ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: LESSONS FOR SCALE AND SUSTAINABILITY April 2016 Christina A. Russell Jeanine L. Hildreth Pamela Stevens Policy StudieS ASSociAteS, inc. 1718 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC, 20009 Prepared for ExpandED Schools, New York, NY Acknowledgements We would especially like to recognize the national demonstration ExpandED schools in New York City, Baltimore, and New Orleans that graciously supported data collection efforts over the last four years. In each school, ExpandED Directors, principals, instructional coordinators, students, parents, classroom teachers, and community educators participated in interviews and offered insightful reflections on the ExpandED Schools model. In addition to the authors, the report reflects the contributions of many current and former colleagues at Policy Studies Associates. Beth Sinclair and Colleen McCann conducted much of the data collection and were deeply involved in analysis. Brenda Turnbull offered writing expertise. Ben Lagueruela provided support for editing and production. Jennifer Siaca Curry, Monica Ingkavet, and Krista Jahn at ExpandED Schools ensured that we understood the operations of the national demonstration, particularly in New York City and New Orleans. Leaders at the Family League of Baltimore, especially Julia Baez and Holly Gonzales, helped us make local connections and learn about the role of the intermediary organization. Our clients at ExpandED Schools were true partners who asked thought-provoking questions that strengthened each phase of the evaluation, from data collection through reporting. We appreciate the deep engagement of Lucy Friedman, Saskia Traill, and Katie Brohawn in the evaluation. We thank The Wallace Foundation for supporting the study. The foundation staff provided ongoing feedback and encouraged us to explore the implications of the findings for field building. We are especially grateful for the contributions of Hilary Rhodes, Claudia DeMegret, Ed Pauly, and Polly Singh. Executive Summary The ExpandED Schools model for expanded learning is designed to transform schools by changing the use of time, both as experienced by students in learning and by teachers in instruction. The model is grounded in the belief that strategically adding time to the school day can enhance skills and knowledge and broaden horizons by engaging students in enriched learning opportunities beyond core academics. Community partner organizations play an instrumental role in supporting this expanded learning experience in ExpandED schools. Policy Studies Associates (PSA) has evaluated the national demonstration of ExpandED Schools since the demonstration, supported by The Wallace Foundation and others, was launched in the 2011-12 school year in 10 schools in New York City, NY; Baltimore, MD; and New Orleans, LA. Over four years, the evaluation explored the approaches that participating schools took to adopting the ExpandED Schools model, in particular seeking to understand the conditions that support—or hinder—the implementation of an expanded day. These conditions and factors are summarized below. The ExpandED Schools Model A central feature of the ExpandED Schools model is a deep partnership between a school and a community-based partner organization strategically working together to plan and implement a balanced, seamless school day that complements core academics with enriched learning experiences grounded in positive youth development. ExpandED Schools core elements Core element Sub-elements More Time for a Balanced Curriculum All students are engaged in expanded learning Students are exposed to rigorous, skill-based instruction as well as enrichment and other youth development opportunities School-Community Partnership School and community partner organization share responsibility for implementation of expanded learning Family engagement in learning is encouraged and evident Engaging and Personalized Instruction Expanded day instruction addresses the individual needs of students Expanded day instruction is data-driven Integrated Funding Model School and community partner organization budgets are coordinated Partnerships are strategically managed Both school and community partner organization support fundraising ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability i The ExpandED school and community partner organization work together to transform the school and implement the core elements. The principal serves as the initiative leader, communicating the vision for a longer school day. An ExpandED Director manages the daily operations of the community partner organization in the school, and works closely with an instructional coordinator identified by the school to determine learning opportunities for the expanded day. School staff, including the instructional coordinator and classroom teachers, provide pedagogical insights and expertise in curriculum and instruction. Community educators bring youth development expertise and professional experience in delivering specialized activities, such as the arts. Intermediary organizations also play a key role in the implementation of the ExpandED Schools approach, bringing an important set of capacity-building skills to schools and community partner organizations, including technical assistance, facilitation, and resources. Schools are also supported nationally by ExpandED Schools, which offers additional guidance, data, and advocacy. Roles in the ExpandED Schools approach Adoption of the Core Elements in the National Demonstration In the national demonstration, schools did not adopt the ExpandED Schools model wholesale, but rather made incremental changes over time as they explored the feasibility and value of the expanded day in their schools. Demonstration schools adopted first and most readily those core elements that were most clearly meeting gaps in their curriculum, where they could envision community partner organizations making the biggest and most immediate impact. ii Policy Studies Associates, Inc. In general, the demonstration schools first embraced the balanced curriculum element of the ExpandED Schools approach to the expanded day. With the traditional school day increasingly devoted to boosting performance in core academic subjects, the schools saw a clear need for the enrichment and youth development opportunities that the expanded day could bring. Next, over time and with facilitation and support from ExpandED Schools and other intermediaries, the demonstration schools deepened their partnerships to include more strategic and joint planning around these enrichment opportunities to ensure that they were complementary to the school day and addressed the needs of students. Not surprisingly, the core elements slowest to gain traction were those that are most difficult for schools in general, including the effective use of data to drive instruction and identifying long-term sources of funding that support collaboration and innovative approaches to the school day. Typical phased adoption of ExpandED Schools core elements The national demonstration revealed several concrete strategies that enabled ExpandED schools to implement the core elements of the approach. These included: ▪ Clear and consistent messaging about the value of the expanded day for learning in all communications to families, setting the expectation that the expanded day is an essential part of the school day, rather than an optional afterschool program. ▪ Identification of a strong instructional coordinator to work with community educators to align the traditional day and expanded learning time instruction, identify opportunities to infuse enrichment into core content, and support engaging, skill-based enrichment. ▪ Embracing creative staffing patterns such as “push-in” staffing wherein community educators came in before the end of the traditional school day and assisted classroom teachers in their lessons, increasing opportunities for relationship-building, common planning, and differentiated instruction. ▪ Establishing joint leadership for the expanded day, for example by shifting the hours of a school administrator to stay during the expanded hours to co-manage with the director from the community partner organization, making the day more seamless and deepening the alignment and relationship. ▪ Development of teacher champions for the expanded day, so that staff at all levels are committed to the expanded day approach and advocate for it when leadership transitions occur. The phased adoption of the ExpandED Schools approach in the national demonstration suggests that the elements of an expanded day do not need to be adopted all at once for a school to take steps towards transforming the school day. Even if schools do not achieve implementation of an expanded day for all students, or grapple with how to effectively engage community partners in data-driven, personalized instruction, evidence suggests that they can still implement other aspects of the expanded learning approach. They can deliver a balanced and integrated learning experience for students and conduct strategic planning with the community partner organizations, in ways that begin to achieve the goals of changing learning and instructional experiences in schools. However, one core element appears to be essential: the ExpandED Schools approach hinges on the strength and depth of the partnership between the school and the community partner organization. Without a partnership built on shared vision and shared responsibility, it is very hard to gain or maintain traction on other core elements of an expanded day. The ExpandED Schools approach hinges on the strength and depth of the partnership between the school and the community partner organization. ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability iii Factors That Support an Expanded Day Three drivers influenced whether the ExpandED Schools approach gained traction and became part of the institutional fabric of national demonstration schools. First, a shared vision for the expanded day, often set by the principal but adopted and informed by all partners, solidified the partnership. Second, a high level of engagement with families built buy-in and communicated expectations for an expanded day as an integral part of the learning experience. And finally, for the commitment to remain strong, there needed to be quality instruction and programming, demonstrated through a high level of professional skill among all involved, to solidify a high level of trust among partners and to demonstrate the value of the expanded day. The presence of several factors can facilitate the development of these drivers to scale and sustain an expanded day approach, including: ▪ Adoption of incremental steps to test the expanded day approach and establish its relevance to the school, build buy-in and trust, and identify appropriate adaptations. In each year of the demonstration, schools figured out steps to implement, improve, and deepen their relationships. ▪ Commitment by both the school and community partner organization to truly work together, share information, share responsibilities, and build new skills and capacities, in roles that differ from traditional school partnerships and service relationships. ▪ Strategic planning on an ongoing basis between the school and community partner organization to identify needs, opportunities, and the integrated programming across the school and expanded day that can best address students’ learning goals. In addition, the knowledge, skill, and identity of stakeholders will affect how rapidly schools and community partner organizations forge the strategic partnership of the ExpandED Schools approach. The environmental context in which the approach is being scaled will affect capacity for adoption and sustainability, as schools grapple with leadership changes, transportation issues, or other operational concerns. The policy context influences by the priorities of school districts, reform initiatives, or funders will also affect the adoption of an expanded day. Recommendations for Adopting an Expanded Day Each school system considering an expanded day approach should consider how its environmental and policy context, as well as the knowledge of system stakeholders, will influence strategies and capacity for: ▪ Identifying the key champions and getting buy-in for expanded learning ▪ Negotiating operational supports, such as transportation and use of facilities ▪ Integrating the expanded day into teachers’ schedules ▪ Setting and upholding expectations for a longer school day with parents and students ▪ Sharing resources and ideas across schools Assessing readiness to enter into an expanded learning partnership, and the strengths and capacities that the school and community partner organization would each bring to the partnership is key before embarking on this type of transformation effort. School districts, charter management organizations, intermediary organizations, community partner organizations, and technical assistance providers can all contribute to the development of an expanded day approach. Identifying the specific supports that are available to support expanded day partnerships is necessary to ensure strategic implementation, adaptation, and sustainability of an expanded day approach and to advocate for it when leadership transitions occur. iv Policy Studies Associates, Inc. Contents Page The ExpandED Schools Model ExpandED Schools Roles and Responsibilities ExpandED Schools 1 2 4 The Evaluation Approach 4 Adoption of the Core Elements in the National Demonstration Core Element: More Time for a Balanced Curriculum Core Element: School-Community Partnership Core Element: Engaging and Personalized Instruction Core Element: Integrated Funding Model 5 6 9 12 13 Factors That Support Adoption, Scale, and Sustainability How Do Core Elements Interact? What Does It Take to Scale and Sustain an Expanded Day? What Is the Role of a Strong Partnership, and How Is It Achieved? What Functions Support the Scale and Sustainability of Expanded Learning? 14 16 16 18 19 Recommendations for School and Community Leaders 21 References 24 ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability The ExpandED Schools model for expanded learning is designed to transform schools by changing the use of time, both as experienced by students in learning and by teachers in instruction. The model is grounded in the belief that strategically adding time to the school day can enhance skills and knowledge and broaden horizons by engaging students in enriched learning opportunities beyond core academics. Community partner organizations play an instrumental role in supporting this expanded learning experience in ExpandED schools. Policy Studies Associates (PSA) has evaluated ExpandED Schools since the national demonstration, supported by The Wallace Foundation and others, was launched in the 2011-12 school year in New York City, NY; Baltimore, MD; and New Orleans, LA. To guide the demonstration, ExpandED Schools (the organization formerly known as TASC) defined four core elements of an expanded learning model hypothesized to be important for the implementation and sustainability of an expanded day that would transform learning. This model did not include prescriptive tasks, schedules, or structures intended to be replicated across demonstration schools. Rather, over the first four years of the demonstration, the evaluation team explored the approaches that participating schools and cities took to adopting the ExpandED Schools model, in particular seeking to understand the conditions that support—or hinder—the implementation of an expanded day. The evaluation centered on the incremental changes to the school day carried out by the demonstration schools and their partner organizations, drawing lessons about establishing, adapting, and sustaining an expanded day approach. This report summarizes lessons learned through the evaluation of the ExpandED Schools approach to expanding the school day, exploring the implications of these findings for educators and policymakers who are interested in implementing and scaling expanded learning models or other education initiatives that involve strategic collaborations between schools and community partners. This report describes the model guiding the ExpandED Schools national demonstration, summarizes approaches to implementing the core elements of the model in participating schools, examines the factors that supported and hindered scale and sustainability of expanded learning in demonstration schools, and concludes with recommendations emerging from the experience for other educators considering similar initiatives. The ExpandED Schools Model A central feature of the ExpandED Schools model is a deep partnership between the school and a community-based partner organization strategically working together to plan and implement a longer school day that enriches learning opportunities and complements core academics. The ExpandED Schools model distinguishes itself from other expanded day models—and from afterschool initiatives—through its emphasis on joint leadership between the school and community partner.1 In many traditional partnerships, the school is responsible for core academics, and at the end of the school day an external organization, often in a vendor capacity, offers a variety of programming, including homework support, recreation, and enrichment. In the ExpandED Schools model, the school and a partner organization are integrated in their planning, design, and delivery of services to ensure a seamless, balanced learning experience promoting both academics and positive youth development. As the national demonstration has matured, supports for the expanded day increasingly emphasize social and emotional learning as part of the balanced approach. 1 This report is not intended to provide a comprehensive introduction to expanded learning time models in general. Many resources and overviews are available through organizations including ExpandED Schools (www.expandedschools.org) and the National Center on Time & Learning (www.timeandlearning.org). ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability 1 Exhibit 1 ExpandED Schools core elements Core element Sub-elements More Time for a Balanced Curriculum All students are engaged in expanded learning Students are exposed to rigorous, skill-based instruction as well as enrichment and other youth development opportunities School-Community Partnership School and community partner organization share responsibility for implementation of expanded learning Family engagement in learning is encouraged and evident Engaging and Personalized Instruction Expanded day instruction addresses the individual needs of students Expanded day instruction is data-driven Integrated Funding Model School and community partner organization budgets are coordinated Partnerships are strategically managed Both school and community partner organization support fundraising In collaboration with ExpandED Schools, the PSA evaluation team developed a rubric operationalizing the core elements of the model, which is summarized in Exhibit 1. This rubric guided analysis of implementation and adaptation by the evaluation team, and informed technical assistance to schools and community partner organizations by ExpandED Schools and local intermediaries. ExpandED Schools Roles and Responsibilities As illustrated in Exhibit 2, the ExpandED school and community partner organization are expected to work together as a team to transform the school and implement the core elements of the model. The principal serves as the initiative leader, communicating the vision for a longer school day to the broader school community. In a school implementing an ExpandED Schools approach, the pedagogical expertise of school staff complements the youth development expertise of the community partner organization to create a smooth, seamless learning day for students. The model defines the following four roles to support expanded learning in each school: 2 ▪ ExpandED Director. The ExpandED Director is employed by the community-based partner organization and works with the school principal and instructional coordinator to integrate expanded learning time into the overall school culture. He/she manages the budget and daily operations of the community partner organization in the school, planning and outreach, and community educators. ▪ Instructional coordinator. The instructional coordinator, typically a teacher or assistant principal in the school, serves as the day-to-day link between the school and the community partner organization. The instructional co- Policy Studies Associates, Inc. ordinator works with the ExpandED Director to identify content and themes for the expanded day curriculum and is responsible for developing and implementing enrichment opportunities. He/she also provides pedagogical insights and instructional supports to the ExpandED Director and community educators. ▪ Classroom teachers. Classroom teachers provide academic instruction and, in some schools, also deliver other enrichment opportunities, bringing expertise in curriculum, instruction, and student performance to the expanded day. ▪ Community educators. Community educators, hired and supervised by the ExpandED Director, deliver enrichments either in tandem with classroom teachers or by themselves, typically bringing youth development expertise and professional experience in delivering specialized activities, such as the arts. Other school staff may also support implementation of the expanded day, including parent coordinators who serve as a liaison between the school and parents and can communicate the purpose and expectations of the expanded day. Local intermediary organizations also play a key role in the implementation of the ExpandED Schools approach by bringing an important set of capacity-building skills to schools and community partner organizations. Intermediary organizations can offer technical assistance, facilitation, and resources. Schools are also supported nationally by ExpandED Schools, which offers additional guidance, data, and advocacy. (In New York City, ExpandED Schools also serves as the local intermediary.) Exhibit 2 Roles in the ExpandED Schools approach ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability 3 ExpandED Schools During the first year of the national demonstration (the 2011-12 school year), the ExpandED Schools model was implemented in 11 schools in three cities: five schools in New York City, three schools in Baltimore, and three schools in New Orleans. By 2014-15, the fourth year of the demonstration, nine schools were participating in the national demonstration across the three cities, eight of which had been implementing the model since 2011-12, as summarized in Exhibit 3. Three original schools had ceased to be part of the demonstration (one in Baltimore and two in New Orleans), resulting from a mix of factors that included reduced commitment to the approach by school leadership