a314 final proposal, out of school learning group
TRANSCRIPT
Opportunities for All: Out-of-School Time Learning for the 21st Century
Mary Conroy Almada, Emily Bozentka, Kevin Connors, Ari Fleisher, Elizabeth Mullins, & Jeffrey Silva
May 8, 2015
A-314
Redesigning Education Systems for the 21st Century: A Workshop Harvard Graduate School of Education
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 1
Table of Contents Where We Are Now ...................................................................................................................... 2
Where We’re Going ...................................................................................................................... 3
Design Principles ........................................................................................................................... 4
Day in the Life ............................................................................................................................... 5
K-8 Experience .................................................................................................................. 5
High School Experience .................................................................................................... 7
Extenuating Circumstances ............................................................................................. 8
How it All Works: An Operations Overview ............................................................................. 9
Challenges to the System ............................................................................................................ 12
Strengths of this New System ..................................................................................................... 16
Implementation Strategy ............................................................................................................ 18
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 24
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 2
Where We Are Now
In the current educational system, youth spend eighty percent of their waking hours
outside of school (Peterson, 2013). Primarily after school and summer, this time is essential and
has as much of an impact on the achievement gap as time spent in school does (P. Reville,
personal communication, January 28, 2015). Fortunately, the past fifteen years have seen
significant expansion in high-quality afterschool and summer programs that offer engaging
learning experiences (Peterson, 2013). Once viewed as non-essentials, afterschool and summer
programs are increasingly being acknowledged as powerful learning environments that give
young people access to hands-on, experiential learning opportunities vital to their education
(Peterson, 2013). Research has shown that such opportunities often lead to significant, positive
effects on essential learning-related outcomes (Peterson, 2013). Sadly, however, access to these
opportunities is far from equitable.
The greatest inadequacies in the current system are the barriers that prevent equitable
access to these rich out-of-school time (OST) opportunities. To begin, there exists an access and
opportunity gap since low-income parents cannot afford to give their children the high-quality
learning opportunities that wealthy parents can during OST (P. Reville, personal communication,
January 28, 2015). In the past thirty years, the gap in spending between lower- and upper-income
families on out-of-school enrichment has increased; while spending among low-income families
has been relatively stagnant, spending among upper-income families has grown dramatically
(Putnam as cited in Farbman, 2015). This gap becomes especially salient when one considers the
cuts in time spent on enrichment that have been made in schools since the passing of No Child
Left Behind, cuts disproportionately made in low-achieving, often low-income, schools
(Farbman, 2015). While affluent families have made up for these cuts by paying out-of-pocket
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 3
for OST programming (Farbman, 2015), low-income families often cite significant barriers such
as costs and lack of safe transportation to and from activities, that impede the enrollment of their
children in afterschool opportunities (Afterschool Alliance, 2014a). Furthermore, ability to
access afterschool programming was limited by a lack of opportunity; four out of ten parents
stated that no afterschool programming was available in their community (Afterschool Alliance,
2014a). Yet we know the demand exists. Currently, one in five youth do not have someone to
care for them after school and parents of more than 19 million children would enroll their
children in an afterschool program were it available (Afterschool Alliance, 2014a).
In redesigning an OST system, we decided to start by concentrating on re-envisioning the
afterschool system. Ultimately, we saw this as a powerful opportunity to build an afterschool
system that bridged the current school day with the high-quality learning opportunities afforded
by OST organizations in a way that guaranteed equitable access to high-quality programming for
all students. Our design process was informed by the context of Somerville, Massachusetts, and
as such many ideas in our paper will be grounded in data related to Somerville. However, we
believe that in the end we created a framework that other districts could use moving forward.
Where We’re Going
An intentional mission and vision are at the center of this new system, driving the
changes our children deserve. Our mission is to extend learning beyond the classroom by
connecting young people to impactful experiences that develop the skills they need for school,
life, and the future. Additionally, our vision is that all students will have equitable access to high-
quality, student-driven, enrichment experiences that foster the social, emotional, academic skills
necessary to thrive in the 21st Century.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 4
Our idea is to extend learning time by adding three hours of designated enrichment to the
end of the K-8 school day. Additionally, we would add an OST requirement for high schools
students. We recognize that if we fail to increase learning opportunities we will increase learning
gaps but also know that simply extending the school day is insufficient; added time must involve
youth actively engaged in high-quality learning programs (The Wallace Foundation, 2011).
