Reaching Students with Reading Disabilities During the Summer

Abstract

The extended summer break from school brings a renewed opportunity to offer high-quality literacy experiences to vulnerable readers, including children with reading disabilities (RD). Students with RD trail their peers in reading progress during the school year; the summer months present an opportunity to address the gap in reading achievement. Policy makers can support reading achievement during summer vacation empowered by interdisciplinary knowledge spanning cognitive neuroscience and education. The science of brain plasticity emphasizes the requirement of impactful reading experiences, especially for word-level skills, toward building reading brain networks. A review of research on summer programming and current policies culminates in recommendations to capitalize on summer opportunities to advance reading achievement.

Tweet

Improved #summer #reading programming for students with reading disabilities can address the opportunity gap.

Key Points

• Most children experience a pause in formal schooling during the extended summer vacation from school; on average, reading progress slows down during this time.

• Lower performing students may disproportionately lag in summer, as well as school year, reading progress compared to peers.

• Students who qualify for special education services may be eligible to receive extended school year services over the summer, yet a limited number do.

• Students with reading disabilities can benefit from high-quality reading programs.

• High-quality reading experiences are associated with neuroplasticity.

Introduction

Although the pace of academic learning is expected to slow down during summer vacation, these months bring a renewed opportunity to offer high-quality literacy experiences to vulnerable readers. Summer vacation generally spans 2–3 months (e.g., June–September in the Northeast, May–August in the South), with dates varying based largely on location (DeSilver, 2023). During this time, 62–73% of elementary school-age students lose ground in reading, translating to about 1–2 months of reading achievement loss (Kuhfeld, 2019). The loss is not evenly distributed; lower performing readers may show disproportionately more summer loss (negative 93–194% of the mean growth in the preceding grade), in contrast to their higher performing peers who may show similar amounts but as summer gain (positive 45–154% of the mean growth in the preceding grade) (Atteberry & McEachin, 2021). Students with reading disabilities (RD) may disproportionately lose ground in reading over the summer, partly related to access to and engagement with high-quality literacy experiences (Christodoulou et al., 2017).

Spotlighting readers with RD during the summer, this review advocates for improved access to high-quality summer literacy experiences. Summer vacation may encompass a wide range of activities for children and their families, but having the option to participate in effective summer literacy programming is important as viewed through the interdisciplinary topics of reading development and brain plasticity. Summer reading intervention can be especially impactful for vulnerable readers, including those with RD (Romeo et al., 2018).

Reading Acquisition Components

Reading entails many components, typically summarized as language comprehension and word reading skills serving as essential building blocks toward fluent and strategic reading culminating in text comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). Word reading has been the predominant focus of interventions (and neuroimaging studies), despite the parallel importance of fostering reading comprehension skills (Duke & Block, 2012). Word-level (untimed) skills tend to improve most rapidly, and fluency and comprehension skills more gradually (Donnelly et al., 2019). Self-regulation, here encompassing executive function and socioemotional skills, are likewise recognized as important elements for reading success (Peng, 2023). Children also show differential instructional needs based on their strengths and challenges; research with first graders showed that students with lower decoding skill benefited from teacher-managed explicit decoding instruction, while children with higher vocabulary scores benefited from independent child-managed reading and writing activities (Connor et al., 2004).

Students with Reading Disabilities

RDs are the most commonly identified learning disability (LD), impacting an estimated 5–10% of US students (Shaywitz et al., 1990). The two types of RDs are difficulties (a) reading single words and (b) accessing meaning through text. Difficulty with reading words accurately and/or fluently (Lyon et al., 2003) is also labeled developmental dyslexia. Word reading difficulties often impact reading comprehension and academic outcomes broadly. Although recognized less often, disability in reading comprehension is similarly a major challenge for students (Snowling & Hulme, 2012). Long-term correlates of RD include negative self-concept and self-esteem (Humphrey & Mullins, 2002). Students with LDs also graduate high school at lower rates (68%) than peers (86%) (U.S. Department of Education, 2018).

Reading typically advances at a slower pace for students with RDs compared to their peers even during the school year (Ferrer et al., 2015; Judge & Bell, 2010; Schulte et al., 2016; Sullivan et al., 2017). Students who go on to later be identified with an LD in elementary school already perform significantly below their peers in Kindergarten, on average (Marks et al., 2022; Morgan et al., 2011). Given that this gap is present at the start of school, and that reading progress during the academic year is slower for students with RD, summer opportunities can be a high leverage approach to help readers with RD advance.

