Extended schools and services – theory, practice and issues

The picture of Kingswood College, Hull (2012) is by BSFinHull. Sourced from Flickr and reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) licence.

Extended schools and services – theory, practice and issues. In an attempt to emulate full-service schooling initiatives in the USA an English scheme looked to develop extended schools providing a range of activities and services often beyond the school day, ‘to help meet the needs of its pupils, their families and the wider community’. We explore the reality – the theory and practice – and the issues around extended schooling and services.

Contents: introduction · full-service schooling · the development of extended schools · extended schools – developments · extended schools – some issues · from extended schools to extended services ·  conclusion · bibliography · links · how to cite this article

The idea of extended schooling and extended services has its immediate roots in the development of full-service schooling initiatives in the United States. The establishment of the new community school initiative in Scotland (1999) was the first major implementation of the approach in the UK. In Wales, the idea of community-focused schools has been used to explore similar provision. However, the idea of centring the provision of different services on school sites is hardly new. Since the nineteenth century there have been various examples of schools offering medical and welfare services alongside their more traditional activities (see community schooling). In this article we briefly examine idea of full-service schooling before reviewing the current theory and practice with regard to extended schools in England. We look at some of the implications of extended schools for informal educators and some of the issues around the development of community education.

Full-service schooling

Elements of what now passes for full-service schooling have been a part of practice in the USA for a number of years. A range of activities has taken place within schools in addition to the usual teaching. Over the last century these have included community use, the provision of welfare facilities (around health and cleanliness), support services in the form of school counsellors, and various sports and youth activities. One of the expressions of this has been the community school movement – perhaps the best known historical example being the approaches developed in Flint, Michigan in the mid-1930s. This movement grew in significant part out of the need to extend educational and recreational opportunities to adults and young people in local communities. In contrast, the recent interest in ‘full-service’ schooling has its origins in more remedial or meliorative concerns – and this is what has been largely translated into extended schools in England. The focus has been on the provision of health and social care services.

Joy Dryfoos, one of the key architects of, and commentators on, full-service schooling in the United States has argued that the basic original concept was that of the school-based health and social services centre. It entails ‘space set aside in a school building where services are brought in by outside community agencies in conjunction with school personnel’ (1994: 142). They are to be ‘one stop, collaborative institutions’ (ibid.: 13). For the Florida Department of Education:

A full-service school integrates education, medical, social and/or human services that are beneficial to meeting the needs of children and youth and their families on school grounds or in locations which are easily accessible. A full-service school provides the types of prevention, treatment, and support services children and families need to succeed.. . services that are high quality and comprehensive and are built on interagency partnerships which have evolved from cooperative ventures to intensive collaborative arrangements among state and local and public and private entities. (Quoted in Dryfoos 1994: 142)

What elements should be present? Here Dryfoos (1994: 13) argues for a package of interventions that include both ‘quality education’ and support services.

Quality Education Provided by School:Effective basic skillsIndividualized instruction

Team teaching

Co-operative learning

School-based management

Healthy school climate

Alternatives to tracking

Parent involvement

Effective discipline


Provided by Schools or Community Agencies:

Comprehensive health education

Health promotion

Preparation for the world of work (life planning)

Support Services Provided by Community Agencies:
Health screening and servicesDental servicesFamily planning

Individual counselling

Substance abuse treatment

Mental health services

Nutrition/weight management

Referral with follow-up

Basic services: housing, food, clothes

Recreation, sports, culture


Family welfare services

Parent education, literacy

Child care

Employment training/jobs

Case management

Crisis intervention

Community policing

Only a few schools come close to this model and it is necessary to distinguish between full-service schools and school-based or school-linked services. ‘The former puts everything – education and human services – together in a unified institution…. [The latter] is less restrictive. The idea is to add or to enrich what is offered on in the school building, but not necessarily to impact what goes on in the classroom’ (Dryfoos 1998: 2).

In more recent years there have been attempts to bring the notion of the full-service school more into the mainstream (see, for example, Dryfoos and Macguire 2002; Kronick 2002). Part of the argument made is that the first, experimental “full-service schools” have evolved into highly successful full-service community schools.

