Order Code RL32174
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
21st Century Community Learning Centers:
Evaluation and Implementation Issues
December 16, 2003
Gail McCallion
Specialist in Labor Economics
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜
The Library of Congress
21st Century Community Learning Centers:
Evaluation and Implementation Issues
Summary
The 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program, as
reauthorized in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), and signed into
law on January 8, 2002, is structured as formula grants to states, with local grants
awarded competitively by states to eligible local entities for a period of 3 to 5 years.
Recipients of 21st CCLC grants are to use them for out of school time activities that
advance student academic achievement. The program’s focus is now exclusively on
these activities for children and youth and on educational activities for their families.
Increasing public and congressional attention has been focused on the program,
in part because the 21st CCLC program has grown rapidly — from $750,000 in
funding in its first year, FY1995, to $1 billion in FY2004. Public support for after
school programs is very strong; however, a recent evaluation of the 21st CCLC
program based on data from the 2000-2001 school year, conducted for the U.S.
Department of Education, did not find significant improvements in most academic
outcomes.
The reauthorized 21st CCLC program requires state and local recipients to use
funds to help students acquire the skills they need in order to meet state academic
achievement standards, employing scientifically based research where relevant; and
to demonstrate the success of their programs in achieving academic improvement.
Several issues have arisen regarding implementation of the reauthorized program.
Some of the hurdles that states and program implementers must confront in achieving
academic goals include:
the difficulty in securing
participation by students
(particularly middle schoolers) in a program focused on academics; the relatively
limited amount of program time per student on average, in which to make a
difference in academic achievement; and the vast divergence in after school program
content and goals.
Although there is limited research to date on the 21st CCLC program itself, there
is an extensive and growing body of research on after school programs more
generally. This research has provided many examples of promising practices in after
school programs that focus on academic improvement. Some of the elements found
promising for program success are well qualified and extensively trained staff, a
connection to the school day curriculum, opportunities for one on one tutoring, and
a structure designed to achieve clear goals. This report will not be updated.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Accountability Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Evaluation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Mathematica Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Implementation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Academic Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Program Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Directions for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
List of Tables
Table 1. 21st Century Learning Centers: Funding History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
21st Century Community Learning Centers:
Evaluation and Implementation Issues
Introduction
The 21st CCLC program was originally authorized as Part I of Title X, of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended. The amendment
authorizing the 21st CCLC program was included as part of the Improving America’s
Schools Act of 1994, P.L. 103-382. The 21st CCLC program was initially authorized
for 5 years, FY1995-FY1999. The 21st CCLC program was not reauthorized in the
106th Congress, and consequently its authorization (but not its funding) expired at the
end of FY2000. This program was reauthorized as part of the reauthorization of the
ESEA by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, and was signed into
law on January 8, 2002.
Increasing public and congressional attention has been focused on the program,
in part because the 21st CCLC program has grown rapidly — from $750,000 in
funding in its first year, FY1995, to $1 billion in FY2004 (See
Table 1 for the
program’s funding history). Public support for after school programs is very strong,
but first year results from a recent evaluation of the 21st CCLC program did not find
significant impacts on most academic outcomes or on numbers of latchkey kids
(children in self-care). This report discusses implementation of the reauthorized 21st
CCLC program, and the recent evaluation of the program and its implications.
Background
Originally, the 21st CCLC program was a competitive grant program with
grantees selected by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Awards were for up
to 3 years and were required to include at least 4 out of 13 potential activities
intended to serve the local community.1 Funds were required to be equitably
distributed among urban and rural areas across the nation, among the states, and
among rural and urban areas within states. The program shifted in emphasis as the
amount appropriated for the program increased. The original authorizing language
required the Secretary of ED to give priority to those 21st CCLC projects that “offer
a broad selection of services which address the needs of the community.”2 Beginning
with the program’s significant expansion in FY1998, an additional priority was added
1 For a list of these 13 activities see 20 U.S.C. 8245.
2 20 U.S.C. 8243.
CRS-2
for: “activities that offer expanded learning opportunities for children and youth in
the community and that contribute to reduced drug use and violence.”3
In contrast, the 21st CCLC program as reauthorized in P.L. 107-110, is
structured as formula grants to states, with local grants awarded competitively by
states to local entities for a period of 3 to 5 years. States are allocated funds in
proportion to the awards they received under Subpart 2 of Title I-A of the ESEA for
the preceding year.
