, yes.
Senator Sessions. But do we know how much impact it might
have on an average student's learning----
Mr. Cooper. We know they are losing, also.
Senator Sessions [continuing]. If they were given a pretty
rigorous summer school program?
Mr. Cooper. We know all kids are forgetting stuff over
summer. There is no question about it.
Senator Dodd. This has been very, very helpful. I want to
thank my colleague for being here--I am flattered--to help out
with this. Some wonderful questions, I think, are very
enlightening.
Our three witnesses were excellent. Sandra, we always love
to hear your thoughts and views. You know so much about the
subject matter. It is wonderful to hear you talk about these
models.
Dr. Cooper, I cannot thank you enough. Your studies have
been wonderful and very, very helpful today. I will reiterate
we would love to have you come back to Connecticut. Missouri is
lucky to have you, but you are welcome to come home any time.
Ms. Ramoglou, you have been terrific----
Mr. Cooper. Pick out a chair and I will come.
Senator Dodd. All right, fine.
[Laughter.]
I am afraid I cannot do that. I can get you a chair, but I
cannot----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Ramoglou, it is very exciting to hear what you are
doing in Stamford, CT. It is been exciting over the years. You
have spent a lot of years working at this, and you bring a
wealth of very practical experience of how a good program can
really reach and make a difference in families' and children's
lives.
So, hopefully, we can convince others of the importance of
this and do so in a very smart, intelligent way so that we can
increase the opportunities of all kids, and particularly those
who are most needy.
I thank all of you for being here to participate in this
hearing. We look forward to your continuing participation.
The record will stay open. Other colleagues may have some
questions to ask before we close the record.
With that, this hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]