Question 5:  What is complementary learning, and how do we get it organized?

          A short two-page description does not give a brief definition, but it does offer this:  Complementary learning is the idea that a systemic approach—which intentionally integrates both school and nonschool supports—can better ensure that all children have the skills they need to succeed.

          As for who all is involved in complementary learning, that document says:

A complementary learning approach provides and aligns these beneficial opportunities:

            • Effective schools

            • Supportive families and opportunities for family engagement

            • Early childhood programs

            • Out-of-school time activities (including sports, arts, and mentoring programs)

            • Health and social services

            • Community-based institutions (including community centers, faith-based institutions, museums, libraries, and partnerships with the business community)

            • Colleges and universities

Here is a Harvard graduate school of education web page with many descriptions of programs and ideas about complementary learning. 

 

Washington’s State Superintendent of Public Instruction issued this report on family involvement in education, a big piece of complementary learning. 

 

          This issue of Evaluation Exchange examines complementary learning. (here it is in html)  It was included in the binders given to participants at the Harvard achievement gap program.  Some things to note about the research on complementary learning (all page numbers are to the pdf version):  claims about improvement do not say how much improvement or are very tentative on the scope of benefits (p. 3, 5); the author says there is less research on the benefits of out-of-school-time projects than on process-oriented goals (p. 4);  the benefits being discussed are prospective and not yet demonstrated (p.7); one rather precise description of benefits described a group of students progressing from the bottom 1/6th of achievers to the bottom 1/3 of achievers (p. 9); other reports of progress emphasize that participants value the programs, but say nothing about closing the achievement gap(p. 13); one report of success noted “an environment of acceptance for the program within the school building” (!) (p.17); one program reports success at keeping students from sliding backwards, but do not know which program elements produce differences in student performances (p. 19); one interesting program does not report results with respect to closing the achievement gap (p. 22), but people connected with these web pages have contacted people in some of these programs, and will report results when we get them.  On page 25 of the document, there is a list of online guides that might be useful when it comes time to set up OST programs and keep track of results.