This article considers the relative impacts of student accountability policies and extended learning programs on the achievement gains of elementary and middle grade students. It shares qualitative and quantitative analyses of an extended learning time initiative implemented in conjunction with a high-stakes testing and retention policy. The influences of the extended learning initiative on students, teachers, and school organizations are described, and the achievement effects associated with the initiative are compared to those associated with the retention policy. Findings are interpreted in light of demands made by the No Child Left Behind Act and the concerns of policy makers and administrators as to how best to employ incentives, sanctions, and/or supplemental supports to promote student and school achievement. In closing, researchers are invited to pursue work that uncovers the specific effects of these strategies among particular students and learning contexts.
Allington, R. (2000). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research based programs. New York: Longman.
2.
Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved July 1, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/
3.
Barrett, M. J. (1990, November). The case for more school days. Atlantic Monthly, pp. 78, 80-106.
4.
Becker, W. E., & Rosen, S. (1992). The learning effect of assessment and evaluation in high School. Economics of Education Review, 11(2), 107-118.
5.
Berliner, D. C. (1990). What’s all the fuss about instructional time? In M. Ben-Peretz & R. Bromme (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions (pp. 3-35). New York: Teachers College Press.
6.
Betts, J. R., & Danenberg, A. (2003). The effects of accountability in California. In P. E. Peterson & M. R. West (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 197-214). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
7.
Bickers, P. M. (1989). Effects of kindergarten scheduling: A summary research. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
8.
Bishop, J. (1996). Signaling, incentives, and school organization in France, the Netherlands, Britain, and United States. In E. A. Hanushek & D. W. Jorgenson (Eds.), Improving America’s schools: The role of incentives (pp. 111-145). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9.
Blank, M. J., Melaville A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition of Community Schools.
10.
Borg, W. R. (1980). Time and school learning. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 33-63). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
11.
Borman, G. D., & Boulay, M. (2000). Summer learning: Research, policies, and programs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Braswell, J. S., Daane, M. C., & Grigg, W. S. (2003). The nation’s report card: Mathematics highlights. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
13.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Kerbow, K., Rollow, S., & Easton, J. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change. Boulder, CO: Westview.
14.
Bryk, A. S., Thum, Y. M., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (1998). Academic productivity in Chicago elementary schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
15.
Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child Development, 65, 684-698.
16.
Carlisi, A. M. (1996). The 3:00 project program evaluation. Decatur, GA: Georgia School Age Care Association.
17.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1994). A matter of time: Risk and opportunity in the after-school hours. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
18.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 723-733.
19.
Carroll, J. B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher, 18, 26-31.
20.
Cohen, D. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Obulier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
21.
Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237-248.
22.
Cooper, H., Valentine, J. C., & Charlton, K. (2003). The effects of modified school calendars on student achievement and on school and community attitudes. Review of Education Research, 73(1), 1-52.
23.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1989). Alternatives to grade retention. School Administrator, 55(7), 18-21.
24.
de Kanter, A., Fiester, L., Lauland, A., & Romney, V. (1997) Keeping schools open as community learning centers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
25.
Dryfoos, J. G. (1998). Safe passage: Making it through adolescence in a risky society. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
Easton J. Q., Rosenkranz, T., & Bryk, A. S. (2000). Annual CPS test trend review, 2000. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
27.
Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. Future of Children, 9(2). Retrieved May 20, 3002, from www.futureofchildren.org/pubs
28.
Elbaum, B., Hughes, M. J., Moody, S. W., & Vaughn S. (2000). How effective are one-toone tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Education Psychology, 92(4), 605-619.
29.
Elicker, J., & Mathur, S. (1997). What do they do all day? Comprehensive evaluation of a full-day kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(4), 459-480.
30.
Fashola, O. (1998). Review of extended-day and after-school programs and their effectiveness. Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
31.
Fisher, C. W., & Berliner, D. C. (Eds.). (1985). Perspectives on instructional time. New York: Longman.
32.
Fisher, C. W., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R. S., Cahen, L. S., Dishaw, M. M., Moore, J. E., et al. (1978). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time and student achievement: Final report of phase III-B, beginning teacher evaluation study. San Francisco: Far West Regional Laboratory.
33.
Fleming-McCormick, T., & Tushnet, N. C. (1996). 4-H after school activity program. Los Angeles: Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory & West Ed.
34.
Funkhouser, J., Fiester, L., O’Brien, E., & Weiner, L. (1995). Extending learning time for disadvantaged students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (Available at www.ed.gov/pubs/LearnCenters)
35.
