A314 Final Proposal, Out of School Learning Group

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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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, 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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


Appendix D: Implementation Timeline