1. Chandi Wagner
The University of Texas at Austin
Fall 2014
Summer Learning Loss: Reevaluating the Traditional School Calendar
Problem
Students in traditional calendar schools lose learning equivalent to approximately one month of
instruction during the summer each year, known as “summer loss” (Cooper, et al. 1996). While
loss in math is seen in students of both middle and low socio-economic status (SES), students
from middle SES homes stayconstant in reading while students from low SES households decline.
This contributes to the widening of the achievement gap between students from low and
middle/high income families. The difference in student achievement in first grade is only one
third of that in ninth grade; over 50 percent of this gap is attributed to the variation in learning
loss during summer breaks (Alexander, Entwiste, & Olson, 2007). With 20 percent of American
children living in poverty, many children lose opportunities for educational achievement due to
summer breaks, which also perpetuates the cycle of poverty by limiting their lifetime earnings
and job prospects. Poverty is harder to escape than it was a generation ago (Barton, 2005), due
to a shiftin industry from low-skillmanufacturing jobs to high-tech positions. Therefore, in order
to provide equitable learning opportunities for all, the educational system must seek to
overcome the negative effects of a long summer break on disadvantaged students.
Background
The history of the school calendar in the U.S. has cycled between local control and
standardization. Glines relates this pattern starting with the 1800s, when schools utilized
varying calendars dependent upon the needs of the local community. Many rural schools took
breaks in the spring and fall to coincide with planting and harvest, while most urban schools
operated 240-250 days per year. Around the turn of the century schools unified around a more
standardized curriculum and calendar in response to a mobile population. Varying trends
developed, such as the one started by reformer WilliamWirt in Gary, Indiana in 1907, who used
the school as a year-round community center; 240 communities followed suit. However, in an
effort to unify the nation during the Great Depression and World Wars, as well as provide
standardization for an increasingly mobile society, schools widely adopted a nine month, 180
school day calendar with a long summer break. At this time, summer vacation was helpful for
agricultural families to participate in harvest and to keep urban children from sweltering in non-
air conditioned schools. Since the late 1960s some reformers have broken away from the
standard calendar and started a movement toward year-round schooling of various forms.
Some schools adopt the varied calendar in response to a lack of space in schools, while others
do so to decrease summer learning loss for low income students.
In 1983 “A Nation at Risk” called for “more effective use of the existing school day, a longer
school day, or a lengthened school year” (U.S. Department of Education, 1983). This further
spurred the debate over the traditional school calendar as well as the amount of time that
students spend in school. The aim of this recommendation was to increase competitiveness in
the international market. Many Asian countries with higher performance on international tests
hold school for over 200 days per year, compared to America’s 180 days, which can result in up

2. to 50 percent more classroomhours in comparison with U.S. students (Cooper, et al., 2000).
Varied attempts have been made to increase the time that U.S. students spend in class, but
many have been met with opposition from families and industries that rely on long school
breaks, such as amusement parks and the American Camping Association. Throughout most of
history summer school has been the primary way for educators to attain more instructional
time with students, especially those learning English or struggling to master a grade level
(Glines, 96; Cooper, Charlton, Valentine, Muhlenbruck, & Borman, 2000).
Possible Policy Solutions
1. Summer School
Because students lose so much ground over the summer, one logical solution is to provide
summer school to prevent such loss. Currently, approximately 25 percent of American students
attend summer school, while an additional 56 percent of non-attendees would attend if given
the opportunity, most of whom are parents of low income and ethnic minority children (After 3
pm, 2010). Summer programs allow for the targeting of specific student groups in need of
additional support which helps to close the achievement gap.
Summer school has various difficulties in implementation. Mandating participation in such
courses is often controversial and students may feel that they are being singled out. Programs
can also be extremely costly, though many are funded with Title I monies through the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which states that resources are best spent when
“used to ensure that children have full access to effective high-quality regular school programs
and receive supplemental help through extended time activities” (Section 1001(c)(4)). Summer
classes vary greatly in quality. Programs that rely on regular classroom teacher participation
may suffer from the fatigue felt at the end of the school year, thus decreasing the quality of
instruction.
The effects of extended time in school can be challenging to evaluate, given the wide array of
purposes, instructional methods, and participant selection. For this reason, scholars have
debated whether summer school is effective. Recent empirical research has shown mostly
positive effects for all students. In Cooper, et al.’s 2000 meta-analysis of 30 programs with 121
samples, he found an overall 0.10-0.44 standard deviation positive effect on summer school
programs versus pre-program achievement or a control group. All results were statistically
significant. This effect is stronger for middle SES students (d=0.44-0.56 standard deviations)
than low SES students (d=0.20-0.24), even though many programs are targeted towards
disadvantaged and English Language Learner (ELL) students. The authors speculate that this
may be due to increased familial involvement or schools having more resources to implement
programs. He found similar effects for students who were physically and mentally impaired
(d=0.34), low-achieving (d=0.27), failing (d=0.23), or at-risk (d=0.19). Cooper’s research also
pinpointed several key aspects that increase the success of summer school programs:
 Small programs with local control to aptly meet the needs of specific student
populations
 Small group and individualized instruction