Given the context, our mission, and our vision, we set about in the ambitious task of redesigning
an afterschool system.
Design Principles
We believe that intentionally structured, supported, and monitored extra time will not
only increase engagement and offer students previously unavailable exposure to new activities,
but will also be a potential equalizer. First, the system must not be a financial burden on students
or families; it should be provided free of charge to participants. Second, safe, accessible
transportation is necessary to ensure equitable participation. Third, the content should be student-
driven and include desirable, engaging activities such as coding, visual arts, music, and
engineering. Additionally, the design must consider all stakeholders, including parents and
families, school personnel, community members and organizations, and of course, students. By
following these design principles, we will reframe the existing conversation around school
responsibility and capacity to provide meaningful educational experiences, and will
institutionalize the importance of programs that are integral to whole-child development.
A final foundational principle of our design, and essential in realizing our vision, is that
after school experiences must be high-quality enrichment. This term encompasses much more
than many after school programs, and indeed many schools, currently offer. We will not be able
to accomplish our mission if this extra time serves as a continuation of the content and style of
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 5
school-day teaching. We are not proposing homework support, academic tutoring, disconnected
arts and crafts projects, or free time in the gym. Rather, lessons and projects that occur from
2:30-5:30PM will include multiple modalities to engage diverse learners and develop non-
academic skills, interests and strengths. Research out of the National Institute on Out-of-School
Time (NIOST) has identified that quality afterschool programs include a “variety of activities,
flexibility in programming, emotional climate… age appropriate activities, clear goals and
evaluation” (Palmer, Anderson, & Sabatelli, 2009). Experiences will be driven by student
interest, will be interdisciplinary, and will develop students socially and emotionally so that they
feel more connected to school and to each other.
Our proposed system is guided by the following theory: If all stakeholders are involved
and respected, enrichment programming is of high-quality, and policy makers and those satisfied
by the status quo are persuaded to increase program funding, than children of all backgrounds
will have guaranteed and equitable access to enrichment experiences that inspire learning and
foster the social, emotional, and academic skills they need to thrive in the 21st century. The new
system can have an incredible impact, but only if we adhere to these principles.
A Day in the Life
K-8 Experience Joey looks at the clock in his fourth grade classroom eagerly. It is 2PM, which means in thirty minutes his school’s enrichment program will start. There, Joey has been learning about Japanese culture and how to
make origami birds with his friend Sarah’s mom. He has also been learning how to use Photoshop to create illustrations for the book he is writing with help from Theo, a junior from the nearby high school. Last year at 2:30PM, Joey would take the bus home from school to his apartment, where he would watch
TV or play Xbox with his little brother until his mom got home from her shift at the grocery store later that night. He never looked forward to 2:30PM before. Now, Joey’s afternoon is filled with learning and
excitement. Suddenly 5:30PM has arrived, as has the bus to take him home.
The fundamental systemic change that we propose to make is to extend the compulsory
school day for elementary and middle schools by three hours every day. The time between
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 6
2:30PM and 5:30PM would be reserved for student participation in high-quality enrichment
programs located in schools. These programs would be geared toward holistic development and
selected and evaluated based on student demand and the aforementioned research-based quality
standards.
In the proposed system, the three extra hours added to the standard K-8 school day would
move the time of dismissal from 2:30PM to 5:30PM with school buses leaving at the new
dismissal time to ensure safe and reliable transportation for all students. These additional hours
will be devoted to high quality, enriching activities that will encompass a variety of interests and
skills. Through activities like coding, building models, chess, poetry lessons, musical instruction,
and karate, students like Joey will be exposed to new skills, knowledge, and cultures. Students,
many of whom previously lacked access to these types of activities, will develop interests, build
diverse skill sets, and increase their awareness about opportunities for their future.