State educational agencies (SEAs) must award at least 95% of their state
allotment to eligible local entities (defined as local educational agencies (LEAs),
community based organizations (CBOs), other public or private entities, or consortia
of one or more of the above). To the extent possible, SEAs are to distribute funds
equitably among geographic areas within the state, including urban and rural
communities. SEAs may only award grants to eligible entities that will be serving
students who attend schools eligible for schoolwide programs under Section 1114 of
the ESEA, or schools that serve a high percentage of students from low income
families, and the families of these students.4 States are to give priority to applications
that propose to target services to students who attend schools that have been
identified as in need of improvement under Section 1116 of the ESEA (schools that
fail to make adequate yearly progress for 2 consecutive years by state measures) and
are submitted jointly by an LEA and a CBO or other public or private entity.5
Recipients of 21st CCLC grants are to use these funds for before and after school
activities that advance student academic achievement.6 The program’s focus is now
exclusively on these before and after school activities for children and youth, and
educational activities for their families. The stated purposes of the program as
reauthorized, are threefold:
! Provide opportunities for academic enrichment to help students
(particularly those attending low-performing schools) to meet state
and local student academic achievement standards;
! Offer students a wide variety of additional services, programs and
activities intended to reinforce and complement their regular
academic program; and
3 For ongoing updated information on the status of the program see
CRS Report RL31240,
21st Century Community Learning Centers in P.L. 107-110: Background and Funding, by
Gail McCallion.
4 In general, schools eligible for schoolwide programs under Section 1114 of the ESEA, are
those public schools where 40% or more of the students are from low income families.
5 An exception is made if an LEA demonstrates that it is unable to partner with a CBO of
sufficient quality and reasonable geographic proximity.
6 Throughout this report, before and after school activities and out of school time activities
are used synonymously. 21st CCLC funds can be used for activities before and after school,
during school breaks and during the summer.
CRS-3
! Offer families of students served an opportunity for literacy and
related educational development.7
Table 1. 21st Century Learning Centers: Funding History
President’s budget
FY
request (in $)
Appropriation (in $)
1995
0
750,000
1996
0
750,000
1997
0
1,000,000
1998
50,000,000
40,000,000
1999
200,000,000
200,000,000
2000
600,000,000
453,377,000a
2001
1,000,000,000
845,614,000b
2002
845,614,000
1,000,000,000
2003
1,000,000,000
993,500,000c
2004
600,000,000
1,005,000,000d
a.
This amount includes a rescission of FY2000 discretionary budget authority required by the
FY2000 appropriations act (P.L. 106-113).
b. This amount includes an across the board rescission of FY2001 appropriations adopted in the
Miscellaneous Appropriations Act (H.R. 5666) enacted into law by The Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554).
c. This amount includes an across the board reduction per P.L. 108-7.
d. This amount has been approved by conferees, but has not yet been finalized. It may be subject to
an across the board reduction of 0.59%.
Accountability Requirements
The reauthorized 21st CCLC program requires state and local recipients to use
funds to help students acquire the skills they need in order to meet state standards,
employing scientifically based research;8 and to demonstrate the success of their
programs in achieving academic improvement.
States are required to conduct comprehensive evaluations of local programs’
effectiveness using performance indicators and measures they have developed for
that purpose. To meet the principles of effectiveness, a program must:
7 For a list of these activities see 20 U.S.C. 7175.
8 Scientifically based research is defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801.
CRS-4
(A) be based upon an assessment of objective data regarding the need for
before and after school programs (including during summer recess periods)
and activities in the schools and communities;
(B) be based upon an established set of performance measures aimed at
ensuring
the
availability
of
high-quality
academic
enrichment
opportunities; and
(C) if appropriate, be based upon scientifically based research that provides
evidence that the program or activity will help students meet the State and
local student academic achievement standards.9 Each local program is
required to participate in periodic evaluations based on these principles of
effectiveness “to assess its progress toward achieving its goal of providing
high quality opportunities for academic enrichment”; and the evaluation’s
results must be:
(i) used to refine, improve, and strengthen the program or
activity, and to refine the performance measures; and (ii) made
available to the public upon request, with public notice of such
availability provided.10
Evaluation Issues
Most of the research into after school programs has examined after school
programs in general, rather than 21st CCLC programs in particular, in part because
of the relative newness of the 21st CCLC program. The research often focuses on
individual programs that provide high quality out of school time services to a group
of children or youth over an extended period of time. In general, research that
employs random assignment methods is considered the most rigorous. However,
because of the rarity of such research designs in the field, many surveys of after
school programs discuss at least some programs that did not employ random
assignment in order to be able to examine evidence from the field on what elements
in programs are most promising. There have been many surveys of this quasi-
experimental and case study research that have indicated positive effects from after
school programs on a variety of outcomes.11
9 20 U.S.C. 7175. Also, U.S. Department of Education,
21st Century Community Learning
Centers Non-Regulatory Guidance, Feb. 2003.
