Form 1 21st CCLC State Coordinator Interview Protocol

21^st CCLC State Coordinator Interview

Interviewer – review the state’s RFP (if available), website, and any other available sources to prefill information whenever possible. Customize the protocol to reflect the state’s stage in their RFP process—whether, for example, they have released their RFP, reviewed applications, or awarded grants. Only ask questions for which we lack information or need to verify our understanding.

Interviewer:

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me about your state’s use of the ESEA flexibility waiver to support Expanded Learning Time (ELT) programs with 21^st Century Community Learning Center (21^st CCLC) funds. In preparation for this discussion, we have reviewed your state’s ESEA flexibility request, the 21^st Century Community Learning Centers (21^st CCLC) website, and (if available) your most recent Request for Proposals (RFP) for 21^st CCLC, as well as XXX that you indicated we should review in preparation for this call. We’ve tried to gather as much information as possible from these documents so that we can keep the length of this interview to a minimum. This interview should take about an hour, and will help us to understand how ELT is being implemented with 21^st CCLC funds in waiver states around the country. We also hope that the interview will help us better understand the process states use to support the districts that will be implementing ELT. The information collected through this interview and the interviews with other state coordinators will be synthesized in a report that will provide all 21^st CCLC state coordinators and the U.S. Department of Education with valuable information to help them design and implement high-quality ELT programs around the country.

Your participation is voluntary and you can end your participation at any time. With your approval, I will be recording our interview for transcription and analysis. I’ll be asking questions about why your state decided to use 21^st CCLC funds to support ELT, the structure of your 21^st CCLC competition, any required elements or components of ELT your state requires or gives preference, and how you will monitor ELT activities. Is it OK for us to record this conversation?

Do you have any questions before we begin? … Okay, let’s get started.

Background

First we’d like to know a bit of background on ELT in your state.

1. We would like to find out if your state has or is working towards an explicit goal to create or expand ELT. Did your State have an ELT initiative in place or have plans for such an initiative before submitting the waiver request? Or did your State want to provide flexibility to districts so if they were/are already interested in developing an ELT program they could do so?

If there was an existing ELT initiative: Please tell us about your existing ELT initiative.

• How will your existing ELT initiative be coordinated or integrated with the ELT efforts implemented using the 21^st CCLC flexibility?

• What, if any, information and outreach are in place to promote use of 21^st CCLC to support ELT?

21^st CCLC Competition Plans for FY 2013

Next, we’d like to find out some additional details about your competition for 21^st CCLC this year – specifically its structure, funding, and supports you provided (or will provide) to applicants prior to the deadline.

2. (For states that have not released their RFPs). First, when will you release your Request for Proposals (RFP) to the public?

3. Can you explain how your competition was (or will be) structured with respect to ELT? For example, did you (or will you) operate a separate grant competition for ELT? Probe: If separate competitions – how much funding was allocated for each competition? If one competition, any guidelines on how much of the total could support ELT programs? Are there any funding caps for ELT? Are there any incentives in the competition for proposals that involve ELT? Did you decide not to fund ELT initiatives at this time, and if so, why?

4. Why did you structure the competition in that manner? What alternatives did you consider?

5. Did (or will) your competition coordinate with other federal programs (e.g., SIG) to coordinate support for ELT in schools with the greatest needs?

6. Did you (will you) provide guidance on how 21^st CCLC funds may or may not be used to support ELT? What was the rationale for this guidance? Probe: Could funds support classroom teachers’ salaries? …textbooks? Does a portion of the funds have to be allocated to support community-based organization (CBO) staff involvement?

7. During the RFP process what guidance did you receive from ED related to incorporating the ELT option in your 21^st CCLC competition? Probe: What additional guidance would have been helpful?

8. During your application process, did you receive any feedback, positive or negative, from traditional 21^st CCLC recipients that offer before-school, after-school, or summer programs, or those who advocate for them, about setting aside or using funds for ELT?

9. How would you describe the alignment of the State’s goals for the use of ELT with what 21^st CCLC sub-grantees are currently doing?

10. Did your state (or will your state) provide technical assistance or support to applicants prior to the application deadline? What was (or will be) the nature of this assistance? Was the technical assistance provided specifically about ELT? Probes: Did you (will you) offer an applicants’ conference to describe ELT options or to offer guidance on ELT in areas such as negotiating union issues, revising the school schedule, working with CBOs, or how applicants may search for other sources of funding to support ELT?

11. Do you plan to offer grantees any technical assistance or support after the competition? If yes, what supports will be available for implementation of ELT? Probes: revising the school schedule, working with CBOs, or how applicants may search for other sources of funding to support ELT, etc?

Features of Expanded Learning Time

Now we’d like to learn a bit more about the features of ELT as supported with 21^st CCLC funds in your state, including how you describe some of the key components, how you addressed community partnerships, and what you anticipate are some of the key challenges.

12. Definition of ELT

    1. (For states that have released their RFP) Based on your RFP, it appears that you defined/described high-quality ELT as XXXXX for the purpose of the competition. Do you have anything to add to that definition/description? What parameters or features (if any) did you suggest or require of districts interested in implementing ELT?

    2. (For states that have not released their RFP) How might you define or describe high-quality ELT for the purposes of the competition in your RFP? What parameters or features (if any) will you suggest or require of districts interested in implementing ELT?

