Breaking The Mold

AGENCY/PHOTOGRAPHER
Breaking the Mold

Combining Community Schools with Expanded Learning Time
to Help Educationally Disadvantaged Students
Isabel Owen September 2010
w w w.americanprogress.org
Breaking the Mold
Combining Community Schools with
Expanded Learning Time to Help Educationally
Disadvantaged Students
Isabel Owen September 2010

Contents 1 Introduction and summary
6 What is a community school?
8 What is expanded learning time

for schools?
10 Each reform model strengthens the other:

The benefits of expanded learning time
15 Each reform model strengthens the other:

Support services of community schools
enhance the ELT model
19 Important considerations
25 Bankrolling community schools and

expanded learning time initiatives
32 Conclusion
33 Endnotes
35 About the author and acknowledgements

Introduction and summary
Think schooling in the United States and the image that comes to mind is of a red
brick building filled with classrooms each lined with straight rows of desks facing a
teacher in front of a blackboard. And when the bell rings every morning at exactly
the same time, children enter that red brick school only to exit a few hours later
when the bell rings again at exactly the same time every afternoon. School is the
place where children are expected to orderly progress through each grade to an
eventual high school graduation. This picture of schooling has been ingrained in
our daily routine for generations.
In general, our public schools treat the majority of children within a school
building the same regardless of their lives outside of school. But what about
the students who face nonacademic obstacles to learning? A student who does
not have access to preventive health care, for example, may be confronted with
impediments to success in school. And what about the student who is struggling
academically and could benefit from additional time for instruction and enrich-
ment than what is prescribed under the traditional school calendar?
Teachers and administrators try their best to help students succeed, but they typi-
cally lack the capacity to provide additional supports to children beyond academic
instruction. Teachers run up against the inflexible confines imposed by the school
calendar. They often lack time to cover all material. And the demands of meet-
ing academic standards often mean that enrichment opportunities at school are
placed on the backburner. It’s time to re-envision how resources can be used to
help struggling children succeed academically.
This paper will examine two schoolwide reform models—community schools and
expanded learning time—that challenge the rigid boundaries of the conventional
school model in order to close the achievement gap.
The reforms analyzed in this paper are targeted toward students who are “edu-
cationally disadvantaged” because they live in disproportionately low- or lower
middle-income communities—both white and nonwhite—or who attend schools
Breaking the Mold | www.americanprogress.org 1

that are predominantly comprised of minority students. These educationally
disadvantaged kids can benefit from both the community-school and expanded-
learning-time models.
Community schools, through results-focused partnerships, provide services that

attend to the academic, physical, mental, social, and emotional needs of children.
They embrace this diverse role recognizing nonacademic factors that go unad-
dressed during the school day can affect students’ well-being and therefore their
academic achievement. Since schools are already woven into the social fabric of
every community, they are strategically positioned to provide additional services.
Yet even when their health, emotional, and social needs are met, students, par-
ticularly educationally disadvantaged students, can often benefit from additional
instruction time and participation in other enriching activities. Expanding learn-
ing time, or lengthening the school day, week, or year, for all children in a school
can help close academic and enrichment gaps. Rather than just tacking time onto
the calendar, expanding learning time involves strategically redesigning the school
schedule to incorporate extra time for academic instruction, enrichment activities,
and professional development and planning for staff.
Schools across the country are experimenting with a community-school model

and the expansion of learning time. There are hundreds of community schools
in 44 states and the District of Columbia.1 And there are 655 schools with an
expanded calendar in 36 states and the District of Columbia.2 Yet few schools have
taken on the task of implementing both reforms at once.
There are hurdles to implementing a school model that expands the school calen-
dar with wraparound social services for students and their community. Funding is
a major obstacle when expanding learning time or implementing community sup-
port services. Often schools struggle to blend a mixture of funding streams from
various sources—philanthropic; city, district, state, and federal grants; private
contributions; and money from community-based organizations—to initiate and
maintain services. But as both reform models gain momentum by demonstrating
success, more funding opportunities are becoming available. The Obama adminis-
tration has proposed substantial investments in both models as part of its broader
federal education reform agenda. In addition, local, state, and nonfederal national
funding streams that can be applied towards both reform efforts are becoming
increasingly available.
2 Center for American Progress | Breaking the Mold

With the availability of more funding, schools may want to consider how expand-
ing learning time can work hand in hand with a community schools model.
Although the reforms are distinct and schools have had successes without cou-
pling the reforms, schools that expand learning time and schools that utilize
existing community resources to open up the school’s assets both transcend the
conventional models of schooling.
Indeed, in many respects these two reforms complement each other. Dr. Gloria
Santiago, chairperson of the board of trustees at LEAP Academy University
Charter School in New Jersey, which expanded the school day and year in addi-
tion to providing support services, says that “the combination of an expanded
day and the multiservice community school model…enables students to suc-
ceed because it allows the school time to support the development of the whole
student—not just his or her academic success.”3
This report will examine three schools that have implemented the combined com- This report will
munity school model and an expanded school calendar. The first two are elemen-
tary schools in Chicago, Marquette Elementary and John C. Burroughs Elementary, examine three
both located in neighborhoods that face issues of high poverty and large immi-
grant populations. The third is a charter school in Camden, NJ, LEAP Academy schools that have
University Charter School, which is also located in a high-poverty community.
implemented
Marquette Elementary, which serves students in kindergarten through eighth
grade, provides evening programming to adults and community members and the combined
runs a health clinic at the school offering both physical and mental health services.
The evening programs are a decade old; the health clinic was open in 2009. Also community school
in 2009 the school redesigned the school day and expanded by one hour for all
middle school students, students in grades six through eight. The schedule for the model and an
elementary school, kindergarten to fifth grade, was not expanded.
expanded school
Burroughs Elementary provides evening programming until 8 p.m. every week-
night to students, families, and community members, a community service calendar.
offered for more than a decade. It also partners with a local nonprofit organization
to provide mental health services to the community. In addition, the school day at
Burroughs was lengthened by one hour for all students almost a decade ago.
Camden’s LEAP Academy opened in 1997 with a longer school day and year, as
well as providing support services in partnership with nearby Rutgers University.
The school day runs from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. for all students and the school year
is 200 days. Support services are provided at the school’s seven Centers of

Excellence including health and other social services, pre-college office, teacher
development and performance, early education and child care, parents’ academy,
law clinic, and the family support center.4 In addition LEAP offers evening pro-
gramming to community members every weekday from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
At each of these three schools the overarching goal is improving the lives of chil-
dren by catering to their academic and nonacademic needs.
This paper will not examine all services offered at community schools, or all the
ways that schools with an expanded calendar use time. Rather than being prescrip-
tive in how to launch these reform efforts, aspects of the services provided at the
three schools will be highlighted to show how support services and an expanded
day work in conjunction to break the mold of conventional schooling.
As explored later in this paper, various federal, state, and local funding streams
for implementing both a community-school and expanded-learning-time-model
exist. In addition there are several pieces of pending legislation that if passed will
expand funding options. These funding streams lay the foundation of support
necessary to implement support services or expand the school schedule. Using
this foundation, combined with dedicated school leaders, we can shift the way we
conceptualize the school model to support students and raise achievement.
The report urges policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels of government
to take action to enable these reforms to proceed more broadly across our country.
Specifically, we will urge:
• The White House and the Department of Education to expand funding and
broaden the scope of federal education initiatives by implementing community
schools and expanded learning time programs at the nation’s lowest-performing
schools, including through the Race to the Top program, School Improvement
Grants, Investing in Innovation Fund, Full Service Community Schools
Program, and the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program
• Congress to pass legislation to increase funding for community schools and

expanded learning initiatives and other education reforms, including reautho-
rization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, passage of the Full
Service Community Schools Act, Time for Innovation Matters in Education
Act, and Developing Innovative Partnerships and Learning Opportunities that
Motivate Achievement Act

• State and local governments to follow the lead of Massachusetts’s Expanding
Learning Time Initiative and Illinois’s grants for community schools, as well as
establish programs providing funding, resources, and support for community
schools and expanded learning time programs
We are confident that after reading this report and seriously considering our rec-
ommendations, policymakers in Congress and in the Obama administration will
recognize the positive, life-changing impacts community schools and expanded
learning time models can have on students, their families, and their communities.