and challenges with the community partner organization. One new school (in Baltimore) joined the demonstration in 2012-13. The national demonstration schools were a varied group. They included both traditional public schools and public charter schools, and served students between kindergarten and grade eight, though they differed in size and configuration of grades served. Some had a previous history with expanded learning, such as the three New York City schools that had been part of TASC’s Expanded Learning Time (ELT) pilot before the ExpandED Schools demonstration, but others were new to expanded learning. Most participating schools, however, had an existing relationship with their community partner organization. Exhibit 3 School participation in the ExpandED Schools national demonstration, by city and year 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 New York City School A School B School C School D School E Baltimore School A School B School C School D New Orleans School A School B School C The Evaluation Approach PSA’s evaluation of the ExpandED Schools national demonstration has included analysis of the model’s core elements across participating schools and, over time, formative reporting to ExpandED Schools and The Wallace Foundation. Now, after four years of observing approaches to implementation, we explore the ways in which the different core elements of the ExpandED Schools model have taken root and the conditions that may have supported or hindered implementation and sustainability of expanded learning. In 2014-15, the evaluation team gathered new interview data on how the ExpandED Schools approach was implemented in participating schools, the ways in which schools have adapted the model and changed structures and expectations for the school day, the strategies that were used to achieve and institutionalize these changes, and plans for and challenges to 4 Policy Studies Associates, Inc. sustaining an expanded day. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the following respondents:2 ▪ ExpandED Schools leaders ▪ Intermediary leaders in Baltimore and New Orleans ▪ School leaders and community partner organization leaders in demonstration schools in each of the three cities ▪ Parents of students in demonstration schools Prior research approval was obtained from PSA’s internal Institutional Review Board (IRB), from the IRBs of the New York City Public Schools and of the Baltimore City Public Schools, and from the charter management organization operating the national demonstration school in New Orleans. In addition to conducting new data collection during the 2014-15 school year, the evaluation team re-examined data collected during the first years of the evaluation, including interview data with classroom teachers, community educators, and students, as well as ratings of implementation of the core elements over the first two years of the demonstration.3 Adoption of the Core Elements in the National Demonstration The evaluation team explored the ways in which the four core elements of the ExpandED Schools model—more time for a balanced curriculum, school-community partnership, engaging and personalized instruction, and an integrated funding model—were interpreted, adopted, and adapted over the first four years of the national demonstration. After four years of the national demonstration, there was general agreement among staff from ExpandED Schools, intermediary organizations, demonstration schools, and community partner organizations that the core elements of the ExpandED Schools model are the right elements for an effective expanded day. All parties agreed that the core elements address goals to strive for in making real change in learning and instruction. At the same time, ExpandED Schools leaders acknowledged that implementation should reflect strategic adaptation of the model to the contexts and constraints of each school, with the adaptations developed through shared decision making between the school and the community partner organization. This expectation for principled adaptation is consistent with a view of scale-up that prizes deep understanding of a reform’s principles and a shift to local ownership of the reform (Coburn, 2003). According to an ExpandED Schools leader: The ExpandED Schools model is an approach and [implementing each of] the [four] core elements are non-negotiables. Everything else is flexible. In order to adapt the model, the requirement is that school leaders and their community partner have a clear rationale and logic for why they’re making that change and how it makes sense for that school. Before making the adaptation, they have to have buy-in from all parties involved with the initiative at the school. Each school has different power dynamics when it comes to the partnership–the size and shape of a particular partner in the school looks different. The changes need to be based on shared decision making and a good reason. This section of the report explores lessons learned about the level of implementation, phasing, and adaptation of each of the core elements. ² In 2014-15, the evaluation team also interviewed principals of non-demonstration schools implementing expanded learning approaches in New York City and Baltimore. The findings from these interviews will be incorporated into a future evaluation report focusing on the diffusion of the ExpandED Schools approach. ³ Student surveys were also administered in prior years of the evaluation, to examine the impact of expanded learning on the development of academic mindsets (http://www.expandedschools.org/sites/default/files/ExpandED_Academic_Mindsets_Research_ Brief_-_March_2014.pdf). ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability 5 Core Element: More Time for a Balanced Curriculum During the first four years of the national demonstration, expanding the school day for all students was a challenge for ExpandED schools, but the schools embraced the charge to use the expanded time to expose students to balanced learning opportunities. The ExpandED Schools model envisions whole-school participation in an expanded day in which all students in the school are exposed to enrichments and activities that create opportunities for a “balanced curriculum” and traditional academics integrated with sports, the arts, and hands-on learning experiences. Accordingly, sub-elements of the core element, “more time for a balanced curriculum,” are (1) that all students are engaged in expanded learning, and (2) that students experience both rigorous, skill-based instruction and opportunities for enrichment and youth development. Implementation of each of these sub-elements is described in greater detail below. Engaging all students in expanded learning. Establishing and institutionalizing a longer day for all students in the school was a challenge for many of the demonstration schools, requiring both significant resources and commitment to change within the school community. Nonetheless, as summarized in Exhibit 4, more than half of the participating schools, including all New York City schools, made a significant commitment to engage their students, families, and staff in a school-wide expanded day by the end of the fourth year of the demonstration. By 2014-15, all five New York City schools approached the expanded day with a vision of a whole-school initiative: the goal was for all students to stay consistently for a longer school day.4 The evolution of a school’s Most significantly, the schools made incremental shifts, gradually building expectations of their school community—including staff and families—for the school day to be longer, and to regard the expanded day as an essential part of the learning experience rather than as an add-on, optional afterschool program. Exhibit 4 Level of implementation of an expanded day, 2014-15 Approach 4 6 Description Number of schools Contributing factors Whole-school Goal for all students to stay 5 of 5 in New York City for longer day; expanded day is an integral part of school day School leaders committed to transformative change Expectation communicated and reinforced throughout school community Resources are committed Approach scaled up incrementally Whole-grade Goal for all students in 3 of 3 in Baltimore targeted grade(s) to stay for (Targeted grades K-3) longer day Grade-level focus driven by district’s involvement in the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading Open enrollment Students and their families 1 of 1 in New Orleans choose to enroll in expanded day, or not Operational concerns, including financial resources and transportation logistics This analysis is based on interviews with school staff, ExpandED Directors, and parents. Policy Studies Associates, Inc. commitment to an expanded day was not linear. Nonetheless, some common factors were evident in the experiences of ExpandED schools that progressed to the whole-school level. Most significantly, the schools made incremental shifts, gradually building expectations of their school community—including staff and families—for the school day to be longer, and to regard the expanded day as an essential part of the learning experience rather than as an add-on, optional afterschool program. In contrast, schools that did not move towards implementation of expanded day at the whole-school level were not able to build that sustained commitment in the community. Most lacked the financial and political capital to risk making a significant structural change and to overcome the operational challenges of a whole-school expanded day, including transportation, space, and teacher schedules and contracts. An illustrative example of a school that scaled up to whole-school implementation is in Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 Example of a school that scaled up to whole-school implementation Implementation in Year 1 In the first year of the national demonstration, this K-8 school engaged young students in expanded learning at high levels, nearing whole-grade adoption of a longer school day for elementary-grade students. However, despite intent to implement a whole-school approach, participation in the expanded day was low for middle-grade students, who would leave school at the end of the traditional school day. Implementation in Year 4 Enrollment and participation of middle-grade students steadily increased over the years. By the fourth year of the national demonstration, the school had largely achieved whole-school adoption of the ExpandED Schools model for both elementary-grade and middle-grade students. Factors that supported adoption Leadership: A second ExpandED Director was hired to focus on enrollment of middle-grade students. In addition, an assistant principal was explicitly focused on attendance and enrollment, and specifically advocated for the expanded day. Messaging: The school established a 1.5 hour-long ninth period, led by teachers two days a week, setting the expectation for a longer school day. The school and community partner organization collaborated to extend this structure to three hours all days of the week. Activities to support students academically were delivered during the first 1.5 hour period. During the second 1.5 hour period of the expanded day, students could choose enrichment activities based on their interests (e.g., dance, technology, chess, basketball). According to the ExpandED Director: “We just market it as an all-day program. It’s 8 to 6. Everyone knows that they have to stay. Things are happening that they want to stay for.” Other schools initially took steps towards implementing a whole-school expanded day, then cut back when the availability of stable funding to support the longer day for all students became a concern: many schools and community partner organizations were not able to braid together sufficient sustainable sources of funding to support a whole-school expanded day. Therefore, they adapted their goal to implement a more feasible expanded day based on the available resources. For example, in Baltimore, the three schools that took a “whole-grade” approach to the expanded day in 2014-15 scaled back previous years’ efforts to serve the whole school in order to draw on new foundation resources for the early grades that became available as a result of the school district’s involvement with the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading. The school in New Orleans that remained in the demonstration did not strategically or consistently expand the day for students in 2014-15, essentially offering an optional “open enrollment” model, in which interested students could choose to enroll in the expanded learning time. This school had scaled back its commitment to implementing a whole-school expanded day over time, as described in Exhibit 6. ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability 7 Exhibit 6 Example of a school that retreated from whole-school implementation Implementation in Years 1 and 2 The school charter established a school day with expanded hours. In the first two years of the national demonstration, the school messaged the importance of this extra time to parents and began to implement logistics and create structures to be able to serve all students in the expanded day. The school leadership took on an active role in planning and design. Through the expanded day, students engaged in arts-based enrichment opportunities and reading instruction. Classroom teachers worked alongside community educators through both the traditional school day and expanded hours. In the second year, buses left the school at the end of the expanded day, reinforcing the expectation for an expanded day. Implementation in Year 4 By the end of the fourth year of the national demonstration, expectations had changed. The school no longer worked with a lead community partner organization as expected in the ExpandED Schools model, but rather directly hired and managed teaching artists. Although integrating arts with academics remained a priority for the school, expanding the day for all students was no longer the norm, and a decreasing number of students were enrolled in the expanded day. Factors that hindered adoption Teacher burnout: Relying on teachers to stay for an integrated and expanded day proved unsustainable. According to the principal: “We had teachers trying to teach a science thing that they’re going to be held accountable for on the state test board at 4:45 pm. It was really stressful.” As a result, the school made the decision to no longer extend the instructional day for school staff members. With fewer staff available, fewer students could be served. Management burden: Because the school did not have a lead community partner organization with which to share management and operations of the expanded day, the whole-school expanded day placed both operational and financial burden on school staff. Administrators did not have time to manage traditional school operations, and reverted back to an opt-in model of programming to alleviate these concerns. Implementing skill-based instruction and enrichment. Most ExpandED schools consistently embraced the model’s emphasis on engaging students in learning opportunities that include both rigorous, skill-based academic instruction and exposure to a wide range of enrichment activities. However, planning and delivering the ExpandED Schools approach to a balanced curriculum is not easy. School and community partner organization staff must coordinate extensively and share roles and responsibilities. In the ExpandED Schools model, a “balanced curriculum” does not necessarily mean equal, or even near equal, time for or attention to academics and enrichment. Rather, it means that both enrichment and academic support are included in the plan for the expanded day, and when possible, they are woven together and complement one another. ExpandED Schools is unusual in asking both classroom teachers and community educators to deliver a coordinated and streamlined program, in which curricular concepts and instructional approaches are infused from academics into enrichment activities and vice versa. This approach requires schools and community partners to devote time and resources to planning and coordination, and to embrace new partnership roles. This approach also requires community educators to have the skills and capacity to deliver this high-quality, integrated instruction. The ExpandED school and community partner organization must share a vision and expectations for the quality of instruction, so that the lessons delivered by classroom teachers and community educators are both perceived as valuable to student learning experiences. 8 Policy Studies Associates, Inc. One condition stands out as consistently supporting the implementation of a balanced curriculum: the presence of a strong instructional coordinator. The coordinator is a school staff member who works with community educators to align the traditional day and expanded learning time instruction; identifies opportunities to infuse enrichment into core content; and supports engaging, skill-based enrichment. While the instructional coordinator position was often fulfilled by an assistant principal or another administrator, some demonstration schools appointed a teacher to fill this role, potentially enhancing alignment to the school day. For example, in one school the instructional coordinator was a special education teacher who helped to train community educators in how to assist students with disabilities and to align programming for these students and for the rest of the student body. In another demonstration school, the instructional coordinator developed structures for community educators to collaborate with classroom teachers to create enrichment activities that complemented social studies instruction. During one unit, when students were studying African geography and history in social studies class, an arts specialist from the community partner organization, trained in African drumming, led activities and discussions about the roots and importance of African drumming in African-American history. One condition stands out as consistently supporting the implementation of a balanced curriculum: the presence of a strong instructional coordinator. Core Element: School-Community Partnership A central element of the ExpandED Schools model is a strong partnership between the school and its community, including community-based partners, staff, and families. The ExpandED Schools approach requires a transformative shift in how all stakeholders perceive the school day and the role of a partner organization, so that the expanded day programming is considered by all an important and integrated part of the school day. First, in an ExpandED school, the school and community partner organization are expected to share responsibility for implementing the expanded day. The ExpandED Schools approach requires that the school and the community partner organization share leadership, information, and resources to implement a lengthened school day that includes both academic support and enrichment. School administrators set the vision for expanded learning in their school and collaborate with the ExpandED Director to design and implement the vision. Second, in an ExpandED school, the school and community partner organization are expected to engage families in the learning process, starting with communicating the value of the expanded day for enriched learning experiences and expectations for considering the expanded day as an integral part of the school day. This section of the report describes the approaches taken to develop the school-community partnership of the ExpandED Schools model, as well as the factors that supported and challenged the implementation of an effective collaborative partnership. Developing shared responsibility between the school and community partner organization for expanded learning. Nearly all ExpandED schools had developed strong practices demonstrating shared responsibility between the school and the community partner organization by 2014-15. An illustrative example of the evolution of this deeper relationship is shown in Exhibit 7. ExpandED schools used various strategies to establish these strategic partnerships and joint ownership of the expanded day. First, schools shared responsibility for expanded learning through creative staffing arrangements. For example, some schools implemented a “push-in” staffing approach wherein community educators came in before the end of the traditional school day and assisted classroom teachers in their lessons. This arrangement meant that teachers were still the primary instructor for academics ExpandED schools developed strategic partnerships with their partner organizations and joint ownership of the expanded day through creative staffing arrangements, joint leadership for the expanded day, and the development of teacher champions. ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability 9 Exhibit 7 Example of a school that deepened partnership through joint instruction Implementation in Year 1 At the launch of the national demonstration, there was very little collaboration between classroom teachers and community educators. Classroom teachers were responsible for academic instruction and support, and community educators were responsible for enrichment activities. The teachers and partner staff planned and implemented instruction independently, with limited opportunities for interaction. Implementation in Year 4 By the end of the fourth year of the demonstration, classroom teachers and community educators worked closely together to deliver instruction to students during the expanded day. They identified opportunities to integrate academic content into enrichment activities, work with students in small groups, and communicate regularly about student needs. Factors that supported adoption Shared vision: The school adopted a targeted literacy goal for student success and a vision for how the expanded day could support that goal. This vision was clearly communicated to all stakeholders within the school and within the community partner organization. Staff championed joint instruction in the expanded day as an approach to intentionally help students meet the goal. Joint training: All staff in the school—including classroom teachers, community educators, and school support staff—were trained in guided reading. This provided a common language, common instructional approaches, and strengthened the trust and respect among partners. but had help from partner staff; teachers could then work one-on-one with students or group students for differentiated instruction. This overlapping arrangement meant that community educators spent more time with students. This push-in arrangement also alleviated the challenge that many schools face with carving out time for community educators and classroom teachers to build relationships, engage in common planning, and discuss the needs of particular students. Schools also deepened the shared responsibility by establishing joint leadership