Initial State Guidance on Summer Learning and Reopening Emphasize Uncertainty and Flexibility
June 24, 2020
By Nicholas Munyan-Penney and Charles Barone
The complications of reopening schools for the 20210-21 school year as communities continue to cope with COVID-19–and the resulting budget shortfalls–will require comprehensive and clear, albeit flexible, planning that needs to start as soon as possible to ensure equitable access to the highest quality public education possible under the circumstances. And given the certain learning loss during even the best examples of distance learning, schools should be using the summer to provide interventions wherever possible.
To meet this unprecedented challenge, it is critical that states provide strong leadership by issuing clear guidance for districts, providing support to district and school leaders, and setting policies that provide every student-regardless of zip code, family income, or race-the opportunity to learn to his or her highest potential. As states and school districts have attempted to continue instruction to compensate for school closures, we’ve seen wide variation in the quality of homeschooling and distance education and gross inequities in the quality of education provided to students from historically disadvantaged groups as compared to their more advantaged peers. States are uniquely positioned and have an historic role in remedying such inequities and this role will be more important than at any time in recent memory in the coming weeks and months. For that reason, we’ve gathered state guidance on summer learning and fall reopening plans.
Encouragingly, as of June 19th most states have provided districts with tangible plans for moving forward:
- Thus far, 32 states have issued guidance or information related to summer learning. Given that states could be starting summer school as soon as this month, more clearly needs to be done.
- It is important to note that no state is requiring districts to offer summer learning for students, distance or otherwise, even for those students most impacted by school closures.
- Over 80 percent of states—42—have made progress related to reopening:
- 28 states have issued guidance or frameworks for districts to begin planning for reopening in the fall. This is an increase of 11 states since our last update.
- Another 14 states have convened statewide task forces but have yet to issue any concrete guidance. This is a decrease of 5 states—all of which have now issued guidance—since our last update.
- Just 10 states—Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington—are requiring districts to submit reopening plans, and only 4 of those—Arkansas, Iowa, Oregon, and Washington—have any specific non-negotiables.
- Unfortunately, rather than fostering consistency through requirements for districts, most are leaving districts largely to their own devices.
We understand the need for flexibility now but what troubles us is that states will continue to give districts too little support and too much leeway when it comes time to make final decisions and take action. Right now, rather than providing districts with definitive requirements, states are focused on allowing districts and schools to consider various options for the 2020-21 school year based on local conditions. Given the exact conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic two or three months from now are unknown, and the recent uptick in cases in many parts of the country, that makes a certain degree of sense. The problem is that the myriad options may make it difficult for districts to implement a specific strategy as fall reopening approaches with district capacity spread thin across various contingencies and states requiring little to nothing in the way of ensuring an opportunity to learn for every student. The apparent lack of willingness on the part of virtually every state to demand equitable educational supports and instructional practices when final decisions are made does not bode well for students from historically disadvantaged groups whose communities are already bearing a disproportionate brunt of the COVID health crisis.
Among the states that have issued information related to summer learning, the most notable finding, at least based on what states are reporting online, is that not a single state is requiring districts to offer summer learning for all students or even those students most impacted by school closures. Given dire “COVID slide” estimates, states yet to issue guidance may want to consider mandating summer learning in order to stem as much learning loss as possible before schools reopen in the fall.
Encouragingly, a vast majority of states have indicated that at least some summer learning may occur in-person, if districts choose to do so, as long as social distancing and other CDC guidelines are followed. Of these 25 states, 21 are planning a hybrid approach, where in-person instruction may be supplemented by remote learning. The remaining states plan to have summer learning take place exclusively through distance learning. With states at various stages of virus containment, a variety of approaches is both expected and desired. Yet Alabama and Wisconsin have thus far only published information on self-guided distance learning, rather than having summer school directed by professional educators, which is less likely to yield strong academic results.
Eleven state’s guidance exclusively focused on health and safety concerns related to reopening schools over the summer, while 14 focused their guidance on academics. Only seven states—Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Vermont—took a hybrid approach, addressing both the operational and academic concerns of districts. South Carolina and Oregon provided the most comprehensive guidance, thoroughly covering health and safety protocol while also providing critical priorities for addressing learning loss. Importantly, both states encourage districts to focus summer school on student populations most adversely impacted by school closures, including K-3 students, students in transition grades, English Learners, homeless or migrant students, and students with disabilities.
Reflecting the uncertainty of COVID-19’s trajectory, only one of the 28 states that have issued guidance to districts on reopening schools in the fall—Arkansas—has settled on the extent to which students will return to the classroom. Additionally, Minnesota has committed to selecting the least restrictive reopening strategy districts will be allowed to adopt by the end of July. Unfortunately, rather than fostering consistency through requirements for districts, most states are leaving districts largely to their own devices.