10 20 U.S.C. 7175. Local grantees are also required to submit Annual Performance Reports
that provide detailed information about the program. Information, including APR forms is
available on the Department of Education’s website [http://www.ed.gov].
See also
Evaluation of 21st Century Community Learning Center Programs A Guide for State
Education Agencies, Harvard Family Research Project, Harvard Graduate School of
Education, 2003.
11
A Review of Out-of-School Time Program Quasi-Experimental and Experimental
Evaluation Results, Harvard Family Research Project, Harvard Graduate School of
Education, 2003. This discussion is only illustrative of the extensive literature evaluating
after school and youth development programs. For reviews of programs looking at the
impact on youth development see Richard Catalano, et al.,
Positive Youth Development in
the United States: Research Findings on Evaluations of Positive Youth Development
(continued...)
CRS-5
One example of this research is published by the Harvard Family Research
Project (HFRP). The HFRP maintains a database of evaluations on the impact of out
of school time programs on outcomes related to academic achievement, prevention,
and youth development. Drawing on its database in a recent report, the HFRP
selected 27 evaluations that employed either experimental or quasi-experimental
designs for part or all of their research. Twenty-five of these evaluations assessed
academic outcomes. The data from these evaluations indicated that out-of-school
time programs resulted in:
! Better attitudes toward school and higher educational aspirations.
! Better performance in school, as measured by achievement test
scores and grades.
! Higher school attendance (as measured by attendance and tardiness).
! Less disciplinary action (e.g., suspension).12
The Mathematica Study. The U.S. Department of Education contracted
with Mathematica for both an implementation and an impact study of 21st CCLC
after-school programs. The Mathematica study is the most rigorous study to date
specifically focused on the 21st CCLC program. The Mathematica study is a multi-
year study based on baseline and follow up data collected on 4,400 middle school
students and 1,000 (in the first year) elementary school students. Data are collected
from students, teachers, principals, program staff members and school records. The
first results from the evaluation were published in February 2003. Based on 1 year
of data for the 2000-2001 school year, the evaluation did not find significant
improvements from 21st CCLC programs in most academic outcomes or in the
numbers of latchkey kids (children in self-care). The study was designed to focus on
outcomes of typical 21st CCLC programs, rather than of programs implementing best
practices.13
The middle school sample was based on data for 4,400 students. Because these
middle school programs were undersubscribed, random sampling was not used.
11 (...continued)
Programs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institute for
Child Health and Human Development, 1998; and Jacquelynne Eccles and Jennifer
Appleton Gootman, Eds.,
Community Programs to Promote Youth Development
(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002), 411 p.
12 The HFRP report cautions that it is not possible to link specific out of school time
activities with specific outcomes because the outcomes are reported as attributable to the
combined effects of program components; and HFRP also indicated that their information
is based on data provided in public reports authored by the program evaluators and leaders.
Harvard Family Research Project,
A Review, p. 2.
13 The study authors indicated that the comparison design employed: “offers a rigorous
assessment of the impacts of after-school programs on middle school students. The design
used for the assessment, however, was dictated by the lack of oversubscription for most
middle school programs. The findings lack the same high degree of internal validity of
random-assignment designs.” Mathematica and Decision Information Resources,
When
Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Program, U.S. Department of Education, 2003, p. 10.
CRS-6
Instead, the study used a comparison-group model, where similar non-participating
students are compared with those who participated. After school programs in middle
schools typically had 45 minutes to an hour of academic programming (such as
homework assistance), and then middle-schoolers would usually be able to choose
an activity in which to participate (typically recreational and/or enrichment and
interpersonal activities).
Positive findings from the middle school centers were: small increases in
school attendance, math grades, and parent involvement for students who
participated. There was no significant difference between the treatment and control
groups in English, science, or history grades, or in classroom performance or social
development. Small negative findings were found regarding victimization outside
of the classroom and engaging in negative behaviors. On average, students attended
middle school programs for 32 days during the year.14
Minority students benefitted the most: African American students who
participated had positive results in classroom effort, math grades and reduced
lateness. Hispanic students who participated also did better in math grades and
reduced lateness.
