It is common practice for secondary schools to extend the school day using additional sessions before school, after school or during holidays. The sessions often target year 11 students to ensure that they perform as well as possible in their terminal exams. It is understandable that schools want to commit resources to these sessions.
This evidence review addresses:
Whether the evidence has a significant positive impact on achievement.
What other measures the sessions have a positive impact on.
What effective sessions might look like if a school is insistent on using them.
The EEF report entitled ‘Extending School Time’ (EEF, 2021) assesses the impact of sessions as adding an additional three months of learning per academic year; secondary schools have an average impact of two months. This comes at a financial cost described as ‘moderate’ but also a significant time cost to teachers; the opportunity cost of the finances and time are an important consideration. The EEF considers that this approach may not be cost effective (referencing financial but not time costs) without additional funding.
Only nineteen studies from secondary schools met the criteria for inclusion in the EEF data set. The effect sizes ranged from -0.477 to 0.87; only seven studies could demonstrate an effect size of 0.2 or more (an effect size of 0.2 – 0.4 is considered small). Four studies had a negative effect size. It is noteworthy that of the seven studies with an effect size of 0.2 or more, the four largest effect sizes came from research components of higher degrees and so weren’t subject to the stringent peer-scrutiny of papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Five of the seven had extremely wide confidence limits. Finally, the four most recent publications had effect sizes of 0.101 or less (very small). Taking this into account, it is reasonable to say that we should be careful when drawing conclusions using this evidence base; this is consistent with the independent conclusions of Kremer et al (2014) but in disagreement with the Afterschool Alliance (Yamashiro, 2021) who used a small number of references. Also, given the evidence cited, we should be concerned with transferability to different cultures (most studies come from the USA) and subjects other than mathematics and English. However, as ever with EEF content, we should delve more deeply.
The impact of the extended school day on student achievement is a common metric. However, the results aren’t always straight forward. Jenner and Jenner (2007) found an effect size of 0.13; despite them arguing otherwise, this is very small. When analysed by subject, participants made significant improvements in language, reading and social studies. In maths, the impact was positive but not significant, whilst that for science was slightly negative. Vandell et al (2007) found an effect size of 0.55 on maths attainment. More recently, the EEF evaluation report for the use of SHINE, which aims to improve attainment via improving literacy and numeracy, showed very small effect sizes despite a very positive process evaluation (Menzies et al, 2015). The lack of consistency in results from these and other studies probably reflects the difficulties in identifying programs that have universally positive effects on attainment. There is also a significant variation in impact of the same programs in different schools or districts (Jenner and Jenner, 2007). Finally, there are very few robust studies that address subjects other than English and mathematics so we should guard against implementing common programs across all subjects.
More positive outcomes are seen when we look at effect sizes for specific groups. For example, Molina et al (2008) demonstrated that students with ADHD who attended an after-school program had significantly higher attainment compared to those that different. Jenner and Jenner (2007) found that middle attainers on entry benefitted the most from after school sessions with high attainers experiencing a negative impact (statistically zero). Minorities also showed a strong positive effect. The type of care that disadvantaged students receive after school also has a significant impact on outcomes. Those that attended after school sessions, had the most positive outcomes. This was particularly marked for those students who were highly engaged. Students who were cared for by parents outperformed those who were cared for my other adults or siblings. Those with unstructured time fared the worst (Maloney et al, 2005). Given the lack of structure in the lives of minorities in the Jenner study, and the findings from Maloney et al, the addition of structure to unstructured lives may be a significant contributor to success. The quality of that structure, from an academic standpoint, is also important.
Whilst the academic impact of extending the school day is variable, it is worth considering the impact of extending the school day on other measures. Kremer et al (2014) screened 424 papers of which only 24 were robust enough to pass their eligibility criteria. The effect sizes of attending after school programs on attendance ranged from -0.388 to 0.275; they could not show a reproducible positive impact on attendance. They also reviewed a range of externalised behaviours. An effect size that is small or better was consistently seen with rebellious behaviour amongst low risk student. However, there wasn’t a consistently positive impact on drug and alcohol use and breaking the law. Kremer et al were extremely critical of the quality of evidence given the large volume of resources allocated to after school programs in the USA. Hirsch et al (2011), also found that there wasn’t a significant impact on externalised behaviours. They also found that attendance to after school sessions had no impact on attendance. However, students reported a stronger sense of belonging. These findings obtained with robust methodology aren’t consistent with other published works. However, the quality of that research is in question.
Whilst participation in before / after school programs is generally considered a positive thing to do, Fredricks et al (2012) demonstrated that dedicating too much time to them can have a negative impact on academic outcomes. Mahoney and Vest (2012) shared these concerns as did Miller (2016). This risk needs to be weighed up against the potential negative impact of not attending and sessions. The threshold for the transition to negative effects might be as low as 3 or 4 after school activities attended per week (Knifsend and Graham, 2012).