for the expanded day and by elevating the role of the instructional coordinator. For example, in one ExpandED school the assistant principal served as the instructional coordinator. She shifted her hours so that she came in after the start of the school day and stayed to help the ExpandED Director oversee the expanded day. Being present during the expanded day and seeing activities in action allowed her to recognize opportunities for aligning the academic day and expanded hours to make the day more seamless and fluid. This was so successful that the parent coordinator also changed her hours so that more school leaders were present throughout the entirety of the day. By the end of the fourth year of the demonstration, the relationship between the school and the community partner organization had deepened to the point where school staff and leaders were involved in the hiring of expanded day staff. Other schools, however, were more challenged when coordinating leadership between the school administration and the community partner’s ExpandED Director, including finding time to dedicate to ongoing planning and refinement and shifting mindsets about how to work together as a team. Finally, developing teacher champions for the expanded day led to shared responsibility throughout the school building, not just at the leadership level. A demonstration school that achieved true whole-school implementation of the expanded day—all students stayed for a longer day— was able to do so in large part because of the deep level of teacher buy-in and commitment to the ExpandED Schools approach. The principal had a strong belief in the power of an expanded day to boost student performance and also felt strongly about enrichment and arts integration. She communicated 10 Policy Studies Associates, Inc. this vision to teachers clearly and persuasively, and over each year of the demonstration, the number of teachers working during the expanded hours grew. Teachers saw the additional hours as opportunities to share their passions with students and to offer learning experiences that supplemented core academics that students would not otherwise have access to. As teacher ownership and support for a whole-school expanded day model grew, the school changed its operating hours to include the expanded day. There were two notable exceptions to the pattern of progressively strengthened school and partner relationships over the course of the national demonstration. In one case, the school chose to no longer work with a lead community partner organization, but rather navigated the planning for an expanded day internally and hired external teaching artists to deliver enrichment activities. In the second example, highlighted in Exhibit 8, changes in leadership and general challenges faced by the school led to a loss of collaboration. Exhibit 8 Example of a school where partnership weakened because of school challenges Implementation in Year 1 In the first year of the national demonstration, the relationship between the school and the community partner organization was strong, with regular planning meetings. Expanded learning time was at the center of a school redesign initiative, so the school community—staff, parents, and administrators—were on board and supportive. Community educators supported classroom teachers during an academic support period twice a week, and classroom teachers provided input into the types of enrichment activities that would be most valuable for community educators to offer during the expanded day. Implementation in Year 4 In the fourth year of the demonstration, there was less consistent communication between the principal and the ExpandED Director, and planning between classroom teachers and community educators was more happenstance than intentional. The expanded hours were spent largely on homework and test preparation. Factors that weakened partnership Leadership change: The school experienced significant leadership turnover in key positions, including the principal, the ExpandED Director, and the instructional coordinator. The new principal was not fully engaged in the expanded day approach and, without a clear advocate for the approach within the school, the partnership received less attention and resources. Reduced funding and resources: School enrollment was shrinking, meaning that the school was faced with a shrinking budget, and the principal prioritized the limited available resources for the traditional school day. As a result, the expanded day became more dependent on resources solely from the community partner organization and ExpandED Schools, amplifying the distinct operations of the traditional school day and the expanded hours. Engaging families. The concept of engaging families meaningfully in learning is one that schools struggle with in general; in the ExpandED Schools demonstration, engaging families in supporting student learning within the context of an expanded day was not easy. However, the expanded day cannot be successful if families are not committed to the longer school day and pick up their children early. This is closely related to the goal of engaging all students in expanded learning. In the early years of the national demonstration, it became clear that implementing an expanded day would require changing families’ expectations of the school day. Early and frequent communication with families was necessary. Where schools did not send a strong message to families that the expanded day was an integrated part of the school ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability 11 day, the results were clear: in interviews, parents regarded the “program” as optional and therefore picked their children up early out of convenience (e.g., based on the parent’s work schedule, or for appointments), rather than prioritizing the expanded day as a valuable learning resource for their children. Demonstration schools that struggled with parents picking up their children early in the first year typically continued to struggle with that same challenge in the fourth year, suggesting that it is difficult to change families’ minds about school hours and expectations once a certain norm is set, unless a very clear message of The expanded day cannot be successful if families are not change is communicated. Demonstration schools that were successful in engaging families around the value of the expanded day for learning focused on outreach and messaging strategies, including: committed to the longer school day. Outreach and messaging strategies are essential. ▪ Clearly setting the expectation in all school communications that the expanded day is part of the school day, rather than an optional afterschool program, in all schools communications with families, including at back-toschool nights, in school enrollment packets, and in school newsletters ▪ Assigning staff members or volunteers to specifically encourage families to enroll their children in the expanded day, and including enrollment forms in the same packet as school enrollment materials ▪ Ensuring the presence of the school’s parent coordinator during the expanded hours to serve as a link for families and to demonstrate the value of the expanded day Core Element: Engaging and Personalized Instruction A core element of the ExpandED Schools model is that both academic and enrichment instruction be engaging and personalized. This includes two closely interrelated strategies: instruction should be differentiated to address the individual needs of students, and instruction should be data-driven. This core element is one that the schools most struggled to implement over the first four years of the national demonstration. The challenges that the ExpandED schools experienced implementing this aspect of the approach reflect difficulties that schools in general have with being data-driven in differentiating instruction for students. Effective data use to drive instruction is not easy, and is something that most schools struggle with (Goertz, Olah, & Rigga, 2009; Means, Padilla, DeBarger, & Bakia, 2009; Rogers, 2003). In ExpandED schools, there is an added degree of complexity. The approach requires both community partner staff and traditional school day staff to collect, share, interpret—and then use—available data about students to inform programming decisions. Staff must first identify what data are available from the school and from the community partner organization about student needs and progress that could appropriately inform not just academic offerings, but also enrichment activities. They must identify opportunities to jointly discuss this information and determine the implications for tailoring supports throughout the entire school day for individual students, and for determining the program offerings of the expanded day. According to one principal: What we find really hard to be consistent with is the data process and the shared data and what’s relevant to really invest in teaching to the community educators and the program aides, versus what we need to use to assess the program overall. There’s reading levels, there’s math levels, and student resources that are tracked, but then how do we turnkey that so that we’re using it with the community educators and the programming so that they’re building lessons that are focusing on the individual needs? This core element is one that ExpandED schools initially deprioritized as they worked to establish an expanded day approach, focusing first on developing strong partnerships and designing balanced programming for the expanded day, and gradually integrating data-driven approaches. According to one principal: “It’s what we have grown into doing. We didn’t do any of it in the beginning. It was just getting used to the model, and having buy-in from parents, from all the community partners, and building structure. Now it’s really beginning to be woven in.” Where initial inroads towards data-driven and personalized instruction have been made, they have been driven by a few factors: 12 Policy Studies Associates, Inc. ▪ Intermediaries have increasingly helped to provide not just access to both academic data and data on social-emotional learning, but also guidance in interpreting data, facilitating meetings and helping to build the joint capacity of ExpandED schools and their partners. ▪ Demonstration schools have been most successful in making decisions and guiding instruction based on information shared in informal conversations between classroom teachers and community educators that allow for two-way sharing (e.g., about pressing academic needs or behavior issues). These conversations often occur when community educators “push-in” to classrooms at the end of the traditional school day, overlapping with teachers for the final minutes of class, creating a seamless transition for students and providing opportunities for staff partnerships. ▪ Focusing on simpler forms of information sharing and data use, rather than the traditional notion that instructional planning must rely on quantitative, test-based data, has in fact increased the use of information for targeting student needs, tailoring program design, and tracking progress. Core Element: Integrated Funding Model The fourth core element of the ExpandED Schools model is that schools and their community partners develop an integrated funding approach for the implementation of the expanded day. In the ExpandED Schools model, this integration includes: (1) coordination of the budgets of the school and partner organization to ensure that