Afterschool Education, Injecting Academics into Afterschool Education

Faced with pressures to increase test scores, held accountable for the achievement of all students, and pushed by failing public opinion schools are looking for more ways to boost student academic achievement. This has created an interest in participating in and or influencing afterschool programs. Afterschool programming has traditionally been left to community non-profit and religious affiliated organizations and there is some debate about the appropriateness and effectiveness of schools branching out into the afterschool hours.

Up until the 1990’s the Federal government was happy to leave the responsibility for student care during after school hours to organizations like the Boy Scouts and the YMCA. However, as more families became two income households, leaving their children unattended after school, and research on the effectiveness of crime prevention programs became available the government's interest in afterschool programing was peaked. In 1994, Georgia created a state-wide initiative for students K-9th grade called the 3:00 project.(Gaye, 2004) This project was followed by other states with similar initiatives and momentum and interest eventually lead to programs for afterschool supported at the federal level. In 2007 $2.5 Billion dollars was spent on approx. 2,000 federally funded afterschool programs called 21st Century Community Learning Centers. This funding was passed as part of the Bush Administration’s No Child Left Behind legislation and was aimed at focusing attention on the potential of afterschool programs to dramatically affect the in-school performance of students who regularly attend afterschool programs.

As schools have felt more pressure to raise performance standards they have begun looking for ways to extend learning time for students into the afterschool hours. The pressure of standardized testing and the passing of No Child Left Behind has begun to change attitudes among educators and school administrators about the role afterschool programs can play in boosting a student’s educational performance. No longer are they looking at afterschool programs as places for students to “play”, but as places where the learning taking place during the school day can be extended. “School leaders can no longer see their responsibility as merely a 9 to 3 issue. What happens to children after school has a direct impact on how they learn and grow.” (Paul D. Houston, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, 2005).

While the interest and funding by the federal government has brought much needed attention to afterschool programs there are some concerns about letting the department of education set the agenda for what quality afterschool programs look like.

References

Carver, P.R., and Iruka, I.U. (2006). After-School Programs and Activities: 2005 (NCES 2006-076).U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Gayl, C. L., (2004). After-School Programs: Expanding Access and Ensuring Quality. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.

Tab, E.D. (2006). National Household Education Surveys Program of 2005 After-School Programs and Activities: 2005. U.S. Department of Education NCES 2006-076.

U.S. Department of Education. DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM GRANTEES, 2003.
http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/CCLC/allstate_cclc1.cfm

U.S. Department of Education. 21st Century Community Learning Centers. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/performance.html

Review of the Literature-Concerns About Government Control of Quality

"...there is growing evidence that participation in afterschool programs can result in positive outcomes in youth " (Noam, 2008). However there is debate over just what constitutes quality afterschool programming. The increasing involvement of the Department of Education in defining what afterschool programming should look like has some in the field worried about being left out of the conversation. The infusion of state and federal dollars in funding afterschool programs has resulted in an increase in assessments of programs and required a demonstration of effectiveness. (Noam, 2008). This in an of itself is a positive step and one that has increased awareness of the importance of quality staffing for afterschool activities and programs. However, in agreeing to meet the standards set for them by state and federal governments afterschool programs are asked to evaluate their programs using tools and assessments in which they had no part in developing. Non-profit education organizations have been working with students after school for many years and yet their expertise is often disregarded.

One concern is that accountability measures put in place in-order to receive federal dollars are redefining afterschool goals to emphasize academics. For example, the performance indicators for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st Century CLCs), which contributes approx. $2.5 billion in federal dollars annually to 2000 school based afterschool programs, heavily relies on academic results as indicators of quality performance.

Performance Indicator 1: Participants in 21st Century Community Learning Center programs will demonstrate educational and social benefits and exhibit positive behavioral changes.

• The percentage of middle or high school 21st Century regular program participants whose mathematics grades improved from fall to spring.
• The percentage of middle or high school 21st Century regular program participants whose English grades improved from fall to spring.
• The percentage of middle/high school 21st Century regular program participants who improve from not proficient to proficient or above in mathematics on state assessments.
• The percentage of middle/high school 21st Century regular program participants who improve from not proficient to proficient or above in reading on state assessments.
• The percentage of middle and high school 21st Century program participants with teacher-reported improvement in homework completion and class participation.
• The percentage of middle and high school 21st Century participants with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior.