This gap in reading performance between students with and without RDs is commonly referred to as an achievement gap (as well as equity gap, action gap, or opportunity gap; Pak & Parsons, 2020; Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2014). This gap has been quantified as about a 4-year reading disadvantage in students with versus without RDs, on average (Gilmour et al., 2019). However, it is not attributable to differences in student learning potential, but rather, to insufficient instruction, opportunities, and resources for students with RDs.

Broader research shows that better language skills are associated with greater access to opportunity and practice, not with different learning rates (Koedinger et al., 2023). The longer children have limited opportunity (e.g., restricted access to affordable, high-quality education), the worse their language outcomes (Gornik et al., 2023). Readers with RD require support, instruction, and resources.

Significant efforts are dedicated to supporting reading development in students with RD to avoid a widening achievement gap by stabilizing, and advancing, skills relative to peers. While understudied, summer reading loss is a potential explanatory framework to aid understanding of why gaps, often measured during the school year, persist between students with and without RD (Atteberry & McEachin, 2021).

Summer as Opportunity for Reading Improvement

RDs are a recognized decelerator for reading progress (Mattison et al., 2023) that may be partly due to experiential factors (Christodoulou et al., 2017; Vellutino et al., 2004). Learning loss describes performance levels that decrease over the course of an extended break, including summer vacation. Consecutive summer losses accrue to the same students to exaggerate achievement gaps (Atteberry & McEachin, 2021). Students with RD benefit from summer reading instruction in proportion to how much they get: more instructional time is associated with more reading benefit (Donnelly et al., 2019). Summer opportunities require quantity and quality, including how students are engaged affectively (Katzir, 2022). Rather than having students obliged to subscribe to the choices or interests of adults, this review advocates for opportunities for students to pursue their own interests through literacy, which is a correlate of success among readers with RD (Fink, 2007; Gotlieb et al., 2022).

Literacy programming offered to students earlier in their academic trajectory can reduce challenges (academic and socioemotional) faced by the student, as well as by the education structures needed to support the student as they advance past elementary school, when reading resources become scarce. Summer programming tends to focus on early elementary school grades, which is an excellent approach aligned with evidence of the positive impact of early intervention (Reed et al., 2023; Wanzek et al., 2018). However, older students who continue to struggle with reading are often left without sufficient resources during the school year and summer; research can, and should, guide summer reading programming for this group (Donegan & Wanzek, 2021; Moje & Tysvaer, 2010; Vaughn et al., 2010). This issue warrants a broad appraisal of summer opportunities that scale with the needs of struggling readers across grades. Regardless of age, readers with RD show consistent neurocognitive benefits from effective reading intervention.

Summer Opportunity through Brain Plasticity

Converging evidence from cognitive neuroscience showcases reading instruction-based neuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity describes the partial modification of the brain's structure and/or function in response to immersive, repetitive, and impactful experiences. Readers with RD who participate in reading intervention often show improvement accompanied by neuroplasticity of reading brain networks (Barquero et al., 2014). Reading interventions enhance brain activation of the typical reading network while engaging other cognitive systems to support reading (Perdue et al., 2022). Neuroplasticity is experience-dependent, in that high-quality reading experiences are necessary to strengthen core reading networks, without which brain infrastructure required for literacy may not develop efficiently (Luk & Christodoulou, 2023; Meisler et al., 2023). Notably, the majority of neuroplasticity research focuses on skill advancement (Perdue et al., 2022), though skill regression (Meisler et al., 2023) is possible.

Most neuroimaging reading studies have not accounted for when data were collected during the calendar year. Few studies explore summer reading achievement and neuroplasticity. However, a series of studies used a randomized control trial to assign students to a summer reading intervention or to a waiting control group (Christodoulou et al., 2017). Students, from across the continuum of socioeconomic status (SES), were completing early elementary school and experiencing reading difficulties or disabilities. Among intervention participants, students showed greater reading improvement and associated structural neuroplasticity if they started the program with more severe reading difficulties, and also if they came from lower SES backgrounds (Romeo et al., 2018). Across RD participants who did and did not receive reading intervention, decreases in reading scores over the summer were related to changes in the brain's white matter in key regions supporting language (left arcuate fasciculus and inferior longitudinal fasciculus), reflecting a potential neurocognitive signature of skill regression (Meisler et al., 2023).