3.  Regular parental involvement
 Mandatory attendance
 Focus on early primary and late secondary grades
 Math emphasis over reading, which counteracts the higher summer loss in math.
Other reasons exist for having summer school besides decreasing the achievement gap. Society
has shifted to having more working parents. Many families seek out summer school programs
as a low-cost option that keeps their child engaged over the summer months. Programs can
benefit all children, and can offer accelerated academic programs instead of the typical
remediation. Despite the variation and difficulty, well-run summer school programs benefit
struggling students while also providing positive outcomes for all participants.
2. Modified Calendar Years
To alleviate summer “brain drain,” some schools have turned to spacing breaks throughout the
year instead of having an amassed three month vacation, while still maintaining 180 days of
classes. School terms are typically completed in 9-12 week chunks with 2-4 weeks breaks,
called “intercessions,” and a summer vacation of 4-8 weeks. Approximately 3.5 percent of U.S.
elementary schools are on some form of modified year-round calendar, though only 60 percent
do so to address summer learning loss; the other 40 percent use the calendar to address over-
crowding by staggering student attendance (NAYRE, 2005). Most year-round calendar schools
are in California, which tends to be on the front line of educational reform, and is also dealing
with overcrowding issues (NAYRE, 2007). Most districts that offer year round education give
parents and teachers options for traditional calendars, if they so choose (Glines, 1996). Some
entire districts have made the change, though, such as Oklahoma City Public Schools, which
started with a pilot of seven schools but moved to encompass the entire district in 2013-2014.
Schools in low income areas are more likely to adopt this reform, as they see it as a way to close
the achievement gap and face less opposition from organized groups of parents who wish to
keep the long summer vacation (von Hippel, 2007).
Opponents to year round calendars claimthat family vacation time is lost by decreasing the
summer break and child care is difficult to find during the 2-4 week breaks in the fall, winter,
and spring. Scheduling extracurricular activities, sports, and employment is also a challenge, as
the summer break has become an institution in the U.S. Some researchers have found no
significant effect of the adjusted calendar on student achievement (von Hippel, 2007; McMillen,
2001). Opponents also cite higher costs of having to run costly HVAC units during the hot
summer months.
A larger part of the literature shows positive effects on students, especially those from low
income homes and non-native English speakers (Gandara & Fish, 1994; Shields & Oberg, 2000;
Haser & Nasser, 2005; Ballinger & Kneese, 2006). Some attribute these gains to increased time
that many students spend in school during their breaks, or intercessions, either as a form of
child care or remediation (Haser & Nasser, 2005). Others attribute gains to shifts in
instructional practice, as teachers have more time to plan lessons and attend professional
development between terms (Shields & Oberg, 2000; Gandara & Fish, 1994). Teachers are also

4. reported to feel more satisfied or motivated with the new schedule (Haser & Nasser, 2005).
Other positive effects of the modified calendar are reduced disciplinary issues (Haser & Nasser,
2005), increased attendance, and lower dropout rates (Shields & Oberg, 2000). In a synthesis of
reports completed in 2000, researchers found that 43 of the studies reported positive results,
seven reported negative results, and seven had mixed results (Ballinger & Kneese, 2006).
3. Extended School Years
Year round schooling literature often mentions the idea of increasing the school year from 180
days to at least 200 days. However, they claim that evaluations of such programs are nearly
impossible, as less than 0.1 percent of all U.S. schools utilize such a calendar (von Hippel, 2007).
Evaluations of Asian schools, which are often heralded for their extended-year calendars, are
not a true comparison to U.S. schools because their high achievement on international tests
may result from other factors such as parental involvement or private tutorials. Some charter
schools, such as KIPP, also use a longer school year and longer school days as part of their
efforts to close achievement gaps. Because such programs implement multiple reforms, it is
difficult to isolate the effects of extended time in school. Since disadvantaged students learn at
similar rates as their peers during a nine-month calendar, one could assume that they would
also do so using an eleven or twelve month calendar, thus eliminating the large losses
experienced over the summer months.
The two main challenges to such an extension are funding and tradition. Switching teachers to
longer contracts would seemingly necessitate greater pay, along with the other costs of
utilities, maintenance, lunch programs, etc. If families contest the idea of a year-round
calendar with smaller breaks, it seems likely that they would also protest sending their children
to school for more days per year.
Extending the school year would be difficult to do for only a targeted population. Implementing
this reform for all children would not eliminate the achievement gap entirely, as all children
would be gaining instructional time. It would reduce the overall gap, though, as low income
students would not have the multiplier effect of summer learning loss increasing the gap
throughout their school years.
There are multiple reasons beyond reducing summer learning loss that would make an
extended school year beneficial. Increasing learning time for all students would benefit the
entire U.S. by creating a more internationally competitive workforce. The need for free and/or
affordable child care has increased due to the percentage of parents who work outside the
home. Almost 60 percent of married couple households consist of two working parents, while
nearly 70 percent of single mothers are employed (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014). The rate
of poverty for children in single mother households is more than five times that of children in
married-couple homes, which emphasizes the need for both increased educational
opportunities and affordable childcare to break the cycle of poverty for these students (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2014; Avik, 2014) Additionally, schools are asked to address a growing number
of social issues such as bullying and childhood obesity; increasing the number of school days
would allow for additional time for the incorporation of such programs.

