A year ago Rand Education released the first comprehensive research study on what is commonly called the "summer slide." The three month summer off for children is a remnant of the day when children were needed to work the farm in agricultural America. While that served it's purpose well the time has come to re-examine this practice, especially in light of what the research is telling us.
Take for instance just a few of the Rand study findings:
1) Summer learning loss is disproportionate. On average students loose one month of academic progress over the summer. However rarely does a child loose the average. Low SES (low-income) students typically lose more than a month of progress while their higher SES peers may gain. (Currently about 73% of Atonement students are considered to be low SES.)
2) Summer learning loss is cumulative. Most disturbing, students tend to fall farther behind each year. This contributes substantially to the achievement gap we see in Milwaukee and all over the nation.
3) Students in quality summer school programs have better outcomes than those who do not regularly attend. Not all programs are created equal. However when students regularly attend a session of summer school the effects can last up to two years later.
So do we need a summer school? Maybe the only thing we can say for certain is that 3 months of "non-learning" is devastating to many children -- most in urban schools. So great urban schools must be active in bridging that gap for its scholars.
At this point I would be remiss to leave out our partnership (another point from the study) with the Center for Urban Teaching, which operates a 4-week summer school for our scholars. The program is showing tremendous benefits, by making the hard work of learning extremely fun.
Have you seen any other particularly effective summer school models? What should the ideal program look like?
No comments:
Post a Comment