Search

After eighteen months of school closure and disrupted learning, civic leaders, researchers, and educational leaders are getting a clearer picture of how students fared through the pandemic, and what new reality school systems face as they return to in-person schooling in 2021-22. Increases in community infection rates and parent hesitancy have thrown districts back into uncertainty, making it all the more critical to ensure continuity of learning and well-being for students who may not be able to return to classrooms as quickly as planned, and may face continued disruptions due to quarantines. As students return to a third year of disrupted learning, school and system leaders cannot lose sight of our schools' most critical charge this year: addressing unfinished learning and restoring student well-being. While gauging the academic impacts of the pandemic through spring 2021 has been challenging, a body of evidence is emerging from a range of public and private institutions studying this question from different angles. The best interpretations of the most reliable information available underscore a few critical observations: (1) the average student mastered less academic content this year because of the pandemic and associated disruptions to schooling; (2) the pandemic's average impacts on academic achievement, while significant, mask substantial variation in impacts across subjects, grades, demographic groups, and geography; (3) the evidence to date likely understates both the average academic impacts of the pandemic and the opportunity and achievement gaps it has produced; and (4) declines in student well-being indicators could diminish future conditions for successful learning. We propose the following six principles, some of which districts are already applying, to ensure students experience a positive, healthy, and restorative schooling experience this year: (1) provide each student an individualized, three-year instructional plan that uses data to address their academic, social, and emotional needs; (2) prioritize strategies that honor and re-engage students most impacted by the pandemic; (3) use tutoring, extended learning time, and early diagnostic systems to strengthen student foundations in math and early literacy; (4) provide at least one quality remote option while safely reopening schools in person; (5) pilot new structures for learning, such as flexible schedules, prioritizing content mastery over seat time, and new ways of structuring school; and (6) create coherent, aligned systems of support for educators and families. This moment demands new, bold leadership from all of us who touch the lives of students--from civic leaders to policymakers to system leaders to educators. Fast action and transformative change can prevent long-term harm. [The COVID Collaborative contributed to this report.]

This brief is one in a series aimed at providing K-12 education decision makers and advocates with an evidence base to ground discussions about how to best serve students during and following the novel coronavirus pandemic. It addresses one central question: Recognizing longstanding educational inequities, what research-backed practices can district administrators, school leaders, and classroom teachers use to support English Learner (EL) students' academic success and linguistic development in an instructional context transformed by COVID-19? In order to answer this question, the brief breaks down the issue into three points: (1) EL students are a rapidly growing and diverse population entitled to English language development instruction that will allow meaningful access to academic content; (2) Complex federal laws govern the education of EL students and continue to hold state and local education agencies accountable for their academic performance even during the pandemic; and (3) School leader and teacher training rarely provides sufficient support for how to meet the unique needs of EL students. Based on these points, the brief provides five strategies to consider and two strategies to avoid. [This brief was co-prepared by the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) and the University of Texas at Austin, College of Education.]

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced school leaders to make difficult decisions about how to balance students' educational needs with the health, safety, and social-emotional well-being of students and teachers. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Rescue Plan) recently enacted by Congress offers unprecedented amounts of potentially transformative funding to elementary and secondary schools. The Rescue Plan has the potential to simultaneously spur post-pandemic learning recovery efforts and address long-standing socio-demographic gaps in academic achievement and opportunity. This brief is intended to help state and local education leaders consider how to approach this opportunity to meet a persistent problem: the need for more educators of color to serve students. To do this, the authors encourage local education agencies (LEAs) to act strategically by leveraging the findings and evidence-based practices (EBP) of two distinct research bases: (1) High-dosage tutoring, extended-day programs, and summer learning programs are effective options for learning recovery; and (2) Students benefit from exposure to a diverse, representative educator workforce.

Instructional time is a fundamental educational input, yet we have little causal evidence about the effect of longer school days on student achievement. This paper uses a sharp regression discontinuity design to estimate the effects of lengthening the school day for low-performing schools in Florida by exploiting an administrative cutoff for eligibility. Our results indicate significant positive effects of additional literacy instruction on student reading achievement. In particular, we find effects of 0.05 standard deviations of improvement in reading test scores for program assignment in the first year, though long-run effects are difficult to assess.