What is a community school?
Let’s begin with some definitions. Community schools aim to combat the envi-
ronmental factors that can pose barriers to student learning by providing support
services and academic enrichment to students, their families, and community
members within the school. Using already laid brick and mortar, community
schools challenge the limits of the physical school building to do more than offer
academic instruction.
Various definitions of community schools exist, but the following core principles
are shared by most community schools:5
• A strong, strategically initiated partnership with at least one community organi-

zation to assist in the delivery of services and enrichment. Examples of partner
organizations are community-based organizations, universities, nonprofits,
private businesses, faith-based groups, recreation clubs, and cultural institutions
• Support services that cater to students, families, and community members, such
as health, mental, and dental care
• Programming focused on adult learning such as English as a Second Language,

high school diplomacy equivalency programs known as General Educational
Development, English literacy classes, and job training
• Extended hours and programming before and after school, and during the week-
ends and summer
• A leadership council or committee comprised of the school principal, teachers,

school administrators, members of the partnering organizations, parents and
community members

The comprehensive services offered at community schools are tied to academics
and help children succeed. These services are housed at the school to connect
students, families, and community members to resources and opportunities in a
central location.
Community schools are achieving promising outcomes. An evaluation of three Community

leading community schools efforts—Communities in Schools, the Chicago
Community School Initiative, and the Children’s Aid Society in New York schools are
City—show impressive gains in student achievement.6 Evaluations of community
schools from around the country reveal academic gains, improved attendance, achieving
fewer dropouts, decreases in behavior and discipline problems, increased parental
engagement, and greater community access to services.7 promising
In addition, teachers in community schools say they have more time to work with outcomes.
students in class as well as more time to prepare for class, the result of not having
to take time during class to deal with students’ nonacademic issues.8

What is expanded learning time
for schools?
Test results from across the country expose a stagnant achievement gap between
low-income students and their more affluent peers. Research finds that districts
with the shortest school days and years are more likely to serve students in
poverty.9 Students nationally—especially educationally disadvantaged students—
stand to benefit from an expanded schedule. And some schools are showing that
adding time to the school calendar can help turn around low-performing schools.
According to a 2008 survey of Massachusetts teachers in schools with expanded

schedules as well as teachers in schools with a traditional schedule about their
perceptions of school conditions, only 31.9 percent of elementary school teachers,
38.7 percent of middle school teachers, and 43.4 percent of high school teachers
agreed they had “sufficient instructional time to complete the curriculum for their
subject(s) and/or grade.”10 This indicates a serious problem for many teachers and
forces them to struggle to squeeze lessons into the time constraints posed by the
traditional school schedule. They also find themselves with inadequate time to
collaborate and plan with other teachers.
Expanding learning time is a reform strategy that adds time to the school day,
week, or year. Many definitions of expanded learning time exist and refer to a
range of out-of-school-time activities. The Center for American Progress and the
National Center on Time and Learning define expanded learning time to include
the following core principles:11
• Research shows that more time in combination with quality teaching can lead to
improved academic achievement.
• Learning time—the school day, week, or year—should be expanded by at least

300 hours.
• Schools that serve large numbers of low-income students should be the focus of
expanded learning time initiatives.

• Expanded learning time should be mandatory for all students to participate in if
such a program is implemented at a school.
• Instead of just adding more time to the end of the day or year, schools that
expand learning time carefully redesign the schedule, incorporating the extra
time to allow additional time for academic instruction while integrating enrich-
ment opportunities into the regular schedule.
• In addition to focusing more time on instruction, the expanded schedule should

also add time for professional development and teacher planning.
Schools that expand their school calendar with these principles in mind yield Schools that
hopeful results. Early research indicates that students at such schools outperform
students in schools that do not expand the schedule.12 One report of student test expand their school
scores from 2008 shows that eighth graders in schools with expanded schedules
have proficiency rates that are an average of 8.1 points higher on math exams and calendar with
5.9 points higher on English language arts tests than their peers in nonexpanded
time schools in the same district.13 In addition, schools in Massachusetts that these principles in
benefit from state funding under the Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time
Initiative are posting higher gains in test scores than the rest of the state. In 2009 mind yield hopeful
for example, the percentage of students in schools with expanded schedules who
achieved proficiency on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System results.
test increased from 2008 in both math and English language arts at double the rate
of student increase in proficiency across the state over that one-year period.14
Charter schools lead the movement in expanding the school day, week, and year.
Several studies of high-performing charter schools credit time as a key factor
leading to impressive academic results.15 A study comparing public schools and
charter schools in Boston, for example, finds that students in high-performing
charter schools spend almost two more hours per day in school than students in
traditional public schools.16

Each reform model strengthens
the other: The benefits of
expanded learning time
At the heart of both the community schools and expanded learning time models
is raising student achievement by challenging the conventional school model.
Implemented separately, each of these models has the potential to make dramatic
gains in the lives and academic success of educationally disadvantaged students.
Implemented in concert, however, they maximize the benefits and allow schools
to address multiple factors in children’s lives, raise achievement, and strengthen
the school and the community.
Community schools offer essential services to students, families, and community

members in a convenient and accessible location. While providing these addi-
tional services, community schools must continue to focus on delivering academic
instruction. Some of the benefits of a lengthened schedule can strengthen the
academic components of the community-school model.
Expanded learning time raises achievement
Educationally disadvantaged students often enter school behind their peers and
the traditional school day does not include enough time for these students to
catch up. For example, low-income students face barriers in developing a founda-
tion for strong literacy skills. According to studies, low-income children enter
school with approximately 17,000 less words in their vocabulary than middle-class
children.17 Vocabulary is an indicator of language development, and such an early
shortfall can lead to future struggles in reading comprehension.18
Principal Richard Morris at Burroughs Elementary School in Chicago decided

to expand the school day in an effort “to level the playing field”19 because the
school day in Chicago public schools is shorter than all other districts in Illinois
and is approximately 45 minutes shorter than the national average.20 The day at
Burroughs expanded by one hour for all students, and consists of nine 40-min-

ute blocks running from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Morris says the extra time allows
for greater flexibility and maximizes time for academic instruction, recess, and
physical education.
Students at Burroughs now spend more minutes on core subject (math, science,
English language arts, social science) instruction than the district and state in
grades three, six, and eight, with the only exception being third-grade math.21
Eighth graders receive 20 more minutes per day of English language arts, and 11
more minutes in math instruction than the statewide average.
The longer day, combined with the support services offered at the school, have
led to academic success, which is clearly demonstrated by Burroughs’s impressive
test results. Looking at overall school performance on all state tests in the 2008-09
school year, Burroughs, where 93.7 percent of students are low-income, outper-
formed the district and the state, with 79.3 percent of students meeting or exceed-
ing Illinois state standards, compared to 62.1 percent of students districtwide, and
75.5 percent of students across the state.22
Enrichment that reaches all students
Too often, educators find they don’t have enough time in the school calendar for
enrichment activities as well as academic classes. Out-of-school-time program-
ming is one solution to providing enrichment programming and is an important
component of the community school model. Out-of-school time provides a vital
service to parents and the community by offering a safe place for children to be
during the afternoon, weekends, and summer months when parents are at work.
In addition, out-of-school-time programs offer enrichment programs, such as
tutoring, music lessons, and sports, which broaden students’ experiences and help
them to better engage academically.
However, educationally disadvantaged students are less likely to take advantage

of the enrichment opportunities available at their school or in their community.23
High-poverty and minority participation rates in out-of-school-time programs
have been low since the 1990s.24 Higher-income families have more time and
resources to find enrichment programs for their children. In addition, out-of-
school programs, even those aimed at low-income students, often struggle to
attract and retain highly disengaged, minority, and older students who most des-
perately need such programming.