resources are leveraged to the joint vision for the expanded day; (2) strategic management of all partnerships within the school to support the goals of the expanded day; and (3) commitment to fundraising by both the school and community partner staff to identify and pursue resources to sustain the expanded day. The ExpandED Schools model is predicated on the assumption that for the expanded day to be sustainable, schools and community partner organizations will braid funds received from public funding streams and from the private-sector funds, regardless of which entity is the fiscal agent of those funds, and coordinate budgets to cover the expenses of the expanded day. In the first four years of the national demonstration, the majority of schools and community partner organizations coordinated to the extent of Sharing information about ensuring that all expenses for the planned expanded day were covered. This resources requires both a great deal of trust among partners typically resulted in coordinated but separate budgets for the traditional and a strong commitment to the school day and the expanded hours, managed separately by the community partnership and expanded day. partner organization and by the school, and the level of fiscal integration was limited. Sharing information about resources to create a truly integrated expanded day requires both a great deal of trust among partners, and a strong commitment to the partnership, and was most evident in New York City where the partnerships typically pre-dated the national demonstration, and in Baltimore, where the emerging community schools movement in the district also established a culture of partnership. In general, schools and community partners were limited by the scarce options for sustainable external funding that they could pursue as national demonstration funding from ExpandED Schools declined. ExpandED schools pursued government and foundation grant funds (including 21st Century Community Learning Center program funds and, in Baltimore, funding from the Kellogg Foundation). A few ExpandED schools demonstrated exceptional commitment. For example: ▪ An ExpandED school developed a comprehensive framework incorporating all partners in the school—not just the lead community partner organization for the expanded day—that allowed them to identify how multiple funding streams and resources all contributed to an integrated set of resources for students. ▪ An ExpandED school’s fundraising team took the lead on seeking external resources and grant funds for the expanded day, working closely with development staff from the community partner organization. In general, schools and community partner organizations relied heavily on the local intermediary organization and on ExpandED Schools both for direct support and for assistance in pursuing sources of external support. ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability 13 Exhibit 9 What encourages adoption? According to decades of research on innovation diffusion, any innovation has attributes that facilitate or impede its adoption (Rogers, 2003). Most of these attributes are best understood from the vantage point of the prospective adopter, and they vary with the context for adoption. They are the following: ▪ Relative advantage for adopters, including demonstrated effectiveness but also the advantage as perceived by each adopter in view of local incentives ▪ Compatibility, i.e., consistency with the potential adopters’ existing values, past experiences, and needs ▪ Complexity, including the perceived difficulty of understanding and using an innovation and also the extent and kinds of change required ▪ Trialability, or the possibility of experimentation or pilot use of the innovation, including reinvention for customization (which Rogers notes is a frequent occurrence in innovation), and divisibility into a series of incremental changes ▪ Observability, or the ease with which prospective adopters can see the results of using the innovation Factors That Support Adoption, Scale, and Sustainability The national demonstration of the ExpandED Schools model provided opportunities to learn about adoption and sustainability of an approach to expanded learning in varying contexts and conditions. These experiences provide a springboard for a broader analysis of lessons learned about adopting and scaling an initiative such as ExpandED Schools. The following questions are likely to influence local decisions to adopt and sustain the changes to school structures and operations embedded in the ExpandED Schools approach and each of its core elements: ▪ Does the approach yield results that the school community, including districts, schools, partners, and parents, can observe in practice? ▪ Is the approach relevant for addressing problems or concerns important to the school community, and does it have an advantage over existing approaches? ▪ Is the approach easy to adopt within the school and compatible with existing school norms and values, and is it connected to other initiatives? ▪ Is the ExpandED Schools approach credible in the field, and supported by districts, funders, experts, and/or advocates? The relevance of these questions is evident in the adoption of the ExpandED Schools approach in the national demonstration: as described in the previous section, schools did not adopt the model wholesale at the start of the demonstration, but rather made incremental changes as they explored the feasibility and value of the approach to their own school system. As illustrated in Exhibit 10, demonstration schools adopted first and most readily those core elements that were most clearly meeting a gap in their curriculum and relevant to their needs, where they could envision community partners making the biggest and most immediate impact. In general, 14 Policy Studies Associates, Inc. Demonstration schools adopted first and most readily those core elements that were most clearly meeting a gap in their curriculum and relevant to their needs, where they could envision community partners making the biggest and most immediate impact. the demonstration schools first embraced the balanced curriculum element. With the traditional school day increasingly devoted to boosting performance in core academic subjects, the schools saw a clear need for the enrichment and youth development opportunities that the expanded day could bring. Next, over time and with facilitation and support from ExpandED Schools and other intermediaries, the demonstration schools deepened their partnerships to include more strategic and joint planning around these enrichment opportunities to ensure that they were complementary to the school day and addressed the needs of students. Exhibit 10 Typical phased adoption of ExpandED Schools core elements Not surprisingly, the core elements slowest to gain traction were those that are most difficult for schools in general, including the effective use of data to drive instruction and fundraising for the sustainability of special initiatives. Schools and community partners were limited in their capacity to personalize or differentiate learning or to use data during the program design process, despite support in collecting and interpreting data. This reflects the widespread challenges in effectively using data to drive instruction, as discussed earlier. As the ExpandED Schools approach demonstrates its potential and gains credibility within a school, the school becomes more willing to implement the more challenging core elements. Early in each demonstration school’s experience, the impact of the ExpandED Schools approach on school operations or performance was not yet clear, and there was not yet a path to sustained funding or policy support. As a result, principals were reluctant to implement the significant structural changes in school schedules, staffing patterns, and set expectations for families necessary to establish that a longer school day was an expectation for all students in the school—hence the “whole-school” element of the model was adopted more slowly. As the demonstration unfolded, some principals had a “lightbulb moment” when they began to see how the approach could help them achieve school goals. One principal described the opportunity to leverage the expanded learning time to meet school goals: This summer, [community partner organization leaders, the ExpandED Director, the assistant principal, and a member of the school leadership team] met to talk about the focus, my vision for the program. I wanted to focus a lot on literacy. It just so happened that that was also the focus that the [community partner] wanted to work on as well with [the intermediary]. They all had a literacy connection that they wanted to focus on with the school so there was complete alignment with that. That was a good thing. Our planning started just to talk about where we wanted to go, and why, and I explained that my goal was for 50 percent of our students to be at “proficient” or above by the time the school year ended. As principals realized the potential for the expanded day partnership to strengthen their school, their commitment to the approach was reinforced, along with their willingness to devote resources to the elements requiring more structural changes to the school. For example, they began to shift the schedules of key school staff to overlap with community partner staff, encouraged increased collaboration for the design and implementation of activities, and more actively sought out resources to support the expanded day. ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability 15 How Do Core Elements Interact? This phased adoption of the core elements of the ExpandED Schools approach demonstrates that the elements can be implemented and adapted independently of each other. For example, even if schools do not achieve implementation of an expanded day for all students, or grapple with how to effectively engage community partners in data-driven, personalized instruction, evidence suggests that they can still implement other aspects of the expanded learning approach. They can deliver a balanced and integrated learning experience for students and conduct strategic planning with the community partner organization, in ways that begin to achieve the goals of changing learning and instructional experiences in schools. One core element appears to be However, one core element appears to be essential: the ExpandED Schools essential: the ExpandED Schools approach hinges on the strength and depth of the partnership between approach hinges on the strength the school and the community partner organization. Without a partnership and depth of the partnership between the school and the built on shared vision and shared responsibility, it is very hard to gain or community partner organization. maintain traction on other core elements. For example, one school had adopted several core elements of the approach in the early years of the demonstration, achieved joint planning between the school and community partner organization, and provided a seamless expanded day for students. However, after turnovers in leadership at both the school and community partner organization levels and little attention given to rebuilding both the partnership and shared vision, the momentum for an integrated expanded learning day at the school dissipated. In contrast, other schools weathered these types of transitions because multiple stakeholders, beyond just the school principal, had become advocates for the approach. At several demonstration