This brief examines the research on community schools, with two primary emphases. First, it explores whether the 2015 federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) opens the possibility of investing in well-designed community schools to meet the educational needs of low-achieving students in high-poverty schools. And second, it provides support to school, district, and state leaders as they consider, propose, or implement a community school intervention in schools targeted for comprehensive support. The brief is drawn from a larger research review, available at https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/comm-schools-equitable-brief. This review shows that the evidence base on well-implemented community schools and their component features provides a strong warrant for their potential contribution to school improvement. Sufficient evidence meeting ESSA's criteria for "evidence-based" approaches exists to justify including community schools as part of targeted and comprehensive interventions in high-poverty schools. This evidence also supports community schools as an approach appropriate for broader use. Policymakers who want to incorporate a community schools strategy into their ESSA state plans--as well as other plans for state and local school improvements--can benefit from the research-based lessons presented in this brief. (A list of notes and references is included.)

This report analyzes case studies of "more and better learning time" efforts around the country. With support from the Ford Foundation, America's Promise Alliance looked in Grand Rapids, MI; Louisville, KY; Memphis, TN; and Rochester, NY to see how time spent out of the classroom improved outcomes for students in low-income neighborhoods and low-performing schools. Just as different names are used for the same concept in different communities--expanded learning, extended learning or out-of-school-time opportunities--there is no typical approach to effective programs. The report highlights the challenges, successes, variation and innovation present in each community profiled in the report. Each of these communities is at a different stage in making more and better learning a reality for young people. Each, moreover, is following its own distinctive approach that is informed by its situation and unique combination of needs and resources. This variation suggests that communities need not follow one established model to succeed. At the same time, the diverse experiences of these four communities illuminate some of the challenges that all communities face, with implications for how individual communities can advance their own efforts. The hope is that these stories of community collaboration will benefit other communities as they develop and improve their own efforts to expand learning opportunities for all students.

The National Center on Time & Learning (NCTL), an organization dedicated to redesigning and expanding school time to improve opportunities and outcomes for high-poverty students, has again teamed up with the Education Commission of the States (ECS), whose mission it is to foster the exchange of ideas on education issues among the states, to produce this snapshot of public school time in America, the third since the original in 2011 (See ED521518). By focusing on some of the key actions that have taken place at the federal, state, and local levels since 2013, these organizations seek to advance the national conversation about how the nation's schools can harness the power of time to realize a vision of high-quality education for all. This brief concludes with an updated version of a number of public policy recommendations that appeared in the original report. These revised recommendations take into account the rapidly shifting policy context and provide policymakers with a roadmap guiding how they can best support efforts to effectively provide students with the learning time they need to be prepared for future success. Also included in the report is the appendix: "Number of Instructional Days/Hours in the School Year."

New York is poised to take an important step to improve student achievement by expanding learning time for students attending high-poverty, low-performing schools. Recent district- and state-level investments in expanded learning time--a promising strategy to close achievement and opportunity gaps--will give students more time to learn core academics but not at the expense of extracurricular activities such as music, art, and sports. Expanded learning time also provides teachers with more time for collaboration, planning, and professional development. What's more, New York's strong history of working with community partners will help support schools that decide to significantly lengthen the school day. Other school districts and states that are interested in boosting student performance, closing achievement gaps, and expanding enrichment opportunities should follow New York's example and consider a significant investment in expanded learning time. Contains endnotes.