Though the performance indicator above states that programs are to measure both academic and behavioral growth, the measures used are focused mainly on academic performance and measured by in-school classroom teachers. This cuts the afterschool staff out of the loop and shifts the focus of the program from student-centered growth to school-centered, measureable, academic improvement.

While acknowledging the need for afterschool programs that focus on homework as well as supplemental reading and math classes. Non-profit afterschool staff worry that there is little difference between in-school classes and the afterschool classes. This means that students effectively have an extra hour and a half of school each day instead of having time for their brains to rest. Experts caution that the goal of improving children's school performance will not necessarily be attained by extending the school day with traditional classroom lessons and routines. Some research suggests that giving children activity choices, engaging them in enrichment activities, and supporting socialization with peers will pay academic dividends. (Shumow, 2001) And the research on the academic gains made by students enrolled in afterschool programs is inconclusive. The Bush administration actually cited a lack of academic growth by students as an excuse to cut $40 million from the 21st Century CLC budget in 2003. (Gayl, 2004) However though the evidence of student academic improvement in afterschool programs is thin, there is a belief that evidence of other kinds of growth will in the long run support academic achievement.

Unless time spent in an afterschool program is extraordinarily more beneficial than time spent in the classroom, dramatic impact is unlikely. Because afterschool programs have demonstrated effects on conditions that contribute to student achievement, however, participation in these programs can support improvements in student achievement even if the programs themselves have limited academic impacts. (Gayle, 2004)

These conclusions are no surprise to afterschool program staff and directors. They know that pushing students too hard can lead to burn out and can negatively affect the productivity of their in-school time. They also understand that in lean economic times afterschool programs fill in the programming gaps left by schools when they have elected to cut the "non-essential" classes that contribute to students becoming enriched and well rounded individuals. Afterschool program directors are not opposed to increased scrutiny of afterschool practices, they too are interested in creating standards for assessing quality programming. They however are skeptical of evaluation tools that are academic based and instead would like to see assessments that take into account the myriad of skills developed by youth in afterschool programs.

References

Gayl, C. L., (2004). After-School Programs: Expanding Access and Ensuring Quality. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.

Noam, Gil. (2008). A New Day for Youth:Creating Sustainable Quality in Out of School Time. New York, NY:Wallace Foundation

Phillips, S.F., A system that works: Highlights of Effective Intervention Strategies
in Quality Improvement. Afterschool Matters. September 2010, Issue 12, p 37-44.

Shumow, L. (2001). Academic Effects of After-School Programs. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Children's Research Center, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL.

Steen, Sam; Noguera, P. A Broader and Bolder Approach to School Reform: Expanded Partnership Roles for School Counselors. Professional School Counseling. Oct2010, Vol. 14, Issue 1, p42-52, 11p.

Tab, E.D. (2006). National Household Education Surveys Program of 2005 After-School Programs and Activities: 2005. U.S. Department of Education NCES 2006-076.

What are 21st Century Community Learning Centers?

Hear Caryn Shelp explain how the addition of academic content sets the 21st Century Community Learning Centers apart from other afterschool programs.

Review of the Literature-Cont.:Connections and Communication

The concerns by non-profit organizations over the growing emphasis on academics in afterschool programming is not lost on schools or state and local governments. Legislators have listened to the growing voice of afterschool educators and is trying to involve more stakeholders into the afterschool conversation. "Until relatively recently, little research existed on best practices in afterschool and OST (out of school time) programs." (Noams, 2008). But that is slowly changing with non-profit organizations like the Wallace Foundation and the Charles M. Mott Foundation not only conducting studies and publishing papers, but collaborating with state and local governments to address some of the barriers to providing and assessing quality afterschool programming.

In 2003, the Wallace Foundation sponsored an initiative to help five cities develop better coordinating mechanisms to reduce OST fragmentation, redundancy, and inefficiency and to increase OST access and quality. One of the cities participating in the initiative was New York City.