The development of extended schools

In England, policies on extended schools date back to a Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) report in 1998. This report showed significantly lower pupil attainment in disadvantaged communities. The emergence of new community schools in Scotland drawing upon the full-service model also drew DfES attention to the possibilities of what became described as ‘extended schooling’. Starting in 2002, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) began to actively promote the concept of ‘extended schools’. They did this initially through some demonstration projects and then by sponsoring twenty five local education authorities (LEAs) to develop extended schools pathfinder projects. Each project was free to determine the focus of its work, though particular encouragement was offered to initiatives that would lead to:

  • schools that are open to pupils, families and the wider community during and beyond the school day, before and after school hours, at weekends and during school holidays;
  • activities aimed particularly at vulnerable groups, in areas of deprivation and/or where services are limited;
  • the promotion of community cohesion by building links between schools and the wider community;
  • the provision of services to communities;
  • a contribution to neighbourhood renewal; and
  • a positive effect on educational standards.

Not unexpectedly, the original research found that there was little agreement on what constituted an ‘extended school’. As Alan Dyson, Alan Millward & Liz Todd (2002) reported

This lack of clarity tends to generate a range of activities that have different aims and rationales. These can be characterised in terms of two dimensions: whether their focus is on students or the community; and whether they aim to enrich a functional situation or intervene in identified problems. This in turn has implications for how community ‘needs’ are identified, with communities perceived to be disadvantaged being more likely to have their needs defined in terms of deficits by professionals. Some correctives in terms of meaningful community consultation are needed in these situations – and there is evidence that such consultation is possible.

When the researchers came to evaluate the pathfinder projects (Cummings, Todd, and Dyson 2004) they found that most projects built upon previous work in this field and continued their work, using other sources of funding, after the formal end date.

Many activities were targeted at pupils and were focused directly or indirectly on learning. Overall, the commonest activities included breakfast clubs, after school and holiday activities for pupils, family learning, adult education, childcare and community use of school facilities. The ‘full-service’ school in which community services are located on the school site was less common, though many schools were working towards this.

They were not able identify distinct ‘models’ of extended school approaches. However, they did see an emerging understanding of the task of extended schools. They defined the task in the following terms: ‘An extended school maximises the curricular learning of its pupils by promoting their overall development and by ensuring that the family and community contexts within which they live are as supportive of learning as possible’ (op. cit.).

 Evaluation of the Extended Schools Pathfinder Projects – conclusions

The evaluation leads to a number of overall conclusions:

    • There is good reason to believe that extended schools have important positive effects and represent a good return on a relatively low level of additional funding. In order to determine their long-term effects, however, a longitudinal and wider-ranging evaluation strategy than has been possible here is needed
    • Where extended schools are more ambitious in terms of their aims, it is important that they develop dedicated leadership structures. The role of the co-ordinator is important not only in terms of attracting and co-ordinating funding but also to reduce the management burden on existing leadership teams.
    • Many projects have found that the development of extended schools is an important catalyst for enhancing collaboration between education and other agencies. The key to developing partnerships seems to be a careful and sustained process of trust-building where partners seek to understand each other’s aims, priorities and working methods. This is difficult given the pressures under which all agencies are working, so it is important that the process is given ample time and develops through a series of progressively more ambitious initiatives.
    • Although the point of delivery for activities is the school, local authorities have a key role to play in enabling extended schools to develop. They can give a lead in encouraging schools down this route, help plan local strategies within which the work of schools is embedded, network schools with other schools and agencies, link schools to communities, provide specialist expertise and advice, give a lead on the management of funding and assist schools with the evaluation of their work. Some authorities have appointed co-ordinators to lead this work, others ask existing officers to take a lead, others again see the development of extended schools as part of wider initiatives such as the development of integrated children’s and families’ departments. There are clear implications for the way the role of the LEA is currently defined.
    • It is particularly important that extended schools do not fall into the trap of imposing professional views of what is ‘needed’ on the communities they serve. Genuine community consultation and participation are necessary but as this is difficult to achieve, many schools find it helpful to work with partners who are more experienced in this field.
    • The experience of these projects suggests that in some cases it may be sensible to plan for a significant lead-in time before delivery can begin. This is particularly the case if schools have not previously been involved in extended activities or if major new initiatives are planned.
    • As extended school approaches become more widespread and ambitious, viewing them as time-limited and additionally-funded ‘projects’ may become less effective. It may be more productive to see extended activities as central to the role of every school (albeit to varying degrees) and a different funding model may need to be found to reflect this new understanding. In this case, there is the possibility of a real development in the way in which schools relate to their communities and set about educating their pupils.

