Katie Arnold-Ratliff wrote a that lands on a headline claim I think is staggeringly wrong: either there is no such thing as a “gifted” child or else no way of reliably identifying one.

In making her case, she characterizes a as supporting her skepticism of giftedness.

Arnold-Ratliff notes that “” — her word — 12.3% of youth identified as gifted had achieved the standard of eminence used by the researchers. The standard they set for eminence, however, is very high: “full professors at research-intensive universities, Fortune 500 executives, distinguished judges and lawyers, leaders in biomedicine, award-winning journalists and writers.”

Twelve percent is obviously a pretty small minority, but that’s still wildly above the baseline level of achievement!

You also have to assume that for every award-winning journalist and writer, there are two or three schlubs like me enjoying decent career success without ever winning an award. Similarly, if you’re the C.F.O. of the 512th largest corporation in the United States or just a normal everyday medical doctor, that’s clearly an above-average level of achievement relative to the whole population.

So I think this critique of gifted and talented is wrong, and, as I’ve written before, the push to is extremely misguided, especially since there are the most valid critiques of how kids are identified for advanced math classes.

At the same time, I do think the NYC gifted and talented programming deserves criticism, though my complaint is roughly the opposite of the one that Arnold-Ratliff offered.

Precisely because you really can identify which kids are the most promising ones in a pretty reliable way, the mere fact that the graduates of a gifted program do well in life does not convey any information at all about whether the program is actually any good.

If you read accounts of what’s happening in G&T, you’ll see that it’s a lot of special activities that have nothing to do with basic principles like “give the smartest kids harder math problems so they learn more.” And the research on the causal impact shows not much is going on.

The level of fighting over who gets into this program and whether it’s unfair is wildly out of proportion to the scrutiny of its actual educational efficacy.

And unfortunately, this is the case almost everywhere in American education, whether it’s the link between “good schools” and property values, the practical operation of charter and public school choice programs, the tuition that people pay for private school, or the battles over who gets into exam schools or gifted programs.

Parents are just massively, massively under-rating the power of selection effects and wasting a lot of time, money and political capital.

Many selective programs have minimal impact

There happens to be a good recent scholarly treatment of the New York City G&T program in Jimmy Chin and Geoffrey Kocks’ paper, “.” They use two different methods (a regression discontinuity design centered on the qualifying exam cutoff and a lottery design) to look at causal impacts of being admitted to the kindergarten G&T program.

What they find is that G&T admits are more likely to end up going to selective middle school programs, so parents who perceive G&T as the first step on a ladder of selective educational experiences in the NYC public school system are onto something.

But do the kids actually learn anything extra? Well, no.

They find that “while G&T markedly changes the classroom environment, there is no impact on achievement using both empirical strategies, with precise and insignificant effects smaller than 0.04σ when pooling the designs.”

How about getting into those good middle schools, though — is that valuable?

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a study on that. But back in 2011, Will Dobbie and Roland Fryer looked at the pinnacle of selective public education in New York City, the specialized high schools where admission is based on standardized test results.

The way this works is that there are sharp cut-off points because admission is based purely on the tests. So kids with better test scores end up doing better in life, but we can use discontinuity designs to test whether this is a result of getting into the more selective schools or just a selection effect. “attending an exam school has little impact on Scholastic Aptitude Test scores, college enrollment, or college graduation — casting doubt on their ultimate long-term impact.”

That paper is 15 years old, and at this point I would say it’s made zero impact on the political wrangling over these schools or anything else that’s happening in the city.

What’s interesting is that I don’t think this lack of attention to the question of whether NYC’s selective programs are any good at teaching reflects media bias or short-sightedness. The city’s parents appear to sincerely not care about this and are just desperate to send their kids to schools where the other kids are above average. Atila Abdulkadiroğlu, Parag Pathak, Jonathan Schellenberg and Christopher Walters studied this in “” where they looked at how parents ranked high schools in their applications to New York’s public school choice system. The authors find that “preferences are unrelated to school effectiveness and academic match quality after controlling for peer quality.”

Education’s Lake Wobegon problem

Unlike in the G&T study or the specialized high schools study, the school choice paper did find that going to school with higher-achieving peers has modest but real benefits for learning.