Surveys conducted in 2004 of middle and high school students and parents
regarding their attitudes toward out-of-school-time opportunities reveal a sharp
difference in opinion between poor and minority families compared to wealthier
families about the ease and accessibility of out-of-school-time activities. Sixty-
five percent of higher-income respondents and 62 percent of white respondents
believe it is easy to find activities outside of school for children that are affordable
versus only 30 percent of lower income respondents and 39 percent of minority
respondents. In addition, only 45 percent of lower-income respondents and 44
percent of minority respondents believe it is easy to find out-of-school activities
that are conveniently located, compared to 72 percent of higher-income respon-
dents and 71 percent of white respondents.25
Expanded learning time breaks down the barriers to participation in out-of-

school-time activities, obstacles such as fees, accessibility and program informa-
tion, because all children in a given school participate in the expanded schedule.
Incorporating enrichment activities into the schedule and housing them at the
school makes them readily accessible. Schools that expand learning time bypass
the issue of not reaching all students by adding extra time to the school calendar
to integrate enrichment activities into the school schedule so all children, regard-
less of background, reap the benefits of the activities.
Consider the experience at Marquette Elementary School in Chicago. Beginning

with the 2008-09 school year, it expanded the school day to ensure that all stu-
dents participate in additional instruction and enrichment activities, not just those
who sign up for afterschool programs. Marquette expanded the school day for all
of its middle school students (grades six through eight) at the beginning of the
2008-09 school year. The middle school is now in session from 8:50 a.m. to 3:45
p.m.—one hour longer than the elementary grades (kindergarten to fifth grade)
that are dismissed at 2:45 p.m.
Since expanding the day, the middle school experimented with different variations
of the schedule until they arrived at the current schedule, which maximizes time
for both instruction and enrichment. At first the extra hour was added to the end
of the day without changing the schedule. After realizing that simply adding time
to the end of the day did not increase student achievement or engagement, the
schedule was redesigned increasing each block to about an hour. Each block in the
elementary grades is only 45 minutes.

Additional time for teacher professional development, planning,
and instruction
The longer day at all three schools (and the longer year at LEAP Academy) allows
more time to be devoted to professional development, planning, and instruc-
tion—a core principle of expanded learning time. The amount of time and the
way the time is used varies across all three schools.
Professional development at community schools is key to allowing teachers and

school administrators to learn how the support services and academic compo-
nents of the school can be used together to the advantage of both students and
teachers. The biggest part of the LEAP Academy’s budget, for example, is spent
on professional development, which shows it is a priority.26 Further, one day per
month is also allocated for professional development.27
About 80 percent of the professional development at LEAP happens in the class-

room. Because school administrators believe that teachers can learn best from one
another, teachers are required to observe other teachers working with students in
the classroom. In addition, each day school administrators and teacher coaches
observe teachers and provide feedback. Observing other
Observing other teachers in the classroom allows teachers to see firsthand how teachers in the
their peers help students utilize the support services offered at LEAP Academy. In
community schools with an expanded schedule, service providers play an elevated classroom allows
role and must be integrated into professional development. As a result, teach-
ers and service providers can both contribute to student evaluations at LEAP. If teachers to see
a student goes to the health center complaining of a headache, for example, the
care provider could review the student’s file and notice she has been distracted firsthand how
in class. The student may need glasses, which is causing her to be distracted and
suffer from headaches. Since service providers and teachers alike work directly their peers help
with students, it is important that all parties have access to and participate in
student evaluations, allowing connections to be made between students’ academic students utilize the
achievement and their general well-being.
support services
In addition to adding more time for professional development, the longer school
calendar allows more time for teacher planning and preparation. Teachers can use offered at LEAP
this time to work collaboratively with peers and instructional leaders to develop
skills and lesson plans.28 Teachers at Burroughs, for example, have four preparation Academy.

periods per week under their contract. The extra hour each day provided by the
expanded time schedule allowed for three additional teacher preparation periods
each week. These periods are used for teacher collaboration and planning.
Adding additional time to the school calendar can enhance some benefits of
the community supports provided at community schools by boosting academic
achievement, ensuring all students participate in enrichment activities, and
providing more time for teacher professional development and planning. This
relationship between the expanded-learning-time and community-school models
is reciprocal, with the support services offered at community schools strengthen-
ing the expanded learning time model. To this we now turn.

Each reform model strengthens
the other: Support services of
community schools enhance the
ELT model
By caring for the nonacademic aspects of students’ lives, schools prepare students
to take full advantage of the benefits of time spent in the classroom even dur-
ing a longer day. The services at community schools offer resources to improve
students’ health, bring parents and families into the school, and allow teachers to
focus exclusively on teaching. Let’s consider each of these advantages in turn.
Healthy students are better learners
A recent report released by the Foundation for Child Development estimates

that in 2010, 21.5 percent of children are in families living below the poverty line.
In addition, the study found that “when the general trend is one of deteriorating
child well-being—as will be the case during the 2008-2010 period—children
from most minority racial and ethnic groups, of lower socioeconomic strata, and
in communities that have lesser economic resources and reserves experience rates
of deterioration that are greater than the national average.”29
Educationally disadvantaged children are more likely to start behind and encoun-
ter more obstacles to academic achievement than children from wealthier families.
For example, low-income children are more likely to be affected by various health
problems such asthma, dental, and vision impairment.30 In addition, children in
poverty often lack affordable options for preventive care; are less likely to receive
ongoing care; obtain lower-quality health services; are more likely to suffer from
chronic illnesses, vitamin deficiencies, or poor nutrition; and lack parental over-
sight to supervise medications.31 These children often live in underserved areas
and have limited, or no access to services that cover their health needs. Often their
parents can’t take time off work to take them to the doctor when they are ill.

Research studies reveal causal relationships between health problems and cogni-
tion in school-aged children.32 If left untreated or ignored, health problems can
severely reduce a student’s ability to learn. The support services provided at com-
munity schools can help assuage some of these stresses.
Common sense dictates that healthy students are better learners. Health and men-
tal services offered at school can help reduce the amount of time students are out
of class by providing preventive and ongoing care to deal with minor illnesses and
injuries. Teachers are not only suitably placed to identify health-related issues but
can also remind students to consistently use remedies prescribed to them, such as
inhalers or eyeglasses.33 By ensuring that students arrive in the classroom ready to
learn, time in class is maximized, even during an expanded schedule. Most com-
munity schools make the provision of health services at the school a priority and it
is often the first support service implemented at a community school.
Here’s proof these kinds of programs work. In July 2009 Marquette Elementary
opened a health clinic located within the school offering both physical and mental
health services. An article noting the benefits of the clinic mentions that prior to
the opening of the clinic, “school and community leaders [said] health services are
one of the most urgent needs, but the lack of resources has stymied their ability to
do much.”34 The health center confronts the lack of resources head on and offers
health services to students, families, and members of the community. Now, the
Marquette clinic accepts all kinds of health insurance and offers services at low
costs. Students can easily access the clinic during the school day as needed.
In addition to providing routine and preventive care, the health clinic offers coun-
seling and is staffed with social workers who hold group sessions on issues facing
adolescents. The clinic set a goal to serve 1,000 people in the first year of opera-
tion. By October 2009 the clinic had served 500 people,35 and by February 2010
the clinic had already served 900, indicating extraordinary early success.36

Family and community engagement
In community schools, parents immediately become more engaged in the school

by participating in programming and receiving services. This can bolster fam-
ily and community engagement, which is necessary for parental support for an
expanded school calendar that can be met with some resistance. But parental sup-
port of the expanded schedule can have a positive impact on student perceptions
and attitudes, consequently making them more willing to engage in the longer day, As families become
week, or year. Studies show that across socioeconomic and racial groups, students’
academic achievement improves as a result of parental engagement.37 more stable, their
Community schools strive to make families a part of their child’s education by children will do
welcoming family and community members to participate in a variety of classes as
well as encouraging them to take advantage of support services. The three schools better in school.
examined for this report solicit input from family and community members—
from surveying the needs of the community before services are developed, to
organizing meetings regarding future funding streams.
As families become more stable, their children will do better in school—that is the
idea guiding Burroughs principal Morris’s vision of strengthening the community.
Talking about the importance of providing additional services to families and
community members, Morris says, “Our school is the most important building
in the community.”38 Morris believes that as parents participate more in program-
ming and take advantage of services offered at the school, they become more
involved and begin to feel like the school belongs to them. Once parents feel own-
ership over the school they hold it accountable to a higher standard and demand
what is necessary for their children to succeed academically.
Parental involvement is an integral piece of the LEAP model, too, since it opened
in 1997. School administrators want parents to have a relationship with the
school. In addition to regularly scheduled adult programming, LEAP offers parent
workshops once a week, such as healthy cooking, anti-bullying, and cancer aware-
ness. The parent-program coordinator at LEAP Academy seeks to alleviate all
obstacles to parent participation in evening workshops. To make the workshops
accessible and convenient, the school provides parking and child care, and serves
dinner to participating parents and their children. The strategy worked, and the
parent-program coordinator reports that since offering parking, dinner, and child
care, parent participation is now much higher than it used to be.39