Cummings, C, Todd, L and Dyson, A (2004) Evaluation of the Extended Schools Pathfinder Projects, London: Department for Education and Skills.


A NFER audit (that collated information on some 160 schools) did identify five main types or ‘arenas’ of provision operating within the concept of the extended school. These were:

  1. additional schooling provision offering curriculum and leisure opportunities to pupils beyond the traditional school timetable
  2. community provision offering learning and leisure opportunities or general community facilities (e.g. drop-in or advice centres)
  3. early years provision, such as crèches or pre-school facilities
  4. family and parent provision involving support relating to their child’s learning or to a more general parenting or family role
  5. other agency provision (e.g. from health, youth or social services) and specialist provision, offering high-calibre facilities in areas such as sports, arts, information technology or business. (Wilkin et al 2003)

Their audit of extended schooling provision also showed great variety amongst schools in the range of activity and investment in them. Like Cummings et. al.suggested that there was some evidence that extended schools raised pupil attainment and attendance, and improved behaviour. A later Ofsted survey of 20 settings in 2006 echoed this. It found that the major benefits to children, young people and adults were ‘enhanced self-confidence, improved relationships, raised aspirations and better attitudes to learning.

From this we can see three, crude paradigms of ‘extended schooling’. The first approximates to [1] and possibly [2] above: developing extended activities i.e. activities that are valuable for pupils, parents or communities. A second broad model could be described as developing an extended school – a more ‘coherent and sustained approach to underlying issues, such as pupil attainment and motivation, family support for and community attitudes to learning’ {DfES 2003a). This would also involve elements such as [3] and [4] above. The third model might be described as a ‘full-service extended school’ as part of a wider strategy and might well involve the multi-agency work of [5]. This sort of division is reflected in the government strategy for education (DfES 2004c) (see below).

Extended schools – developments

Following on from the pathfinder projects, and particularly as part of the strategy around Every Child Matters (DfES 2003b; 2004b), primary schooling (Excellence and Enjoyment – DfES 2003a) and the Children Act (2004) the Government has looked to the extended schooling as a key expression of the ‘joined-up’ work of Children’s Trusts. Catherine Ashton, the then Minister for Extended and Inclusive Schools, argued that every school should become an extended school. She made the case as follows:

I want to encourage every school to provide extended services and we have changed the law to make it easier for them to do this. We are also providing guidance, support and funding for every LEA to help all their schools to develop the services most needed by their community.

Extended services in schools can help improve pupil attainment, behaviour and motivation. They can help provide out of school study support to improve pupils’ learning. Engaging pupils in new cultural and sporting activities has a knock-on impact on motivation.

Joined up services provide children and families with better access to a range of health and social services, when and where they need them. Schools are an obvious point for the delivery of childcare – both before and after school.

Parents become more involved in schools that provide extended services, which helps them support their children’s learning. Schools providing services needed by local people become the focus of the local community and boost community pride and involvement. (Ashton 2004)

The desire that all schools become extended schools became part of the governmentStrategy for Education (DfES 2004c). It asserted that ‘Extended Schools – both primary and secondary – will increasingly act as hubs for community services, including children’s services’.

The Strategy document was followed in 2005 bya DfES ‘prospectus’: Extended schooling: Access to opportunities and services to all. It made the commitment that by 2010 all children ‘should have access to a variety of activities beyond the school day’ (ibid.: 4). Extended schools were defined as schools that ‘provide a range of services and activities, often beyond the school day, to help meet the needs of children, their families and the wider community’ (DfES 2005: 7). The English government wanted ‘all schools and children and families to be able to access a core of extended services which are developed in partnership with others’.

