To help disadvantaged kids who are struggling to keep up in school, some education advocates believe that extending the school day could give them the extra boost they need. They argue that many parents can’t afford to send their kids to the varied extracurricular activities that wealthier children enjoy – leaving poorer kids with a sparse education that focuses primarily on testing.

On that premise, five states recently announced that select school districts will participate in a three-year extended time pilot project funded with a mix of federal, state and district funds, along with private philanthropy from the Ford Foundation and National Center on Time and Learning.
Extended-time advocates cite studies showing a gap in childhood opportunity that mirrors the widening income gap. Wealthy families can and do spend more money on music and art lessons, tutors, and summer camp for their children that help them get ahead, while low-income kids often go home after school to unsafe neighborhoods, with little supervision and fewer positive outlets for their time and energy. The extended time movement is meant to correct those inequalities by offering the same diverse array of activities and adult mentors to disadvantaged children.

But simply tacking on hours at the end of a school day is not the solution, according to some.

“The issue is that many of the schools that poor kids go to are not good schools,” said Elena Silva, a senior associate at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. “If that’s the case, the obvious question is, why would you extend more time? You don’t need more of a bad thing.” Silva has researched the efficacy of extended time and come up with mixed results.

In theory, it could work, she says, but it’s often resource intensive and takes the space and time for creative outside-the-box thinking. Silva is skeptical that school districts will have the time or money to redesign the school day in the ways that are necessary to make extended-learning effective. The strongest research out there supports a shorter summer to minimize the summer learning loss that is well documented among low-income students.

And that’s what the pilot program will attempt to address: what kind of extended learning works best. Participating schools will add at least 300 hours to the school year and focus on broad frameworks like academics and enrichment, strong partners and teacher development. Beyond that, each school community will figure out how to design its own program.

“When the time is really used to focus kids in interesting and engaging ways, that is a powerful aid to learning,” said Jeannie Oakes, director of the Ford Foundation’s Educational Opportunities and Scholarship Program. “The better is as important as the more. That means changing the substance of what goes on, not just adding hours.”

It also means bringing in community-based organizations and other outside resources that allow for staggered teacher schedules and built-in teacher planning periods. Oakes says the ideal extended-learning environment would provide richer opportunities that allow learning to go beyond tests, and would include subjects that have been stripped out of most public schools — art, music, science labs, real-world internships and field trips.


The extended-learning vision is a compelling one, but it has been tried and failed, Silva says, not because it’s a bad idea, but because there wasn’t enough sustained funding to transform schools. The 2009 stimulus bill included money for School Improvement Grants (SIG) for the worst performing schools in the country. Some of that funding was used to extend the school day. Silva evaluated many of those schools and found that teachers and administrators faced so many challenges that they had no space to imagine or execute a re-designed school day.

“There are a lot of people out there who don’t have time to add time in really creative ways,” she said. Instead schools were overwhelmed trying to meet federal requirements that included changing leadership, huge staffing turnovers and shifts in curriculum and pedagogical approach. On top of that, funding was finite and limited. Not only did they not know how to use the extra time, they were reluctant to make big structural changes that would have to be reversed when the money dried up.

“Ideally these pilots will give us an answer, because we’ll see some cost-effective, creative ways to do this,” Silva said. “But I don’t think that we can get around the fact that it will be more expensive than what we have now.” Already when districts look at their budgets, they are scared at what they see. “They are being conservative because they know there isn’t as much money as there once was,” said Silva.


One of the toughest challenges that extended-time advocates contend with is finding an effective way to isolate the influence of more time on a child’s academic achievement. Oakes says the Ford Foundation will track standard measures, but they also want to develop new measures that take into account some of the less tangible gains. If the goal is “better time” then it can’t be all about the test – it’s about teaching to the whole child, she said. Lack of hard data could become a problem, however, when it comes time to convince politicians to spend more money nationwide on a longer school day.

Another concern about the extended school day is that it provides so much structure that kids don’t have time to just be kids – to play, imagine and relax. “The reflection time, the free time, that’s a worry, frankly, of the advantaged class,” Oakes said.

For Low-Income Kids, Is More Time in School the Answer? 21 December,2012Katrina Schwartz

  • Big-Brained Superhero

    In The Big-Brained Superheroes Club, we are dealing with many of the issues you discuss here. Specifically, we’re finding metrics and data collection to be a big challenge as well. Especially since we are decidedly and intentionally NOT a test prep organization. So, instead of attaching ourselves to standardized scores, we’re considering different models, traditionally more associated with the fields of design and innovation. Our goal is to be more Eames/Bell Labs than Kaplan.

    If you’re interested, we’ve documented some of the assets that we’ve observed (anecdotally) to aid in expanding opportunity/worldview for our Big-Brained Superheroes: http://www.bigbrainedsuperheroes.org/post/38533327467/failure-and-success-in-addressing-opportunity-gaps .

  • Concerned Parent

    My children live in a school district that has already announced it is participating in this program. It has not been determined yet as to whether their school will be one of the ones chosen for the pilot program, but I’m honestly dreading it. Obviously we won’t know the full effects of such a program on students until it has been in place for a considerable amount of time, but I can’t see it being a positive thing for these kids at all. As mentioned in the article, just because the kids are forced to be in school longer hours does not guarantee that they will be receiving ANYTHING more valuable or enriching than they are now, especially if the program does nothing in the way of helping teachers and school administrators to organize and structure such programs, other than funnel a few extra dollars their way.

    Yes, we do live in a very poor school district – 90% of the children at our local elementary school qualify for the free or reduced lunch program. However, our school does still have a computer lab, and they do still have art class, gym class, choir and band. In addition, we have many programs around here that are designed for low income families that aren’t available in many wealthier school districts (we’ve lived in several, so I speak from personal experience).

    At our local elementary school, there are over 3,000 kids and there are 4 other elementary schools in the district. My boys are involved in boy scouts, yet there are less than 30 boys actively involved in the pack (which costs parents a whopping $12 a year for their boys to be involved and they are flexible on payment arrangements). My younger son wanted to play basketball, but the cost of the Upward basketball program was a little cost prohibitive for us. We called the school and found out the local community center also offered a basketball league that was only $20/year – yet there are only 9 boys on his team and less than 75 boys in the entire league. Our children are also involved in a FREE after school program that even gave away free bikes to all the program participants for Christmas this year – yet less than 20 kids are involved.

    The bottom line is this – if parents want their children to be involved in extra curricular activities and remain culturally enriched, they will actively seek out the resources to do so. If they could care less, then they will continue to allow their children to sit at home and play videos games or watch TV and use their low economic standing as an excuse. Forcing kids to be in school longer hours will only punish those parents and children who are actively involved in their communities by forcing them to give up outside activities in lieu of the newly required longer hours.

    • AZ mom

      I couldn’t agree more, we are on a budget as well but both my children are involved in Extracurricular activities. Most places offers scholarships or a reduced cost for low income families, but it’s not the teachers or the schools fault when will these good for nothing parents begin to get blamed and or take responsibility for their children. My children come from a Lowe income family yet scored exceeding on their AIMS test and both are reading above grade level, why because we as parents are involved.


Katrina Schwartz

Katrina Schwartz is a journalist based in San Francisco. She’s worked at KPCC public radio in LA and has reported on air and online for KQED since 2010. She’s a staff writer for KQED’s education blog MindShift.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor