As educators, we all know about the summer slide—that disheartening and frustrating phenomenon in which students return to school in the fall knowing less than what they walked out the door with in the spring. Research shows elementary students’ performance falls by about a month during the summer, with students from low income households losing even more. To make matters worse, the summer slide appears to be cumulative. This contributes hugely to achievement gaps shown between low-income and higher-income students over time.
The summer slide has always been painful, but now we are facing a COVID slide that threatens to overwhelm our educational system. Washington State is examining ways to address this loss of learning, including extending the school year as outlined in Senate Bill 5147. This bill calls for 50 school districts to pilot an extended school year program of up to 210 school days beginning in the 2022-23 school year and running through the 2025-26. At the conclusion of this pilot, the state would then determine whether an extended school year should be implemented statewide.
School districts who apply to participate in this pilot program must meet two criteria:
- The school district must have 50% or more students eligible for free or reduced-price meals in the 2019-20 school year or be have provided universal meals in all district schools during the 2019-20 school year;
- The school district must have a minimum district-wide enrollment of at least 500 students.
I am fine with the first requirement. It makes sense that districts serving students with the lowest income should be given the most support in mitigating the effects of the COVID slide as it is this population of students who have historically faced the greatest impacts in learning.
It is the second requirement of school district enrollment I think needs a little refining. In Washington State, there are 26 school districts defined as “rural”. These districts serve a little over 7% of our state’s students. Of these rural districts, almost 75% do not meet the requirement for enrollment as set forth by this bill. Let’s face it, almost all of these rural districts would meet income requirements. Having fewer than 500 students district-wide also points to being in an area that undoubtedly struggles with a lack of internet connectivity lending to even greater impacts on learning due to COVID. How many rural school staff members had to drive around with a cell phone in hand hoping to find a signal to create a hot spot their students could use only to find a lot of pot-holed dirt roads and see a lot of wildlife? I know I did. There is simply no internet availability in our area and our students have suffered.
This pilot program is intended to mitigate the effects of the COVID slide. All students in our state are facing this issue; however, rural students are facing a greater impact and we are not properly representing these students’ needs in the pilot program.
The legislators should consider at least allowing these smaller districts to form a consortium to apply for this pilot program. It is only fair all of our students’ needs are represented in the data, especially of this data is going to be used to determine whether an extended school year should be implemented statewide in the future.
I was not aware of this bill. That is a really interesting piece of legislature. I can see it greatly benefiting our students especially now after many of them have been impacted by online learning. There are some students in my classes that would be helped by this kind of program. I am wondering what parental reactions will be to this type of bill. I wonder if parent surveys have been taken.
I wonder whether a large scale shift to year round school is feasible in our country, as entrenched as we get in “the way we’ve always done things.” On one hand, I wonder if the “summer slide” (more so than the COVID slide) might be an indicator that we’re not doing as good a job fortifying enduring understandings and skills as we should be. Do we want kids to lose everything we’ve provided within a few months of leaving high school? If that happens, we’ve failed. We already have many elements of our system that focus on completion, coverage, and checking curriculum boxes rather than meaningful enduring understandings.
I’m sort of torn on the COVID slide discussion as well… on one hand, I hear my 16 y.o. son’s stress about falling “off track” in his high level math classes. But then I wonder: of what actual value is that track? A battle I have with a few peers centers on that idea of COVID slide… their metric of success is whether students have moved through all the units of study in the curriculum. I contend that coverage, particularly if kids are experiencing turmoil or trauma, will not matter. My real worry in terms of COVID slide is more the losses of routine, stability, and predictability that schools offer to so many kids whose lives are a churning roil through no fault of their own.
There is a public hearing on Feb. 9 for this bill. Are you signed up to testify about your concerns? If not, please do so to speak to the legislature directly. https://app.leg.wa.gov/csiremote/senate
Thanks Barbara-I will have to look into that. I did not realize they took “remote” testimony and I appreciate the link!
With Gratitude,
Gretchen
Although I don’t live in Washington state, I heartily agree about changing the 500 student rule. Perhaps urban folks don’t realize how many small school districts exist in their state. Students from small districts especially need access to education that is otherwise not available to them. And kids have certainly had enough time off from school during the COVID years to justify at least a trial of year-round school. Otherwise I fear an entire generation of young people will be at a disadvantage now and later in life.