The Study of School Turnaround examines the improvement process in a purposive sample of 35 case study schools receiving federal funds through the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program over a three-year period (2010-11 to 2012-13 school years). This evaluation brief focuses on 11 of these SIG schools with high proportions of English Language Learner (ELL) students (a median of 45 percent ELLs). Three key findings that emerged from the ELL case study data collected in fall 2011 include: (1) Although all 11 schools reported providing specialized supports for ELL students, the schools' approaches to improvement during the initial phase of SIG appeared to include only moderate or limited attention to the unique needs of ELLs; (2) District and school administrators perceived challenges related to teachers' expertise and skills in meeting the unique needs of ELLs; however, teachers' perceptions of their own capacity were more mixed. The capacity of the schools' district offices to support ELLs appeared to vary as well, with two small districts reporting no district-level staff with ELL training or experience and seven larger districts reporting district-level English-as-a-second-language (ESL) departments with multiple trained staff members; and (3) Schools that appeared to provide stronger attention to the unique needs of ELLs in their improvement process were more likely to report having school staff dedicated to ELL needs, such as ELL coordinators, ELL coaches, and ESL/bilingual teachers and tutors. Such schools also were more likely to be located in districts that reportedly provided expertise and an explicit focus on ELLs within the context of SIG. Appended are: (1) Data Collection and Analytic Methods; and (2) Analytic Approach for Assessing ELL Attention.

With the widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards, public education in the United States is poised to take a major step forward in readying the next generation of Americans for success in higher education and the workforce. Gaining a realistic understanding of students' performance levels, meeting students where they currently are, and raising them to new heights are the tasks at hand and will require more intensive and time-consuming teaching and learning than schools commonly provide now. Fortunately, federal and state policies that support efforts to increase the amount of time students spend in school are resulting in new resources--and freeing up formerly restricted resources--to fund the creation of more expanded-time schools. The Center for American Progress and the National Center on Time & Learning believe that "expanded learning time" provides both teachers and students with one of the critical tools that they need to meet the demands of the Common Core State Standards. Of course, the additional learning time must be well planned and intentional, therefore, in this report, the authors offer seven recommendations that should help with meeting the demands associated with the Common Core for teachers and students. High-quality expanded learning time is one of the most far-reaching implementation strategies and can enable students to successfully meet these higher expectations. In addition to an introduction and summary, this report also provides information on the authors, a section on acknowledgments, and a list of endnotes.

The Center for American Progress previously examined the extent to which states applying for first-round Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility waivers in 2012 planned to expand in-school learning time to turn around low-performing schools. This report provides an up-to-date review of states' ESEA flexibility plans and assesses the extent, if any, to which states have strategically thought about how expanded learning time can support school turnaround efforts. In doing so, reviewers examined the "Principle 2: State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support" section of all state plans for submission windows one through three. Specifically, the analysis focused on the extent to which each state plan outlined its intent to either use more time as part of its strategy to turn around its lowest-performing schools, or redesign the school day to reach student-achievement goals. Among states that requested flexible use of 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) funds, reviewers looked for details about its planned use. State plans were grouped in part based on the level of detail provided in three research-based building blocks for the effective use of increased learning time for core academics, enrichment opportunities, and teacher collaboration. States that provided the most detailed information were considered "standouts." Only four state plans met these criteria: Connecticut, Colorado, New York, and Massachusetts. Six out of 42 states demonstrated a commitment to increased learning time but did not provide enough detail. The majority of states--32 out of 42--did not think strategically about how increased learning time could complement school turnaround plans and increase academic achievement. As a result of the analysis, the following recommendations are included: (1) States develop guidelines promoting high-quality expanded learning time; (2) States develop a guide for school districts and principals that want to implement expanded learning time; (3) States encourage schools that choose to expand learning time to add 300 additional hours to the standard school-year schedule, allowing more time for the three key areas: academics, enrichment programming, and teacher collaboration; (4) States outline how they will use their 21st CCLC funding to increase learning time; (5) Districts and schools implement additional time strategically through an intentional, one-year planning period if possible; (6) Districts and schools use data analyses to strategically implement more time; and (7) Districts monitor schedule redesign.

For years, Orchard Gardens K-8 Pilot School was plagued by low student achievement and high staff turnover. Then, in 2010, with an expanded school schedule made possible through federal funding, Orchard Gardens began a remarkable turnaround. Today, the school is demonstrating how increased learning time, combined with other key turnaround strategies, can dramatically improve the performance of even the nation's most troubled schools. This case study, the first in a new series, takes you inside the transformation of Orchard Gardens.