Similarly, in “” by David Card, Eric Chyn, and Laura Giuliano, they look at an anonymous, large, urban school district that apparently everyone in the know believes to be Broward County in Florida. What they find is that being admitted to this county’s G&T program leads to better middle and high school grades and better odds of going to college — but no increase in standardized test scores. They also find that this effect exists only for boys from disadvantaged backgrounds. So parents are obsessed with peer effects over teaching effectiveness, and the peer effects are real — they’re just small.

What’s perverse about this is that exactly as you would expect, peer effects are most valuable for precisely the kinds of kids whose parents are least likely to be reading New York Magazine or obsessing over school rankings.

I find it puzzling the extent to which quite wealthy people will sometimes try to buy their kids’ way into Ivy League colleges. There is a to attending an elite private school versus a state flagship university that’s probably driven by the networking opportunities. But while I’m happy to believe that going to Harvard helped Ruben Gallego get to the United States Senate — a poor kid from Chicago was able to raise money for his first Arizona State House race in part because he met rich and well-connected people there — it’s obviously not the case that Jared Kushner became a top American diplomatic envoy thanks to his elite educational credentials.

More broadly, though, the promise of education is that it’s positive sum.

At the low end of the achievement spectrum, it would be better for everyone to live in a country where basic literacy and numeracy skills were universal. Obviously the largest benefits of obtaining those skills would accrue to the individuals who acquired them. But it’s broadly better for society to have skilled workers and swift communications. At the high end, if a promising kid is able to learn math and science and become an inventor, then everyone wins.

But we can’t give everyone above-average peers.

And families chasing those above-average peers has a lot of negative impacts. In the traditional public school system, access to specific schools is literally auctioned off via the real estate market. If “good school” in that context meant school that is good at teaching, that could become something that broadly inspired homeowners to care about the quality of their local school, driving big systemic improvement.

But since it just means school with above-average peers, we’re getting a zero-sum shuffle in which the families who would most benefit from higher-achieving peers can’t afford them. The charter school world features some very promising schools, but it also features systematic efforts by many of those schools to game the system and do de facto selection of their students. These violations of the spirit of lottery-based admissions happen because, at the end of the day, parents reward them. And for colleges and private K-12 schools where selection is the norm, that’s basically all that happens.

In the D.C. area, there’s a definite hierarchy of private schools, where Sidwell and Georgetown Day are “the best.” But this literally just means they’re the hardest to get into. The reason they’re hard to get into is they get the most applications and have the highest yield on their acceptance. They’re hard to get into because everyone wants to go there, and everyone wants to go there because they are hard to get into. There is zero evidence that they provide better education on a value-add basis than their “lesser” competitors or than schools you can attend for free.

And I mean literally zero! The parents who pay over $50,000 in tuition for the privilege of sending their kids there are sincerely not interested in this question. If they were, some evidence would exist. Maybe it wouldn’t be persuasive and maybe the studies wouldn’t be well-designed, but genuinely nobody cares!

We should try to teach kids appropriate material

I don’t really know how to get people to care more about the actual quality of education, but this really is something that we ought to care about.

Innate ability is very important, as literally everyone agrees in a non-school context.

My son is a very good swimmer, in large part because he’s very tall and strong for his age and has an impressive wingspan. But instruction and practice are also very important. Learning how to swim a legal butterfly, execute a flip turn or time a relay dive is not genetic. My son inherited many of these physical attributes from his mother, who I think clearly could have been a good swimmer. But she was never interested and never learned how to do any of that stuff.

Outside of formal K-12 schools, nobody thinks the right way to teach is to lump a bunch of people together based on their age and then have one teacher try to deliver a lesson to everyone regardless of what they already know. That’s dumb.

The practice of labeling some kids officially “gifted” invites toxic politics. But I think it’s perverse that progressive ideology has saddled so much of public education with an approach to teaching that nobody uses anywhere else. It’s kind of wild that the teaching profession is so suffused with this ideology that few stakeholders in the system seem to understand how impossible it makes their jobs.

It’s really important for kids to master basic reading skills. When they do that, they ought to be passed on to a new language arts class that focuses more on understanding texts and learning to write. If they haven’t mastered basic reading yet, they should keep being taught it until they know how to do it. At some point in your mathematical education, you’re supposed to learn fractions. You should keep doing fractions until you’ve learned them, but when you’re done, you should move forward. You’d expect to see different kids ready to learn basic algebra at different ages, which is fine — you should teach the material to the kids who are ready to learn it when they’re ready, regardless of their age.