The elementary school sample was based on the random assignment of 1,000
elementary school children to either a treatment group (participating in the 21st
CCLC) or a control group (not participating). An additional 1,600 children were
added in the 2001-2002 school year. Mathematica considers these first year results
for the elementary school sample preliminary; it anticipates that first year results
from the complete elementary sample will be available in the winter of 2003-2004.
Random sampling was facilitated by the fact that many elementary school 21st CCLC
programs were unable to serve all the students who would have liked to participate.
The elementary schools in the initial sample had a higher percentage of minority
students, especially African Americans, and had higher poverty levels, than other
elementary centers overall, that are in the same cohort. Nevertheless, the study’s
authors believe: “the elementary school findings have strong internal validity for
attributing student outcome differences to the 21st Century program.”15
A typical elementary center had 45 minutes to an hour for snack and homework,
an academic activity for an hour, and recreational or other activity for the remaining
1 to 2 hours. However, some elementary centers had programs that were structured
differently. Some focused on skill building for state assessment tests, for example.16
Overall, positive effects for children participating in the elementary programs,
compared to control group children, were found for social studies grades and some
measures of parent involvement. There was no significant difference between the
treatment and control groups in reading scores, homework completion, reading
14 Mathematica and Decision Information Resources,
When Schools Stay Open Late, pp. 53
and 58.
15 Ibid., p. 13.
16 Ibid., p. 87.
CRS-7
confidence, interpersonal skills, perceived safety during after-school hours, or
behavior problems. On average, students attended the elementary programs for 58
days during the year. Mathematica’s study results for the 2000-2001 school year also
indicated that participation in programs, by both middle and elementary school
students, declined over time.
The issuance of the first year results from the Mathematica study has prompted
considerable discussion and controversy. Part of the controversy regarding the
Mathematica evaluation is due to the fact that the study results were linked to a
significant reduction in FY2004 spending for the 21st CCLC program proposed by
the Administration in its budget request.
Critiques of the Mathematica study have noted that the results are only first year
results, and are for the 2000-2001 school year, before the requirements of the newly
reauthorized program were in place. For example, in a 2003 Policy Commentary, the
non-governmental Forum for Youth Investment states:
At least a dozen other studies that employed experimental and quasi-
experimental designs offer different, more positive findings about after-school
programs. Drastic cuts are recommended based on the findings of one study,
using one year of data collected on programs that are only a few years old, when
positive findings from strong studies abound. Such decisions should be informed
by an accumulation of documented knowledge.17
Additionally, some have argued that programs that are relatively new and
undergoing changes should not be evaluated for funding decisions at that stage of
their development.
Others have criticized some aspects of the methodology
employed in the study.18
Implementation Issues
How will after school programs and states meet the 21st CCLC program
accountability requirements? What are the hurdles program implementers might
encounter in achieving academic improvement goals? Data from the first year
Mathematica study have provided insight into some of the implementation issues that
have been encountered by 21st CCLC programs.
Academic Improvement. The reauthorized 21st CCLC program requires
that programs focus on academic assistance and enrichment; and that states and
program implementers evaluate the success of funded programs. Some of the hurdles
17 The Forum for Youth Investment,
Out of School Time Policy Commentary #3: Reflections
On System Building: Lessons from the After-School Movement (Washington, D.C.: The
Forum for Youth Investment, Impact Strategies, Inc., 2003), 7 p.
18 Joseph Mahoney and Edward Zigler,
The National Evaluation of the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers: A Critical Analysis of First-Year Findings (New Haven, Yale
University: 2003), 43 p. See also Joan Bissell, Christopher Cross, Karen Mapp, Elizabeth
Reisner, Deborah Lowe Vandell, Constancia Warren, Richard Weissbourd,
Statement
Released by the Members of the Scientific Advisory Board for the 21st Century Community
Learning Center Evaluation, May 10, 2003. Available on the Web.
CRS-8
that states and program implementers must confront in achieving academic goals
include: firstly, the difficulty in securing participation by students (particularly
middle schoolers) in a program focused on academic improvement; secondly, the
relatively limited amount of program time per student on average, in which to make
a difference in academic achievement; and finally, the vast divergence in after school
program content and goals.
