Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Summer Learning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District reports declining summer program enrollment, high secondary pass rate in credit recovery
Summary
District staff reported summer learning costs and participation, noting lower secondary enrollment than pandemic years and an 88% pass rate in summer credit-recovery courses. Elementary summer programming continued to focus on tiered interventions and reported positive teacher observations.
Assistant Superintendent Michael Godoy (identified in committee discussion as the presenter for the summer learning update) told the committee that the district ran an 18-day elementary program (half-day) and a 14-day secondary program (3- or 6-hour days depending on courses) this summer and that the programs were funded primarily through staff pay rather than federal ESSER funds.
Godoy said elementary programming operated with six independent classrooms and reading/learning support staff; he estimated the elementary summer program cost about $35,000 and noted roughly 99% of that cost covered staff pay. The secondary credit-recovery program used online course subscriptions and on-site mentor teachers; Godoy reported secondary summer costs at about $55,000 and said student course fees ($150 per recovered course) recouped about $10,000 of that total.
Participation numbers at the secondary level were lower than pandemic-era highs: 63 students enrolled in summer learning across the high school, taking 91 courses; 80 course completions were recorded by the end of the summer period for an 88% pass rate and an average attendance rate around 81%. Godoy said additional credit-recovery during the regular year meant some students no longer needed summer school and that grading and communication changes also likely contributed to fewer summer enrollments.
Middle school participation was very low, Godoy said, in part because middle school students are typically subject to promotion/retention decisions rather than credit recovery and because schools have run other targeted interventions during the year (including Title IV–funded after-school math support). He added district staff will evaluate whether to shift middle school supports away from the summer model.
Godoy told the committee the district will conduct a thorough review next spring of summer learning and credit-recovery options, examining cost-effectiveness and student outcomes; the review will use quantitative trend analysis, feedback from teachers and leaders, and family and student voice. Board members asked about sliding-scale fee assistance; Godoy said the district offers a sliding scale tied to free/reduced-price lunch eligibility and will not turn away students who cannot pay.
Committee discussion raised questions about repeat summer enrollment for some students, the relationship between summer participation and dropout risk, and how the district might better target interventions earlier in the school year. Godoy and others said these are areas for follow-up in the planned program evaluation.