Extended Schools – core services

The core offer for mainstream and special schools is:
  • high quality ‘wraparound’ childcare provided on the school site or through other local providers, with supervised transfer arrangements where appropriate, available 8am–6pm all year round
  • a varied menu of activities to be on offer such as homework clubs and study support, sport (at least two hours a week beyond the school day for those who want it), music tuition, dance and drama, arts and crafts, special interest clubs such as chess and first aid courses, visits to museums and galleries, learning a foreign language, volunteering, business and enterprise activities
  • parenting support including information sessions for parents at key transition points, parenting programmes run with the support of other children’s services and family learning sessions to allow children to learn with their parents
  • swift and easy referral to a wide range of specialist support services such as speech therapy, child and adolescent mental health services, family support services, intensive behaviour support, and (for young people) sexual health services. Some may be delivered on school sites
  • providing wider community access to ICT, sports and arts facilities, including adult learning

Schools will want to work closely with parents to shape these activities around the needs of their community and may choose to provide extra services in response to parental demand. The core offer ensures that all children and parents have access to a minimum of services and activities. ‘Extended School’ is not a status that schools centrally apply for as there is no blueprint for the types of activities that schools might offer.

How these services look and are delivered in or through a particular school will vary. Children with disabilities or special educational needs must be able to access all the new services. Schools will want to actively seek parental feedback and feedback from the wider community to review and improve their services.

Some of these services such as health and social care will be provided free of charge. These sorts of services will need to be funded often by local authorities and their children’s trust partners such as Primary Care Trusts. But for other services, such as childcare, charges will need to be made. Schools or the partners that they are working with will need to devise charging regimes that cover the costs of the services but that are affordable for working parents. The childcare element of the Working Tax Credit provides support for low income parents in meeting childcare costs.

Department for Education and Skills (2005) Extended schools: Access to opportunities and services for all. A prospectus, London: Department for Education and Skills, page 8.


Just how all this translates into action and funding is a matter for some speculation. The prospectus gives the following targets:

  • by 2010 all parents of primary-age children will be able to access affordable childcare at or through their school from 8am to 6pm, all year round. This will be available in at least half of all primary schools by 2008. The childcare could be based in their child’s primary school, at a nearby school or on a different site provided in partnership with private or voluntary sector providers (including childminders), with supervised travel arrangements to and from the provision
  • by 2010 all secondary schools will be open from 8am to 6pm all year round, providing access to a range of activities for young people such as music, sport and holiday activities. At least a third of secondary schools should be making this offer available by 2008
  • by 2010 all three and four year olds will receive 15 hours of free integrated early learning and care for 38 weeks of the year (increasing from the current 12.5 hours). Parents will have flexibility to use the free entitlement over a minimum of three days and to purchase additional hours

The provision of core services is heavily dependent on workforce remodelling and on working in partnership with a range of other agencies, the private sector and voluntary organizations. It is also dependent on head teachers thinking rather differently about their facilities and the nature of schooling (see Ofsted 2006). The heavy emphasis on childcare and voluntarily chosen varied activity (including much that is properly ‘extra-curricular’) within extended schools demands expertise, an orientation and resources that have not been particularly valued within English schooling over the last twenty years. The final evaluation report on the Programme (Cummings et. al. 2007: 3) concluded:

The FSES [full service extended schools] approach was impacting positively on pupils’ attainments in case study schools… These impacts were clearest in the case of pupils facing difficulties. FSESs were having a range of other impacts on outcomes for pupils, including engagement with learning, family stability and enhanced life chances. In the case of children facing difficulties, these outcomes were often closely related.

FSESs were also generating positive outcomes for families and local people particularly where they were facing difficulties. Impacts were less strong in relation to local communities as a whole, but positive outcomes for some groups and individuals could nonetheless be identified. Though large-scale effects were not yet evident…

The cost benefit analysis suggested that both the costs and benefits of FSES approaches were high. However, since benefits balanced or outweighed costs, and since they accrued particularly to children and families facing the greatest difficulties, FSES approaches represented a good investment.

The FSES approach was commonly associated with improved school performance, better relations with local communities and an enhanced standing of the school in its area, though it is likely that other factors were also contributing to these outcomes.

