In this blog post, we go over three common expanded learning models and the possible benefits and complexities of each. Read on for ELO-P program ideas.
Expanded learning has the potential to change students’ lives, but creating ELO-P programming with the ability to do so can be challenging. That’s why, in a recent webinar, we at ActivityHero enlisted the expertise of Dr. Julie Boesch, an administrator in Kern County Superintendent of Schools whose dissertation focused on quality expanded-learning programs. Dr. Boesch walked us through three common models for structuring expanded learning programs and the pros and cons of each. Spoiler alert: there’s no one right way to do it!
And with ELO-P funding, there’s a lot of room for creativity. Many expanded-learning experts call California’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Program funding the most flexible that educators have ever experienced. The money can be spent on almost anything for after-school, intersession and summer school initiatives. That said, the California Department of Education advises that purchases must be reasonable, justifiable and documented. The key restriction is that ELO-P funds can’t be used on resources exclusively for the instructional day. To learn more about ELO-P intricacies, check out this ActivityHero webinar with Jorge Maldonado of Palmdale School District.
When thinking about how to structure ELO-P programs, Dr. Boesch walks us through models for how to staff programs. Each approach comes with its own benefits and challenges. Taking time to weigh the pros and cons is valuable, since understanding these models can help in making more informed decisions and managing ELO-P programs better. Let’s dive into each model and see how they shape students’ learning experiences and administrators’ roles.
1. School Staff Exclusively Run Programming
In this model, school district contractors and employees, including teachers, administrators, and other staff, run all expanded learning programs. The biggest advantage of this model is consistency. Since the same staff are working with students before, during, and after the instructional day, there’s a seamless transition between them. This allows for students and staff to be on the same page about the school culture, norms, and expectations throughout the day.
This model can have some drawbacks, though. One challenge is that school staff may not have the expertise or passion needed to deliver certain niche enrichment activities. For example, if the school wants to offer ballet folklorico classes, their staff might not have the experience or skill to teach it. Additionally, relying solely on district employees and contractors can create complications given mandated compensation structures.
2. School Staff Collaborate with Enrichment Providers to Deliver Programming
This model involves school district staff collaborating with external partners, like enrichment providers and community-based organizations. School employees partner with outside experts who bring specialized resources and knowledge.
This model offers flexibility and can be more cost-effective than the school-staff-only model. And it allows for more niche programs, which may not be available through district staff alone. This can drive student excitement and engagement.
While this model offers more flexibility, it can also introduce complexity. For example, it can be difficult to establish authority when different organizations have different rules and guidelines. Additionally, onboarding staff from external providers takes time. But this investment is necessary; to make this model work, it’s crucial to build strong relationships between the district and the outside partners to ensure smooth communication and collaboration.
3. Outside Providers Do Everything for the Programming
In this model, the school district contracts with outside providers to manage and operate the entire expanded learning program. This model can be useful for smaller districts with limited staffing capability and/or those with staff who are short on time. Districts that are already stretched thin appreciate external providers coming in to plan, staff, and run the programs.
This model has some potential downsides, though. The most significant concern is that the district may feel detached from the program and not take ownership of it and its results. This can reduce collaboration between the school district and the program provider, and potentially affect impact.
Which Is the “Right” Model?
There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to expanded learning. As Dr. Boesch emphasized, each has its potential benefits and complications, and individual districts will need to determine which approach will maximize their given resources and results. But regardless of the model chosen, strong communication and relationship-building are always key to running a successful after-school program. Whether using school staff only, collaborating with external providers, or outsourcing the program entirely, open dialogue and a shared vision will lead to success for both the students and the district.
Want to learn more about these models? Watch the webinar recording here, or schedule a call with one of our expanded-learning expert consultants here.