Enrichment activities can be proposed and instructed by community members and current
program providers. Parents or family members can come in to a school and teach aspects of their
culture such as cooking, language, or history, or apply to instruct students on topics in which
they possess strong interest or expertise. High school students can apply to work at the
enrichment program, either as mentors or as instructors of enrichment activities. Schools will
partner with current providers in the community, such as an arts education nonprofit or a local
community center, to staff the additional three hours and provide the enrichment programming.
The approved programs will be supported in, and held accountable to, achieving and
maintaining quality standards. The district will use student and parent surveys to gauge activity
interest at the beginning, middle, and end of each school year to ensure quality and demand are
being met. Every activity at the enrichment program must be offered to every student free of
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 7
charge. To see a sample schedule of what the 2:30PM to 5:30PM enrichment period will look
like, please see Appendix A.
High School Experience
Mario, a junior, grins with excitement. He has just been approved by the Enrichment Board to teach debate three days a week at the Kennedy Elementary School’s enrichment program.
Although the job pays minimum wage, it is much more enjoyable than sweeping up popcorn at the movie theater. Plus, it will look great on his college applications and hopefully land him a
scholarship!
High school students will have the opportunity to engage in afterschool enrichment
activities through a new graduation requirement for afterschool enrichment. This new
requirement mandates that high school students complete a minimum of 160 hours of out-of-
school enrichment per year, or approximately 5 hours per week (with cushions built in for sick
days in the yearly total). The graduation requirement can be met through participating in
afterschool clubs and sports, working a job after school, or through other established out-of-
school activities, such as church groups, mentoring programs, volunteering, and so on. An
Enrichment Counselor at each high school will connect students to these opportunities, approve
the opportunities, and ensure that students are completing their hours.
High school students can apply to work at middle and elementary school’s enrichment
programs as one way to meet this new graduation requirement. Working at the enrichment
program provides high school students with the opportunity to share their interests and skills,
gain valuable leadership experience, and serve as mentors to younger students. High school
students can work as mentors or instructors at K-8 enrichment programs, making minimum wage
or higher (based on the district’s funding allocations). Once a high school student is hired, they
will spend their first year in the enrichment program assisting instructors and providing
mentorship to the students. After the first year is complete, high school students can apply to be
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 8
instructors for one semester in the area of their choice, or move into the role of lead mentor. High
school students serving in mentor and instructor positions at the enrichment programs will be
supported through regular evaluations and invitations to school trainings and staff professional
development sessions to further their professional growth and leadership skills.
High school students who qualify for free and reduced-price lunches will be given
prioritized consideration in the staffing of enrichment programs. Because many of these students
rely on afterschool jobs to make money for personal and academic expenses, they may not have
the option of participating in a sport or extracurricular club to meet their enrichment requirement.
Working at the enrichment program would enable them to earn a salary and gain practice in
leadership, giving these high school students a richer experience than a standard job might
provide. With the amount of staff needed at the enrichment programs, it is likely that most high
school students who demonstrate strong interest, dedication, and aptitude in a relevant area will
be hired.
Extenuating Circumstances Tatiana has wanted to be an Olympic gymnast ever since she saw Gabby Douglass take home the gold in
2012. This is not just a pipedream; Tatiana practices with a personal coach every day after school for three hours. At age 9, she has already placed in several state competitions.
While our design will benefit most students by providing them with free access to high-
quality activities, there may be a few situations where students would benefit more from other
opportunities, such as in Tatiana’s case. Tatiana is serious about pursuing a future as a gymnast,
and spending the afternoons at school that she would otherwise dedicate to her practice would
negatively impact this goal. Thus, for extenuating circumstances such as Tatiana’s, the
possibility of opting-out of the enrichment program is available.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 9
If a parent wishes to excuse their K-8 child from the enrichment program, they must
petition for an opt-out exception. The process will be fairly strenuous to discourage parents from
opting their children out for less-critical reasons. There will also be opportunities for partial opt-
outs in certain cases (for example, if a student needs to meet with his rabbi twice a week for his
upcoming bar mitzvah).