Following on from the extended schools initiative in England, the Northern Ireland Department of Education’s (DE) Extended Schools programme was created to provide ‘additional financial support to eligible schools to improve the life chances of children and young people particularly from deprived areas’ (nidirect undated). It began in 2006 and ‘aims to improve levels of educational achievement and the longer term life chances of disadvantaged children and young people by providing the necessary additional support which can enable those children to reach their full potential’ (NI Department of Education 2014). The Programme made just £12 million available to nearly 500 schools in 2014/15.

Some issues – extended schools and informal and community education

In this section we want to highlight some of the key problems arising for informal and community educators. As a result we do not look directly at some of the other issues around extended schooling. In particular, extended schools do pose special problems of management (which we touch on in our discussion of collaborative working). The basic question here is whether school management systems handle the the range of services to be offered. There are further questions arising out of the broad range of provision that falls under the title of ‘extended schooling. For example, the actual number of what the government terms ‘full-service extended schools’ is relatively small (a target of one per local authority). There is, thus, always the risk that such extended schools will be seen as schools for problem families and stigmatized. However, here we want to focus on five key areas of tension for informal and community educators.

The problem of community

One of the striking features of the research undertaken by Cummings et. al. (2004) into extended schooling was just how focused schools remained on outcomes in their individual students. It will be remembered that the researchers framed what they found to be a common understanding of task: ‘An extended school maximises the curricular learning of its pupils by promoting their overall development and by ensuring that the family and community contexts within which they live are as supportive of learning as possible’ (op. cit.). Extended schools may be sites for some forms of intervention around norms, activities and organization within communities, but they fall a long way short of the classic concerns of community education and learning (see, for example, the contrast between this position and that taken by the Scottish Executive in Working and learning together to build stronger communities. That document talked about community learning and development in the following terms: ‘We define this as informal learning and social development work with individuals and groups in their communities. The aim of this work is to strengthen communities by improving people’s knowledge, skills and confidence, organisational ability and resources’). As Henry Morris found with regard to village colleges, and other innovators around urban community schools there are deep and strong forces that pull schools back from a full engagement with their surrounding communities. It would take a fundamental reordering of the schooling system and of the orientation of teachers and policymakers for things to change.

A further, crucial factor that now acts against making schools the sites for community development and learning is the extent to which they have become disconnected with local communities and neighbourhoods as a result of government policies. While many primary schools have retained a reasonably local student population, the same cannot be said of secondary schools. In this sector there has been large scale movement away from the idea that schools should serve particular neighbourhoods. In significant part this has arisen out of an emphasis upon what has become known as ‘parental choice’ on the part of successive governments. (In reality for the more popular schools a more accurate title is ‘school choice’). A further factor has been the development of specialist schools, technology colleges and the like. This has led to a far greater likelihood of students travelling some distance to their secondary school. The overall result, when combined with the impact of business thinking and increased local management in schools, has been a significant turning away from the engagement with local communities and groups toward a more individualized and consumerist relationship with parents.

Deficit/medical model

As researchers such as Dyson et. al. (2002) have noted, school managements and teachers can easily slip into deficit notions of local communities and of their students. Within current government policies, and more broadly in the discourse of full-service schooling there is a tendency to focus upon the behaviour of individuals. Action is, thus, taken to try to prevent them engaging in high-risk activities or upon treating their illnesses or troubles. The has been a tendency to adopt what might be described as a deficit or medical model of working. (Full-service schooling, after all, developed out of a concern to increase medical and social work provision on school sites). The problem is that what are in effect deeply political or public issues get treated at the level of private troubles. There is a danger of pathologizing people. This is not to argue against the provision of support services, simply to say that they need to be balanced by work that attends to the public issue. In this case we need to look at the impact of poverty and the widening gap between rich and poor; of racism and political exclusion on the lives of children, young people, their families and their local communities. There has not been great talk of this in terms of the ‘quality education’ on offer, nor has there been attention to approaches that look to community organization and mobilization. In many respects this is a rerun of a tension that runs through many initiatives – but this does not undermine its importance.