Teachers can focus on teaching
Teachers try to help their students in a variety of ways, from caring for minor injuries
and illnesses to helping parents obtain necessary services. But addressing nonaca-
demic needs can hinder instruction. In community schools, students have access to
a support system caring for some of their nonacademic needs and preparing them
for class. In addition, evening programming (such as GED and ESL classes) offered
at community schools to family and community members help families become
more stable, which can help students to be more focused in school.
Teachers in community schools enjoy the advantages of children arriving in class

ready to learn, decreased student absences, and increased parental involvement.40
These things allow teachers to maximize instruction time rather than taking time
away from class to care for an individual student.41 Also, students who take advan-
tage of support services will be less distracted in class and better prepared to focus.
Without interruptions and distractions, teachers and students are able to take full
advantage of the benefits of the longer school day. After all, there would be little
point in lengthening the school calendar if students are distracted from learning.
Partner organizations can be instrumental in this venture by offering services that

attend to students’ nonacademic needs, or leading enrichment classes, which free
teachers to focus exclusively on academic instruction.
All of these benefits for students and teachers alike accrue when the schools can
participate in the everyday needs of the schools’ communities, but none of these
reforms is easy to institute. The next section will examine the things schools and
communities must consider in order to bring the community-school concept and
expanded-learning-time model into practice, and then look at the various funding
streams available to do so at the federal, state, and local levels.

Important considerations
Breaking free of the limitations imposed by the traditional school model is not
an easy undertaking. Implementing a community-school model and expanding
learning time must reflect the needs of students and the surrounding community.
Redesigning the school calendar and implementing support services requires a
careful and thoughtful planning process guided by dedicated leaders. During the
planning process, many things ought to be considered including the parameters
of successful partnerships, how data will be collected and analyzed, and how to
obtain and sustain funding.
Drivers of school reform
Perhaps most important to the success of implementing family and community

support services, or expanding the schedule, are leaders who continue to drive
reform. Without committed leaders, neither school reform stands a chance of
improving the well-being and academic achievement of children. These leaders
can be principals, teachers, school administrators, community activists, or staff
from partner organizations.
Marquette, Burroughs, and LEAP Academy all operate successfully thanks to the
vision and dedication of their principals. At each school, the principal recognized
student success required going beyond what is typically offered at school during
the traditional six-hour school day, and so challenged the conventional school
models of time and space. These leaders do not differentiate between the two ini-
tiatives. Rather they think of support services and expanded learning time as parts
of the same vision, one geared to improving the lives of all students in their school
and helping them achieve.
According to Paul O’Toole, former principal of Marquette Elementary, “the school

is a physical edifice that dominates the neighborhood.”42 Due to its presence in the
neighborhood, O’Toole saw the physical building as a resource that could be uti-

lized by the whole community as a venue for services. The school offers an array of
services to the students and the community, the pinnacle of which is the school-
based health clinic. O’Toole partnered with a local organization and together they
developed a strong plan to implement reforms at Marquette. They applied for and
later received a competitive grant from the Atlantic Philanthropies to build the
health clinic and expand the school day.
The Burroughs community faces high poverty and unemployment and has a large
immigrant population. Gang activity is common. While talking about combating
these challenges with limited resources, Principal Morris says, “We can’t just sit
back and accept what the district gives us.”43 Securing funding for support services
is a constant challenge at Burroughs, but for more than a decade Morris has found
creative ways to provide services to students and the community along with regu-
lar academic instruction. Understanding that no school-based reform effort can
succeed without the support of teachers, Morris made sure teachers at Burroughs
embraced the idea of expanding the school day and providing support services
before either were implemented. Teachers have been instrumental in ensuring the
success of both the support services and the longer school day.
Then there’s the experience at LEAP Academy. In the early 1990s professor Gloria
Santiago was at Rutgers University conducting research on children in Camden,
NJ. Santiago concluded the schools there—facing poverty and high dropout
rates—were in crisis and the old ways of schooling were not working. As part
of her research Santiago held focus groups and heard from parents and children
that they lacked access to health care, college, and legal services. They also voiced
concerns about safety.
Realizing that schools and the community needed something more than incre-
mental change, Santiago began to think differently about school design. She
decided to open a new school that reinvented the school setting.44 Following four
years of planning, LEAP Academy opened in 1997 in partnership with Rutgers
University. With support services and a longer school day and year as part of the
model, the school was designed to be the center of the community ensuring access
to resources as well as an excellent education.

The importance of partnering
Most schools do not have the bandwidth to expand learning time or develop sup-
port services unaided. But hundreds of schools across the country have formed
partnerships with local organizations to assist in the implementation of these
schoolwide improvement efforts. Partner organizations can include, but are not
limited to:
• Community-based organizations • Faith-based groups

• Universities • Recreation clubs
• Nonprofit organizations • Cultural institutions
• Private businesses
This range of partners plays a central role by increasing the capacity of the school
staff to implement reforms, provide important resources supplying both money
and staff, and bring new knowledge to the school.
The specific role of partner organizations will vary from school to school and
depend on the type to services delivered and the capacity of school staff and
teachers. Partners can assist in the initial needs assessment of the community;
help to coordinate resources; conduct outreach to families and community mem-
bers; administer ongoing evaluations and assessment; and provide enrichment,
instruction, and support services to students and community members.
Some of the partnerships formed between the schools and partner organiza-
tions at the schools examined for this report are the result of chance relationships
between a school administrator and a local organization. While some partnerships
formed this way flourish, others may only be beneficial for a short period of time
and disappear when the partner organization realizes the incredible amount of
time and resources it takes to run, fund, and evaluate high-quality programming.
If these partnerships are formed and planned strategically they have the potential
to have a greater impact on students—a core principle of the community schools
model. Specifically:
• Partnerships should also be advantageous to the partner organization. It often

makes sense for local organizations to partner with a school to further its own
vision of improving the community. Working with schools and students can
satisfy a partner organization’s community service goals thanks to increased
access to students.45

• Both parties should think realistically about whether or not the partner orga-
nization has the ability to serve all children and will contribute to the goals of
the school.
• Before outside organizations enter the school, they must understand and be pre-
pared to work within the school culture in order to fully integrate into the school
and avoid interruptions in learning. When partner organizations lead classroom
instruction or enrichment, students should view them as equal to their teachers.
In addition, teachers must be willing to work with staff members from partner
organizations and allow them to share their classrooms.
All three schools highlighted in this paper work closely with local organizations,
which provide funding and staff and run evening programming and support ser-
vices. Marquette and Burroughs elementary schools have oversight committees to
manage partnerships and monitor budgets—a common factor in both expanded
learning time schools and community schools. The oversight committees are
made up of representatives from partner organizations, parents, teachers, school
administrators, community members, and the principal.
The success of the health clinic at Marquette demonstrates the advantage of part-
nering with local organizations to provide support services. Marquette is one of
five schools to receive money from the Elev8 Chicago grant, an initiative created
by the Atlantic Philanthropies. The grant supplies funding for middle schools to
expand existing partnerships with local organizations to extend the school day,
provide on-site health care, offer mentoring and family support services, increase
parental involvement, and use successful models to advocate for similar reform
initiatives at the local, state, and national levels.46
Using the Elev8 grant, Marquette partnered with three local organizations to
establish the school-based health clinic and expand the school day. The Southwest
Organizing Project provides mentoring services, Access Community Health
Network provides health services, and Metropolitan Family Services provides
social workers to help meet the social and emotional needs of students and families.
Staff members from the partner organizations are on site at the school every day.
The community partners at Marquette do more than just provide services. During
the planning phase for the health clinic, Access Community Health Network