It is anticipated that the majority of parents, both low-income and affluent, will not opt
their students out of the enrichment program. If the enrichment program excites students,
provides them with a wide range of high-quality activities, and removes the obligation of parents
to find or provide transportation for their children to and from multiple enrichment opportunities,
then the program will have wide appeal and parents will be incentivized to participate. We see
this as analogous to the contrast between public and private schools: if the enrichment program is
cost-effective and high-quality, there are fewer incentives for a parent to send their child to
outside lessons that are costly and of a comparable quality. However, in the few circumstances
where the enrichment program is not able to meet the caliber of a child’s outside activity, such as
in Tatiana’s case, a parent can elect to opt-out in the interest of their child.
How It All Works: An Operations Overview
Now that the student experience of our system has been outlined, it is useful to examine
the processes that underlie the execution of that experience. Our system calls for the addition of
both district-level personnel as well as school-site staff to make our design a reality. These
positions include the District Enrichment Director, the District Enrichment Board, elementary
and middle school on-site Enrichment Coordinators, and high school on-site Enrichment
Counselors.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 10
The District Enrichment Director is the central hub of all the action. Apart from general
organizational and logistical issues, the director is also the point person who maintains strong
relationships with partner program providers, aggregates and interprets program evaluation data,
and addresses the concerns and needs that school site staff might have. For instance, if student
demand at one school is particularly strong for a specific program, the school’s Enrichment
Coordinator may request that the director identify a program provider to fill that demand.
Working in tandem with the District Enrichment Board, the director will seek out potential
partners that could supply that need.
Whereas the District Enrichment Director is tasked with identifying a partnership in the
above example, the District Enrichment Board has the critical responsibility of certifying it.
Once a program provider exhibits interest in offering its program at schools, it enters into a
rigorous application process. By considering research-based key indicators, past program
performance, and a probationary program trial run, the board will conclude whether or not to
include the provider into a program “bank” (i.e. a collection of certified programs) from which
school-based Enrichment Coordinators may select to fill their schools’ 2:30PM to 5:30PM
programmatic openings.
Program placement into this “bank” is not permanent, however. In order to ensure that
quality of programming is constantly maintained, the board also recertifies programs based on
triennial evaluations informed by data collected at schools. Clearly, our system relies on board
members’ knowledge of the local landscape and expertise in various fields to provide the
guidance and leadership required for successful selection of high-quality programs;
consequently, it will consist of select administrators, parents, teachers, and community and local
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 11
business leaders who all understand the necessity for, and have a strong dedication to, extending
enrichment opportunities to all.
One of the myriad responsibilities of school-site Enrichment Coordinators is to collect the
data used in the recertification process by conducting observations of program activities,
administering student and parent questionnaires, and interviewing the program provider staff
members who execute the afterschool programs held at schools. Once collected, aggregation of
district-wide data and the evaluation of programs will be handled by the District Enrichment
Director before the results are passed to the Board for review and certification. For the evaluation
process to be effective, Enrichment Coordinators will be trained to observe and interview
program staff during summer professional development workshops. Here, the District
Enrichment Director will be responsible to contract evaluation instrument developers such as the
National Institute on Out-of-School Time or the National AfterSchool Association to provide the
requisite training of the Enrichment Coordinators.
Another responsibility of the Enrichment Coordinator is to make school-specific program
decisions based on student and parent demand. Data collection questionnaires will then serve a
second purpose – that of measuring student interest. Based on the information collected at the
school-level by these questionnaires, the Enrichment Coordinator will select programs for the
school from the district “bank” of providers to include in these future offerings. In this way,
students and parents may exercise voice in which programs are offered at their school, thus
ensuring continuously strong student engagement in the offered afterschool programs.
We understand that for some high school students, it may be difficult to find a job or
afterschool activity that fulfills their enrichment requirement. In order to provide these students
and any others the support and guidance they need, each high school will staff an Enrichment
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 12
Counselor. The counselor’s primary responsibility is to lay out the best opportunities available to
each student based on that student’s personal context. This will be a collaborative process;
counselors will not dictate choices, but rather support students’ choices. We see collaboration
also occurring between Enrichment Counselors and program providers. Counselors will work
with providers to determine staffing needs, which will be filled with students in an effort to keep
costs low as well as to assist students in their development of leadership and career skills.
