Longview district review finds limited academic gains from 2024 summer school; staff propose lower-cost alternatives

Longview School District staff told the board that the district’s 2024 summer school produced limited academic gains and was expensive on a per-student basis, and presented several lower-cost models to maintain summer engagement.

Staff said the district invited about 620 elementary students to a three-week program in summer 2024, enrolled 210, and recorded an average daily attendance of 79. The total cost was just under $270,000, or about $2,245 per enrolled student.

The research overview cited John Hattie’s meta-analyses, noting a reported effect size for summer school of about 0.17 (below the 0.40 threshold Hattie identifies as a typical “year’s growth”). Director Amy Wiedemann said the literature shows larger impacts when programs run at least five weeks; the district’s three-week model produced positive student experiences but little measurable reading growth.

Wiedemann and other staff presented four alternative models: a reduced traditional remediation model (shorter schedule to lower cost), a community-integration calendar that lists partner-run summer activities for families, a blended-learning model combining at-home online programs with limited on-site staffing, and a family-engagement model that connects events and take-home activity kits to extend learning. Staff estimated potential savings of roughly $200,000 compared with 2024 if the district shifts to partner-based or blended approaches funded with Title I carryover.

Oleg (staff member) summarized recent operational changes: summer-school time was lengthened in prior years from half days to full days to remove childcare and transportation barriers, and three weeks represented an increase from earlier two-week programs. He said the district’s staff made heavy recruitment efforts, including personal teacher invitations and outreach by family liaisons.

Board members discussed tradeoffs between academic impact, cost and belonging. Board member Barb asked whether the district had previously run five-week programs; staff said longer programs historically existed but could not confirm exact prior schedules without further research. Board member Crystal suggested surveying families to learn which offerings would attract participation; several board members repeatedly urged the district to pursue community partnerships to reduce cost while preserving engagement.

Staff also recommended shifting more targeted interventions into the regular school year for middle-school students, and continuing a condensed high-school credit-completion model for students close to earning credit. Staff noted ESSER funding is sunsetting and Title I carryover limits mean the district must plan for smaller sustained funding going forward.

The board did not adopt a final plan; staff said they will return with additional information and recommended options for next steps.

Ending: The district framed the summer-school discussion as planning rather than a formal proposal; staff will report back with survey results, legal/funding clarifications and cost projections before the board adopts a model for 2025.