Over the course of a normal education, different people will end up learning different amounts because that’s how life works.

When you’re lifting weights, you try to lift a bit more each week than you did previously. You don’t lift an age-determined average amount of weight regardless of how strong you personally are. And you won’t necessarily progress at the same speed as the person lifting next to you. And you definitely won’t get stronger just by working out in the gym whose clients are strongest on average.

Again, outside the K-12 school context everyone gets all this. Peers aren’t magic. In fact, if you’re a beginner, you probably need a bunch of explicit instruction that the real gym rats would find annoying and pointless — it’s better for everyone to be doing the workouts that are actually appropriate for them.

For , Lower Lab, an Upper East Side Gifted & Talented school was ranked number one by US News. Also in the top 10 were four citywide G&T programs. Each school exclusively accepts students who have been designated as “gifted.”

Rounding out the top 10, however, are Success Academy – Bushwick and Success Academy – Bensonhurst, public charter schools that accept students by lottery, while also prioritizing English Language Learners (ELL).

On the surface, these schools couldn’t be more different. Number one, , has only 13% of students qualifying for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (FRL), and 1% ELLs. Number 10, , conversely,  has 65% of its students qualifying for free or reduced price lunch, and 26% who are English language learners. 

But the selective G&T schools and the unscreened charter schools have one characteristic in common: An expectation that their students can succeed.

The book, describes an experiment where “researchers falsely told teachers some of their students had been identified as potential high achievers. The students were in fact chosen at random.”

At the end of the year, the “students that were chosen were more likely to make larger gains in their academic performance,” with those “7-8 years old gaining an average of 10 verbal IQ points.”

This study concluded that “when teachers expected certain children would show greater intellectual development, those children did show greater intellectual development.”

At the G&T schools, teachers have every reason to believe their students are capable of performing at the highest levels.

Parents have seen this firsthand.

“I strongly believe that when teachers are told their students are gifted, they begin to treat them as gifted — and this changes everything,” asserts mom Natalya Tseytlin. “In a gifted classroom, if a student struggles, teachers don’t assume it’s because of laziness or inability; they respond with patience and extra attention. In a regular class, that student might not receive the same support or challenge, because the teacher sees the child as average. 

Tseytlin said her son started his first grade gifted and talented program with limited English skills. But because his teacher offered consistent support and believed in him, he excelled. 

“Today he is performing at the same level as his peers,” she said.

“I don’t think the expectations at (my child’s) G&T school are so high that only gifted kids can meet them,” another parent, who only asked to be identified as M.K. opined. “Regular schools don’t ‘push’ kids enough to reach their potential. Those G&T schools that do push, get results because most kids are capable of this level of learning without being ‘gifted.’ If teachers treat students as capable, students will indeed meet expectations.”

The belief that all students can perform at a “gifted” level is sacrosanct at Success Academy.

“Success Academy is Gifted for All,” CEO Eva Moskowitz affirms. “When adult expectations are high, our scholars — mostly low-income, Black and Hispanic — can meet the highest academic standards.”

The same is true at Harlem Academy, a kindergarten through 8th grade private school for students whose potential might otherwise go unrealized. 

“It’s tough to decouple the influence of high-quality programming from high expectations,” concedes Head of School Vinny Dotoli, “but authentically challenging students is central to the ethos of our school. When great teachers set ambitious goals and provide the structure and support to reach them, it almost always makes a lasting difference in student achievement.”

Parents with children in schools where high expectations aren’t the norm would love to see changes. 

“I have a daughter in a dual language program in East Harlem,” Maria McCune relates. “A neighbor who used to attend our school changed his daughter to a G&T program at another school in East Harlem. He immediately noticed a difference in the quality of instruction and in his daughter’s performance (MUCH improved). I participate in my daughter’s School Leadership Team and I have seen the apathy teachers there exhibit. It is concerning. When I tried to provide feedback about improving the educational experience, teachers/staff often became defensive. It is this that leads me to want to pursue G&T for my daughter.”

For Tiffany Ma, the solution is obvious. “Our second grader that transferred into G&T writes much neater and does her homework much more happily since she’s in an environment where academics and homework is valued by other classmates and parents. We should expand G&T programs. It’s regular programming that shouldn’t exist.”