We do not view our system as strictly top-down. This is represented by the graphic
representation of different players’ responsibilities in Appendix C. There is a lot of room for
considerable back and forth between all the players involved in the day-to-day work. By
ensuring this type of collaboration, we believe that there exist enough opportunities to have
people’s voices heard, whether they be the director’s or an individual student.
Challenges to the System
Any large-scale systemic change comes with barriers, we have identified four obstacles
to our proposal’s success: school site capacity, funding, parental pushback, and political
pushback.
School site capacity
First, the design of school buildings poses an inherent limitation. Somerville schools do
not have swimming pools, ice skating rinks, or dance studios. Even if demand is overwhelmingly
high for an activity like swimming, our system is limited in its ability to provide certain
activities. For example, Somerville Public Schools students do have access to participate in
swimming lessons at the Kennedy Pool (The Kennedy Pool, 2015). Under our proposal, most
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 13
students would likely lose that activity as an option. This example illustrates the potential for an
opportunity gap to exist regarding activities that physically cannot occur in a school building.
To ameliorate the limitations of our school’s structure we plan to give schools financial
autonomy and flexibility. Part of the OST budget will include an unrestricted fund for each
School Enrichment Coordinator. Unrestricted funds can be used to fund bus transportation one
day a week to another location, such as a ballet studio or the Kennedy Pool. Moreover, we hope
that as we demonstrate the quantitative success of our program, our funding will continue to
increase, allowing us to expand the options that we can provide to our students.
Funding
Second, funding for extended after school programming is a significant challenge.
Orchard Gardens Pilot School (OGPS) extended the school day for 833 students and offered
partner-run enrichment, professional development to teachers, and academic support. The cost
for this additional time was between $942 and $1,1695 per pupil (The Wallace Foundation,
2014). OGPS added 180 extra hours for students in grades K-5 and 540 extra hours for students
in grades 6-8 (The Wallace Foundation, 2014). OGPS is not a perfect match to our proposal, but
the expenditure does provide us with a rough roadmap of the potential cost of our proposal.
Somerville has about 5,000 students in the district (Massachusetts Department of
Education, 2015). Based on the Orchard Gardens Pilot School extended learning time initiative
and the current population of students in Somerville, we estimate implementation will cost about
six million dollars (Somerville Public Schools, accessed 2015). See Appendix B for specific
calculations. Politicians and parents are hesitant to spend that much money, especially when they
have not seen the direct benefits in their community yet.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 14
Thankfully the benefits of our program outweigh the costs. First, the cost associated with
extending the day is lower than the cost of adding extra days to the school year (McGlone,
2014). Secondly, despite the significant cost to taxpayers, over eighty percent of people believe
that the public should fund afterschool programming; this support is bipartisan and consistent
among geographic regions (Afterschool Alliance, 2014a). Similarly, Massachusetts has already
seen benefits from extended learning initiatives. In Massachusetts, urban schools that
implemented extended learning time improved faster than the rest of the state on standardized
achievement scores. The schools also began to make more progress in closing the achievement
gap compared to the non-ELT schools (Gabrieli & Goldstein, 2008). Moreover, these economic
benefits trickle back down to society. A study conducted by the RAND foundation found that
taxpayers benefit from more highly educated people, because they contribute more in taxes and
draw less from social safety nets (RAND Education, 2009). The ability of society to eventually
cash in on its investment will be a main point of persuasion with the public.
Parental Pushback
We predict that parents of students who already have access to afterschool programs may
be opposed to our proposal. A family who has the capacity to pay for and transport their children
to high-quality sports, activities, and lessons may perceive this model to limit freedom. Parents
might initially believe that the current after school programming they are providing individually
is higher quality and more tailored to their child when compared to district programming.