Collaborative working

Where schools enter into a fuller extended schooling model their staff have to learn to work in different ways, and to accommodate the requirements of other professionals more strongly (as is the case in full-service schooling). Schools have tended to be little fiefdoms, isolated to a significant extent from the direct interventions of other professionals outside the schooling system. Where schools have had to work with other agencies their relative size, statutory nature and high degree of control over what happens within their walls have often made them difficult partners. Things have tended to be done on their terms or not at all. Collaboration in community education initiatives has often been possible in the past because they were relatively insulated from what principals and heads saw as the ‘main’ activities of the school. Where work comes closer, for example, around some of the activities of youth workers on school sites, relationships have tended to become more strained (seeinformal educators in schools). In Scotland the impact new community school policies has been to insist upon collaboration – often on the school site – and this has shifted the balance a little away from principals and heads. They now need the co-operation of other professionals in order to reach the standards or performance by which their schools are judged. Just how the extended schooling model develops in England is a matter of some speculation. Certainly there has been a tendency for heads in a number of schools to insist on the new cadre of workers, assistants and mentors being responsible to them rather than to some outside agency. However, when it comes to managing medical and child protection staff they are far more likely to leave management to others.

A further factor in the English setting is the ‘remodelling’ of the school workforce (with the avowed aim of ‘freeing teachers to teach’). An Association of Teachers and Lecturers briefing (2004) has highlighted the possible impact of extended schooling upon teaching. Teachers’ role could be extended, for example, where they take responsibility for activities or services (e.g. around childcare); or where they are the ‘lead professional’ ‘who guides and supports children and families through the services provided’. On the other hand there could be a significant curtailment of influence. It could be that teachers effectively become more focussed on the planning and ‘delivery’ of the curriculum, ‘while others provide pastoral care and support, or managing those who provide that support for children’s needs’. Both extension and curtailment are likely to happen as schools find different solutions to the issues they face.

The DfES (2005b) prospectus talks of involving children and parents and of parents helping in planning, running and evaluating activities. What is absent is any sustained consideration of the role of community groups and youth movements such as the guides and scouts.

Achievement versus welfare

There is an important and unresolved tension in Government proposals around Children’s Trusts and in the plans for extended schools – the relative emphasis on achievement as against welfare. Within schools there has been little contest over the decade or so – the primary concern is with achievement as measured in SATS scores and public examination success, and by attendance etc. Welfare has taken a second place – interest in it has been sparked, by and large, by any possible contribution to ‘raising educational achievement’. Informal educators in schools such as learning mentors and youth workers have been well aware of this tension. Many of the students they work with have fallen foul of the push to achievement. Furthermore, the underlying philosophy of informal education has prized happiness and flourishing as central – and this has sometimes brought them into conflict with school policies and practices. With the rise of Children’s Trusts, and an increased role for social work in extended schooling, there could be increased pressure for more attention to be given to student welfare. A further dynamic comes from the extent to which the testing, standards and outcome ‘movement’, which has come to dominate the discourse of schooling over the last decade or so has reached its peak and is on the decline. Extended schooling could prove to be a milestone in this respect.


It is quite clear that the amount of money initially announced (£680 million for 2005-8, of which £250 million will go directly to schools and £430 million to local authorities) is not enough to cover anything like the expansion required, nor will it continue at this level post 2008. The Prospectus explicitly encourages schools to charge parents for the childcare and other activities they provide (DfES 2005b: 27). While it is possible for parents to apply for the childcare element of the Working Tax Credit – it is not apparent what sort of other activity elements can be included. Whatever the outcome here it is clear is that extended schools will be developing a significant charging regime. Furthermore, for schools in areas of significant deprivation – where people do not have the money to pay for additional services – we may well find that it is only certain groups that have the resources to access activities.

From extended schools to extended services

The English department concerned with education shifted its language from extended schools to extended services from around 2006/7. As Carpenter et. al. (2012: 1) comment, extended services in schools were seen as ‘one of the key delivery mechanisms of the Every Child Matters Agenda’ The ‘core offer’ was to be

  • A varied menu of activities
  • Childcare 8am – 6pm 48 weeks per year for primary schools
  • Parenting support including family learning
  • Swift and easy access to targeted and specialist support services
  • Community access to school facilities.