sought input from the community on how the clinic should function and what
services should be offered based on the specific needs of the community. Also, the
Southwest Organizing Project hired staff to oversee and monitor the entire Elev8
budget and help with parent and community outreach.
Data collection and analysis
Data collection and regular analysis of outcomes are vital to determining whether or
not the expanded schedule and support services yield positive results. Data can be
used to demonstrate success or indicate areas of weakness. If an area of weakness is In community
identified then programming can be adjusted. On the flip side, schools that demon-
strate success can continue programming and will be better able to garner the atten- schools with
tion of future funders. Data can be collected and analyzed by the school staff, by
partner organizations, or by third parties hired specifically to evaluate programming. expanded learning
In community schools with expanded learning time, a range of indicators must be time, a range of
evaluated. It is important for schools to collect both quantitative and qualitative
data.47 The data collected will depend on the goals of the specific programs and indicators must be
will vary between sites. It should also include a spectrum of indicators to mea-
sure academic achievement and well being. In addition intermediary indicators evaluated.
are important because it may take years to see the full impact of a program. Data
should be collected from all participants, not just students, since certain services
are also geared towards families and community members. Schools and partner
organizations should outline what indicators will be evaluated and how the data
will be collected before programming begins.
Examples of which indicators and data points to collect and analyze can be
taken from existing evaluations of schools that have redesigned and expanded
learning time and community schools. A report that examined evaluations of 49
different community school initiatives concluded the following indicators are
key to any evaluation:
• Achievement • Family functioning

• Attendance • Community access to services48
• Suspensions
• Rate of high-risk behavior
• Parent involvement

Similarly, there are important metrics that should be evaluated when schools
expand learning time. A recent study conducted by the American Institutes
for Research compared charter, pilot, and traditional public schools in Boston
to assess why students in charter schools are higher achievers. The evaluation
concluded that the longer school day and year in charter schools is a key factor to
student success. The metrics the evaluation analyzed included student achieve-
ment and demographic data, and also surveyed principals regarding six aspects
of school management: governance and leadership; budget; staffing; professional
development; scheduling and time; and curriculum and instruction.49
There are some indicators, such as academic success, that overlap in both evalu-
ations. The examples show the range of data points that can be collected and
analyzed, but certainly do not represent all indicators that should be considered
when determining whether a community-school model is working effectively with
an expanded school schedule.

Bankrolling community schools and
expanded learning time initiatives
Funding is crucial to the planning, development, implementation, and sustain-

ability of community schools that have expanded learning time. Improvements in
student achievement and well-being will not happen overnight. It will take years
for schools to demonstrate success and thus it is crucial that schools coordinate
funding streams for several years during the planning process.
Again, the three schools highlighted in this report rely heavily on philanthropic President Obama
support and funds from partner organizations and are less dependent on federal,
state, and local money. As momentum for both reforms grows so does the need and Secretary of
for more federal, state, and local funding streams. President Obama and Secretary
of Education Arne Duncan have made implementing reforms to turn around the Education Arne
lowest performing schools a top priority, reflected in funding streams created
under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA. Duncan have made
The president’s FY 2011 Budget Request for Education and the administration’s implementing
Blueprint for Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
or ESEA, also build on this foundation. Additionally, opportunities for state and reforms to turn
local funding are increasingly prevalent. When planning to develop a community
school with an expanded schedule, districts and schools must consider blending a around the lowest
mixture of funding streams. And the federal government could promote and help
to expand funding for both reform models by tying incentives to funding streams. performing schools
Let’s examine some of these funding streams in more detail.
a top priority.
School Improvement Grants and Race to the Top
School Improvement Grants, or SIG, are formula grants authorized under ESEA
that are intended to transform school culture and improve student outcomes in
persistently low-performing Title I schools, or those schools that serve a large
numbers of low-income students. Funding is granted to states, which then make
subgrants to school districts.

ARRA significantly altered the way in which federal school improvement grants
have been traditionally used. It outlines four models of intervention, targeting
persistently low-performing schools: turnaround, restart, closure, and transforma-
tion.50 One of the provisions under the transformation model requires schools to
“extend learning time and create community-oriented schools.”51 The turnaround
model also features language concerning “socio-emotional and community ori-
ented services,”52 which are found in community schools. ARRA added $3 billion
to the $546 million in funding already appropriated in FY 2009.
The Race to the Top, or RTTT, grant competition uses funds allocated under
ARRA to encourage and reward states implementing reform, also bolstered school
turnaround efforts and the use of the four intervention models. Governors were
invited to apply for funds on behalf of their state, demonstrating their reform plans
in four areas:
• Adopting standards
• Creating data systems
• Training and retaining effective teachers and principals
• Turning around the lowest performing schools
Applications for states were accepted in two rounds in 2010. States interested in
applying for RTTT funds could build lengthening the school day and community
schools into their applications as part of their vision for comprehensive reform,
using transformation or turnaround funds.
The administration signaled support to continue funding for the school improve-
ment grant program and RTTT by including funding in the president’s FY 2011
Budget Request, and both the House and Senate have included funding for these
programs in their FY 2011 appropriations bills.53 RTTT is also included in the
Blueprint for the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, broadening the competition to allow districts to apply for funds based on
plans for reform.54
Investing in Innovation Fund
A pot of $650 million was allocated to the Investing in Innovation fund, or i3, a
competitive grant program established under the ARRA. School districts or non-
profits partnering with a district or consortium of schools may apply for grants to

develop, expand, or scale-up innovative programs that have a demonstrated track
record of increasing student achievement.
Unlike the priorities under RTTT and SIG, applicants for i3 grants are not limited
to the four intervention models, or restricted to persistently low-performing
schools.55 School districts can apply for funding to develop and deliver innovative
programming, or scale-up existing community schools and expand learning time.
Additionally, the funds encourage partnerships between districts and local organi-
zations, which are vital to community schools that expand learning time.
The president’s FY 2011 Budget Request boosts support for the i3 fund and is
included in the administration’s ESEA Blueprint, as well as the Senate and House
FY 2011 appropriations bills.56 Of course it is important to note that RTTT, SIG,
and i3 funding under ARRA are temporary. ESEA reauthorization and congres-
sional appropriations can ensure that community schools and expanded learning
have a sustainable stream of funding from which to draw upon in the future.
21st Century Community Learning Centers
The 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program, or CCLC, distributes

formula grants that are intended to provide opportunities for children during
nonschool hours that will improve their academic achievement. A number of
community schools, including LEAP Academy and Marquette, use CCLC funds
to support afterschool, summer, and evening programming.
The administration, recognizing that expanding learning time and community

schools are complementary school reform models, proposed redesigning the CCLC
program to support such models in addition to afterschool and summer school
programming in its FY 2011 budget request and ESEA Blueprint. The Senate has
proposed $1.2 billion for CCLC, and as proposed, has opened up the program to
include expanded learning time in addition to afterschool and summer school. The
Senate’s proposal does not expand funding to community schools, however.
Promise Neighborhoods Program
The Promise Neighborhoods Program awards one-year planning grants to create

developmental and educational services for children in distressed communities,
recognizing the relationship between poverty and academic outcomes—similar

to the community-school model. Currently appropriated under the Fund for the
Improvement of Education Program, the Promise Neighborhoods Program is
modeled on the success of the Harlem Children’s Zone in New York City, which
serves students and families in more than 100 blocks of Harlem by providing com-
munity services available to the whole community as well as operating schools.
Under this program, nonprofits or institutions of higher education may apply for
grants and must either operate or partner with a local school. After completing
the planning process grantees should have a realistic plan of how they will put
developmental and educational services in place. The grant does not require that
services and programs be delivered at a school. But since schools are conveniently
located they are ideal locations to provide these services.57 The Coalition for
Community Schools takes the position that community schools are at the center
of Promise Neighborhoods.58
Full Service Community Schools Program
The Full Service Community Schools Program awards grants to school districts
who partner with at least one organization to develop full service community
schools to provide school-based services and programming responding to the
needs of students, families, and community members.59 This is currently the pri-
mary federal program that supports community schools.
The services and programming in these schools attend to the well-being of stu-
dents, making them better prepared to enter the classroom ready to learn. In 2008,
12 Full Service Community Schools Program grants were awarded, and 10 con-
tinuation awards were granted in 2009.60 Funding for the Full Service Community
Schools Program was doubled from $5 million in FY 2009 to $10 million in FY
2010. The Department of Education estimates it will award 10 new grants in 2010.
Full Service Community Schools Act of 2009
In an effort to increase funding for the Full Service Community Schools Program,
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) introduced the Full
Service Community Schools Act (H.R. 3545/S. 1655) in September 2009. If
signed into law, the bill would provide federal resources to support the planning
and creation of full service community schools.