Fusaro, J. A. (1997). The effect of full-day kindergarten on student achievement: A meta-analysis. Child Study Journal, 27(4), 269-277.
36.
Gettinger, M. (1984). Individual differences in time needed for learning: A review of the literature. Educational Psychologist, 19, 15-29.
37.
Goertz, M. E., Duffy, M. C., & LeFloch, K. C. (2001). Assessment and accountability systems in the 50 states: 1999-2000. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
38.
Good, T. L., & Beckerman, T. M. (1978). Time on task: A naturalistic study in sixth grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 73, 193-201.
39.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill.
40.
Gregory, P. L. (1996). Youth opportunities unlimited: Improving outcomes for youth through after school care. Manchester: University of New Hampshire.
41.
Grossman, J., & Furano, K. (2002). Making the most of volunteers. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. (Available at www.ppv.org/pdffiles/mostvolunteer.pdf)
42.
Grossman, J., Walker, K., & Raley, R. (2002). Challenges and opportunities in after-school programs: Lessons for policymakers and funders. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. (Available at www.ppv.org/contet/reports/)
43.
Halpern, R. (2001). A different kind of child development institution: The history of after-school programs for low-income children. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 178-211.
44.
Halpern, R., Speilberger J., & Robb, S. (2000). Making the most of out of school time. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children.
45.
Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Klein, S. P. (2002). Making sense of test based accountability in education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
46.
Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Retrieved July 1, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
47.
Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2003). Lessons about the design of state accountability systems. In P. E. Peterson & M. R. West (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 127-151). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
48.
Heath, S. B., & Soep, E. (1997). The work of learning at youth-based organizations: A case for the arts. Educational Researcher, 26, 9.
49.
Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes testing for tracking, promotion and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
50.
Heyns, B. (1987). Schooling and cognitive development: Is there a season of learning?Child Development, 58, 1151-1160.
51.
House, E. (1998). The predictable failure of Chicago’s Student Retention Program. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado School of Education, Boulder.
52.
Huang, D., Gribbons, B., Kim, K. S., Lee, C., & Baker, E. (2000). A decade of results: The impact of the LA’s BEST after school enrichment program on subsequent student achievement and performance. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.
53.
Huyvaert, S. H. (1998). Time is of the essence: Learning in schools. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
54.
Jacob, B. A. (2001). Getting tough? The impact of mandatory high school graduation exams on student outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 99-122.
55.
Karweit, N. L. (1976). A reanalysis of the effect of quantity of schooling on achievement. Sociology of Education, 49, 236-246.
56.
Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
57.
Koretz, D. (1996). Using student assessments for educational accountability. In E. A. Hanushek & D. Jorgenson (Eds.), Improving America’s schools: The role of incentives (pp. 171-196). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
58.
Ladd, H. F. (Ed.).(1996). Holding schools accountable: Performance based reform in education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
59.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Langman, J. (1994). Urban sanctuaries: Neighborhood organizations in the lives and futures of inner-city youth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
60.
McNeil, M. L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
61.
Miller, B. M. (2001). The promise of after school programs. Educational Leadership, 58(7), 6-12.
62.
Moore, D. R. (1999). Rejoinder to ending social promotion: Results from the first two years. Chicago’s Grade Retention Program fails to help Chicago’s retained students—better alternatives exist to Chicago’s costly mistake. Chicago: Designs for Change.
63.
Murnane, R. J., & Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills: Principles for educating children to thrive in a changing economy. New York: Free Press.
64.
National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2001). After-school programs & the principal: Standards for quality school-age child care. Alexandria, VA: Author.
65.
National Education Commission on Time & Learning. (1994). Prisoners of time. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
66.
National Institute on Out-of-School Time. (2002). After school issues: Citywide after-school initiatives share their experiences developing and implementing standards. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley University. (Available at www.wellesley.edu/WCW/CRW/SAC/publications.html)
67.
National School-Age Care Alliance. (2000). Standards for quality school-age care. Boston: Author.
68.
Newman, S. A., Fox, J. A., Flynn, E. A., & Christeson, W. (2000). America’s after-school choice: The prime time for juvenile crime, or youth enrichment and achievement. Washington, DC: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. (Available at www.fightcrime.org)
69.
Noam, G. G., Biancarosa, G., & Dechausay, N. (2002). Afterschool education: Approaches to an emerging field. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
70.
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability and school improvement. Harvard Education Review, 72(3). Retrieved January 18, 2002, from www.gse.harvard.edu/hepg/oday.html
71.
Olson, L. (2002, June 19). Accountability studies find mixed impact on achievement. Education Week on the Web. Retrieved February 26, 2003, from www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=41account.h21
72.