This evidence highlights the opportunity for high-quality summer programming to positively impact neurocognitive reading systems. Brain-behavior correlates of reading can also inform more targeted summer programs by offering converging evidence on how reading needs differ by student characteristics (Romeo et al., 2022) and how reading programs differ in impact by instructional approach (Eden et al., 2004). For example, neuroimaging evidence points to the critical importance of training readers on the letter-sound (grapheme–phoneme) relationships for word reading (Yoncheva et al., 2015).

Codified Support for Students with Disabilities: Extended School Year Services

Formal services to support reading are most often accessed through special education services. All children with disabilities in the US have the right to receive special education services that provide them access to free, appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 20 U.S.C. § 1400, 2004). IDEA spans 13 categories including specific learning disability, which encompasses RD. After a child meets eligibility criteria, a collaborative team begins the process of implementing an individualized education program/plan (IEP), which details goals, services, modifications, and accommodations required for the child to make progress in school. After a child is referred for special education services, implementation may take over a year (Al Dahhan et al., 2021), a substantial delay during which time readers may not receive necessary support.

Students with an IEP who receive special education services may access summer programming through extended school year (ESY) services with the student's family incurring no cost. To be eligible for ESY, school teams often make a determination that without summer programming, a student will demonstrate regression. These services are generally intended for skill maintenance; without ESY services, these students would be expected to demonstrate significant regression during school breaks. Notably, ESY services were established based on federal litigation outcomes, several of which determined a limit of 180 days of instruction per year (i.e., a typical school year duration) was not compatible with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law 94–142; since 1990, called IDEA; Olmi et al., 1995). Despite challenges to accessing ESY services, summer reading programs can have a positive impact on students.

ESY Implementation Challenges

IDEA does not specify standards for determining ESY eligibility (Queenan, 2012); school districts and IEP teams look to state statutes and case law. A regression-recoupment standard is widely used: whether a student shows skill regression during a school break and/or how long the student requires to recoup the regressed skills. About 20% of states report using regression-recoupment as the primary/sole factor in determining ESY eligibility (Queenan, 2015), while others allow predictive data (i.e., based on school year achievement, is it likely that the student will regress over the summer?). However, ESY eligibility often relies on a wait-to-fail approach, in which students must demonstrate evidence of regression during, or failure to recoup after, a break (beyond standard regression-recoupment expected of students without learning challenges). Often, school staff base the potential for summer regression on a student's performance following a break during the school year (e.g., winter or spring break), which are all notably shorter in standard academic calendars.

ESY determinations are also complicated by definitions, criteria, and measures. For example, the determination of substantial/significant regression is dependent on decisions by school-based professionals, not specific definitions. The benefit of this under-specificity is that educators can use their expertise in making ESY decisions. However, there is also the potential challenge of under-resourced educators restricting ESY access based on decisions secondary to the student, such as limited financial resources, which may impose undue hardship on children and their families. Other factors may indicate ESY is necessary, such as severity and type of LD, the type of skill the child must acquire, IEP goals, projected regression, prior rate of recoupment, home structure and resources available, and child's rate of skill acquisition (MA DESE, n.d.; Queenan, 2012). Another challenge is selecting measures to assist in determining ESY eligibility (Barnard-Brak & Benner, 2020). A survey reports that a majority of special education directors believed that there is a “need to improve ability to determine eligibility for ESY,” but these educators were split on whether a specific ESY screening tool would be valuable (Barnard-Brak & Benner, 2020).

As a specific state example, New York State ESY determinations are based on whether a child requires an extended learning environment to prevent “substantial regression,” defined as “a student's inability to maintain developmental levels due to a loss of skill or knowledge during the months of July and August of such severity as to require an inordinate period of review at the beginning of the school year to reestablish and maintain IEP goals and objectives mastered at the end of the previous school year” (Queenan, 2012, p. 21). NY case law sets a precedent that regression must be “atypical”; in one court case, a student was deemed ineligible for ESY because there was minimal evidence of skill loss over school breaks, and no evidence that skills “could not be recouped in twenty-to-forty school days” (Reusch v. Fountain, 872 F. Supp. 1421, 1994).