5. Policy Recommendation
School districts should implement an adjusted calendar as a means to address summer learning
loss, especially that of low income and English Language Learner students. While the
achievement gap will still exist, it will be reduced, thus offering improved educational and
lifetime achievement opportunities for disadvantaged students as well as bolstering the
economy through a more skilled workforce. Schools should begin by redistributing the 180
school days that are currently funded, with the goal of moving to increasing the number of days
in the classroom as funding sources can be identified or repurposed. Many American students
spend their afternoons and summer breaks at home while parents are working; we are no
longer in a society with a large number of stay-at-home parents. Schools need to adjust to this
reality by meeting the needs of families and offering extended learning time. By moving
toward a school calendar with 200 days or more per year the U.S. will become more
competitive with other countries. This extra time will also afford the opportunity to address
the many social programs that schools are asked to shoulder but have little time to truly
address.
Creating breaks throughout the school year improves student motivation while decreasing
absences, discipline issues, and dropout rates (Haser & Nasser, 2005; Shields & Oberg, 2000).
Teachers are more motivated and utilize more effective instructional methods (Shields &
Oberg, 2000; Gandara & Fish, 1994). With 50 percent of teachers leaving the profession within
the first five years (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2010), perhaps
more teachers will choose to stay in the classroom. Intercession and increased summer school
opportunities also provide for additional income opportunities for teachers who choose to
participate, which addresses the relatively low pay that causes some teachers to leave the
profession.
Moving more schools in this direction may not be easy, but implementation must be well
planned by local school districts and community partners in order to be effective.
Implementation:
School districts should be sensitive to the top-down nature of this reform and seek buy-in from
teachers, families, and community entities to increase the likelihood of its success. Offering the
adjusted calendar as an option should decrease resistance, as those opposed to the change can
enroll their child in the traditional calendar school. Families should have both options at the
elementary, middle, and high school levels so that all of their children can be on the same
schedule. Having only a portion of the district’s campuses on the year-round calendar will also
allow for the district to identify best practices and adjust the schedule as needed without
affecting all students. Teachers should also be given schedule options to the greatest extent
possible, as successful implementation depends on full teacher buy-in.
In addition to the adjusted schedule, schools should also offer summer school and intercession
classes for students based on demand. Classes can vary in nature to serve all students, as both
remediation and acceleration summer school models have proven to be effective (Cooper, et
al., 2000). Surveying the parents to determine how many are interested in participation, as well

6. as predicting attendance for students who need remediation or credit recovery, will ensure that
enough spaces are provided for those who need or want to attend. School districts should
think creatively about funding for these programs. Some may choose to repurpose Title I
monies spent on year-round interventionist teachers or ask parents to pay on a sliding scale.
Some parents receive childcare tax credits, which could be used to subsidize the cost to parents
of participating in the program. Instructors would not necessarily have to be certified teachers,
though many may choose to work during these times for extra income. Staff could include
retired teachers, education students from local colleges, paraprofessionals, or teachers who
have left the profession or are taking time off. Programs can also utilize community programs
such as scouting, parks departments, libraries, community groups, and others who have
missions of working with youth. This would also help keep the cost of the programs low, as
these organizations often have their own funding sources to provide staffing.
Middle and high schools will need to pay extra attention to the planning of extracurricular
activities. Additional opportunity may even exist, as breaks could provide extra practice time
for sports teams and musical ensembles. States and school districts with policies regarding
practices, performances, and games would need to revise them to ensure that students could
still participate regardless of their attendance in school that day, if school was not in session.
Once schools have a year-round calendar in place, it would be ideal if mandatory time in school
would increase from 180 days, though permanent state-funded revenue streams would have to
be established to provide for the increased responsibility of schools. Adjusting the calendar
would be a step in this direction, as many parents would already be used to sending their child
to school year-round through participation in summer and intercession classes. Year-round
calendars typically have strong support and satisfaction levels of participants, so utilizing this
positive effect would provide momentum for moving towards increased time in school.
Program implementers should be wary of trying to evaluate or make large changes to their
calendar in the early years after implementation so that the reform can have time to take full
effect. Data should be collected frequently so that longitudinal studies can evaluate the long-
term outcomes for students who participate in year-round schools throughout their
educational careers.