Yet New York City seems headed in the opposite direction. Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani has vowed to get rid of elementary school G&T programs  that begin in kindergarten. He would wait until students enter third grade, even though the research referenced above specifically mentioned children 7 and 8 years of age( i.e. second graders), as being the biggest beneficiaries of high expectations. , as well. 

This move would lower the academic standards and expectations of all schools, which deeply concerns parents like McCune. She fears “Children like my daughter may be left as collateral damage of an educational experience that falls short of setting them up for significant academic success.”

The top schools in NYC have repeatedly demonstrated that high expectations are key to helping all students reach their full potential.

We need more such schools, be they public G&T, charter, or private. And more teachers who believe in all our kids.

“It’s actually a little surreal” seeing the rich slate of offerings, said Brodrick Clarke, vice president of the .Ěý

He’s worked at summer learning organizations for over a quarter century, making what used to be a difficult case to school administrators: That districts should offer camp-style July programs to all students rather than enrolling only those who flunked classes during the academic year.

Suddenly, his job has become much easier. 

A growing consensus has elevated summer learning programs to top priority after three consecutive school years disrupted by the pandemic. Several studies, including a 2018 , show camps blending fun and academics give students a leg up in key subject areas. So with millions of students nationwide lagging behind grade level in math and reading, and with schools sitting on billions of dollars in COVID relief cash, summer learning programs have become a go-to solution. 

So far, schools nationwide have poured $3.1 billion in American Rescue Plan dollars into summer and afterschool initiatives, according to an from Georgetown University’s FutureEd think tank. Summer learning has emerged as districts’ “number one priority” for academic recovery spending, said Phyllis Jordan, the organization’s associate director.

“We’re actually investing in programs that we know work and have had results. We just get to do them at a much larger scale because there’s finally funding for it,” U.S. Deputy Education Secretary Cindy Marten told ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ. 

“If you put enriching, engaging experiences together for kids and give them a chance to be together, they can learn.”

However, the picture remains murky on just how much progress states, districts and community organizations have actually made toward catching up students before the school year re-starts.

“We do not have data on the number of summer programs this year compared to years past,” said Jen Rinehart, senior vice president of strategy and programs at the Afterschool Alliance. “Similarly, we do not have data on the number of students enrolled this year.”

Marten acknowledged she was not aware of any federal effort to track how many youth are engaging in summer learning programs this year and did not clarify when the results of these programs will come into focus.

To fill the gap, ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ obtained exclusive datasets from , a data service that tracks school policy, and the research-based auditing publicly shared information about districts’ summer offerings. Burbio’s figures include the 200 largest U.S. school systems and CRPE’s cover 100 major metropolitan districts, many of which overlap. Though there are roughly 13,800 districts in the country, the 200 largest account for over a quarter of the nation’s students.

The analysis comes after the Department of Education announced the Engage Every Student Initiative in July to expand access to summer and afterschool offerings. Accompanying the launch, First Lady Jill Biden and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona toured programs in Connecticut, Michigan and Georgia.

The Burbio and CRPE numbers reveal that the vast majority of school systems did indeed provide opportunities for students to catch up on learning and most offered their summer programs at no cost to families. Specifically:

• 93% of districts, according to Burbio, and 87%, according to CRPE, offered summer learning programs this year

• 79% of school systems that had programs provided them at no cost to families

• The average program length was 154 hours, just under four weeks and roughly equivalent to 12% of the academic school year. However, some offerings only covered about 30 hours, while others made up nearly 350 total hours

Additionally, most districts offered programs that went beyond rote academics — including activities such as theater, debate and robotics — and about 2 in 5 worked with community organizations to flesh out their camps. Nearly all programs included breakfast, lunch or both:

• Of the districts that offered summer learning opportunities, at least 83% included credit recovery options, 80% mixed academics with enrichment activities such as sports, arts or social-emotional learning, 48% offered programs for students with learning disabilities and 39% had dedicated options for English learners

• 96% of programs provided meals to children and 74% offered free transportation

• At least 39% of districts partnered with community organizations on summer offerings

The data align with recent figures reported by the , which surveyed a representative sample of 859 public schools in June. The figures are not an apples-to-apples comparison with the Burbio and CRPE data because they focus on individual schools rather than districts, but also point to extensive programming nationwide. NCES found:

• Three-quarters of schools offered learning and enrichment programs this summer

• School leaders estimated that 18-20% of their students enrolled, compared to 13-16% during a typical year

• 49% of education leaders said they partnered with an outside organization, 14% offered internship programs and 13% offered summer jobs or work-based learning programs

“When we talk about academic recovery … you can’t do it just within the regular school day,” said Daniel Domenech, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators. “You need to make sure acceleration is extra time. The summer has become that time.”