Summary
Extending the school day is a popular intervention. The outcomes of extending the school day through after school programs are often cited as positive for a range of factors including attainment. However, the evidence available does not support this overall; some positive outcomes are seen for specific groups of students only. That is not to say that this strategy can not be used to improve outcomes, it is the quality of the research that prevents us from forming strong conclusion about program structures and expected outcomes.
Moving forward…
For schools or faculties that wish to proceed with extending the school day via after-school or before-school sessions, there is some guidance available from the Durrington Research School which can be found here: https://researchschool.org.uk/durrington/news/making-revision-sessions-count . Their view is that the following are most likely to be effective:
Deliberate practice: Concentrating on a particular element and then practising it under guidance.
Spaced practice: Sessions should be spaced out over a period of time rather than crammed together.
Practice testing: Students retrieve information from their memory. For example, they could have quick retrieval sessions each lesson, create a mind-map or fill in a blank knowledge organiser.
As with all strategies, the implementation needs to be careful thought in order to maximise success. This is especially important when there is limited guidance from research. The EEF has an excellent guide to implementation that can be found here: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/31088/1/EEF-Implementation-Guidance-Report.pdf .
Quality assurance should focus on adherence to the strategy, the level of competence with which it is delivered with and to identify divergence, especially that related to active ingredients, is identified early. Modelling of expectation, monitoring of implementation and ongoing modifications to ensure impact would be essential.
Key considerations when planning out of hours interventions should be:
Is extending the school day with additional sessions the best use of resources? There are significant financial and time costs involved. What is the opportunity cost of implementing this strategy?
The impact of a program is likely to be variable across subjects; planning should have a bottom – up component.
The students that benefit the most tend to be in at-risk groups. Which students need to attend, and how to ensure that they attend, needs to be given careful consideration.
The structure of the sessions and content of sessions needs consideration. Building on Durrington Research Schools advice, how will the elements that require deliberate practice be identified?
What training will staff require to ensure high fidelity?
How will implementation be monitored?
When scenario planning, what scenarios might trigger modification or deimplementation?
References
EEF (2021). Extending School Time. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/extending-school-time#nav-what-is-it (retrieved on 18/08/2023).
Hirsch, B. J., Hedges, L. V., Stawicki, J., & Mekinda, M. (2011). After-school programs for high school students: An evaluation of after-school matters. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. https://clear.dol.gov/sites/default/files/OYHirsch2011.pdf Retreived on 19/08/2023.
Fredricks, J. A. (2012). Extracurricular participation and academic outcomes: Testing the over-scheduling hypothesis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(3), 295–306. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9704-0
Jenner, E. & Jenner, L. W., (2007) Results from a First-Year Evaluation of Academic Impacts of an After-School Program for At-Risk Students, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 12:2, 213-237, DOI: 10.1080/10824660701261144
Kremer, K. P., Maynard, B. R., Polanin, J. R., Vaughn, M. G., & Sarteschi, C. M. (2014). Effects of After-School Programs with At-Risk Youth on Attendance and Externalizing Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 616-636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0226-4
Knifsend, C. A., & Graham, S. (2012). Too much of a good thing? How breadth of extracurricular participation relates to school-related affect and academic outcomes during adolescence. Journal of Youth an Adolescence, 41(3), 379–389. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9737-4
Mahoney, J.L., Lord, H. and Carryl, E. (2005), An Ecological Analysis of After-School Program Participation and the Development of Academic Performance and Motivational Attributes for Disadvantaged Children. Child Development, 76: 811-825. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00879.x
Mahoney, J. L., & Vest, A. E. (2012). The over-scheduling hypothesis revisited: Intensity of organized activity participation during adolescence and young adult outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(3), 409–418. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00808.x
Menzies, V. et al. (2015). SHINE in Secondaries. Education Endowment Foundation.
Miller, D., (2016) "After-school success: Associations between youth participants and youth outcomes". Graduate Research Papers. 113.
Molina BS, Flory K, Bukstein OG, Greiner AR, Baker JL, Krug V, Evans SW. Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an after-school program for middle schoolers with ADHD: a randomized trial in a large public middle school. J Atten Disord. 2008 Nov;12(3):207-17. doi: 10.1177/1087054707311666
Vandell, D. L., Reisner, E. R., & Pierce, K. M. (2007). Outcomes linked to high-quality afterschool programs: Longitudinal findings from the Study of Promising Afterschool Programs. Washington, DC: Policy Study Associates, Inc. Retrieved on August 18, 2023, from http://www.policystudies.com/studies/youth/Promising%20Programs%20Final%20Report%20FINAL%2010-23-07.pdf
Yamashiro, N. (2021). Research Brief: New research brief: The evidence base for afterschool and summer. http://afterschoolalliance.org/documents/The-Evidence-Base-For-Afterschool-And-Summer-2021.pdf. Retrieved on 18/08/2023.
Image by <a href="https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/young-teen-student-desk_1308314.htm#query=middle%20school%20study&position=27&from_view=search&track=country_rows_v2">Freepik</a>
Comments