Research has long suggested that significantly increasing quality time in school for teaching and learning can have a positive impact on student achievement. Recognizing this connection, federal guidance requires low-performing schools to increase student learning time if they are implementing two popular reform models using school improvement grant (SIG) funds appropriated by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). This special report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) highlights findings about this increased learning time requirement from two recent CEP studies of SIG implementation in school year 2010-11 and the fall and winter of 2011-12. The first study was based on a CEP survey of state education officials in 46 responding states, including the District of Columbia. The second consisted of in-depth case studies of state and local SIG implementation in Maryland, Michigan, and Idaho. Key findings include the following: (1) All 46 states responding to CEP's survey reported that at least some of their SIG-funded schools are implementing one of two federal school improvement models that require increased learning time; (2) Officials in a majority of the states surveyed said the strategy of increasing learning time is, to a great extent or some extent, a key element in improving achievement in SIG-funded schools; (3) All three case study states have ensured that schools using the transformation or turnaround models are increasing learning time, but the degree of state focus on this strategy varies; and (4) All SIG-funded case study schools that are using the transformation or turnaround models have increased students' learning time, as have some non-funded schools, but implementation and emphasis varied. (Contains 1 table and 1 box.) [For related reports, see "Schools with Federal Improvement Grants Face Challenges in Replacing Principals and Teachers" (ED533563) and "Changing the School Climate Is the First Step to Reform in Many Schools with Federal Improvement Grants" (ED533561).]

Schedule redesign is only one small part of the much larger approach to turning around low-performing schools. Even so, most states' No Child Left Behind waiver applications show a disappointing lack of detail on learning time. While they've done some careful thinking about schedule redesign, states must continue to think critically and comprehensively about their current use of time and how it can be better used to improve instruction. More time used well can lead to powerful results. There is a growing body of research detailing best practices that states can use as guidance, so there is no excuse for providing sparse detail if states are serious about schedule redesign. Waivers open up sizeable funding streams for expanding learning time. Yet neither states nor the U.S. Department of Education should be satisfied with the bare minimum when thinking about schedule redesign. It would be quite easy for a priority school to add some time to the end of the school day, satisfying the requirement, and not see any change in student outcomes. States must ensure that districts and schools have the guidance and information necessary to think critically about how more time can be used to the advantage of students and teachers. As is the case with all other intervention strategies, additional learning time and schedule redesign should be thought of as one part of a larger approach to improving instruction and learning. Increasing learning time in school is easy, but using additional time wisely is hard. Simply adding more time to the end of the day or year is wasted. For the most part states did not treat time as a valuable resource in their waiver applications. They would be wise to keep thinking about meaningful schedule redesign as they work to implement intervention strategies, because after all, the clock is ticking. (Contains 36 endnotes.)

Just a few years ago, Boston's Clarence Edwards Middle School was on the verge of being shut down. By 2009, a renaissance at the Edwards made it one of the highest performing and most desired middle schools in Boston, dramatically narrowing and even eliminating academic achievement gaps while delivering a far more well-rounded education to its high-poverty student population. This paper describes their achievement.

In 2004, Kuss Middle School became the first school declared "Chronically Underperforming" by the state of Massachusetts. But by 2010, Kuss had transformed itself into a model for schools around the country seeking a comprehensive turnaround strategy. Kuss is using increased learning time as the primary catalyst to accelerate learning, deepen student engagement, and improve instruction, and has become a rare example of a school on the path to successful turnaround. This is their story.

Across the country, schools operate on a schedule of about 180 six-hour days. This is not because they think it is the best schedule or the right schedule but because it has been in place for generations and would be difficult to change. But does this schedule really provide enough time to help all students achieve academic proficiency? The Massachusetts program, known as the Expanded Learning Time (ELT) Initiative, enables schools to develop and implement plans to redesign their whole day around an expanded learning time plan, in which every student has 300 hours more learning time embedded into the core schedule. The 26 ELT schools are spread across a dozen Massachusetts communities and serve 13,500 students who are taught by more than 1,000 teachers. By comparing the responses from these teachers to those of their colleagues in conventional-schedule schools, we can begin to see the effect that more time has on both student learning and teacher collaboration and professional development. This report aims to address a simple and essential pair of questions from the point of view of the people charged with the awesome responsibility of preparing our children for the ever-growing challenges of the 21st century. What do our frontline educators think about the quantity of time they have now, and how do those who work in ELT schools see their situation differently? (Contains 12 figures and 6 notes.)

