As at any conference, there were a number of different important issues to discuss, debate, and consider. I'd like to share with you one particular stream that generated much discussion: Federal policy regarding expanded learning opportunities. This discussion opened with a plenary featuring two congressional staffers as panelists: Lillian Pace, Office of Congressman Dale Kildee, House Education and Labor Committee, and Lindsay Hunsicker, Office of Senator Enzi, Senate HELP Committee. (HELP stands for Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions.)
The context for the plenary was how the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (the legislation that includes the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program) can support continued investments in afterschool and new thinking on Expanded Learning Opportunities (ELO). Both panelists were well-informed on the topic, and it was interesting to see this inside, staffer view on federal policy discussions about afterschool and ELO. Below are a few of the points I took away from the panel and subsequent discussions:
- It's about the money. Supporters of both afterschool and of extended day have similar goals and desired outcomes in mind. Both approaches look at using time differently to support learning and at expanding the amount of time during the day and over the summer that children and youth have access to programs and supports. However, proposed changes to the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21C) program that would include "extended day" as an allowable use puts these two program types into competition for the same pot of money. Despite their commonalities in goals and outcomes, this direct competition for funds has tended to result in these two approaches to ELO finding themselves on different sides of the debate.
- Appropriations versus Authorization. By adding "extended day programs" to the allowable uses of funds for the 21C program in the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Appropriations Committee essentially moved this discussion forward at a quicker pace than the Committee members and staff on the authorizing side of ESEA expected. (Simply put: "Authorization" is where the laws are written and "Appropriations" is where money is allocated to fund the laws.) Concerns have been raised about whether or not Appropriations is the appropriate place to have these conversations or whether these types of policy changes should remain in the purview of the committees responsible for the reauthorization of ESEA.
- Bipartisan Issue. The speakers were very clear in stating that this current debate on ELO and educational policy is not a partisan issue. You will find both Democrats and Republicans speaking strongly in favor of afterschool programming and you will also find members of both parties in favor of extended day programs. The debate does not follow party lines. The message I heard was that both sides of the aisle are interested in education reform and in providing more time for learning, more opportunities for children and youth, and in finding creative approaches for doing so.
- Flexibility and Choice. One of the strongest argument I heard coming out of this discussion on behalf of including extended day programs as one of the allowable uses for 21C funding was that opening up the legislation in this way gives schools and communities more flexibility in exploring a range of options and program types to best meet their students' needs.
- Cost Difference. A strong argument I heard on the other side for why opening up 21C funding in this way does not make sense focused on the great cost difference between running an afterschool program versus an extended day program. The concern voiced was that the cost to run one extended day program (adding about 30% more time to the school day/year) would run much higher than what it currently costs to run a comprehensive afterschool program. The concern is that using 21C funds for extended day programs in a few communities could result in many other communities losing their afterschool programs altogether.
- Role of Community Partners. Regardless of ELO model favored, it seems that both sides are looking carefully at the role of community partners and how these outside partners and organizations can best be used to support student learning opportunities.
- More Information Needed. I came away from these discussions with a clear desire to understand more about what these different models and approaches to ELO would look like in Vermont. What examples do we have that are currently working in Vermont schools and communities? What are the outcomes for students ? What are the cost trade-offs? What role do community partners play in these different contexts? What information will communities need in order to make these decisions and choose between the different models as education reform moves forward?
One important development to be aware of as extended day programs grow over time are the new School Improvement Grants, which includes around 10 million dollars in Vermont for the next two years, for schools in school improvement’ throughout the state. One of the grant requirements that all the 10 ‘tier one ‘schools have selected is the’ transformation” model, which includes adding instructional time, which could mean additional tutoring in math and reading, or additional small group targeted work during afterschool or summer hours, or perhaps other models. It is important to learn how this plays out or may play out at these ten schools, and also for all schools as time evolves. In particular this would be important for you to keep your eye on if any type of new programs are being considered or implemented, driven by this funding source or other needs.
ReplyDeleteIn surveying SIG grant budgets throughout the state, 28 schools, or roughly half of the identified schools that are using SIG funds for extended learning programs (afterschool and summer) Roughly $550,000, or 12% of the SIG program budgets are going to these activities. The average amount going to these learning programs is $20,000. These programs take a variety of forms and in order of scope include: reading and math tutoring afterschool, summer programs, and in one case, an afterschool bus (there are other uses of funds as well) Most of the SIG Funds are being used for a variety of other uses, primarily on in-school PD and assessment systems.
From this info, it seems that ‘extended day programs” are not being funded at rates much higher then in the past, but are building on the good work in general that tutoring programs have provided and are being built over time. It is noteworthy that in the scan I did, tutoring was generally requested as opposed to having full classes continue as in the day- what is typically believed to be an extended day model. In Vermont it is not. Thus at this time, I don’t see a major shift happening quickly except perhaps in some individual cases.
All this being said, I would strongly consider thinking about the following in the context of above as time evolves: A) Assuring that kids continually have as many choices to access all types of high quality afterschool programs. B) Continually working to align and build unified system logistics where tutoring and other afterschool programs are considered part of one program. C) Using the knowledge base of what works afterschool to support all types of ‘afterschool’ ‘extended day’, or ‘whatever name you want to put to it’ programs.
Emanuel