However, with the right policies, investments, and targeted practices, the summer can be turned from a setback into an opportunity, helping students not just catch up but move ahead. We know that summer programs can improve both academic and social and behavioral outcomes for students—including bonding to school, positive social behaviors, school grades, and academic achievement—especially when they offer well-trained staff who deliver instruction focused on building specific skills, active learning opportunities, and positive youth–staff interactions and site climate. Programs that offer enrichment activities like arts and sports along with academic elements have the strongest effects on achievement. Students have to enjoy the experience to want to attend and engage, and, to have a strong impact, both the duration of programs and student attendance are critical.

How Can States Strengthen Summer Learning Opportunities?

The Learning Policy Institute studied what 9 states did to launch and preserve major summer learning initiatives. The states—Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont—shed light on some approaches that other states could take up. Here are five key lessons that emerged:

One: Goals, Coalitions, and Sustainable Funding

To secure and solidify funding for summer programs, participants from the case study states identified several strategic approaches. First, they established clear goals for investments and linked these goals with broader state priorities. This helped summer learning advocates communicate to other state actors how summer investments could complement additional policy objectives across sectors. For example, in New Mexico, support for a paid summer internship program gained traction because it would provide high school students with career development opportunities. This type of program was viewed as having the potential to reduce high school drop-out rates by helping students understand the value of their high school learning and future diplomas in helping them join the workforce.

Some states worked to identify consistent funding sources for summer learning, beyond federal recovery funds. For instance, Massachusetts has sustained state investments in summer learning since 2014 by establishing a budget line item for the state summer learning grant program. In Texas, including summer learning funds as part of the school funding formula ensured access to ongoing funding for local education agencies (LEAs).

Two: Grantmaking

With the goal of minimizing barriers to grant program uptake, states funding both schools and community organizations aimed to minimize the administrative burden associated with applying for grant funds (e.g., by simplifying application procedures and reporting requirements or, in the case of Texas, adopting a formula funding model for LEA summer learning providers). They also built in flexibility, enabling grantees to customize programs that fit their staff, resources, and local needs. In several states, state education agencies partnered with nongovernmental organizations such as state afterschool networks, which exist in 50 states, to support administration of their summer learning grant programs. In Georgia, for example, the Georgia State Afterschool Network used its long-standing relationships with community organizations to efficiently distribute grant funds and provide technical support for data collection and analysis and high-quality programming.

Three: Equity-Focused Investment: Reaching the Students Who Need It Most

Targeting funds to students with the most to gain—including low-income, rural, and English language learners—maximizes return on investments. States effectively directed investments in several ways: Some gave priority students “right of first refusal” for summer learning program seats (as in Tennessee) or gave preference, when allocating grant funds, to providers who historically have served priority student groups, are located in high-poverty areas, or submit grant proposals indicating their intent to expand access for these student groups using grant funds. Oregon ranked local education agencies’ priority for grant funds based on the percentage of high-need students they served, whereas Vermont prioritized providers who intended to use grant funds to expand access for underserved populations. Some states gave funding preference to providers using grant funds to address known obstacles to summer learning participation by, for example, decreasing program cost, providing transportation, or launching or expanding programs in rural areas where no or few summer learning options exist. States regularly analyzed grant-funded programs’ participation data to understand the extent to which state investments were benefiting priority student groups. Doing so helped to clarify ongoing gaps in accessibility, which states could then strategically address in future iterations of grant program design.

Four: Ensuring high quality with standards and guidance

In addition to expanding access to summer learning opportunities, states worked to promote their quality. They achieved this by setting clear standards for quality that programs had to meet as a condition of funding and offering technical assistance or staff professional development to ensure attention to these elements. In Tennessee, for example, the Learning Loss Remediation and Student Acceleration Act required that summer programs use high-quality and state approved curricular materials and be taught by an appropriately certified teacher. Louisiana provided guidance and documents that programs could customize (e.g., sample schedules, data collection plans, and planning checklists and timelines). Texas offered a yearlong Planning and Execution Program for LEAs to support their implementation of evidence-based summer learning programs.

Five: Data-driven and continuous improvement

Data collection and analysis helped state agencies and stakeholders understand the impact of state investments and to continue to improve—and maintain support for—their programs. In New Mexico, stories and survey data from participating youth helped make the case to legislators that the state should grow and sustain the program with state funds. To support providers with limited capacity to collect and report high-quality data, states provided technical assistance and training on the usage of common quality assessment tools.

If the nation’s students are ever to catch up on the learning recovery needed both from the pandemic and since, high-quality summer learning experiences should become as fundamental to summer as grilling, park outings, and picnics. Learning year round is not a luxury—it’s a smart, proven strategy that builds academic resilience, equity, and economic opportunity.