New York City had a sprawling array of providers under a large number of city agencies that did little to coordinate with each other…The mayor, who was a strong advocate for better, more efficient government and a supporter of better youth programming, began an initiative to improve after-school services through better use of management systems and forced interagency coordination. The city’s interest was in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of vast number of community-based providers with which it contracted for services. (Bodilly, S. J., et. al., 2010)

The goal of studies like this is to bring the many organizations and agencies who have a stake in the success of afterschool programs to the table and assist in creating a structure where by resources and expertise are not duplicated but shared. The ultimate goal is to provide a platform upon which a standard of quality service can be established. This push toward centralization and coordination has implications for the nature of of afterschool programming. Initiatives like that funded by the Wallace Foundation have take root in other cities across the country. In Seattle, inspired by the work done by the Harlem Children's Zone, Seattle University is seeking to condense, connect, and facilitate collaboration between the various service providers who work with youth in a three mile zone around the campus. They have pledged to:

• form and/or expand upon partnerships with the public schools, preK/Head Start programs, and community organizations within the Bailey Gatzert neighborhood in order to create a seamless network of academic support for neighborhood children.
• strengthen existing partnerships and create new partnerships with community organizations to support youth and their families with a range of services in order to enhance student success, assist families in meeting their basic needs, and support continued family involvement in the academic process.
• provide consultation and research support to community organizations in order for them to become more effective and efficient in the delivery of service to youth and families living in the Bailey Gatzert neighborhood. (http://www.seattleu.edu/uploadedFiles/SUYI/SUYI_Action%20Plan_January.pdf)

What will participation in this youth initiative mean for non-profit providers of afterschool programming? Some will undoubtedly find that their services are duplicated by another organization who works with students in the same three mile radius. Some will not be able to compete with the funding and staff expertise of the University. It is my hope that the expertise of small afterschool programs will not be overlooked by the bureaucratic machine that could result from a project this large. And just as in the conversation over academic content in afterschool programs, small service providers have to find a way to maintain a voice.

References

Gayl, C. L., (2004). After-School Programs: Expanding Access and Ensuring Quality. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.

Mccombs, J.,Orr, N., et. al. (2010). Hours of opportunity, Volume II: The Power of Data to Improve After-School Programs Citywide. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.

Seattle Youth Initiative Action Plan. (2011). http://www.seattleu.edu/uploadedFiles/SUYI/SUYI_Action%20Plan_January.pdf

Shumow, L. (2001). Academic Effects of After-School Programs. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Children's Research Center, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL.

U.S. Department of Education. 21st Century Community Learning Centers. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/performance.html

U.S. Department of Education. DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM GRANTEES, 2003.
http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/CCLC/allstate_cclc1.cfm

Working Families and Afterschool : A Special Report from America After 3 PM, Afterschool Alliance and J.C. Penney Co., Inc (May 2004).

District of Columbia's office of Out of School Time Activities

This video, featuring Kathy Lally of the DC public schools, talks about afterschool programming run by the school district. Many school districts are becoming more interested in including afterschool programming in services provided by the public school system.

Conclusions and Recommendations for Afterschool Connection and Colaboration Programs

A U.S. Department of Education 2005 survey in 2005 on after-school programs and activities found that 40 percent of students (1 out of every 8) in kindergarten through eighth grade were in at least one weekly nonparental after-school care arrangement. (Tab, 2006) This means that up to 40 percent of students attending K-12 schools could be attending afterschool programs.

This same study also found that of students who were attending after-school programs, more than half of them attended programs run by or in association with a school.

Students in kindergarten through eighth grade were more likely to attend a school- or centerbased after-school program at a public school (61 percent) than at a church or other place of worship (9 percent), private school (10 percent), community center (8 percent), a program in its own building (15 percent), or any other location (5 percent)(p. 4)

This means that whether we like it or not, schools are a necessary piece to the puzzle of afterschool education. I do worry about an over emphasis on academics in afterschool programs. Having worked both as a teacher of enrichment (Theater and Performance) classes and as the director of an academic tutoring program I understand the merits and think there is a place for both types of activities in afterschool programming. My concern, like that of many community based service providers, is that greater control over afterschool programming and curriculum by the public education system will result in the sterilization and institutionalization of out of school time programs. I struggle with the need for greater quality control and program accountability while at the same time acknowledging the creativity and limitlessness of our current model of afterschool instruction.