- Just 10 states—Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington—are requiring districts to submit reopening plans, and only 4 of those—Arkansas, Iowa, Oregon, and Washington—have any specific non-negotiables. Moreover, those non-negotiables are fairly minimal.
- In Iowa, all districts must provide a plan for continued full-time distance learning, while they have the option to explore hybrid and fully in-person plans.
- Washington is still developing most of the specific requirements for plans but have already laid out health and safety standards that must be met before buildings can open.
- Arkansas has more specific requirements including the use of diagnostic assessments in the fall to determine a baseline of student learning.
- Oregon’s plans are the most prescriptive: district plans must address eight essential domains, with guidance enumerating required and suggested elements for each domain.
- More encouragingly, eleven states—Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Rhode Island, and Tennessee—explicitly discuss working with districts to perform needs assessments, which are critical for determining districts’ next steps as they prepare for fall instruction.
Tennessee’s reopening guidance stands out as one of the most comprehensive guides. In addition to its main guidance document, the state has released 22 supplemental documents covering areas such as finance, student assessment, technology, and professional development. This guidance, however, is almost entirely non-binding. Similarly, Iowa’s Return-to-School Support Document contains an extensive, but well-organized checklist, that district administrators can use to identify and address the various needs of students, families, and staff, with different considerations based on whether districts will be having remote, hybrid, or in-person instruction. Again, here, the state is not requiring that each district check off everything on the list.
Colorado and Oregon make clear distinctions between what parts of their planning documents are requirements, guidance, or considerations, minimizing confusion for districts. Maryland’s guidance introduction provides links to relevant research that support its recommendations. Arkansas clearly differentiates between district and school considerations and makes clear what must be completely prior to the start of the next school year. And Arizona has separate documents addressing the specific needs districts should address for school leaders, teachers, students, and families.
Equity Priorities for Reopening
Additionally, we look at the extent to which state recommendations align the newly released Recommendations for Prioritizing Equity in the Response to COVID-19, co-released by Alliance of Excellence in Education, Education Reform Now, and 12 other organizations focused on educational equity. Overall we find that states’ guidance needs significant revisions to fully prioritize equity.
- Of the 28 states providing reopening guidance only nine—Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee—include at least half of the equity focused recommendations. Minnesota and Oklahoma were the only two states to include provisions in each of the main areas, and Tennessee was the only state to include more than 75% of the recommended provisions.
- Most concerning is that while a few states mention leveraging federal CARES Act funds, only Minnesota and Oklahoma include any recommendations regarding any equitable funding policies, to ensure spending is targeted at students most impacted by the coronavirus and school closures.
- Instead we find that at this stage, state recommendations are most heavily focused on meeting students’ basic needs. Twenty-five of 28 states provide guidance around mental health supports, while 24 and 23 states also include guidance on coordinating student support services and ensuring students have access to meals, respectively. Kentucky and Tennessee have separate documents devoted to student and staff wellness, with clear guidelines for addressing basic needs as well as fostering a supportive, trauma-sensitive environment in the transition back to school.
A vast majority of states also include guidance for expanding and improving distance learning. In particular, 21 states focused on providing professional development for teachers and improve access to connectivity. This is likely a strong focus since teachers were largely thrust into distance learning with little if any preparation, while digital divide has been a consistent barrier to implementing distance learning. We’re also seeing increased focus on families, with 18 states recommending increased family resources and supports with distance learning.
Of provisions related to extending learning time, states tended to focus on providing teacher and staff received ample training on new procedures to ensure a smooth transition as well as expanding remote instructional capabilities with 21 and 16 states recommending these actions for districts, respectively.
Encouragingly, 19 states suggest that states conduct diagnostic assessments to determine students’ academic needs as soon as school starts—though only Arkansas is requiring them. However, just ten also urge states to provide professional development to help teachers interpret and use assessment data to inform instruction. Louisiana has yet to release reopening guidance, but their plans for CARES Act spending suggest they will also require diagnostic assessments.
We also find that very few states provide recommendations related to easing the transition to postsecondary education. Maryland, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Tennessee were the only states that address more than one criteria in this area, with each of these states pushing districts to conduct remote college counseling with seniors and coordinate with nearby public universities to ease students’ transition. Oklahoma’s plan was particularly strong here, with an entire subsection of their guidance dedicated to college and career planning and transitioning, while Tennessee issued a separate document on postsecondary transitions.
Right now, most states have issued reopening guidance for districts, and many currently have documents in development or are working on additional guidance. We would encourage states to use the equity priorities to anchor their recommendations to ensure students most affected by COVID-19 receive the resources they need to access high-quality curriculum and reverse learning loss incurred during extended school closures. Additionally, states need to provide more concrete criteria for states as the plan amid continued uncertainty. While most states are focused on providing districts with flexibility to adapt to local conditions, they risk leaving district leaders with more questions than answers.
August 16, 2018
June 27, 2018