ESY services can also face practical challenges impacting access and implementation. Foremost is the barrier of funding, as schools must allocate school-year funds to support summer programming (Fairchild et al., 2009), which in turn impacts staffing and transportation (Barnard-Brak et al., 2018). Staffing summer programs can be a challenge as individuals with sufficient experience who are looking for summer employment (and able to accept hourly rates offered) may be limited. Accommodating student transportation to and from ESY locations is often costly.

Another essential logistic is the selection of programming used during ESY. Access to summer services must entail high-quality, engaging, and effective curricula and instruction. Informed programming decisions are essential for designing evidence-based summer programs, accessing appropriate materials, and providing professional development. However, it is unclear the extent to which ESY programs (or summer studies more broadly) draw on evidence-based practices regarding reading curricula, provide professional development for educators, communicate with families to inform caretakers and involve them with continuity of reading progress at home, or engage students who may have complex socioemotional profiles associated directly or indirectly with their RD.

Evidence in Support of Summer Programming

Although decades of research support the implementation of high-quality reading instruction for students with RDs, the impact of ESY has been studied less. One study drew on nationally representative data focusing on students with an IEP in Kindergarten (Barnard-Brak & Stevens, 2019). Based on parent report, 6% of students received special education services in the summer and 94% did not. Comparing these two groups, students participating in ESY showed less reading regression between K and 1st grade. Among elementary school grades, IEPs in Kindergarten are the least frequent by a wide margin (Marks et al., 2022). ESY services are more likely to be provided to students with more severe challenges; these findings are promising for ESY's impact on students who are most in need of services.

Related work has evaluated summer reading outcomes among students with RDs in elementary school. This work showed that students with RD randomized to an intensive summer reading program maintained scores over the summer, on average, while their RD peers randomly assigned to a control group showed significant decline across a wide range of standardized reading measures (Christodoulou et al., 2017). While this study was not provided via ESY, many of the participants would have qualified for an IEP, and, therefore, ESY was a potential service. Although many summer programs are available to readers across skill levels, it has been difficult to accrue knowledge of summer programming efficacy, with major challenges being insufficient reporting (or collection) of evidence and weak design of evaluation studies (Stein & Fonseca, 2016).

Parallels from Socioeconomic Disadvantage Perspectives

Promising insights may come from parallel work on reading vulnerability associated with lower SES, rather than RD. Broadly, students who participate in summer programming that is home- or school-based have shown reading benefit, with advantages being especially positive for lower SES students (Kim & Quinn, 2013). For example, a large-scale randomized control trial focusing on home-based summer reading routines, engaging a large portion of lower SES students, showed positive long-term outcomes (Kim et al., 2016). Guardians received structured training before, and support during, the summer to engage in high-quality interactions during book reading to foster reading comprehension. While most research evaluates reading outcomes regarding SES or RD, research shows students impacted by both lower SES and RD are highly vulnerable, but also benefit substantially from summer programming (Romeo et al., 2018).

Beyond ESY: Additional Summer Options

ESY is only one potential solution for providing high-quality summer reading programs. Students with RD can benefit from reading experiences outside of school programs. However, the knowledge-base and materials required for individualized reading instruction are often dependent on specialized training. Without access to trained educators, potential solutions include scripted reading curricula, one-on-one instruction, use of technology-based programs, and collaborations with adjacent professions (e.g., librarians). High-quality tutoring is a recognized evidence-based strategy to accelerate student learning, including lower-cost virtual models (Loeb et al., 2023; Nickow et al., 2020), which are consistent with recommendations to individualize instruction for struggling readers (Kamil et al., 2008). Among community resources, partnerships with libraries can offer high-quality literacy experiences for vulnerable students, particularly those who do not receive ESY, via book selection guidance, summer reading programs, book clubs, and other onsite or virtual activities (Urban Libraries Council, 2018).

Implications

Summer literacy opportunities are essential for promoting reading progress, especially among students with RDs. We offer several considerations in the context of current challenges.