I am encouraged as I read some of the literature detailing quality afterschool programs. Instead of trying to evaluate individual programs by comparing them to public schools, they instead look at a variety of factors that over the years have contributed to student growth. The RAND Corporation (Bodilly & Becket, 2005) identified the following as characteristics of high quality programs:

• a clear mission
• high expectations and positive social norms
• a safe and healthy environment
• a supportive emotional climate
• a small total enrollment
• stable, trained personnel
• appropriate content and pedagogy with opportunities to engage
• integrated family and community partners
• frequent assessment

To this I would like to add Miller's (2003) additional criteria detailed in a report commissioned by the Nellie Mae Education Foundation

She included all of the characteristics mentioned in the RAND report and as well as adding some additional characteristics including: adequate funding; appropriate space; the inclusion of youth voice; opportunity for choice in activities; staff who understand participants’ cultures and can support healthy identity development; strong management and leadership. (Noam, 2008)

It is in these kinds of reports that I think lies the way forward for afterschool curriculum. If we continue to recognize the importance of youth voice and choice as well as the need for cultural competency then I think there is room for every organization: governmental, non-profit, educational, and community based, to be part of the conversation. In the introductory piece to this blog I wrote that schools can't do all alone and I am encouraged by the move toward collaboration by entities like Seattle University. But collaboration, regardless if on the neighborhood, community, city, district, or state level, needs to have at it's core respect and value for the opinions and expertise of all stakeholders.

References

Mccombs, J., Bodilly, S. J., et. al. (2010). Hours of Opportunity, Volume 3: Profiles of Five Cities Improving After-School Programs Through a Systems Approach. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Noam, Gil. (2008). A New Day for Youth: Creating Sustainable Quality in Out of School Time. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation

Tab, E.D. (2006). National Household Education Surveys Program of 2005 After-School Programs and Activities: 2005. U.S. Department of Education NCES 2006-076.

References-Annotated Bibliography

After-School Programs and Addressing Barriers to Learning: A "Technical Aid Packet" from the Center's Clearinghouse. (2007). University of California, Center for Mental Health in Schools.

A meta-analysis of 25 afterschool programs throughout the United States detailing the most common barriers to student improvement and the most effective solutions.

Bodilly, S. J., et. al. (2010). Hours of opportunity, Volume I. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.

This first of a two part study describes the sites’ work under the Wallace Foundation grant and to analyzes the conditions and activities that contributed to their progress in building a coordinated system of services that would meet the initiative’s goals: increasing access, improving quality, developing and using information for decision making, and planning for sustainability.

Carver, P.R., Iruka, I.U. (2006). After-School Programs and Activities: 2005 (NCES 2006-076).U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Statistical analysis of afterschool assessment and participation numbers for 2005.

Fehr, M., Fehr, D. E. (2010). Teach Boldly: Letters to Teachers about Contemporary Issues in Education. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

This book is a collection of letters from educators who give advice on teaching boldly. The various authors detail what teaching boldly means to them through personal stories and insights collected over long and rich teaching careers.

Gayl, C. L., (2004). After-School Programs: Expanding Access and Ensuring Quality. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.

This report looks at the history of federally funded afterschool programs and their effectiveness. The conclusion is that there is much evidence that soft targets such as behavior and truancy are positively affected. There is less evidence of real gains in academics.

Mccombs, J., Bodilly, S. J., et. al. (2010). Hours of Opportunity, Volume 3: Profiles of Five Cities Improving After-School Programs Through a Systems Approach. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

This report presents in-depth case studies of the individual cities who took part in the Wallace Foundation Study. The analysis provides interesting examples of what Wallace grantees did and why, as well as the proximate result—the immediate effect on OST provision, structure, access, quality assurance, and information for planning and sustainability.

Mccombs, J.,Orr, N., et. al. (2010). Hours of opportunity, Volume II: The Power of Data to Improve After-School Programs Citywide. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.

This is the second part of a three part study. This article is a detailed analysis of the five cities involved and their progress in building and implementing management information (MI) systems to track student enrollment and attendance.

