skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Summer learning programs: Academically focused

Pre-K to 12 Education
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023.  Literature review updated June 2014.
Open PDF
This analysis includes a variety of summer learning programs for students in grades K–8 in which academic improvement is the main goal, often with a focus on remediation and/or prevention of summer learning loss. The programs encompass a range of models and include both community- and school-provided programs. Some programs offer services beyond academic support, such as enrichment and recreation. Based on the studies in this analysis, a typical program lasts about six weeks. This analysis excludes programs that focus on other goals such as general youth development or job training and programs that combine summer learning programs with additional support during the school year.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2022). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $1,862 Benefits minus costs $6,501
Participants $4,386 Benefit to cost ratio $5.74
Others $2,312 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($686) benefits greater than the costs 88%
Total benefits $7,874
Net program cost ($1,372)
Benefits minus cost $6,501

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic in order to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the types of program impacts that were measured in the research literature (for example, crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information.

Adjusted effect sizes are used to calculate the benefits from our benefit cost model. WSIPP may adjust effect sizes based on methodological characteristics of the study. For example, we may adjust effect sizes when a study has a weak research design or when the program developer is involved in the research. The magnitude of these adjustments varies depending on the topic area.

WSIPP may also adjust the second ES measurement. Research shows the magnitude of some effect sizes decrease over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. We also report the unadjusted effect size to show the effect sizes before any adjustments have been made. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Adjusted effect sizes(ES) and standard errors(SE) used in the benefit - cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Test scores
Standardized, validated tests of academic achievement.
9 13 46259 0.064 0.020 9 0.038 0.022 17 0.064 0.002
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Test scores Labor market earnings associated with test scores $1,862 $4,386 $2,312 $0 $8,560
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($686) ($686)
Totals $1,862 $4,386 $2,312 ($686) $7,874
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $1,132 2013 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) ($1,372)
Comparison costs $0 2013 Cost range (+ or -) 10%
In the evaluations included in this meta-analysis, the average summer program included 140 service hours and 40 hours of staff training/planning time. Teachers had, on average, 15 students in each class. To calculate a per-student annual cost, we used average Washington State compensation costs (including benefits) for K–8 teachers as reported by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, divided by the average number of students per class in the evaluated programs. We include per-student annual materials, supplies, and operating costs. The cost estimate provided here does not account for meals or transportation.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Borman, G.D., & Dowling, N. (2006). Longitudinal achievement effects of multiyear summer school: Evidence from the Teach Baltimore randomized field trial. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 28(1), 25-48.

Borman, G.D., Goetz, M. E., & Dowling, N.M. (2009). Halting the summer achievement slide: A randomized field trial of the KindergARTen summer camp. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(2), 133-147.

Chaplin, D., & Capizzano, J. (2006). Impacts of a summer learning program: A random assignment study of Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL). Washington DC: Urban Institute.

Geis, R. (1968). A preventive summer program for kindergarten children likely to fail in first grade reading, Final Report. La Canada, CA: La Canada Unified School District.

Jacob, B.A., & Lefgren, L. (2004). Remedial education and student achievement: A regression-discontinuity analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 226-244.

Mariano, L.T., & Martorell, P. (2013). The academic effects of summer instruction and retention in New York City. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(1), 96-117.

Matsudaira, J.D. (2008). Mandatory summer school and student achievement. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 829-850.

Opalinski, G.B. (2006). The effects of a middle school summer school program on the achievement of NCLB identified subgroups (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 2006, UMI No. 3224110).

Schacter, J., & Jo, B. (2005). Learning when school is not in session: A reading summer day-camp intervention to improve the achievement of exiting first-grade students who are economically disadvantaged. Journal of Research in Reading, 28(2), 158-169.

Zvoch, K., & Stevens, J. (2011). Summer school and summer learning: An examination of the short- and longer-term changes in student literacy. Early Education & Development, 22(4), 649-675.

Zvoch, K., & Stevens, J. J. (2013). Summer school effects in a randomized field trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(1), 24-32.