schools, teachers gradually developed ownership of the expanded day, which distributed leadership and a shared investment throughout the school rather than vesting it in only the administration. In addition, it is important that schools maintain a vision or intention for whole-school—or whole-grade—implementation of the expanded day, and consider the approach an integral part of the school day for one or more cohorts of students. Where student participation in the expanded day is treated as optional, the commitment to changes in teaching and learning wanes, and the strategic thread that draws together all the core elements is lost. What Does It Take to Scale and Sustain an Expanded Day? In the national demonstration, three drivers influenced whether the ExpandED Schools approach gained traction and became part of the institutional fabric of schools. First, the shared vision for the expanded day, often set by the principal but adopted and informed by all partners, solidified the partnership. Second, a high level of engagement with families built buy-in and communicated expectations for an expanded day as an integral part of the learning experience. And finally, for the commitment to remain strong, there needed to be quality instruction and programming, demonstrated through a high level of professional skill among all involved, to solidify a high level of trust among partners and to demonstrate the value of the expanded day. Although there is general agreement that the core elements of the ExpandED Schools approach address important elements for school change, implementation has not been easy. The successes and the challenges faced by the demonstration schools also indicate that implementing an expanded day requires: 16 ▪ Incremental steps to test the approach, establish its relevance to the school, develop buy-in and trust, and identify appropriate adaptations. In each year of the demonstration, schools figured out steps to implement, improve, and deepen their relationships. ▪ Commitment by both the school and community partner organization to truly work together, share information, share responsibilities, and build new skills and capacities, in roles that differ from traditional school partnerships and service relationships. Policy Studies Associates, Inc. Exhibit 11 Roles in the ExpandED Schools approach ▪ Strategic planning on an ongoing basis between the school and community partner organization to identify needs, opportunities, and the integrated programming across the school day and expanded day that can best address students’ learning goals. One demonstration school in particular stood out as a good example of these drivers of success working together. Over the course of the demonstration, the principal developed a clear vision for what the ExpandED Schools approach could bring to the school and shared the vision with the school staff member responsible for family outreach and support services, who began to focus on parent engagement in expanded learning. This school leader and the ExpandED Director trained parents to serve as tutors during the expanded day, bridging the gap between school and home and also encouraging student enrollment and participation in the expanded day. They also recruited many classroom teachers to work during the expanded day, supported by community educators. Working alongside teachers helped the community educators to grow their skills and enhanced the mutual trust and respect of the two groups, thus increasing the quality of programming and deepening the commitment of all stakeholders to the approach. Coburn, Catterson, Higgs, Mertz, and Morel (2013) define the features of local context and the strategies that can influence the spread of a model. First are the knowledge, skill, and identity of the stakeholders in a local setting. In the ExpandED Schools demonstration, schools and community partner organizations brought varying knowledge and skills through strategic partnerships, through conceptualizing a balanced and enriched curriculum, and through joint planning. The New York City schools that had been part of the earlier ELT pilot, for instance, had an understanding of the nature of a community partnership that enabled them to adopt elements of the ExpandED Schools approach more rapidly than did demonstration schools in New Orleans, for which these types of partnerships were new. The baseline from where the partners start will influence how they interpret—and how quickly they might achieve—each of the core elements of the model. ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability 17 Second, the environmental context in which the approach is being scaled has consequences for strategies and effectiveness. Particularly in the early years of the ExpandED Schools demonstration, environmental barriers to implementation included logistical concerns such as space limitations in the school for Transitions in leadership in schools enrichment activities, transportation for students at the end of the expanded can disrupt the implementation day, and limitations of teacher contracts. Commitment from leaders and of a model, especially when a teachers to the vision of an expanded day provided needed motivation for new leader does not embrace the solving these kinds of operational problems. More significantly, the experimodel, and the model is not yet ences in several ExpandED demonstration schools illustrate how transitions institutionalized enough or does in leadership in schools can disrupt the implementation of a model, espenot have enough champions within cially when a new leader does not embrace the model, and the model is not the school community to generate yet institutionalized enough or does not have enough champions within the a groundswell of advocacy. school community to generate a groundswell of advocacy. Third, the policy context in which the approach is being implemented may facilitate or impede scale-up. This context may include priorities dictated by school districts or funders, or other reform initiatives that also influence the work of schools and their partners. For all schools in the demonstration, the model has taken root at the same time as the Common Core State Standards, which has shifted school resources increasingly towards core academics; the balanced curriculum and enrichment opportunities offered through the expanded day have been a boon to schools wanting to maintain a more balanced learning opportunity for students. The influence of more localized priorities was also evident in Baltimore, for instance, where the advent of the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading in 2014-15 led to some significant adaptations of the ExpandED Schools approach, including a focus on grades K-3. While this led to support for an expanded day for students in these grades, this also meant reduced implementation of the whole-school approach for some schools that had been serving a larger proportion of students in previous years. Each school system considering an expanded day will have a unique set of circumstances, and it is important to consider how policies and structures will influence approaches for: ▪ Identifying the key champions and getting buy-in for expanded learning ▪ Negotiating operational supports, such as transportation and use of facilities ▪ Integrating the expanded day into teachers’ schedules ▪ Setting and upholding expectations for a longer school day with parents and students ▪ Sharing resources and ideas across schools What Is the Role of a Strong Partnership, and How Is It Achieved? Implementing innovative models requires collective work. This is clear with respect to the relationship between the school and the community partner organization. In addition, the development of shared ownership and responsibility among many stakeholders has proved helpful in the ExpandED Schools approach. In the demonstration, the schools and their community partners developed effective partnerships through a series of steps leading toward deeper, more trusting engagement with one another: 18 ▪ Each partner had to let go of some authority, or at least share it, particularly if they were previously engaged in a partnership where the principal was the authority for the school day and a community partner leader was the authority for afterschool. For example, in one ExpandED school, school and community partner leaders began to collaborate in hiring staff to work in the expanded day. ▪ Both partners engaged in conversations around staffing needs. Community partner organizations recognized the need to hire and retain high-quality staff that school staff trust, and school staff recognized the need to respect—or develop their own skills in—the youth development perspectives that community educators Policy Studies Associates, Inc. often bring to the work. ExpandED schools and their community partner organizations addressed this need through joint training opportunities for school and community partner staff. For example, in one school teachers facilitated “cycles of support” for community partner staff, which provided opportunities to share techniques and increase the seamlessness of instructional and management approaches used throughout the school day. In another, teachers learned about the social-emotional learning approaches used by the community partner staff to reinforce norms through the school building. ▪ They built transparency around financial and management systems. ExpandED schools and community partner organizations shared information about grants and funding streams and had open discussions about how to share resources to pay for the expanded day. ▪ They had the culture and will to invest real, quality time in planning and partnership building at several stages throughout the year. ExpandED Schools and other intermediaries worked with schools and community partner organizations to build this culture and facilitate regular planning meetings to address key issues. For example, summer planning meetings could help to set the vision; fall discussions could ensure that all staff and school community members share the vision; and winter and spring discussions could focus on revisiting the program content to ensure alignment, address emerging student needs and interests, and increase effectiveness. While the school principal and a leader of the community partner organization can take lead roles in partnership, leadership transitions are inevitable, and relying too much on the relationship between two individuals may put the sustainability of the expanded day at risk. The new knowledge, approaches, and ideas required to successfully implement an expanded day cannot be led and maintained by a single individual but rather must be shared by and delegated to different school personnel. Over the course of the national demonstration, it became clear that having multiple champions and advocates within both the school and community partner organization made a difference. These individuals became a true partnership team, engaged with the approach over time and in different capacities. Their shared responsibility and ownership provided Having multiple champions stability in the face of transitions. and advocates within both the school and community partner organization increases shared responsibility and ownership and provides stability in the face of transitions. Furthermore, students and families are also valuable partners, particularly in communicating the vision and expectations for the expanded day. All members of the school community must be committed to the expanded day for it to gain traction within the school and ultimately become institutionalized as part of the learning experience. What Functions Support the Scale and Sustainability of Expanded Learning? Each partner in the ExpandED Schools approach brings unique strengths and capacities to the model, and those strengths can be leveraged to fulfill the many functions required to start up, implement, scale, and sustain the expanded day. Experiences from the national demonstration showed that implementing and sustaining the core elements of the approach requires partners to take on roles and responsibilities that extend beyond the delivery of program services. These functions include operational support, such as convening meetings to facilitate the development of a strong partnership between a school and its community partner organization, collecting and analyzing data on student needs and progress to inform programming, and implementing a continuous quality improvement process. Scaling and sustaining the ExpandED Schools approach also benefit from capacity-building that extends beyond day-to-day operations of the program, requiring external technical assistance, knowledge sharing about local resources and opportunities relevant to the model, and dissemination of best practices. Finally, the ExpandED Schools approach is most successfully adopted when it has advocates within schools, partners, and education systems who champion the expanded day, support fundraising or leverage existing resources, and serve as thought partners to resolve any barriers to the significant changes in school policies and structures that a fully implemented expanded day may require. ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability 19 Exhibit 12 Roles in the ExpandED Schools approach Schools cannot fulfill all these functions alone, and there is a range of partners that can each bring a unique set of assets and resources to support the expanded day approach. For instance, the school itself offers expertise in academic instruction, and can contribute staff time, the use of facilities, access to staff development, and transportation. The community partner organization typically provides expertise in youth development, staff, training, and enrichment resources and partnerships. The education system in which the ExpandED school functions, whether a school district or charter management organization, can provide policy supports in addition to more professional development opportunities and operational resources. National and local intermediary organizations also play an important role in expanded learning. These intermediaries can support the spread and scale of an approach, build capacity, and may help solve problems in several ways (Coburn, 2003). These include: ▪ Communication around the approach; this may include advocating for the expanded day with schools and districts, or with parents ▪ Capacity-building to engage with the approach—for example, changing the ways in which schools and community partner organizations see their respective roles and interact with each other ▪ Creating policy to create conditions to foster scale and intentionally build support through work with policymakers and policy networks ▪ Fundraising to support the implementation of the expanded day ▪ Technical assistance to help partners develop new professional roles Intermediary organizations can also directly support other functions related to scaling up an approach, including planning, evaluation, coalition building, and convening. 20 Policy Studies Associates, Inc. Finally, ExpandED Schools, as the national designer of the model, plays an important role in advocating for the approach nationally and locally, in offering guidance and coaching to its network of schools and intermediaries, and in providing data collection and analysis to inform the implementation of the model and assess its effectiveness. Together, these partners work to fulfill the functions that over time enable the ExpandED Schools approach to be adopted, scaled, and sustained. However, it is important to state that the roles and the functions cannot be static. What is essential is that all the needed functions and supports be identified and filled, or the approach will not be able to effectively take root. The needs of schools evolve over time, varying based on the local context and existing resources. Similarly, the capacities that different partners bring to the table will be different in each community. For example, the role of ExpandED Schools as an intermediary has evolved; it now serves primarily as a thought partner rather than as an operational partner to the New York City schools and offers continued guidance to support partners in other demonstration cities. Intermediaries can play a key role in guiding schools and community partner organizations through the change management process associated with expanding the school day as they discover new roles and responsibilities, plan in new ways, and strive to identify operational resources and supports for the expanded day. Intermediaries can help by identifying functions that need to be filled, and by fulfilling some of them. To be effective, intermediary organizations need to be nimble and adaptable in their roles, acting as outside facilitators, and as credible and knowledgeable resources. Recommendations for School and Community Leaders A central finding of this evaluation of ExpandED Schools’ national demonstration is that the success of the approach to expanded learning is dependent on the strength of not only partnerships among schools, community partner organizations, and families, but also partnerships and supports from intermediary organizations and other external resources. According to one principal, trust in the partnership enabled the school to fully engage in conversations about the context and priorities necessary for the school to benefit from the expanded day approach: Every principal is different. Every principal has a different set of experiences that make them the kind of leader that they are. Looking at our student data, looking at what the district goals were, and what my goals were for our school and being able to have a conversation with [the community partner organization leaders] and really know that they are onboard and they’re supportive of it, it definitely made the work a lot easier. Reflecting back on their implementation experiences, the national demonstration school leaders reported that identifying available assets across all partners was a necessary step before adopting an expanded day. The presence of these assets can influence the nature and depth of partnerships between schools and community partner organizations, the ability of the schools to change the use of time, and the capacity of intermediary organizations to determine readiness and lay the groundwork for a strong foundation. In addition, the contextual factors and conditions in which schools operate can influence the ways in which the approach to expanded learning is implemented. Therefore, we conclude our analysis with key questions emerging from the evaluation findings that each of these partners might ask of their organizations if they are contemplating adopting the ExpandED Schools approach to enrich student learning experiences. ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability 21 Questions for Intermediary Organizations ▪ What capacities does our organization have for training, technical assistance, fundraising, and program design? Both in general and in relation to the expanded day approach? ▪ Do we have experience bringing these assets into a school setting? What experiences and relationships with our community partners suggest that they are amenable to and have capacity to work with and in school settings? ▪ How will this expanded day approach fit in the larger policy and funding context of our community? Are there complementary or conflicting initiatives in place—or expected to be in place—that might influence or impede success? Questions for School and District Leaders 22 ▪ What does my school or district already have in place related to the four core elements of the ExpandED Schools model (e.g., balanced curriculum, school-community partnerships, engaging and personalized instruction, and integrated funding model)? ▪ Are we implementing or anticipating other school change initiatives that can complement or integrate with expanded day approaches? Are there any obvious conflicts between the ExpandED Schools approach and the requirements of those other initiatives? ▪ Do we have partners already working in the school or district that have the capacity and will to support an expanded day? ▫ What current services and programs can be adapted or expanded to support a balanced curriculum and engaging, personalized instruction? ▫ What strengths do partner staff bring? What additional training would be necessary to ensure a high-quality, integrated expanded day? ▪ Do we have opportunities for funding that integrates the resources of the school and of the community partner organization to support an expanded day? ▪ How can we build commitment throughout the school and district or charter management organization to support implementation and sustainability of an expanded day model? Policy Studies Associates, Inc. Questions for Community Partner Organizations ▪ Which of my school partners have the capacity to expand their school day and integrate a new approach for learning? ▪ What assets and philosophy does our organization bring to the expanded day approach? Are we willing to modify/adapt that approach to be consistent with the school culture? ▪ Does our staff have experience working well with schools (e.g., connecting program content to school standards, using student data to plan)? ▪ How do the strengths of our staff complement those of classroom teachers? How could we build further capacity to deliver a high-quality, balanced complementary curriculum? ▪ Do we have opportunities for funding that integrates the resources available to our organization with the resources of the school? Schools, community partner organizations, and intermediaries can ask themselves these questions first individually and then together as they explore entering a partnership. These questions, which are the core of the ExpandED Schools model, can help schools and partners determine whether they are ready to adopt a collaborative approach to an expanded learning day, and ensure that implementation creates a transformative use of instructional time and a balanced learning day for all students. ExpandED Schools National Demonstration: Lessons for Scale and Sustainability 23 References Coburn, C.E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12. Coburn, C.E., Catterson, A.K., Higgs, J., Mertz, K., & Morel, R. (2013). Spread and scale in the digital age: A memo to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Goertz, M.E., Nabors Olah, L., & Riggan, M. (2009). From testing to teaching: The use of interim assessments in classroom instruction (CPRE Research Report #RR-65). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Management Systems International. (2012). Scaling up—From vision to large-scale change. Washington, DC: Author. Means, B., Padilla, C., DeBarger, A., & Bakia, M. (2009). Implementing data-informed decision making in schools—teacher access, supports and use. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, fifth edition. New York: Free Press. 24 Policy Studies Associates, Inc.