Noam, Gil. (2008). A New Day for Youth: Creating Sustainable Quality in Out of School Time. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation

Harvard researcher Gil G. Noam, asserts that the ability of OST providers to offer high-quality OST programming rests on strong leadership, staffing and their activities for children. Noam therefore advocates more leadership and management training for OST executive leaders; training for OST staffers in establishing strong relationships with young people; and assistance in establishing clear learning goals for students.

Phillips. S.F., Honoring 15 Years of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program: A Policy-Centered Analysis. Afterschool Matters. September 2010, Issue 12, p 29-36.This report highlights the results of 15 years worth data taken from 21^st Century CLC s and draws conclusions about the affect of policy changes by the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, and the Obama administration.

Phillips, S.F., A system that works: Highlights of Effective Intervention Strategies in Quality Improvement. Afterschool Matters. September 2010, Issue 12, p 37-44.A report on the strategies used by 5 afterschool programs in five different cities: New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Charleston, and San Diego.

Steen, S., Noguera, P. A broader and Bolder Approach to School Reform: Expanded Partnership Roles ofe School Counselors. Professional School Counseling. Oct 2010, Vol. 14, Issue 1, p 42-52.

This article celebrates the importance of taking advantage of the expertise that exists outside of schools and details ways in which school councilors can both bring the community into their schools and how they can seek community input by working outside of the school building.

Tab, E.D. (2006). National Household Education Surveys Program of 2005 After-School Programs and Activities: 2005. U.S. Department of Education NCES 2006-076.

A summary of statistics gathered during the 2005 survey and conclusions about who is attending afterschool programs, what kind of programs are available, who is taking advantage of afterschool activities, and where there is a need for more programming.

Shumow, L. (2001). Academic Effects of After-School Programs. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Children's Research Center, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL.

A summary of a 2000 study that looks at types of afterschool programs offered and the rates of participation of students by income.

What Are the Barriers? School Governance & Leadership, American Association of School Administrators. Fall 2006, Vol. 6, No. 1, p. 8-11.

An American Association of School Administrators study that lists common barriers faced by schools in providing quality afterschool education.

Why Afterschool? The opportunity for school administrators to transform the quality of education that students receive today in public schools may be as close as the growing focus on afterschool programs. School Governance & Leadership, American Association of School Administrators. Fall 2006, Vol. 6, No. 1, p. 5-7.

An opinion piece detailing the potential impact of afterschool programming on students in-school achievement and the benefit of increased support for afterschool programs from educational leadership.

Wood, G. The limits of schooling. in Fehr, M., Fehr, D. E. (2010). Teach Boldly: Letters to Teachers about Contemporary Issues in Education. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

This letter asks the reader to think about the limits of the American Education system to address the challenges to success for the young people we educate.

Working Families and Afterschool : A Special Report from America After 3 PM, Afterschool Alliance and J.C. Penney Co., Inc (May 2004).

The article is a summary of the American After 3 PM study conducted by the Afterschool Alliance with funding by the JC Penny Afterschool Fund. It gives statistics gathered by the study and draws some basic conclusions as to the applicability of the data. It is not the full study.

Web and Multimedia Resources

DCPS Afterschool Program 2011-2012 [http://youtu.be/JP6mhUvOi3o ]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP6mhUvOi3o

Deily, M. Study: Rural Students Lack Access to After-School Options. Beyond School: learning outside the traditional school day. Education Week. October, 2010.

This article details the lack of afterschool programs available for K-12 students in rural areas. It states lack of funding as the number one obstacle.

Teen Truth: Insight-The Importance of After School Programs [http://youtu.be/HhZ4MftGfsY]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhZ4MftGfsY

U.S. Department of Education. Discretionary Grant Program Grantees, 2003.

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/CCLC/allstate_cclc1.cfm

A complete list of communities that have won 21stCCLC grants listed by state in 2003.

U.S. Department of Education. 21^st Century Community Learning Centers. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/performance.html

This website features statistics on the performance of 21^st Century Learning Community Centers for the years 1998-2007.

21st Century Community Learning Centers. [http://youtu.be/ODuTD8MoNF0]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODuTD8MoNF0