We are still confident in our ability to persuade parents that afterschool programming is
beneficial. Parents spend extensive time and money on afterschool programming and those
services would now become free and housed at the school. Middle-class families will likely
appreciate that they no longer have to pay for these services, nor transport their children to
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 15
multiple locations. Ultimately, we are confident that within the first five years our district wide
programming will be viewed as a success, and parents will be satisfied sending their students to
school-based programming.
Political Pushback
After our class presentation, the panelists reminded us that the substantial cost would
make approval difficult. To garner support for our proposed system among community
leadership, we will engage district leaders and local politicians in the system design and the
supporting research. Since afterschool programs have been found to be significant learning
opportunities with positive effects on student outcomes (Peterson, 2013), we anticipate support
from district leaders and politicians who aim to improve student achievement in Somerville. It
will be critical to also use available research on the impact of social-emotional skills not only on
student achievement, but general student welfare and school climate. These stakeholders will
also be inclined to offer support based on the safety impact of our proposed system. Currently,
the majority of students do not feel that they have a safe place to go after school (Afterschool
Alliance, 2007). Additionally, 86% of police officers surveyed believe that afterschool programs
becoming readily available for a wide range of students will result in significant decreases in
crimes and violence committed by youth (Afterschool Alliance, 2007). Thus, the benefits of our
systems to student achievement and student safety in the community will likely result in
leadership support.
Other Challenges
In the feedback we received from our presentation, a concern over the possibility of our
system exacerbating socioeconomic inequities arose. Specifically, the panel expressed the
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 16
concern of mandating all students attend when some students have greater needs than others. The
thought is that by distributing resources equally amongst everyone, we would give higher income
families more flexibility to expend those resources in other areas (like tutoring) that could
promote further widening of the opportunity gap. Our intent is not to remedy socioeconomic
disparities on a national scale; this is something that can only be accomplished through the
combination of multiple systemic changes, not only in education but also in other areas such as
healthcare, housing reform, and job training to name a few. Our intent is to level the playing field
when it comes to access to high quality programming in enrichment opportunities through
mandating afterschool programming and ensuring it is of high quality. Our proposal is a
stepping-stone which, when combined with gains in those other areas, will place us on the path
towards deeper equality.
Strengths of this New System “Visiting high quality expanded learning programs... is indeed inspiring. You will see young people meaningfully engaged with each other, as well as with educators, youth development professionals, employers, college students and professors, and volunteers from the community. You will see them
participating in activities that encourage inquiry, responsibility, problem solving, solid work habits, creativity, mastery, and a sense of belonging” (Peterson, 2013).
In the end, despite some foreseeable challenges, we see much strength in the way our
new afterschool system meets our design principles, addresses inadequacies in the current
system, and presents compelling reasons for funding our new system. To begin, our system takes
the types of engaging learning opportunities students typically experience outside of school and
institutionalizes them as an essential part of their education. High-quality afterschool
programming will be solidified as an integral part of a child’s education and made accessible to
all students as opposed to existing as an add-on only available to those fortunate enough to pay
for it. Secondly, free, school-site based afterschool programming eliminates the barriers of cost
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 17
and transportation often cited by those unable to participate in afterschool programming
(Afterschool Alliance, 2014a). Our system meets the unmet demand of more than 19 million
children (Afterschool Alliance, 2014a) by providing them with guaranteed, high-quality
afterschool programming. Additionally, our system will provide students with a wide-range of
activities that will both address their interests and leverage the power of community partnerships.
Furthermore, the kind of quality afterschool programming that we are proposing provides
many benefits to students. The Afterschool Alliance (2014b) cites three main areas impacted
positively by quality afterschool programming: School engagement, behavior, and academic
performance. They also add the following:
Quality afterschool programs can boost the overall well-being of children and youth:
nurturing their intellectual curiosity, developing them into lifelong learners, helping them
become more self-confident and self-aware, supporting them as they navigate friendships
and relationships, and improving their performance in and attitude toward school.
(Afterschool Alliance, 2014b, p. 15)
It is often in these afterschool activities that innovative educators, professionals in fields from
photography to environmental science, are expanding minds, challenging students to achieve
their full potential, and preparing students for college and career success through activities such
as debate, theatre, robotics, and project-based learning activities (Peterson, 2013). We believe
that bringing these opportunities into school by expanding the day is essential in ensuring that all
students have access to the opportunities that support their social, emotional, and intellectual
development.