A question of equity

Maritza Guridy, who has five children in Philadelphia public schools and also works as deputy director of parent voice with the , said some families in her network were able to find programs that met their needs while others were not.

“For those that [registered] early, they were able to get in there. For those that waited, it’s unfortunate,” she told ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ.

She enrolled her kids in a local chapter of the nationally acclaimed program and also for a shorter stint at an organization called . Among her considerations were aspects like program cost, learning opportunities and emotional supports, but also factors like fun, clear communication from leadership and a building with central air.

In addition to academics, her children have practiced yoga and went for twice-a-week swim lessons at the local YMCA. One day, they came home with a gleeful announcement: “Mommy, I jumped into the deep side of the pool today — and I wasn’t scared!”

It thrilled Guridy, but she knew other families have missed out on similar joys because of barriers such as lack of transportation or no translated information about the opportunity. Guridy wants officials who plan programs to consider accessibility.

“Is [messaging] being offered in different languages?,” she prompts them. “How are parents supposed to enroll their children if they don’t even understand the application?”

It’s an equity issue, said Clarke, the National Summer Learning Association VP.  Youth who don’t have access to summer programs can see academic gains evaporate between June and September, a well-documented concept known as “summer slide.” Now the issue is particularly pressing, because students living in poverty have the starkest pandemic learning deficits.

“Families with access and privilege go into their bank accounts and provide great opportunities for their kids during the summertime,” he said. “The 26 million young people that are on free and reduced lunch … don’t have that luxury to do so. But they certainly need, want and deserve to have those opportunities.”

‘Explosion’ or ‘afterthought?’

With the stakes at an all-time high as schools reel from the pandemic’s impacts, experts have mixed views on whether summer offerings have actually scaled up this year.

“We’re seeing an explosion of programs,” said Ron Ottinger, executive director of , an organization connected to a network of thousands of providers across the country.

Meanwhile, Christine Pitts, who has done her own summer learning analysis as CRPE’s director of impact and communications, has a more pessimistic view.

In 2022, “[districts] were offering less than they were last year. So it’s almost like summer slipped back into that characterization of being an afterthought again,” she told ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ.

Her team found that school systems provided fewer offerings for English learners and fewer programs with social-emotional supports this summer compared to last.

“It’s hard to speculate at a national level, why that might have dropped off,” said Marten, the deputy secretary. Some districts may have decided their 2021 summer programs had done enough to catch learners up and that they could scale back this year, she said. However, if leaders wanted to maintain programs but were facing a lack of funds, she encouraged them to tap resources from the new initiative.

Contrasting the data Pitts saw, Nicholas Munyan-Penney spoke to officials in over 30 states about their summer learning programs while researching for a report with . The narrative he heard was of continued growth.

“Anecdotally, they’ve said that there’s definitely been an increase in enrollment this summer,” the researcher told ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ.

Rinehart also cites data that indicate an upward trend. In the spring of 2022, her organization and 90% said they were planning to offer summer programs, compared to 79% at the same time a year earlier. Respondents also indicated they expected upticks in enrollment, with an increased share expressing concern they wouldn’t be able to meet families’ demand for programs.

In one of the only direct comparisons between this year and last, the recently released NCES data found no change between 2021 and 2022, with the share of schools saying they offered summer learning programs holding steady at 75%.

‘How are we going to fill the staff?’

One factor often hindering summer learning expansion has been a staff, only the latest symptom of wider shortages that have affected K-12 schools for much of the past year.

“Officials are finding it very hard to find teachers,” said Domenech. “In many cases, the problem has been that where the district has large numbers of kids sign up for the summer programs, they wind up wanting to cut back because they just don’t have the staff to cover it.”

In Madison, Wisconsin, for example, administrators had to from their summer offerings, about 1 in 6 students who had signed up, because of “unanticipated staffing challenges.”

Gia Maxwell works as a site director at summer learning provider . Throughout the spring, she joined monthly calls with leaders from across the Breakthrough network, which operates in 26 cities. Her colleagues were continually worried about finding enough instructors.