The legislation stresses the importance of engaging local organizations to assist
in providing comprehensive services to students making sure they arrive at
school ready to learn. The legislation calls for $200 million in funding per year.61
In the administration’s ESEA Blueprint, Full Service Community Schools fall
under the pool of money that has been proposed for 21st Century Community
Learning Centers.
Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act of 2009
Largely based on the Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time Initiative, the

TIME Act (H.R. 3130/S. 1410) was introduced by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy
and Reps. Donald Payne (D-NJ) and George Miller (D-CA) in July 2009 to
award six-year grants to launch initiatives to expand learning time for all children
in a participating school. States, school districts, or districts partnering with local
organizations could apply for competitive grants. Funding would be provided to
redesign school calendars to increase time for academic instruction, enrichment,
and professional development in high-needs schools.62
Developing Innovative Partnerships and Learning Opportunities

that Motivate Achievement Act
The DIPLOMA Act (S. 3595) was introduced by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) in July 2010 to incentivize partnerships between
school districts and partner organizations that provide holistic services to increase
academic achievement. The DIPLOMA Act reflects the core principles of success-
ful community schools by focusing on strong partnerships and providing aca-
demic and nonacademic support services at schools, such as tutoring and health
services. Money would be allocated to states by formula grants, which could then
make subgrants to local consortia that include at least one school district and one
partner organization. Funding could be used to provide services at community
schools and for extended-day programs. 63

How to pay for combined community schools and expanded learning time
A summary of federal funding programs for these two models
Funding Streams Summary
Existing funding Potential funding in Blueprint for the

Could be used for Expanded Could be used for
streams (including President’s FY2011 Reauthorization
Learning Time Community Schools
ARRA) Budget Request of ESEA
Under the section: Yes, using either the trans-

$4.35 billion in Yes, using the transformation model
Race to the Top $1.35 billion Fostering Innovation formation or turnaround
ARRA (competitive) of intervention
and Excellence models of intervention
$545.6 million in
$900 million Yes, using either the trans-
School Improvement FY2009, $3 billion Renamed: School Yes, using the transformation model
School Turnaround formation or turnaround
Grants under ARRA, $545.6 Turnaround Grants of intervention
Grants models of intervention
million in FY2010
Under the section:

$650 million in
Investing in Innovation $500 million Fostering Innovation Yes Yes
ARRA (competitive)
and Excellence
Under the section: Yes, under the President’s

21st Century Community $1.31 billion in Yes, under the President’s Budget
$1.2 billion Successful, Safe, and Budget Request and the
Learning Centers FY2009 Request and the Blueprint
Healthy Students Blueprint
Under the section:

$10 million in
Promise Neighborhoods $210 million Successful, Safe, and Yes
FY2010
Healthy Students
$5 million in
Full Service Community
FY2009, $10 million Yes
Schools Program
in FY2010
$200 million annually for 5
Full Service Community Bill was introduced
years (funding dependent
Schools Act September 2009
on passage of act)
$350 million for FY2010, $380 million

for FY2011, $420 million for FY2012,
Bill was introduced
TIME Act $460 million for FY2013 and $500 million
July 2009
for FY2014 (funding dependent on
passage of act)
$2.5 billion per year for 5

Bill was introduced $2.5 billion per year for 5 years (funding
DIPLOMA Act years (funding dependent
in July 2010 dependent on passage of act)
on passage of act)
Sources: “Funds for State Formula-Allocated and Selected Student Aid Programs,” U.S. Department of Education, available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/11stbystate.pdf; Time for
Innovation Matters in Education Act of 2009 (introduced in Senate), S. 1410, 111th Congress, 1st Session, July 8, 2009; Full-Service Community Schools Act of 2009 (introduced in Senate), S.1655, 111th Congress, 1st
Session, September 2, 2009; “Office of Innovation and Improvement; Overview Information; Full-Service Community Schools Program; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010,” Federal
Register, June 8, 2010; “Full Service Community Schools Program,” U.S. Department of Education, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/communityschools/2008awards.html; “School Improvement Fund,” U.S.
Department of Education, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/funding.html; “School Improvement Grants,” PowerPoint presentation. NASTID, January 2010, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/
nastid2.pdf; “Investing in Innovation Fund; Final Rule and Notice,” Federal Register, March 12, 2010; “Investing in Innovation Fund (I3),” U.S. Department of Education, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innova-
tion/funding.html; “Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Summary,” U.S. Department of Education, 2010, available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget11/summary/edlite-section1.html; “A Blueprint for Reform,”
U.S. Department of Education, 2010, available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf; “Race to the Top Program Executive Summary,” U.S. Department of Education, 2009, available at http://
www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf; “Office of Innovation and Improvement; Overview Information; Promise Neighborhoods Program,” Federal Register 75 (86) (May 5, 2010): 24671–24684;
Developing Innovative Partnerships and Learning Opportunities that Motivate Act of 2010 (introduced in Senate), S. 3595, 111th Congress, 2nd Session, July 15, 2010; “DIPLOMA Act” Coalition for Community Schools,
available at http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetManager/DIPLOMA_One_Pager_6_9_10.pdf, last accessed September 1, 2010.

Local and state funding streams
In addition to various federal funding streams, local, state, and national initiatives
have emerged offering resources and supports to both community schools and
schools that expand learning time. These funding streams can be combined with
federal and philanthropic supports, and demonstrated success will likely spark
the creation of more local and state grants in the future. Local and state support
not only encourages innovative programming by offering vital funding, but allows
schools to implement reform in a supportive environment.
In 2005 Massachusetts launched the Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time

Initiative, and is the only state to establish an initiative to expand learning time.
Districts can apply for funding and participating schools receive an additional
$1,300 per student to redesign the school schedule by expanding the school day,
week, or year for all students by at least 25 percent. High-poverty schools and
schools that have established partnerships with community organizations are
given preference in the application process.64
There are numerous local, state, and national-level community schools initiatives.
These models vary in scope and assistance, but all share the goal of improving aca-
demic achievement for students by addressing the nonacademic factors that influ-
ence each child’s life.65 In 2009, for example, the Illinois state legislature passed
House Bill 684 to amend the school code to include a definition of community
schools and establish a grant program to fund community schools when funding
is available. The law stresses the role that schools can play as centers of their com-
munities. Schools, districts, or a consortium of schools can apply for grants, which
are awarded by the State Board of Education. Illinois is the only state to offer
grants for community schools.66
Burroughs Elementary School is the recipient of a local community schools

initiative grant, acquiring support and funding from the Chicago Community
Schools Initiative,67 which provides funding to schools across Chicago to develop
comprehensive services that support students, families, and the community. The
Chicago Community Schools Initiative is the largest community schools program
in the country. In addition to academic instruction, students and families can take
advantage of afternoon and evening programming, health and social services, and
community supports, all conveniently located at the school. Schools partner with
at least one outside organization to provide services and supports with the goal of
making the school the center of the community.68

Conclusion
Through no fault of their own, some children face nonacademic barriers to learn-
ing. By catering to students’ physical, social, and emotional needs, community
schools are making important strides that can lead to improved better academic
outcomes. Even when nonacademic needs are met, educationally disadvantaged
students often need additional time in school to succeed.
When working in tandem, the support services offered at community schools and
expanding the school calendar address the academic and nonacademic needs of
educationally disadvantaged students. Rather than laying new brick and mortar,
existing school buildings can be utilized more fully. Since children spend a consid-
erable part of their day in school, schools are poised to be a convenient location
for the delivery of support services. The calendar can be re-engineered to include
more time for instruction and enrichment.
Schools and districts can think outside their established purview and push
the boundaries of the traditional school model. Going to school is a constant.
The way in which schools use time and physical space are variables that can be
manipulated to better serve children and expand the notion of what schools and
communities can do.