    3. (For everyone – potential probes for ELT features, as appropriate). Did you (will you) provide guidance on or include requirements for:

       1. How instructional time should be expanded. Probe: For example, expand the school day, week, or year by a certain number of hours?

       2. How the additional time should be used. Probe: For example, to include enrichment activities, improve literacy, or career and college readiness, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), or to provide data-driven instruction or individualized instruction. Do you expect the introduction of ELT will lead to broader changes across the school day, and if so, how?

       3. Teachers’ activities. Probe: Is time for professional development or collaboration with other teachers or CBO staff required? Allowed?

       4. Participation. Probe: How will participating students and teachers be selected? Will the expanded time be mandatory for all students or just a specific group of students (e.g. a certain grade range, low-achieving students, high-needs students)? If not mandatory, is it encouraged for certain students? What about teachers? CBOs?

13. Thinking of the components we just spoke about, are there certain components of ELT that your state administration preferred (may prefer) in a district’s or school’s ELT plans, even if they were not explicitly required or articulated in the RFP? Probe: What features of ELT were viewed (may be viewed) most favorably if they appear in a district’s subgrant proposal?

14. One feature of a traditional 21^st CCLC program is partnerships with community-based organizations (CBOs) to staff the program or offer additional enrichment, cultural, or other opportunities for students. Did you (will you) provide any guidance for applicants on the role of CBOs within a 21^st CCLC program that includes ELT? Please explain.

15. What are the benefits or advantages associated with implementing ELT when the 21^st CCLC grantee is a non-LEA entity, such as a community-based organization (CBO) or faith-based organization (FBO)? What are the challenges? Interviewer: probe on benefits/advantages and challenges in terms of schools, teachers, students, and logistics (such as coordinating activities, funding).

16. Thinking of any aspects of planning for or implementing ELT, what do you think are the biggest challenges facing a grantee as they plan and implement ELT?

Information on Application and Award Dates

According to information we obtained previously, we believe that applications were (are) due XXX, and awards will be made (were made) by YYY. Is that correct?

Will all awards be announced at the same time and cover the same period? Probe: If not, ask about the timeline and award periods.

Information on Applicants (for states whose deadline for applications has passed)

We’d like to learn more about the status of applications.

17. What is the current status of the competition? Probe: Are you reviewing applications, or have you made awards?

18. (If appropriate) How many applicants applied for 21^st CCLC funds? How many applicants applied to use funds to support ELT? Probe (if applicable):

    1. Did those that applied for funds to support ELT request or receive technical assistance prior to the deadline for proposals? What types of TA did they tend to request? Probe: How did these requests differ from the TA that the state offers?

    2. How many districts/schools tended to be included in a typical application for funds to support ELT? How often (10%, 50%, etc) do the applications include a partnership with a CBO or FBO (faith-based organization)?

19. Did you receive feedback during the process that suggests why applicants did or did not apply for 21^st CCLC funds to support ELT?

Competition Results (for states that have completed their competitions and made awards)

We’d like to know what happened as a result of your competition.

20. Do you think that including ELT as an option for 21st CCLC funds this year worked well? Why or why not?  Probe for: separate competition or one competition, funding issues, issues with structuring or implementing ELT. Did they receive sufficient interest and/or applications? Did the use of 21^st CCLC for ELT reflect the broader state goals?

If did not award any subgrants to support ELT, ask following questions in general.

If did award subgrants to support ELT, ask following questions first only for subgrants that will not support ELT and again for subgrants that will support ELT.

21. How many subgrants were awarded?

22. On average, how many schools were covered by a subgrant?

23. How many schools, in total, were covered by the subgrant?

24. On average, what was the dollar value of these subgrants?

25. What was the total dollar value of these subgrants?

For States That Awarded a Subgrant to Support ELT

26. Can you describe the features of the ELT programs supported? Probe on the following as appropriate:

    1. How instructional time will be expanded. Probe: For example, expand the school day, week, or year by a certain number of hours?

    2. How the additional time will be used. Probe: For example, to include enrichment activities, improve literacy, or career and college readiness, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), or to provide data-driven instruction or individualized instruction.

    3. Teachers’ activities. Probe: Is there time for professional development or collaboration with other teachers or CBO staff? Are staff (or particular staff) required to attend? encouraged?

    4. Participation. Probe: Is the expanded time mandatory for all students? What about teachers? CBOs?

27. Have award winners requested technical assistance, and if so, in what areas? Probe: How does this differ from the technical assistance typically provided to awardees?

Accountability and Monitoring Activities

Last, we’d like to determine your next steps in terms of monitoring and accountability.

28. What is your process for ensuring that state-level ELT policies under 21^st CCLC are implemented effectively at the LEA level?

29. Is there a mechanism in place for collecting and incorporating data and other feedback from LEAs, schools, and ELT providers to monitor and improve ELT programming?

30. Tell us what steps you will take if your monitoring activities indicate that an ELT program is not being implemented as planned. What specific circumstances would trigger the state taking these measures?

31. Thinking ahead to three years from now, how does your state define success in implementing ELT with the 21^st CCLC flexibility? Is there anything else that is important about this program or your experience that we haven’t discussed?

***************************************************************************************

Thank you for your time to discuss the use of 21^st CCLC funds to support expanded learning time activities in your state. After these interviews are completed with all states, we will be providing the U.S. Department of Education with a report documenting our findings, with the intent that it be released to all states involved in the initiative.

4