“Everyone was talking about, ‘How are we going to fill the staff? How are we going to fill the staff,’” she told ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ.

Her Miami program usually finds all 130 youth and 30 adult staff for its summer teaching corps by May, she said. But this year, it took until halfway through teacher training in mid-June to recruit everyone, and they had to hire more teenage candidates than usual. 

The Providence, Rhode Island Breakthrough location was forced to this summer altogether, explaining “we have struggled to recruit students and teachers this year.”

To combat shortages, Arkansas brought in tutors from its to staff summer programs, said Munyan-Penney. In West Virginia, program leaders pulled from teacher training programs in the state to fill out their summer learning staff ranks. And Arizona boosted teachers’ wages 20% for the summer months to entice instructors.

They’re among the states “​​thinking about the staffing issue and being proactive about it,” said the Education Reform Now researcher.

‘Math, Reading and a Little Stampeding’

Several states shared provisional data with ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ on their summer offerings, though many said they won’t have finalized enrollment or academic impact numbers for months.  

In Arizona, Gov. Doug Ducey launched the which state leaders estimate has served about 100,000 campers — 10% of the state’s 1 million students — across 680 sites, including at least one in every county. 

Arizona officials went to great lengths to spread the word about the program. The state ran a including ads on television, radio, social media and in magazines, and direct texts to parents in both English and Spanish informing them of the free programs.

“We targeted lower-income families, as the goal of free summer camp was to see the highest number of campers from families that may not have been able to afford an adventure-style summer camp in prior years,” Kaitlin Harrier, the governor’s senior policy advisor, wrote in an email to ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ. 

The governor’s office opted for a “summer camp” approach rather than a “summer school” model, describing the opportunities as “Math, Reading, and a Little Stampeding,” said Harrier.

“It is no secret that when kids are having fun, it sets up a great foundation for learning,” she added.

In Connecticut, the state also rolled out a grant program to help providers beef up their summer offerings and defray program costs for low-income youth. The state disbursed roughly $8 million in grants last summer and increased that sum to $12 million for 2022, said Eric Scoville, communications director for the State Department of Education.

Enrollment across a sample of 121 locations nearly doubled, from 17,000 to 32,000, between 2020 and 2021, according to an spearheaded by University of Connecticut researchers. However, it’s too early to tell how many students the state reached this summer, said Scoville.

In North Carolina, all 115 school districts offered one or more summer learning programs this year funded by COVID relief money, each attended by 30 to 200 students, said Todd Silberman, a public information officer at the state’s Department of Public Instruction. The enrollment figures will not be finalized for several weeks, he said, but he expects the total will be lower than 2021, when the state legislature required math, science, English and enrichment summer learning programs.

At the city level, Baltimore City Public Schools has scaled up its programming sharply thanks to COVID relief dollars. The maximum number of youth the 77,800-student district had served between June and August previous to the pandemic had been 9,000, said Ronda Welsh, the district’s extended learning coordinator. But in 2021, they reached 15,000 and have served at least that many again in 2022.

“Our goal was to provide as many opportunities as we could for students in Baltimore,” Welsh told ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ.

Tulsa, for its part, has also cultivated a thriving summer learning culture, part of a wider “City of Learning” initiative that has been in the works for several years. That infrastructure has made the district into a poster child for community partnership, with over 40 youth-serving organizations contributing to the district’s programming this summer — including clubs for debating, biking and rowing.

“The summer is the time that kids get to experience those things they otherwise would not have the opportunity to do, especially during the school year,” said Jackie DuPont, executive director of the , which orchestrates the connections between the nonprofits and the district.

However, the district has not been able to maintain its high summer learning enrollment. Last summer, about a third of its 33,000 students participated in summer learning — an unusually large share. This year, a total of 7,000 youth engaged in the school system’s initiative, Director of Expanded Learning Jessica Goodman estimated. 

“​​Last summer was really an immediate response to not having kids in our school buildings … so some families just needed that time more than they did this summer,” she told ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ.

Despite enrollment fluctuations, Marten believes the proliferation of new summer learning programs nationwide will outlast the influx of federal funding.

“Communities will fall in love with these programs,” she said. “They will say, ‘We’re never going to let this stop. We’re not just doing this because there was a pandemic. We’re doing this because this is what’s good for kids. Let’s keep doing it.’”