Last week President Barack Obama announced that the administration plans to waive some aspects of the No Child Left Behind law. But states have to develop solid plans to improve instruction to receive a waiver. Specifically, states must adopt college- and career-ready standards for all students, focus interventions on the bottom 15 percent of low-performing schools, and develop teacher evaluation systems using student performance. Commentators are fixated on waiving the high-profile pieces of the law such as the timeline for ensuring all students are proficient in reading and math and seeking flexibility for the highly qualified teacher targets. But a critical waiver option on expanded learning time is being overlooked in all the hoopla. Expanded learning time is a valuable tool for improving student achievement, as demonstrated by schools that have implemented this school improvement strategy. Some federal guidance is needed, though, to give states a better idea of how to use that extra time wisely. States applying for federal waivers ought to follow the example of Massachusetts, where the state carefully crafted a definition of expanded learning time to ensure the additional time was used wisely to make a difference in the experience of both teachers and students. Waivers are undeniably an opportunity for states to build on the best parts of No Child Left Behind and drive improvements in student achievement. Turning around the most troubled schools is crucial, and expanding learning time at those schools is one strategy that should not be overlooked as states build their waiver applications.

Congress has the opportunity to move forward on education reform by reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA, to ensure all children achieve their greatest potential. Unfortunately, it has yet to find the will to do so, to the detriment of American students and schools. ESEA is the largest and most significant federal education law supporting public schools. ESEA, currently known as No Child Left Behind, was due to be reauthorized in 2007. Congress has the opportunity to fix numerous flaws in NCLB and to build on positive change due to new, innovative programs already underway in many places. Political events and calculations, however, threaten to stymie the law's renewal. This paper outlines a smart, progressive vision for moving forward with the reauthorization of ESEA. Following core principles of federal education policy, the authors propose significant policy changes on topics such as teachers and principals, funding, school improvement, and innovation. Specifically, they recommend: (1) Holding all schools accountable for getting results with all students; (2) Investing in teachers and principals so they become more skilled and effective; (3) Making funding practices more fair and efficient so every student gets a fair shot at having an effective teacher and adequate resources; (4) Targeting support to low-performing schools, including expanding learning time and providing nonacademic services that meet all student needs; and (5) Investing in innovative practices that bring American schools into the 21st century. Appended are: (1) Summary of CAP's ESEA recommendations; and (2) CAP's body of work on ESEA topics. (Contains 33 endnotes.) [This paper was written with Ulrich Boser, Raegen Miller, and Theodora Chang.]

2010 was a pioneering year for Massachusetts public schools. State leaders recognized that while the Commonwealth leads the nation in student achievement on national measures such as NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress), more needed to be done to close the persistent achievement gaps between our wealthy and poor students. Combining a strong plan, a new reform law, and broad consensus, Massachusetts won a federal Race to the Top grant and set out to implement bold strategies to accelerate improvements. Innovative approaches to improving our schools are nothing new for Massachusetts. In 2005, inspired by the effective use of expanded time at many high-performing charter schools and a handful of district schools around the country, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) and non-profit Massachusetts 2020 launched a first-in-the-nation initiative for district schools to expand learning time for all of their students. That first year, ten schools in five districts stepped forward to participate. Their school leaders, teachers, parents and community partners understood that as the world changes, schools must evolve to prepare students for the opportunities and complexities of the 21st century, and that the traditional 6.5-hour school day is woefully insufficient. Five years later, the Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time (ELT) Initiative has grown to include over 10,500 students in 19 schools in nine districts, 78% of whom are low-income and all of whom benefit from an additional 300 hours of learning time across the school year. In 2010-11 ELT continues to thrive due to the persistence of participating schools and districts. It is managed through a unique public-private partnership between ESE and Massachusetts 2020, which share responsibility for oversight and support of the ELT Initiative. In this 2011 update, Massachusetts 2020 seeks to provide a brief snapshot of promising results and lessons learned. (Contains 1 footnote.) [For previous edition, "More Time for Learning: Promising Practices and Lessons Learned. Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time Initiative 2010 Progress Report," see ED534907.]

