Equity in Practice? Exploring the Design and Conceptualisation of the Extended School-Day Policies in Latin America

The Extended School Day policy is a flagship initiative in Latin America. However, limited research has explored how this policy is conceptualised and the extent to which the values inform it of equity and equality. This study addresses this gap by examining the key features of extended school day policies, with a particular focus on the challenges and inconsistencies in their design. To this end, I employed the practical argumentation framework developed by Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) to analyse policy documents from nine Latin American countries. Findings indicate two primary types of policy objectives: academic-centric and holistic. The analysis of these nine countries revealed commonalities, such as extended schooling hours, alongside notable variations in policy design. While some policies prioritise academic achievement, others adopt a holistic approach, incorporating socio-emotional skills and extracurricular activities. Some countries, such as Chile and Argentina, prioritise equality by ensuring all students receive the same foundational academic knowledge. Others, like Brazil, Uruguay, and Mexico, emphasise equity by tailoring policies to provide additional support for disadvantaged groups. The universal policies in Colombia, El Salvador, Panama, and the Dominican Republic seek a balance between academic improvement and holistic development, integrating both academic and socio-emotional competencies. Nonetheless, I found that there are contradictions and inconsistencies among the main features embedded in the policy's design. Key challenges include a lack of clarity in operationalising equity and equality, often explicitly or implicitly embedded in the policy documents without concrete implementation strategies and weak causal links between policy objectives and actions due to broad activity scopes, policy flexibility, insufficient articulation mechanisms, and inadequate teacher training. Finally, contradictions exist between the targeting approach and participation requirements. Some policies claim to be universal but include prerequisites that inadvertently exclude disadvantaged schools. Others adopt a focalised approach but fail to specify how policy activities address the needs of unprivileged students.