Firstly, because programs are usually voluntary, students must find the after
school programs appealing. The Mathematica study found that on average, middle
school students attended a center only 32 days a year, and elementary school
students, 58 days a year. And, attendance was found to drop off as the year
progressed. Thus, low attendance rates and the decline in participation over time
may be a significant impediment to academic improvement. Because participation
is voluntary, it may occur on a regular or drop in basis. For middle school students,
the decision of whether or not to participate is generally made by the student.
Programs must be enticing to potential participants by not making them too much
like school, and by including recreational and other activities that appeal to middle
schoolers. Mathematica interviewed students who chose not to participate to explore
this phenomenon:
Students who had chosen not to participate (surveyed in six selected programs)
said that they would rather ‘hang out’ after school, were involved in other
organized activities after school, or were not interested in the activities. Almost
half of the students thought the centers were ‘mostly a place kids go when their
parents are at work,’ and a quarter considered them ‘just for kids who need help
in school.’ Participants who had stopped attending echoed these sentiments.19
Secondly, student success in programs focusing on academic achievement has
been found to be strongly correlated with more time when learning actually occurs
(time on task or academic learning time).20 However, most after school programs
have limited “time on task” for academic activities. The after school programs
evaluated by Mathematica most often provided homework assistance as the main
type of academic assistance, and in many cases the assistance was minimal. In
middle schools visited, for example:
Site visitors observed that most homework sessions resembled study halls in
which students were expected to know their assignments, bring their materials,
and work independently. These sessions typically consisted of about 20 students
monitored by 2 staff members (usually certified teachers or a certified teacher
and a paraprofessional). Although having teachers from the host school oversee
homework sessions offered a potentially fruitful path for helping students after
school, the caliber of homework assistance was low ....21
19 Mathematica and Decision Information Resources,
When Schools Stay Open Late, p. xvii.
20 Testimony of Dr. Gary Estes, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions,
Hearing on Illiterate Graduates: Social Promotion and Retention,
106th Congress, 1st sess., Apr. 29, 1999 (Washington: 1999).
21 Mathematica and Decision Information Resources,
When Schools Stay Open Late, p. 21.
CRS-9
These data indicate that some existing programs may have difficulty providing
academic assistance of sufficient duration, and with sufficient time on task, to
significantly improve academic outcomes. There is also evidence, however, that
more attendance alone may not be sufficient.22 These issues have caused some to ask
whether an expectation of significantly improved academic outcomes is reasonable
for these after school programs:
Holding after-school programs accountable for improving standardized test
scores at a time when schools are struggling under the weight of this demand
makes little sense. At best, policy makers could push for proportionate joint
accountability and encourage schools and out of school programs to work
together to achieve this long-term goal.23
Finally, programs receiving 21st CCLC funds have traditionally been a diverse
group with different goals, content, and structures. As a consequence, monitoring,
setting goals, and evaluating these diverse programs can be difficult:
21st Century is a funding stream that provides resources to a range of programs,
many of which are not connected by an overarching system at the local or state
level. There is no guarantee that grantees are part of networks that set common
standards or create a shared sense of accountability.24
Because of this diversity and lack of coordination, widespread dissemination of
promising practices, and their implementation across programs, is made more
difficult. Among the goals of the reauthorized 21st CCLC are providing a clearer
focus for programs and facilitating the dissemination of promising practices.25
Program Sustainability. The 21st CCLC program requires prospective
grantees to submit an application to states that includes (among other things): “a
description of a preliminary plan for how the community learning center will
continue after funding under this part ends.”26
22 First year results from Mathematica did not find more positive outcomes for middle school
students who participated for more days during the year, however, it did find that these
students were more disadvantaged, and more motivated, on average, than those who
participated less. Mathematica and Decision Information Resources,
When Schools Stay
Open Late, p. 79.
23 The Forum for Youth Investment,
Out-Of-School-Time Policy Commentary #1: Out-of-
School Research Meets After-School Policy (Washington, D.C.: The Forum for Youth
Investment, Impact Strategies, Inc., 2003), p. 5.
24
The Forum for Youth Investment,
Out-Of-School-Time Policy Commentary #3:
Reflections on System Building: Lesson from the After-School Movement (Washington,
D.C.: The Forum for Youth Investment, Impact Strategies, Inc., 2003), p. 4.
25 ED is conducting a 3-year evaluation of effective academic materials that facilitate
successful academic interventions that could be used by after-school programs. Department
of Education,
Fiscal Year 2004 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress,
p. C-34. ED has also set up a clearinghouse on what works at [http://www.w-w-c.org].
26 20. U.S.C. 7174.