This study looks at the question of whether charter schools are more innovative in their provision of extended time policies than a matched set of traditional public schools. Data for this study was collected from a sample of traditional public and charter schools that partner with the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) for interim achievement testing administration and services. Schools in the authors' analysis sample are located across 6 states and a range of inner city, suburban and rural locals. At least in this sample of schools the authors do not find evidence that charters are more or less innovative than traditional public schools as the pattern and level of usage of these policies appear to be similar in both sectors. This finding brings up a limitation of this study in that conclusions can only be drawn about this particular sample of schools and cannot speak to innovation in charter schools as a whole. Preliminary estimates on the relationships between extended time policies point to two conclusions. First, at least in this sample, it appears that the provision of voluntary extended time programs may be more effective than mandatory programs. Second, the policy with the clearest influence on student growth rates in both subjects is a year round instructional calendar. While estimated growth rates are lower during the school year than in traditionally calendared schools, the net effect of a longer school year is that students are exposed to the summer for a shorter period of time and therefore experience a smaller summer set back in achievement, leading to them returning to school in the following year at a higher level than peers in traditionally calendared school years. (Contains 2 tables.)

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) has supported a multi-year study of the Expanded Learning Time (ELT) initiative to learn about the process and impact of ELT. Abt Associates Inc. is conducting this research. The study has two components: 1) a planning and implementation component that explores the decision-making phase and subsequent execution of ELT in funded schools; and 2) an outcomes component that examines the outcomes of ELT for schools, teachers, and students. The overall ELT evaluation is guided by three research questions: (1) How has expanded learning time been implemented in schools that receive ELT grants?; (2) What are the outcomes of expanded learning time for schools, students, and teachers?; and (3) What is the relationship between implementation and outcomes? (Contains 2 figures and tables.)

The research summary "Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students" presents the research background for the Obama administration's proposals for comprehensive, community-wide services in high-poverty neighborhoods, extended learning time, family engagement and safe schools. While these policies have broad and common-sense appeal, the research supporting the particular policies proposed by the administration is weak and poorly presented in the research summary. As promising as community-wide services may be, a broad research base does not yet exist concerning how to make them successful. The research on extended learning time is also inconclusive. Family involvement is crucial to education, but the evidence for a causal link between student achievement and the type of parent involvement discussed is ambiguous and suspect. The proposals for safe schools boil down to increased local flexibility and increased gathering of survey data, neither of which can be expected to improve outcomes. Together, the administration's proposals would require an extensive financial commitment in order to be fully implemented, but the scope and source of these funds is not explained. Overall, the evidence provided is not sufficiently strong to justify the programs they champion. While the research summary adequately documents problems, a wiser course for public policy would be a carefully structured set of pilot studies to sharply and accurately identify solutions.

The OEYP state-funded program provides extended learning for students who are at risk of academic failure. This report summarizes Austin Independent School District's OEYP activities during 2008-2009.

Massachusetts is heralded nationally for being the first in the nation to enact a state policy to redesign and expand the learning day for all students to advance academic achievement, broaden enrichment opportunities, and improve instruction. The Expanded Learning Time (ELT) Initiative has gained momentum over the past several years due to the strong advocacy and leadership of Governor Deval Patrick, Massachusetts Secretary of Education Paul Reville, and the Massachusetts Legislature, especially the chairpersons of the Education Committee, Representative Marty Walz and Senator Rob O'Leary. While many important education programs in the state have been impacted by dwindling state coffers, the state leadership's continued commitment and support of this innovative program has been critical to its ongoing success. Today, the 22 ELT schools serving over 12,200 students across the state are models to the Commonwealth and the entire country for how schools can be transformed when teachers, administrators, parents, and the community work together to add learning time and broaden what schools should offer. As the national momentum for expanded learning time continues to build, the Massachusetts ELT Initiative continues to be recognized for its promising results for students, teachers, and schools. This paper presents the Massachusetts ELT Initiative progress report for 2010. It discusses the lessons the founders have learned over the past four years of working with ELT schools--such as how some successful schools are using additional academic time to individualize academic supports to better meet student needs--and how they are refining their model to produce even greater student success. [For previous edition, "Redesigning Today's Schools to Build a Stronger Tomorrow: The Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time Initiative 2007-2008 Annual Report," see ED534910.]

