Name: Chris Gabrieli
Title: Chairman and Co-Founder, Massachusetts 2020, Boston, Co-Chairman, National Center on Time & Learning
Education: B.A., History and Science, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass.

Gabrieli is chairman and co-founder of Massachusetts 2020, a nonprofit organization working to provide educational and economic opportunities to children across the Commonwealth.

Massachusetts 2020, along with the state Department of Education, has been overseeing an Expanded Learning Time Initiative and assisting schools in putting ELT into practice since 2004.

Gabrieli is co-chairman of the National Center on Time & Learning, a think tank that researches expanded learning time; supports public policy efforts at the local, state and federal level; and provides technical assistance to schools, districts, and states seeking to convert to a longer school day. He’s also co-author of Time to Learn: How a New School Schedule is Making Smarter Kids, Happier Parents, and Safer Neighborhoods, a book about the need to rethink the standard school schedule. Early data shows an expanded schedule can improve students’ academic success while narrowing the socioeconomic achievement gap, according to Gabrieli.

In Massachusetts, 25 elementary and middle schools, and one high school – 13,000 students in all – have converted to an ELT schedule. While charter schools often have longer-than-normal school days, standard public schools are the focus of Massachusetts’ ELT initiative.

Gabrieli spoke to HotChalk about how a longer school day works and who benefits most from it.

Q: What is ELT?

A: ELT stands for Expanded Learning Time, and aims to improve education by adding time and content to schools’ learning schedule. The ELT movement focuses on questioning whether the time we have allocated to schools – 180 days of five to six hours – is sufficient for a strong base of core academic skills and a well-rounded education. Accumulating evidence shows that the answer is pretty clearly "No." The ELT movement proposes that schools try out using more time, perhaps about two hours a day for all students, and see if that can’t help on both those accounts, as well as giving teachers a better pace for their day and more opportunities to collaborate professionally with their colleagues. 

Q: Who benefits most?

A: The early evidence is compelling that it’s a powerful intervention for high-poverty students. There are clearer models of success for elementary and especially middle than for high school. Many middle-class kids already get further learning opportunities outside of school such as arts programs, summer camp, music lessons, and tutoring. Very few poor kids do.

Q: What’s the history of the movement?

A: Calls for expanding learning time date back 25 years ago and more, to the report called “A Nation at Risk” in 1983, as well as the National Commission on Time and Learning, which produced “Prisoners of Time,” in 1994. That described our current academic schedule as a fundamental design flaw.

Q: What’s the national picture?

A: Our organization is working with several other states that are considering developing such initiatives. Legislation has been introduced in the US Senate and House to fund ELT in ten states, and we have played a central role in developing and supporting that.

Q: What are common concerns?

A: One is: Does it mean that no matter what you do with more time, you will succeed? Absolutely not. It’s all about using the time well, and there are three key points. First, it’s important not just to have more time on tasks, but also to make learning more engaging through project-based and experiential learning. Second, to give kids a blend of core academics and enrichment in arts, music, drama, and sports. Third, to give teachers not just time to teach, but for professional development and collaborative work with colleagues.

Q: How have teachers responded?

A: State and national teachers’ unions endorse this. And they care very much that teachers be treated fairly. We believe that all students should be doing this, but it doesn’t require that all teachers do it.

Q: Are there any negative responses from parents?

A: Some economically upper-middle class parents aren’t convinced they want to substitute school activities for those they have paid for.

Q: How about funding?

A: In Massachusetts, it costs about 15% more money to get about 30% more time. Policymakers are looking for innovations that really work. We also think there’s public support for those -- as opposed to simply more funding without a clear mandate.

Sheila Riley is a San Francisco-based freelance journalist. She is also an experienced online editor and ESL curriculum developer, and teaches ESL at City College of San Francisco.

^{POSTED ON HOTCHALK.COM} 

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed