[kenjackson]

There is data to support this. There's a well known phenomena called summer learning loss. Some of the research suggests that the majority of the gap between rich and poor students can be explained by summer learning loss.

And remember, parents have to enroll their children in KIPP. How is that any different than rich parents sending their children to afterschool and summer programs that are commonplace? In many ways their completely identical. Except that historically poor students haven't even had the option of good afterschool and summer program.

This is a voluntary program. If you think your child will thrive outside the program then don't send them there. Analogies to enslavement don't help. And saying that a parent who sends their child to KIPP is somehow denying their child some culture, yet not calling out middle-class/upper-class children who enjoy these benefits today, seems hypocritical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_learning_loss#Vulnerable...

[Alex3917]

I understand summer learning loss, but that doesn't mean that KIPP is actually the best model (or even beneficial) in practice, especially at scale. Also, summer learning loss only measures math and reading performance on standardized tests, not executive function, intrinsic motivation, etc. And even on those measures, the difference isn't especially huge in math, so we're really only talking about reading ability. (Neither high-SES nor low-SES are doing math problems over the summer.) Is year round schooling really the best way to close the literacy gap?

Also, KIPP is voluntary now, but my understanding is that Gates is trying to make it the standard model of schooling. I have less of an issue with parents sending their kids to the program voluntarily, though I still think it's a bad idea.

[Permit]

> Is year round schooling really the best way to close the literacy gap?

What's the alternative in your mind? Personally, it makes complete sense to me to have year-round schooling. Especially considering the effects its been shown to have on math and reading performance.

What's so bad about extra schooling?

Edit: Also, perhaps it was different for you as a child, but most children are not intrinsically motivated to participate in school as it stands. As a kid I was far more interested in playing Age of Empires or playing outside, so the argument that extrinsic motivation doesn't work seems weak to me.

[DanBC]

It's a great idea.

Other things that help are giving books to families and encouraging parents, especially male father-figures, to read to children.

That might need some adult eduction, because adult illiteracy is a bit of a problem.

In the UK we have a charity called BooksTrust. Unfortunately it seems to have wider reach among middle class families (who have enough money to buy books, and who read to their children) than among poor parents. They have quite modest funding (£13m per year)

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8218115/C...)

[alanctgardner2]

I don't have a better source, but Freakonomics had a whole chapter dedicated to the fact that having books impacts learning outcomes much less than having money. While giving kids books and encouraging reading at home seemed like a logical solution, it seems like after school programs, summer camps, etc. are a better predictor for success