The aim of the paper is to discuss the system of double-shift schooling and assess it from economic, social and educational angles referring to different cases from Sub-Saharan African countries. The paper makes an attempt to prove that despite certain challenges that it faces, the system of double-shift schooling is the best solution for poor countries to achieve the millennium goal of Education for All with limited resources, and an optimum strategy for rich countries to use resources more efficiently. Thus, if wisely implemented and managed, double-shift schools can be the best way to achieve the goal of universal education in both poor and rich countries. (Contains 1 footnote.)

This document is one of eight reports prepared to support the development of a new learning system, a development effort that is the first step in a major initiative undertaken by the Stupski Foundation. This document synthesizes recent research and theoretical literature on effective strategies for supporting urban, underserved students' social, emotional, and academic learning needs. Schools should adopt and/or adapt: (1) Effective curricula and programs to promote social-emotional learning; (2) Effective out-of-school time (OST) programs; (3) School day extension-of-learning (ELT) models; (4) School-based health or student support center models; and (5) Systemic, family-centered, collaborative, and culturally appropriate approaches to student support services. The literature review method is appended. (Contains 3 figures, 2 tables, and 5 footnotes.) [A list of references reviewed but not cited in this report is included.]

Our children deserve an education that fully prepares them for the future--success in college, the workforce and a healthy, fulfilled life. The Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time (ELT) Initiative is redesigning and expanding the school schedule to offer children new learning and enrichment opportunities. With state resources, participating schools are expanding the school day by at least 300 hours per year for all students to improve student outcomes in core academic subjects, broaden enrichment opportunities, and improve instruction by adding more planning and professional development time for teachers. The vision of the Expanded Learning Time Initiative is to reshape the American school schedule to provide all students with a well-rounded education that prepares them for full engagement and participation in the economic and civic life of our 21st-century global society. This paper presents the stories, the data, the images, the advocates, and the reasons why ELT is making a difference. This paper presents the annual report of the Massachusetts ELT Initiative for 2007-2008. [For previous edition, "Time for a New Day: Broadening Opportunities for Massachusetts Schoolchildren. Expanded Learning Time Initiative 2006-2007 Annual Report," see ED534906.]

This report summarizes Austin ISD's state-funded Optional Extended Year Program activities for the 2006-2007 school year.

Our children deserve an education that fully prepares them for the future--success in college, the workforce and a healthy, fulfilled life. The Expanded Learning Time (ELT) Initiative in Massachusetts is redesigning schools to offer children new learning and enrichment opportunities made possible because of an expanded school schedule. With state resources, participating schools are expanding the school day by at least 300 hours per year to improve student outcomes in core academic subjects, broaden enrichment opportunities and improve instruction by adding more planning and professional development time for teachers. The vision of the Expanded Learning Time Initiative is to reshape the American school calendar to provide all students with a well-rounded education that prepares them for full engagement and participation in the economic and civic life of our 21st century global society. This paper presents the annual report of the Massachusetts ELT Initiative for 2006-2007.

The Optional Extended Year Program (OEYP), funded by a grant from the state, provides extended learning opportunities for students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) who are at risk of academic failure. The primary focus of an OEYP is to reduce and ultimately eliminate the need for student grade-level retention by providing additional instructional time for students to master the state's academic performance standards. OEYP activities occur outside the regular school day. OEYP is designed to accommodate four school-day options: (1) extended day, (2) extended week, (3) intersession for year-round schools, and (4) summer school. A school district may provide instructional services during any of these programs for a period of time not to exceed 30 days. Participating students must receive a minimum of 240 minutes of instruction to meet Texas Education Agency (TEA) reporting requirements. Since 1993, the Austin Independent School District (AISD) has used the OEYP to reduce the number of AISD students at risk of academic failure. This report summarizes AISD's 2005-2006 school year activities and student performance outcomes for the state-funded optional extended year program.