Endnotes
1 Coalition for Community Schools, “Community School Initiatives: Learning Time Can Address the Literacy Gap,” Washington: Center for
State-to-State,” 2009. American Progress, 2009.
2 David A. Farbman, “Tracking an Emerging Movement: A Report on 18 Claire E. White and James S. Kim, “Putting Pieces of the Puzzle
Expanded-Time Schools in America,” Boston: National Center on Time Together: How Systematic Vocabulary Instruction and Expanded
& Learning, 2009. Learning Time Can Address the Literacy Gap,” Washington: Center for
American Progress, 2009.
3 Kathleen Traphagen and Christine Johnson-Staub, “Expanding Time,
Enriching Experiences: Expanded Learning Time Schools and Com- 19 Personal communication from Rich Morris, principal, John C. Bur-
munity Organization Partnerships,” Washington: Center for American roughs Elementary School, March 11, 2010.
Progress, 2010.
20 John Myers, “A Matter of Time,” Catalyst Chicago, January 2010,
4 “About the Centers of Excellence,” Rutgers Camden Center for Strate- available at http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/news/index.
gic Urban Community Leadership, available at http://cfsucl.camden. php?item=2616&cat=23.
rutgers.edu/Centers/RCE.html, last accessed July 12, 2010.
21 Third graders at Burroughs receive 57 minutes of math instruction per
5 Saba Bireda, “A Look at Community Schools,” Washington: Center for day, whereas the state average for third-grade math is 59 minutes per
American Progress, 2009. day.
6 “Community Schools Research Brief 09,” Washington: Coalition for 22 Burroughs Elementary School, Illinois School Report Card, Illinois
Community Schools, 2009. State Board of Education, 2009.
7 Martin J. Blank, Atelia Melaville, and Bela P. Shah, “Making the Dif- 23 Ann Duffett and Jean Johnson, “All Work and No Play? Listening
ference: Research and Practice in Community Schools,” Washington: to What KIDS and PARENTS Really Want from Out-of-School Time,”
Coalition for Community Schools, 2003; Marty Blank, Reuben Jacob- New York: Public Agenda, 2004; “After School Programs in the 21st
son, and Sarah S. Pearson, “A Coordinated Effort: Well-Conducted Century: Their Potential and What it Takes to Achieve It,” Issues and
Partnerships Meet Student’s Academic, Health, and Social Service Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation (10) (2008): 6; Sarah
Needs,” American Educator 33 (2) (2009): 30–36. H. Decshenes and others, “Engaging Older Youth: Program and City-
Level Strategies to Support Sustained Participation in Out-of-School
8 “Summary of the Children’s Aid Society Community Schools Results Time,” Cambridge: Harvard Family Research Project, 2010.
to Date,” New York: Children’s Aid Society, 2006.
24 “Demographic Difference in Youth Out-of-School Time Participa-
9 John Myers, “A Matter of Time,” Catalyst Chicago, January 2010, tion: A Research Summary,” Cambridge: Harvard Graduate School of
available at http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/news/index. Education, 2007.
php?item=2616&cat=23.
25 Ann Duffett and Jean Johnson, “All Work and No Play? Listening to
10 Eric Hirsch and others, “Massachusetts Teaching, Learning and Lead- What KIDS and PARENTS Really Want from Out-of-School Time,” New
ing Survey: Creating School Conditions Where Teachers Stay,” Santa York: Public Agenda, 2004.
Cruz: New Teacher Survey, 2008.
26 Personal communication from Dr. Gloria Santiago, Founder and Chair
11 Melissa Lazarín, “A Race Against the Clock: The Value of Expanded of Board of Trustees at LEAP Academy University Charter School,
Learning Time for English Language Learners,” Washington: Center for Camden, NJ, March 23, 2010.
American Progress, 2008.
27 Personal communication from Dr. Gloria Santiago, Founder and Chair
12 Mass2020, “More Time for Learning: Promising Practices and Lessons of Board of Trustees at LEAP Academy University Charter School,
Learned,” 2010; Mass2020, “Time for a Change: The Promise of Extend- Camden, NJ, March 23, 2010.
ed-Time School for Promoting Student Achievement,” 2005; Elena
Rocha, “Choosing More Time for Students: The What, Why, and How of 28 “ELT Expectations for Implementation,” available at http://www.
Expanded Learning,” Washington: Center for American Progress, 2007. mass2020.org/node/14, last accessed August 27, 2010.
13 Farbman, “Tracking an Emerging Movement: A Report on Expanded- 29 Kenneth C. Land, “2010 Child and Youth Well-Being Index (CWI),” New
Time Schools.” York: Foundation for Child Development, 2010.
14 “More Time for Learning: Promising Practices and Lessons Learned,” 30 Charles E. Basch, “Healthier Students Are Better Learners: A Missing
Boston: Massachusetts 2020, 2010. Link in School Reforms to Close the Achievement Gap,” Equity Matters:
Research Review No. 6, 2010; Richard Rothstein, “Equalizing Opportu-
15 Stephen Frank, “Time and Attention in Urban High Schools: Lessons nity,” American Educator, Summer 2009.
for School Systems,” Cambridge: Education Resource Strategies,
2010; Susan Bowles Therriault and others, “Out of the Debate and 31 Anne Casey and Christine Paxson, “Children’s Health and Social Mobil-
Into the Schools: Comparing Practices in Traditional, Pilot and Char- ity,” Future of Children, 16 (2) (2006): 151–173; Paul W. Newacheck
ter Schools in the City of Boston,” Washington: American Institute for and others, “Disparities in Adolescent Health and Health Care: Does
Research, 2010. Socioeconomic Status Matter?” Health Services Research 38 (5) (2003)
1235–1252; Martin J. Blank, Atelia Melaville, and Bela P. Shah, “Making
16 Susan Bowles Therriault and others, “Out of the Debate and Into the Difference: Research and Practice in Community Schools,” Wash-
the Schools: Comparing Practices in Traditional, Pilot and Charter ington: Coalition for Community Schools, 2003.
Schools in the City of Boston,” Washington: American Institute for
Research, 2010. 32 Basch, “Healthier Students are Better Learners: A Missing Link in
School Reforms to Close the Achievement Gap.”
17 Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley, Meaningful Difference in the Everyday 33 Ibid.
Experience of Young American Children, Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes,
2005, in Claire E. White and James S. Kim, “Putting Pieces of the Puzzle 34 Phuong Ly, “Five Schools Get $18 Million to Raise Performance
Together: How Systematic Vocabulary Instruction and Expanded Through Longer School days, Enrichment Classes and On-Site Health

