Skip to content
Printer-friendly version

ESEA Expanded Learning Opportunities


Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Reauthorization Recommendations: Expanded Learning Opportunities
Policy Recommendations

In 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC), Title I, and other programs that support expanded learning opportunities (ELO)—

Rationale for Improvements

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers core has revolved around afterschool, but in order to best support the varying needs of students, schools and communities should be provided with flexibility to adequately address student needs. As of last year, approximately 339,293 elementary, 93,087 middle school and 62,271 high school students participate in California state-funded afterschool programs.i The need to support all types of expanded learning models and approaches (before school, summer learning, after school, extended day/year) is apparent given the wide range of ages and student demographics. When done well expanded learning opportunities can be effective strategies for engaging students and helping them achieve to higher standards thus making them college and career ready. Elements of effective programs include:

California Overview

California invests an unprecedented amount of funding in after school programs, over three times more than the remaining 49 states combined.

Such investments have yielded positive results:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

i Ch1ldren Now (2010). California Report Card 2010: Setting the Agenda for Children. [http://www.childrennow.org/uploads/documents/reportcard_2010.pdf] (Outside Source)
ii
Hipps, J. and M. Diaz (2007). California 21st Century High School After School Safety and Enrichment for Teens (ASSETs) Program: Independent Evaluation, Final Report. [http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/eval-07-02.pdf] (Outside Source)
iii University of California at Irvine, Department of Education. (2001). Evaluation of California’s After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Program: 1999-2000 preliminary report. Irvine, CA: Author.
iv Central Valley Afterschool Foundation (2008). Afterschool programs in the Central Valley Benefit Children and Youth: Evaluation Results from the 2006-2007 school year. [http://www.centralvalleyafterschool.org/pdf/CVAFFinalReport5-7-08_000.pdf] (Outside Source)
v Huang, D., S.K. Kyung, A. Marshall, P. Perez. (2005). Keeping Kids in School: An LA’s BEST Example A Study Examining the Long-Term Impact of LA’s BEST on Students’ Dropout Rates. University of California, Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
vi Huang, D., S.K. Kyung, B. Gribbons, Lee, C. and E.L. Baker (2000). A decade of results: The impact of LA’s BEST after-school enrichment program on subsequent student achievement and performance. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.
vii Huang, D. and P. Goldschmidt (2007). The Long-Term Effects of After-School Programming on Educational Adjustment and Juvenile Crime: A Study of the LA’s BEST After-School Program. University of California, Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

Questions:   Erika Hughes | EHughes@cde.ca.gov | 916-319-0650
Download Free Readers