Extending the school day and year is not easy. The conventional calendar remains one of the most intractable features of the American educational system. Altering the traditional school schedule has significant ramifications for parents, students, teachers, and school administrators. This reform impacts student and family schedules, transportation arrangements, teacher compensation, pedagogy and curriculum, and other issues. This research project was fundamentally designed to understand how these challenges can be overcome by studying schools that have actually overcome them. How are schools able to implement a change of such magnitude in effective and sustainable ways? To provide insight on this question, Massachusetts 2020, with support from The L.G. Balfour Foundation, a Bank of America Company, engaged in a year-long study of extended-time schools to consider the range of issues that these schools have had to deal with in breaking with the conventional school calendar. The eight extended-time schools that Massachusetts 2020 examined for this project demonstrate that extending the time students spend in school is possible in a variety of settings, including district public schools, pilot schools, and charter schools, and through a range of funding and staffing innovations. Examination of these schools further reveals that there is no one correct model of an extended-time school. In fact, each school has a unique character that grows from its strong educational vision. But these schools do all share one core belief: that more learning time is the sine qua non upon which a successful school is built. Employing creativity and attention to detail, these educators then develop a school that deliberately departs from the standard calendar of 180 six-and-a-half-hour days. They expand upon this time for the express purpose of enhancing teaching and learning. The positive effects of having more time are evident throughout each school. Through longer class periods, individual assistance, and tutoring sessions, students spend more time on task than do students in schools operating on a conventional schedule. Studying these schools also reveals that despite the benefits of having more time than the conventional schedule allows, there are hefty challenges to extending the school day. Clearly, one of the most significant is funding to pay for additional staff time. (Contains 12 figures, 6 tables and 30 notes.) [Funding for this paper was provided by the L.G. Balfour Foundation. For "Time for a Change: The Promise of Extended Time Schools for Promoting Student Achievement. Executive Summary," see ED534911.]

Massachusetts 2020 is a nonprofit operating foundation with a mission to expand educational and economic opportunities for children and families across Massachusetts. Massachusetts 2020, with support from the L.G. Balfour Foundation, a Bank of America Company, set out to understand how a select group of extended-time schools in Massachusetts and other nearby states do, in fact, manage to offer a significantly longer day than most district public schools. The authors defined an extended time school as one that offers all its enrolled students at least 15 percent more learning time than the conventional schedule. This study is not intended to suggest that these extended-time schools automatically produce better results. Neither is it meant to prove that extended-time schools alone offer a superior educational product. Rather, this research was conducted to understand how these particular schools, which have already demonstrated themselves to be effective, capitalize on the additional time and how the educators there perceive this additional time as beneficial to their overall educational mission. It is hoped that their examples are both inspirational and informational for those who seek to operate schools that break from the conventional schedule for the express purpose of enhancing teaching and learning. It is also hoped that these schools can help lead to a deeper, more systemic approach to extending learning time for the students of Massachusetts and the nation. Massachusetts 2020 identified eight urban schools that fit its definition of an extended-time school, that serve large populations of poor students, and that have demonstrated higher levels of academic proficiency than surrounding district schools. The Massachusetts 2020 research team spent 1-2 days at each school, meeting with school leaders, teachers, students, and parents, observing classes and examining key documents such as school budgets, annual reports, and test results. At these visits, Massachusetts 2020 sought to understand how these schools schedule, staff, and pay for the additional time and how the additional time impacts student learning. This executive summary presents some of the key findings from these visits. (Contains 1 table, 5 figures and 7 notes.) [Funding for this paper was provided by the L.G. Balfour Foundation. For the main report, "Time for a Change: The Promise of Extended-Time Schools for Promoting Student Achievement. Research Report," see ED534912.]

This report summarizes evaluation results from AISD's federally-funded Title I program activities during 2002-2003.