Their research also found the following level of provision at the end of 2011:

Two thirds of schools were offering all five elements of the full core offer (childcare from 8am to 6pm; a varied menu of activities; parenting support; community access to facilities; and swift and easy access to specialist support), and the remaining third were offering some elements. With the exception of community access to school facilities, at least nine in ten schools were offering each of the elements of the core offer. Secondary schools were more likely than primary or special schools to be offering the full core offer.

Where schools were offering services on the school site, many were also signposting to services elsewhere suggesting pupils and their families had a choice of locations where they could take up extended services.

Almost all schools offered activities or childcare straight after school, but around eight in ten offered activities or childcare before school and in the holidays, and six in ten offered activities in the evenings after 6pm. On average, schools were offering 14 different activities each week during term time.

Three-quarters of schools or more offered family-wide activities, support for parents, and adult learning opportunities.

Two thirds of schools were opening at least one of their facilities for community access, most commonly halls, rooms or spaces, sports facilities, and playgrounds and play areas.

They also made some judgements about impact:

Respondents to the survey of schools generally had very positive views on how extended services had helped the school to engage with pupils and families, but a third agreed that they still struggled to engage disadvantaged pupils and families in extended schools activities. Views were also generally positive on how extended services had helped schools to form or improve links with the community, with neighbouring schools, and with other agencies and providers of community services.

At least seven in ten schools had seen greater parent and pupil engagement in learning and greater pupil enjoyment of school as a result of extended services, but fewer schools had observed improvements in attendance or reductions in behaviour problems or exclusions. In two thirds of schools the development of extended services had had at least some influence in raising attainment….

Despite all the positive views of schools, over six in ten schools agreed that offering extended services places a significant burden on schools. Cluster working tends to have a positive effect in both making schools more likely to form or improve links with the community, with neighbouring schools, and with other agencies and providers of community services, and in reducing the burden of delivering extended services on individual schools.

Over half of pupils and parents thought their (child?s) enjoyment of school in general had increased since they started participating in activities. Over half of pupils also thought their had been a positive impact on the marks they receive for their schoolwork, and more than half of parents thought their child?s language communication and socialising skills had improved. Three quarters of pupils agreed that taking part in activities helped them to get along better with other pupils, and around a third agreed it helped them get along better with their family.(op. cit.: 5-6).

One of the key problems arising is that of cost – cost to central government, to schools (and the calls this makes on other budgets) and, crucially, to families. Carpenter et. al. (2012: 158) concluded that it appeared, ‘the costs of activities are still a barrier to pupils taking part, particularly pupils from economically disadvantaged backgrounds’.


The emergence of extended schools and extended services, taken together with the development of Children’s Trusts in England could have had very significant implications for for the development of practice in schools. Not unexpectedly, given the austerity programme pursued by the government since 2010, a lack of resources is hurting developments in this area at a time where there is growing poverty and widening inequality in society (o’Hara 2014). That said, the continuing general failure of children’s services to offer timely responses to schools’ requests for early intervention with children and families they judge to be facing significant problems has meant that many schools have looked to take on this work themselves – employing specialist support workers, pedagogues and educators to work with children and families around issues.  This is throwing up a another range of issues – most notably the ability of teachers and senior managers to work with, and recognize the contribution and worth of, other professional groupings. Schools remain relatively closed institutions and only a few teachers (notably those with inclusion or special educational needs responsibilities) are used to working in multi-professional teams or systems. Further progress will hentail a major shift in the culture and orientation of teachers and senior leadership teams. They will need to develop a much better understanding of the limits of their expertise and of the contribution that others can make.


Ashton, A. (2004) ‘More schools providing community services’, Department for Education and Skills Press Notice, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2004_0110.

Association of Teachers and Lecturers (2004) Extended Schools – Position Statement, London: Association of Teachers and Lecturers.http://www.askatl.org.uk/atl_en/images/PS%2Eextendedschools_tcm2-4695.pdf.

Carpenter, H. et. al. (2012). Extended Services Evaluation: End of Year One Report. London: Department for Education. [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extended-services-evaluation-end-of-year-1-report. Retrieved July 11, 2014].