Fund and promote effective summer programming as a public policy priority. Reading instruction can be effective by ensuring that both instructional components and approaches are evidence-based. Reading skills can advance more easily for students without learning challenges; students with RDs require specific instructional elements. The International Dyslexia Association (2021) advocates for a structured literacy approach for delivering effective reading instruction that is explicit, systematic and cumulative, intensive, student data-driven, based on targeted assessment data, and integrates instructional elements of phonology, sound-symbol association, syllables, morphology, syntax, and semantics. One survey of curricula used during the summer reported that among the top two most common, only one curriculum was evidence-based and the other was not aligned with evidence for teaching students with RD (Reed et al., 2023). Classroom and behavior management strategies are under-recognized as important to guiding summer program educators in how to help students regulate their emotions, behavior, and cognition. Resources detailing characteristics of effective summer program further specify the importance of planning, providing high-quality and differentiated instruction, sufficient program duration, and parent involvement (McCombs et al., 2011). Organizations including the National Summer Learning Association (summerlearning.org, Fairchild et al., 2009) and regional groups such as Boston Beyond (bostonbeyond.org/summer programs) serve as valuable hubs of summer program information.

Evaluate how ESY services can play a supportive and positive role in reading outcomes. Current ESY programs can be improved with guidance, such as having clear roles for education staff, reviewing and aligning with IEP goals, and collecting data (Sobeck, 2017). Another improvement would be to increase the availability of ESY services to students likely to show summer reading regression. We must consider the extent to which ESY decisions are based on student need rather than on the available resources and capacity in school settings. Information on the content of ESY services for readers who struggle is extremely limited, which restricts opportunities to update and improve them. It would be valuable to learn who is being selected for ESY; what services, resources, training, and programming are being provided; and what the impact is on students and the schools/systems they are in. This work can inform decision-makers in design, implementation, access, and impact by identifying effective model programs while addressing challenges of ESY. It is also critical to not use ESY as a continuation of school year approaches if the latter has not been effective or updated to evidence-based practices.

Identify high-value programming based on cost-effectiveness ratio. Given the financial constraints limiting summer programming, it is essential to optimize the cost-effectiveness ratio in selecting programs. Other resources provide cost-effectiveness considerations, and report costs ranging from $1,000–2,621 per summer-school attendee (Grossman et al., 2009; Harris, 2009; McCombs et al., 2011; Reed et al., 2020). Importantly, offering the same (potentially insufficient) reading programming as during the school year to save on costs compromises the cost-effectiveness ratio. Providing effective evidence-based summer reading programming is estimated to save state-wide school districts over $70 million (compared to the costs of retaining students; Reed et al., 2020).

To optimize opportunities for success in summer program implementation, anticipate common challenges. Two common barriers in providing summer programming have been identified as lack of funding and lack of teachers, based on a survey of schools in one midwestern state (Reed et al., 2023). State legislation related to summer programming and funding varies substantially, with details available via ECS (Education Commission of the States, State Policy Database, n.d.). Teacher recruitment for summer programs can conflict with plans to pause work during the summer, involve low pay rates, or lack professional development opportunities of interest. Strategies to address these challenges might include providing summer hires with coaching in evidence-based reading curricula, opportunities for research participation, or other considerations valuable to potential educators. Partnerships with graduate schools seeking practicum opportunities for their students can also address staffing needs while training a new generation of informed educators/clinicians. Recruiting and retaining students during summer programming can be another major barrier (Reed et al., 2016). A common issue is that many summer programs are not full day, and working parents cannot easily accommodate drop-off and pick-up schedules that interfere with typical work hours. One solution is to offer morning academic programming and afternoon community-based activities, with staff opting into one half or full days that suit their schedules.

Conclusion

Summer vacation from formal schooling is an important time to continue considering the reading progress of young students. Reading achievement requires experience: skill-building comes with and from practice. Neurocognitive reading systems develop and become efficient with formative reading experiences. Continued efforts should attend to the role of student characteristics (i.e., what student traits, habits, or practices help or hinder reading progress) and program features (i.e., what about summer programming works best, for whom, under what conditions, at what cost). Vulnerable readers cannot afford a long summer away from reading experiences and support, nor should they be routed to disengaging summer programming. Failing to use the summer squanders valuable time that could be used to address the opportunity gap that befalls select groups of students. Students with RDs may especially benefit from opportunities during the summer to participate in effective and engaging reading programming. Current policies in some states acknowledge the need for some students to access services during the summer, but these are often put into effect with inconsistent approaches or insufficient resources. While many school, community, and state programs support summer learning, we advocate for attention to how policies shape opportunities to access summer programs that include reading, and reevaluate whom these policies reach. Summer programming for reading have been based on available resources as well as on ethical, empirical, and legal bases to different degrees. We propose that policymakers empower their communities through creating specific summer programming opportunities to promote reading achievement, especially for vulnerable readers.