Implementation Strategy
A systemic and mandatory extension of the K-8 school day generates strengths and
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 18
opportunities, but also significant challenges, as detailed in the previous section. We
acknowledge that it would be unwise to abruptly disrupt the schedules and norms of each
student, school, and family without a transitional period. A system-wide change requires the
support of all stakeholders, and we recognize that this support must be earned over time. We also
believe that a school district, and eventually a state, must be able to ensure quality before
mandating a three-hour extension of the school day for enrichment programs. As a result of these
challenges we believe that our system-wide design for enrichment activities should be phased
into place over a ten-year period (see appendix C for implementation timeline).
Year one is a planning year. The first step is for the Superintendent to appoint a District
Enrichment Director who will oversee all aspects of the enrichment program. This position will
play an essential role in this first year of preparation and one of the first duties for the Director is
to analyze the current after-school landscape in the community and to engage the public. The
Director will assess the following questions: Who are the current providers? How much do they
cost families? Where are students spending after-school hours? What do students and families
want out of an enrichment program? Then, the Director will convene a District Enrichment
Board, whose largest task at this stage will be selecting and evaluating providers for our pilot
schools during year two. The board will also play a key role in building support for the program
throughout the schools, the community, and providers. Funding streams should also be
immediately explored during this planning year, as a sustainable program will require diverse
funding shared between the district, providers, government, and grants. Forecasting a budget for
the program must be a top priority.
Years two, three, and four will feature a pilot of the enrichment programs at a few school
sites. Parents will have the opportunity to opt their students out of the enrichment program, just
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 19
as they do in the full-scale program, but the opt-out process will be less strenuous during this
initial pilot phase since the district will be trying to build the fidelity of its model. School site
enrichment coordinators will be hired at these pilot schools and they will work with providers,
the board, students, families, and the director to collect feedback and data. The goal of this three-
year pilot is to ensure that our process for delivering enrichment activities supports a mandated
model for all students.
In year five, with the evidence produced by the pilot phase, the district will implement
the enrichment program at all school sites. The extended school day and high school enrichment
requirement will be required for all students, except for those whose parents wish to opt their
students out of the program. The bar for opting-out, however, will be noticeably higher, as
discussed in previous sections. Data will continue to be collected to show the quality of
providers, sustainability of the program, and the capacity of enrichment to improve outcomes for
students. During this phase it will also be crucial to begin garnering more political support
outside of the local government.
In year ten, all districts in the state will offer free, high quality enrichment programming
to all students, with our district serving as a model. After five years of a district-wide program
and results to show the model’s efficacy, political support will play a key role in
institutionalizing enrichment, and its myriad benefits, into the school day.
Conclusion
We know what works. More than ever, we know that students learn and develop in
unique and diverse ways. We know that 80% of their time is spent out of school (P. Reville,
personal communication, January 28, 2015). We know that there are opportunity, access, and
achievement gaps.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 20
We believe that we can begin to close those gaps by connecting young people to
enrichment programs that are excellent and equitable for all. We believe that the next century
will require our children to be leaders and critical thinkers while possessing academic, social,
and emotional skills. As a country rich with ideas, ideals, and the capacity to make real progress,
we also believe that our schools must provide our children a greater opportunity to achieve. The
extended K-8 school day and high school enrichment requirement offers all students unparalleled
access to high quality, diverse, and student-driven experiences that will prepare them for school,
life, and the future.
Such a system also inherently interplays with other key components of a 21st century
school system that will require schools to meet the individual academic needs of students and
ensure that every student’s basic needs, such as food, shelter, and health are met. The data
collected in our enrichment programs can and should be paired with the data collected through
the student dashboard that the technology-differentiation group proposed. The enrichment
programs completed by K-8 students and led by high school students can and should be
incorporated into the “badge” system put forth by the individualization team. And the school
enrichment director tasked with connecting students to health services can and should collaborate
with us as we connect students to diverse learning experiences and advocate for the services
necessary for them to be prepared to learn. Each part of the system must work together if we are
to ensure that each child’s needs are holistically met.