Clinics,” Catalyst Chicago, September 2008, available at http://www. 55 “Investing in Innovation Fund; Final Rule and Notice,” Federal Register,
catalyst-chicago.org/news/index.php?item=2459&cat=23. March 12, 2010.
35 Elizabeth Duffrin, “Healthy Demand at Marquette Health Center,” 56 The Senate Labor Health and Human Services, Education, and Related
Elev8, November 11, 2009, available at http://www.elev8kids.org/ Agencies committee included $250 million in their FY 2011 ap-
news-and-announcements/healthy-demand-marquette-health- propriations markup for i3, and the House Labor, Health and Human
center. Services, Education, and Related Agencies committee included $400
million in its FY 2011 appropriations markup.
36 Personal communication from Paul O’Toole, former principal, Mar-
quette Elementary School, March 11, 2010. 57 $210 million is allocated for Promise Neighborhoods in the Presi-
dent’s FY 2011 Budget Request, which would dramatically increase
37 Anne T. Henderson and Karen L. Mapp, “A New Wave of Evidence: The funding from the $10 million dedicated to the Promise Neighbor-
Impact of School, Family, and Community on Student Achievement,” hoods Program in FY 2010. The Senate Labor Health and Human
Austin: National Center for Family & Community Connection with Services, Education, and Related Agencies FY 2011 appropriations
Schools, 2002. bill markup allocated $20 million for Promise Neighborhoods, and
38 Personal communication from Rich Morris, principal, John C. Bur- the House Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related
roughs Elementary School, April 30, 2010. Agencies allocated $60 million in the FY 2011 appropriations bill
markup.
39 Personal communication from Vanessa Jones, Parent Program Coordi-
nator, LEAP Academy University Charter School, May 4, 2010. 58 “Promise Neighborhoods and Community Schools” Coalition for
Community Schools, available at http://www.communityschools.org/
40 Jane Quinn and Joy Dryfoos, “Freeing Teachers to Teach,” American assets/1/AssetManager/PromiseNeighborhoods_CommunitySchools.
Educator 33 (2) (2009): 16–21. pdf, last accessed August 31, 2010.
41 The Children’s Aid Society, “Building A Community School” (2001). 59 “Office of Innovation and Improvement; Overview Information; Full-
Service Community Schools Program; Notice Inviting Applications for
42 Personal communication from Paul O’Toole, former principal, Mar- New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010,” Federal Register 75 (109) (June 8,
quette Elementary School, March 11, 2010. 2010): 32428–32435.
43 Personal communication from Rich Morris, principal, John C. Bur- 60 “Full Service Community Schools Program,” U.S. Department
roughs Elementary School, April 30, 2010. of Education, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/
44 Personal communication from Dr. Gloria Santiago, founder and chair communityschools/2008awards.html, last accessed June 30, 2010.
of board of trustees at LEAP Academy University Charter School, 61 Full-Service Community Schools Act of 2009 (introduced in Senate),
Camden, NJ, March 23, 2010. S.1655, 111th Congress, 1st Session, September 2, 2009.
45 Traphagen and Johnson-Staub, “Expanded Time, Enriching Experi- 62 Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act of 2009 (introduced in
ences: Expanded Learning Time Schools and Community Organiza- Senate), S. 1410, 111th Congress, 1st Session, July 8, 2009.
tion Partnerships.”
63 Developing Innovative Partnerships and Learning Opportunities that
46 Elev8, LISC Chicago, available at http://www.lisc-chicago.org/display. Motivate Act of 2010, (introduced in Senate), S. 3595, 111th Congress,
aspx?pointer=5318, last accessed July 7, 2010. 2nd Session, July 15, 2010; “DIPLOMA Act” Coalition for Community
47 Personal communication from Kate Carpenter, Director of the Schools, available at http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/
Elementary Grades, Edison K-8 School, March 12, 2010. AssetManager/DIPLOMA_One_Pager_6_9_10.pdf, last accessed
September 1, 2010.
48 Joy G. Dryfoos, “Evaluation of Community Schools,” New York: Coali-
tion for Community Schools, 2000. 64 “ELT Overview,” Massachusetts 2020, available at http://www.
mass2020.org/node/10, last accessed July 2, 2010; Hillary Pennington,
49 Susan Bowles Therriault and others, “Out of the Debate and Into the “The Massachusetts Expanding Learning Time to Support Student
Schools: Comparing Practices in Traditional, Pilot and Charter Schools Success Initiative,” Washington: Center for American Progress, 2007.
in the City of Boston,” Washington: American Institute for Research,
2010. 65 For more information on national, state, and local models, please
visit the “Interactive Map: Profiles of Community Schools,” available
50 “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Strategic Planning,” at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/10/community_
PowerPoint presentation, U.S. Department of Education, December schools_map.html, or the website for the Coalition for Community
2009. Schools, available at http://www.communityschools.org/about-
schools/national_models.aspx.
51 Ibid
66 96th General Assembly State of Illinois 2009 and 2010, “HB0684.”
52 “Community Schools in Race to the Top,” Washington: Coalition for
Community Schools, 2009. 67 “Chicago Public Schools Community Schools Initiative,” Chicago
Public Schools, available at http://www.cpsafterschool.org/program/
53 $675 million was included for RTTT in the FY 2011 Senate Labor cs.school.list.fy07.pdf, last accessed July 6, 2010.
Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies appro-
priations bill markup, and $800 million was included in the FY 2011 68 “Chicago Public Schools Community Schools Initiative,” Chicago
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Public Schools, available at http://www.cpsafterschool.org/program/,
Appropriations bill markup. last accessed July 2, 2010.
54 U.S. Department of Education, “Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Summary,”
2010; U.S. Department of Education, “A Blueprint for Reform,” 2010.

About the author
Isabel Owen is Research Associate for Education Policy at the Center for
American Progress. Prior to joining American Progress, Isabel worked as
legal assistant to Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin. As a legal assistant in the
Governor’s office, Isabel managed a wide range of duties including administer-
ing Wisconsin’s extradition and pardon processes, legal and archival research,
and drafting executive orders on behalf of the Governor. Isabel holds a bachelor’s
degree in political science and history from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Acknowledgements
The Center for American Progress thanks JPMorgan Chase Foundation for gener-
ously proving support for this paper.
The author would like to thank the numerous individuals at Burroughs

Elementary, Marquette Elementary, and LEAP Academy who shared their time
and perspective so generously in the course of developing this report. The author
would also like to thank Mass 2020 and the Coalition for Community Schools
for their assistance, review, and feedback on the paper, as well as the following
individuals for participating in interviews and offering their expert knowledge and
experience on the topic: Kate Carpenter, Christine Johnson-Staub, Martin Blank,
Shital Shah, and Emily Raine.
Finally the author thanks Saba Bireda and Melissa Lazarín for their review and
guidance throughout the drafting of the report.

The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute
dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity
for all. We believe that Americans are bound together by a common commitment to
these values and we aspire to ensure that our national policies reflect these values.
We work to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and
international problems and develop policy proposals that foster a government that
is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
1333 H Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 • Tel: 202-682-1611 • Fax: 202-682-1867 • www.americanprogress.org

Breaking The Mold

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Breaking The Mold

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Breaking The Mold

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGENCY/PHOTOGRAPHER

Breaking the Mold

Isabel Owen September 2010

Isabel Owen September 2010

6 What is a community school?

8 What is expanded learning time

10 Each reform model strengthens the other:

15 Each reform model strengthens the other:

25 Bankrolling community schools and

35 About the author and acknowledgements

Breaking the Mold | www.americanprogress.org 1

Community schools, through results-focused partnerships, provide services that

Schools across the country are experimenting with a community-school model

2 Center for American Progress | Breaking the Mold

Breaking the Mold | www.americanprogress.org 3

• Congress to pass legislation to increase funding for community schools and

4 Center for American Progress | Breaking the Mold

Breaking the Mold | www.americanprogress.org 5

• A strong, strategically initiated partnership with at least one community organi-

• Programming focused on adult learning such as English as a Second Language,

• A leadership council or committee comprised of the school principal, teachers,

6 Center for American Progress | Breaking the Mold

Community schools are achieving promising outcomes. An evaluation of three Community

Breaking the Mold | www.americanprogress.org 7

According to a 2008 survey of Massachusetts teachers in schools with expanded

• Learning time—the school day, week, or year—should be expanded by at least

8 Center for American Progress | Breaking the Mold

• In addition to focusing more time on instruction, the expanded schedule should

Breaking the Mold | www.americanprogress.org 9

Community schools offer essential services to students, families, and community

Expanded learning time raises achievement

Principal Richard Morris at Burroughs Elementary School in Chicago decided

10 Center for American Progress | Breaking the Mold

Enrichment that reaches all students

However, educationally disadvantaged students are less likely to take advantage

Breaking the Mold | www.americanprogress.org 11

Expanded learning time breaks down the barriers to participation in out-of-

Consider the experience at Marquette Elementary School in Chicago. Beginning

12 Center for American Progress | Breaking the Mold

Professional development at community schools is key to allowing teachers and

About 80 percent of the professional development at LEAP happens in the class-

Breaking the Mold | www.americanprogress.org 13

14 Center for American Progress | Breaking the Mold

Healthy students are better learners

A recent report released by the Foundation for Child Development estimates

Breaking the Mold | www.americanprogress.org 15

16 Center for American Progress | Breaking the Mold

In community schools, parents immediately become more engaged in the school

Breaking the Mold | www.americanprogress.org 17

Teachers in community schools enjoy the advantages of children arriving in class

Partner organizations can be instrumental in this venture by offering services that

18 Center for American Progress | Breaking the Mold

Drivers of school reform

Perhaps most important to the success of implementing family and community

According to Paul O’Toole, former principal of Marquette Elementary, “the school

Breaking the Mold | www.americanprogress.org 19

20 Center for American Progress | Breaking the Mold

• Community-based organizations • Faith-based groups

• Partnerships should also be advantageous to the partner organization. It often