Palmer, E. A., & Bemis, A. E. (1999). Year round education. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research in Educational Improvement. (Available at www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/components/7286-09.html)
73.
Pederson, L., DeKanter, A., Bobo, L. M., Weinig, K., & Noeth, K. (1998). Safe and smart: Making after-school hours work for kids. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (Available at www.ed.gov/pubs/SafeandSmart)
74.
Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (Eds.). (2003). No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
75.
Pick, G. (1998). Student retention: Trying to succeed where others failed. Catalyst, IX(7), 1-4.
76.
Posner, J., & Vandell, D. L. (1994). Low-income children’s after-school care: Are there beneficial effects of after-school programs?Child Development, 65, 440-456.
77.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427-452.
78.
Quinn, J. (1999). Where need meets opportunity: Youth development programs for early teens. Future of Children, 9(2). Retrieved May 20, 2003, from www.futureofchildren.org/pubsinfo2825/pubs-info.htm?doc_id=71873
79.
Ravitch, D. (2002). Brookings papers on education policy 2002. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
80.
Raymond, M. E.,& Hanushek, E. A. (2003). High stakes research. Education Next, 3(3), 48-55.
81.
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(18), 2339-2346.
82.
Robledo, M. D. R. (1990). Partners for valued youth: Dropout prevention strategies for at-risk language minority students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
83.
Roderick, M., Bryk, A. S., Jacob, B., Easton J. Q., & Allensworth, E. (1999). Ending social promotion: Results from the first two years. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
84.
Roderick, M., Engel, M., & Nagaoka, J. (2003). Ending social promotion: Results from Summer Bridge. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
85.
Roderick, M., Jacob, B., & Bryk, A. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in the promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 333-357.
86.
Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., Bacon, J., & Easton J. Q. (2000). Update: Ending social promotion. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
87.
Rossmiller, R. A. (1986). Resource utilization in schools and classrooms: Final report (Program Report 86-87). Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
88.
Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P. (1993). Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
89.
Sebring, P. B., Bryk, A. S., Roderick, M., Camburn, E., Luppescu, S., Thum, Y. M., et al. (1996). Charting reform in Chicago: The students speak. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
90.
Seligson, M. E. (1999). The policy climate for after-school programs. Future of Children, 9(2). Retrieved May 20, 2003, from http://www.futureofchildren.org/pubs-info2825/pubs-info.htm?doc_id=71873
91.
Shepard, L., & Smith, M. (1989). Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. London: Falmer.
92.
Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. E., & Madden, M. A. (1989). Effective programs for students at risk. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
93.
Smith, J. A., Smith, B. A., & Bryk, A. S. (1998). Setting the pace: Opportunities to learn in Chicago’s elementary schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
94.
Smith, J. B., Lee, V. E., & Newmann, F. M. (2001). Instruction and achievement in Chicago elementary schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
95.
Smylie, M., Allensworth, E., Greenberg, R. C., Harris, R., & Luppescu, S. (2001, April). Teacher professional development in Chicago: Supporting effective practice. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
96.
Snow, C. T. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Research Council & National Academy of Sciences.
97.
Stallings, J. A. (1975). Implementation and child effects of teaching practices in follow through classrooms. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40(Serial No. 163).
98.
Stallings, J. A. (1980). Allocated academic learning time revisited, or Beyond time on task. Education Researcher, 9, 11-16.
99.
Stodolsky, S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
100.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K. F., & Walpole, S. (1999) Effective schools/accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary grade reading instruction in low-income schools. Elementary School Journal, 101, 121-166.
101.
Tierney, J., Grossman, J., & Resch, N. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/publications_description.asp?search_id=7&publication_id=111
102.
Toenjes, L. A., & Dworkin, A. G. (2002, March 21). Are increasing test scores in Texas really a myth, or is Haney’s myth a myth?Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(17). Retrieved June 15, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n17/
103.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering towards utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
104.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Taking responsibility for ending social promotion: A guide for educators and state and local leaders. Washington, DC: Author.
105.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). When schools stay open late. National evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Washington, DC: Author.
106.
Walberg, H. J. (1986). Syntheses of research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 214-239). New York: Macmillan.
107.
Wasik, B. A. (1998). Volunteer tutoring programs: A review of research on achievement outcomes. Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
108.
Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1990). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A best-evidence synthesis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.
109.
Wiley, D. E., & Harnischfeger, A. (1974). Explosion of a myth: Quantity of schooling and exposure to instruction: Major educational vehicles. Educational Researcher, 3, 7-11.