7. Bibliography
Alexander, K.L., Entwiste, D.R., Olson, L.S. (2001) Schools, achievement, and inequality: A
seasonal perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23 (2), 171–191.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594128.
Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., Olson, L.S. (2007). Lasting Consequences of the Summer
Learning Gap. American Sociological Review, 72, (2). 167-180. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25472456.
America after 3 PM. (2010). Special Report on Summer: Missed Opportunities, Unmet
Demand. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
AmericanPsychological Association. Retrievedfrom http://www.apa.org/pi/families/poverty.aspx.
Last accessed November 30, 2014.
Avik,R.(2014, November29).The BiggestReasonFor Income InequalityIsSingle Parenthood [online
article]. Retrievedfrom http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/19/the-
biggest-reason-for-income-inequality-is-single-parenthood/2/.
Ballinger, C., Kneese, C. (2006). School Calendar Reform: Learning in All Seasons. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014, April 25). Employment Characteristics of Families -2013.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm. Last accessed
November 30, 2014.
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 (3). 227-268. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170523.
Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J.C., Muhlenbruck, L., Borman, G.D. (2000). Making the
Most of Summer School: A Meta-Analytic and Narrative Review. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 65 (1). 1-127. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3181549.
Cooper, H., Valentine, J.C., Charlton, K., Melson, A. (2003). The Effects of Modified School
Calendars on Student Achievement and on School and Community Attitudes. Review of
Educational Research, 73 (1). 1-52. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516042.

8. Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. Broh, B.A. (2004). Are schools the great equalizer? Cognitive
inequality during the summer months and the school year. American Sociological
Review, 69, 613–635. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3593031.
Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T., Hughes, M. (2008). Are "Failing" Schools Really Failing? Using
Seasonal Comparison to Evaluate School Effectiveness. Sociology of Education, 81 (3).
242-270. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20452736.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Section 1001(c)(4). (1965).
Gándara, P., Fish, J. (1994). Year-Round Schooling as an Avenue to Major Structural Reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16 (1). 67-85. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164384.
Glines, D. (1996). YRE Basics: History, Methods, Concerns, Future. In R. Fogarty (ed), Year-
Round Education: A Collection of Articles (pp. 13-22). Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight
Training and Publishing, Inc.
Haser, S.G., Naser, I. (2005). Year-round education: Change & Choice for Schools and Teachers.
Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
McMillen, B.J. (2001). A Statewide Evaluation of Academic Achievement in Year-Round Schools.
The Journal of Educational Research, 95 (2). 67-74. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27542361.
National Association of Year-Round Education. (2005). “Growth of Public Year-Round Education
In The United States Over A 15-Year Period.” http://nayre.org/statistics.html. Last
accessed December 13, 2005. As cited in von Hippel (2007).
National Association of Year-Round Education. (2007). “Statistical Summaries of Year-Round
Education Programs: 2006-2007.”
http://www.nayre.org/STATISTICAL%20SUMMARIES%20OF%20YRE%202007.pdf. Last
accessed December 1, 2014.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2010). Who Will Teach: Experience
Matters. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NCTAF-Who-
Will-Teach-Experience-Matters-2010-Report.pdf.
Pischke, J.S. (2007). The Impact of Length of the School Year on Student Performance and
Earnings: Evidence from the German Short School Years. The Economic Journal, 117
(523). 1216-1242. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4625552.
Shields, C., Oberg, S. (2000). Year-Round Schooling: Promises and Pitfalls. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press.

9. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). As cited in http://www.apa.org/pi/families/poverty.aspx. Last
accessed December 1, 2014.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014, September). Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013
[Current Population Reports]. DeNavas-Walt,C.,Proctor,B.D.AscitedinAvik(2014).
U.S. Department of Education (1983, April). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational
Reform [A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education]. The National
Commission on Excellence in Education.
Von Hippel, P.T. (2007). What Happens to Summer Learning in Year-Round Schools?
Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio. Retrieved from http://www.ewa.org/sites/main/files/nonblind.pdf. Last accessed
November 30, 2014.
Zovch, K., Stevens, J. (2013). Summer school effects in a randomized field trial. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 28 (1), 24-32. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.05.002.