CRS-10
However, the first year results from Mathematica indicate that sustainability
planning is limited in many programs. Program staff indicated to Mathematica their
desire to continue programs after 21st CCLC funding expired, but few had
successfully lined up sufficient outside funding:
... site visitors observed few concrete actions leading toward sustainability. At
the time of the visits, about one-third of grantees had made no plans and taken
no actions to sustain their program; half had developed some plans but had not
yet taken any action.
In surveys of center coordinators and host school
principals, only 10% of principals and 12% of coordinators reported that funding
sources had been identified or secured.27
Mathematica cited three factors that potentially impede program sustainability:
(1) project directors were often responsible for a host of tasks, many times including
non-21st CCLC tasks, and as a consequence had little time for planning for the future
and seeking potential funding sources; (2) project directors in remote or poor areas
expressed concerns to interviewers about the lack of availability in their area of
potential sources of future funding; and (3) the lack of a matching requirement for
local grantees may have delayed planning for future funding.
Additionally,
foundation, community, and local funding for these programs is limited and the 3-
year grant period provided a relatively short time frame to conduct future planning.28
The reauthorized 21st CCLC program has increased the time frame for grants (they
may now be up to 5 years); and permits states to require matching funds.
Directions for the Future
What have researchers found that may be helpful in creating effective after
school programs? As noted above, research on after school programs is by and large
not based on 21st CCLC programs because of its relative newness, but on other
individual after school programs and largely focuses on promising practices gleaned
from high quality after school programs.29
For broadly focused after school
programs, one researcher has stated that effective programs must have supportive
staff, positive peer relations, and opportunities for sustained participation in
meaningful activities (which may be sports, arts, music, or academics).30 For after
school programs with an academic focus, some research indicates that successful
programs need well qualified and extensively trained staff, a connection to the school
day curriculum, opportunities for one on one tutoring, and clear goals with a well laid
out structure to achieve their goals.31
27 Mathematica and Decision Information Resources,
When Schools Stay Open Late, p. 46.
28 Ibid., p. 48.
29 For an extensive list of resources see U.S. Department of Education,
21st Century
Community Learning Centers Non-Regulatory Guidance, Feb. 2003.
30 Deborah Vandell, Forum for Youth Investment,
Out-of- School Research Meets After-
School Policy, p. 3.
31 Fashola Olatokunbo,
Review of Extended Day and After-School Programs and Their
Effectiveness, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Oct. 1998,
(continued...)
CRS-11
The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) has published
several resources on after school programs, including the Beyond the Bell Toolkit,
which is a comprehensive guide intended to provide advice on setting up an effective
after school program. NCREL cites five elements that it believes are essential for
effective programs:
! First, programs need to be designed based on individual students’
academic needs revealed by the school’s student assessments and
teacher reports .... the regular classroom teacher should regularly
share the specific needs of individual students — skills that should
be learned more completely — with after-school staff.
! Second, staff need specific content knowledge and instructional
strategies to facilitate learning .... It is not enough to have staff that
simply supervise homework completion.
! Third, class sizes need to be small .... Generally, a ratio of 1:15 or
lower for younger students seems to be ideal.
! Fourth, there needs to be consistent, formal, and specific
communication between extended and regular day staff .... Daily
planners and academic communication logs can serve as vehicles for
student-led conferencing among students, staff and parents.
! Finally, programs need to be evaluated for their effect on raising
student achievement.
This means collecting pre- and post-
assessment data and conducting longitudinal studies on the effects
of extended academic support.32
Additionally, ED, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the C.S. Mott Foundation,
hosted an after school summit in the summer of 2003 to explore ways to improve and
measure the performance of 21st CCLC after school programs. The attendees
developed an extensive list of student performance indicators in several major areas
— academic, social, skill building, health, and community — that were viewed as
important in indicating success in after school programs. In addition, a beginning list
of evaluation measures and program elements essential for attaining improvement in
these student performance indicators was developed by the attendees.33
As states and the local grantees work to adapt to the changes required by the 21st
CCLC program as reauthorized by P.L. 107-110, they confront a variety of
difficulties in implementing successful programs, some of which are discussed here.
However, they will also have increasing access to a growing body of research and
evaluation, including the best practice literature, to help guide the evolution of these
programs.
31 (...continued)
p. 55.
32 NCREL, Viewpoints No. 10,
After-School Learning and Beyond, Learning Point
Associates, 2003.
33 U.S. Department of Education and the C.S. Mott Foundation,
After School Summit
Summary Report, 2003.