Dyson, A., Millward, A. and Todd, L. (2002) A Study of ‘Extended Schools Demonstration Projects’, London: Department for Education and Skills.http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RB381.doc

Cummings, C, Todd, L and Dyson, A (2003) Extended schools pathfinder evaluation: issues for schools and local education authorities, DfES research brief, London: Department for Education and Skills.http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RBX18-03.doc

Cummings, C, Todd, L and Dyson, A (2004) Evaluation of the Extended Schools Pathfinder Projects, London: Department for Education and Skills.http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR530.pdf

Cummings, C. et. al. (2007). Evaluation of the Full Service Extended Schools Initiative: Final Report. London: Department for Education and Skills. [http://www.smithmartinpartnership.com/downloads/ExrtendSchoolEval.pdf. Retrieved: July 11, 2014].

Department for Education and Employment (1998) Bringing Britain Together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, London: Department for Education and Employment

Department for Education and Employment (1999) Schools Plus: Building Learning Communities, London: Department for Education and Employment.

Department for Education and Skills (2001) Schools: Achieving Success, London: Department for Education and Skills.

Department for Education and Skills (2002) Extended Schools: providing opportunities and services for all, London: Department for Education and Skills.

Department for Education and Skills (2003a) Excellence and Enjoyment, London: Department for Education and Skills.

Department for Education and Skills (2003b) Every Child Matters, London: Department for Education and Skills.

Department for Education and Skills (2004a) Building Schools for the future: a new approach to capital investment, London: Department for Education and Skills.

Department for Education and Skills (2004b) Every Child Matters: Next Steps, London: Department for Education and Skills.

Department for Education and Skills (2004c) Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, London: Department for Education and Skills.

Department for Education and Skills (2005a) Children’s Workforce Strategy. A strategy to build a world-class workforce for children and young people, London: Department for Education and Skills.http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/5958-DfES-ECM.pdf

Department for Education and Skills (2005b) Extended schools: Access to opportunities and services for all. A prospectus, London: Department for Education and Skills. http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=8509

Dryfoos, J. (1994) Full-Service Schools. A revolution in health and social services for children, youth and families, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1998) A Look at Community Schools in 1998, New York: National Center for Schools and Communities.

Dryfoos, J. G. and Maguire, S. (2002) Inside Full-Service Community Schools,Corwin Press.

Halpin, D. (2003) ‘Hope, utopianism and educational renewal’, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/hope.htm.

Kronick, R. F. (2002) Full Service Schools: A Place for Our Children and Families to Learn and Be Healthy, C. C. Thomas. 149 pages.

NI Department of Education (2014). Extended Schools Programme. [http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/curriculum-and-learningt-new/standards-and-school-improvements/extended-schools-programme.htm. Retrieved: July 11, 2014].

NIDirect (undated). Extended schools. [http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/extended-schools. Retrieved: July 11, 2014].

Ofsted (2006). Extended services in schools and children’s centres. London: Ofsted. [http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/extended-services-schools-and-childrens-centres. Retrieved: July 11, 2014].

O’Hara, M. (2014). Austerity Bites. Bristol: Policy Press.

Oxfam (2014). A tale of two Britains: Inequality in the UK. Oxford: Oxfam.

Wilkin, A. et.al. (2003) Towards the Development of Extended Schools, NFER.http://www.nfer.ac.uk/htmldocs/Outcome_DFS.doc.

Welsh Assembly Government/Learning Wales (2003) Community Focused Schools consultation paper,http://www.wales.gov.uk/subieducationtraining/content/Consultation/cfs-e.pdf.


Teachernet on extended schooling:http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/extendedschools/

Acknowledgement: The picture of Kingswood College, Hull (2012) is by  BSFinHull. Sourced from Flickr and reproduced under a Creative Commons  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) licence. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bsfinhull/8356778195/

How to cite this article: Smith, M. K. (2004, 2005, 2014) Extended schools and services – theory, practice and issues’, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal educationhttps://infed.org/mobi/extended-schools-and-service-theory-practice-and-issues/. Note: this article uses some material from Smith, M. K. (2000, 2004) ‘Full-service schooling’, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education, http://www.infed.org/schooling/f-serv.htm.

© Mark K. Smith 2004, 2005, 2014

Last Updated on October 19, 2019 by infed.org