In the end, our proposal is nothing more than institutionalizing for all students what only
some of our students are currently able to access: high quality enrichment opportunities. Whether
it is through sports, music, coding, art, or countless other activities, all kids deserve a chance to
learn and grow outside of the traditional classroom. We believe that by mandating attendance at
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 21
these programs, out-of-school learning will become institutionalized, therefore reducing
educational inequity by providing students of all backgrounds free access to learning
opportunities that cultivate the skills and characteristics necessary for success in the 21st century.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 22
References
Afterschool Alliance (2007). Afterschool Programs: Keeping Kids - and Communities - Safe.
Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/issue_briefs/issue_CrimeIB_27.pdf
Afterschool Alliance (2014a). America after 3PM: Afterschool programs in demand.
Washington, D.C. Retrieved from ttp://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/AA3PM-
2014/AA3PM_National_Report.pdf
Afterschool Alliance (2014b). Taking a deeper dive into afterschool: Positive outcomes and
promising practices. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/Deeper_Dive_into_Afterschool.pdf
Farbman, D. A. (2015). The case for improving and expanding time in school: A review of key
research and practice. National Center on Time & Learning.
Gabrieli, C, & Goldstein, W (2008). Excerpt from: Time to learn: How a new school schedule is
making smarter kids, happier parents & safer neighborhoods. Reading Rockets. Jossey-
Bass. http://www.readingrockets.org/article/time-learn-benefits-longer-school-day
The Kennedy Pool (accessed April 29, 2015). Welcome to the Kennedy Pool Website.
http://www.somerville.k12.ma.us/education/dept/dept.php?sectiondetailid=13607
McGlone, P. (2014, January 26). How much will a longer school day cost? New report has some
answers. NJ.com.
Massachusetts Department of Education (accessed April 29, 2015). Enrollment Data-Somerville.
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/student.aspx?orgcode=02740000&orgtypecode=5&
Palmer, K. L., Anderson, S. A, & Sabatelli, R. M. (2009). How is the afterschool field defining
program quality? A review of effective program practices and definitions of program
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 23
quality. Afterschool Matters. Fall 2009, 1-12.
Peterson, T. K. (2013). Introduction: The importance of and new opportunities for leveraging
afterschool and summer learning and school-community partnerships for community
success. In Peterson, T. K. (Ed.), Expanding minds and opportunities: Leveraging the
power of afterschool and summer learning for student success. The Expanded Learning
and Afterschool Project.
The RAND Foundation. (2009). How taxpayers benefit when students attain higher levels of
education. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9461/index1.html
Somerville Public Schools (accessed April 29, 2015). School Calendars 2015-2016.
http://www.somerville.k12.ma.us
The Wallace Foundation (January 2014). Financing expanded learning time in schools. National
Center on Time and Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/summer-and-extended-learning-
time/extended-learning-time/Documents/Financing-Expanded-Learning-Time-in-
Schools.pdf
The Wallace Foundation (May 16-17, 2011). Reimagining the school day: More time for
learning. A Wallace Foundation National Forum. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL 24
Appendices
Appendix A: Sample Afterschool Schedule 2:30-3:15 Snack, Bathrooms, Movement Break 3:15- 4:15 Enrichment Block #1 4:15-4:20 Transition 4:20-5:20 Enrichment Block #2 5:20-5:30 Closing and Dismissal
Appendix B: Calculations for 6 million
Assuming that high school students represent about 30% of the district, there are probably around 1,500 high school students in Somerville. Our proposal is extending the school day for about 3,500 students (5,000 total students minus 1,500 high school students). Currently Somerville is in session for 184 days each school year (Somerville Public Schools, accessed 2015). If we use OGPS as a model we can estimate that we will spend an additional $1,695 per student plus the salaries of each School Enrichment Coordinator and District Director. A very rough estimate gives us a total of $5,932,500 (3,500 * $1,695) plus six additional salaries. Appendix C: Staff Responsibilities