practitioners_guide_to_afterschool_programs.pdf

7/28/2019 practitioners_guide_to_afterschool_programs.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/practitionersguidetoafterschoolprogramspdf 1/76



Copyright © 2009 SEDL

SEDL4700 Mueller Blvd.Austin, TX 78723Voice: 512-476-6861 or 800-476-6861Fax: 512-476-2286www.sedl.org

Suggested citation in APA ormat:

Jordan, C., Parker, J., Donnelly, D., Rudo, Z. (Eds.). (2009). A practitioner’s guide:Building and managing quality afterschool programs. Austin, TX: SEDL.

Partnership Research Team

The National Partnership research was led bythe National Center or Research on Evaluation,Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) in LosAngeles, Cali ornia, in collaboration with SEDL.Joan Herman, Co-director o CRESSTDenise Huang, Senior Researcher

Pete Goldschmidt, Database Manager

Steering Committee

Marilyn Jager Adams, Brown UniversityGrace Davila Coates, FAMILY MATH EQUALS,

University o Southern Cali ornia, BerkeleyAn-Me Chung (Ex-O fcio), Charles Stewart Mott

FoundationHarris M. Cooper, Duke UniversityPat Edwards, ConsultantStephanie Hirsh, National Sta Development CouncilRhonda Lauer, Foundations, Inc.Priscilla Little, Harvard Family Research ProjectCarol K. McElvain, Learning Point AssociatesClaudette Morton, Montana Small Schools AllianceElizabeth Reisner, Policy Studies Association, Inc.Heather Weiss, Harvard Family Research ProjectJack Edmo, Bureau o Indian EducationDiane Willis, South Carolina State Department o

EducationHaydee Perez, New Jersey State Department o

Education

Content Experts and Advisors

Literacy Content Developers for Education Northwest,Portland, OregonBrenda BritschRandi DouglasNicole Martin

Eve McDermottGwen McNeir

Literacy Content Advisors and ConsultantsMarilyn Adams, Brown UniversityMarie Mancuso, WestEdScott Paris, University o Michigan

Math Content Developers for McREL,Denver, ColoradoChris Briggs-HaleMaggie CooperJodi HolzmanJohn LoughranHeather MartindillDanette Parsley

Math Content Advisors and ConsultantsNoemi Lopez, Harris County Department o EducationMargaret Myers, University o TexasGrace Coates, University o Cali ornia at Berkeley

Science Content Developers for SERVE Center,Greensboro, North CarolinaPatricia McClureErrin McCombMichael Vigliano

Science Content Advisors and ConsultantsKaren Falkenberg, Emory UniversityMarilyn Fowler, University o Texas at AustinAminata Umoja, Atlanta Systemic InitiativeKimi Hosoume, Lawrence Hall o Science,

University o Cali ornia at Berkeley

Arts Content Developers for SEDL, Austin, TexasSuzanne StiegelbauerJenni er BransomTonyamas MooreLaura OrangeGregg A. JohnsonBrent Hasty

Arts Content Advisors and ConsultantsGigi Antoni, Big Thought–A Learning PartnershipDennie Palmer Wol , Annenberg Institute,

Brown University

Technology Content Developer for SEDL,Austin, TexasMarilyn Heath

Technology Content Advisors and ConsultantsKathy Dick, ConsultantMindy DiSalvo, DeKalb County School SystemTony Streit, Education Development Center

Homework Content Developers for SERVE Center,Greensboro, North CarolinaErrin McCombTina JohnsonKimberly Scriven-BerryPatricia McClure

Homework Content Advisors and ConsultantsHarris Cooper, Duke UniversityDavid Malone, Duke University

Media Developers for WGBH, Boston, MassachusettsAmy TonkonogyArthur SmithCynthia A. McKeonnMelanie MacFarlan

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T SWe wish to acknowledge the contributions o the members o theNational Partnership or Quality A terschool Learning, 2003–2008.



Compiled by:

Catherine Jordan

Joe Parker

Deborah Donnelly

Zena Rudo

AFTERSCHOO

Building and Managing

QUALITYPROGRAM

A Practitioner’s Guide

Funded by C.S. Mott Foundation




http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/practitionersguidetoafterschoolprogramspdf 5/76SEDL | National Center for Quality Afterschool

A Practitioner’s Guide: Building and Managing Quality Afterschool Programs

As an a terschool leader, you know all too well the manychallenges involved in managing, organizing, and operating a highquality program. Providing un and engaging activities or studentsthat boost their academic per ormance and motivate them to keepattending your program is de nitely a primary ocus. But so isknowing how to e ectively oversee daily operations, support yoursta , and sustain strong relationships with stakeholders. O ten it’shard to nd the resources and practices you need and can rely on toimplement your goals. This Guide is designed to share with you thepractices that can help you cover it all—great programming, terri csta , positive relationships, and plenty o resources to lead andsustain success ul a terschool programs.

What’s Included in This GuideProduced with the generous support o the C.S. Mott Foundation,this Guide is intended to share the insights o SEDL’s NationalPartnership or Quality A terschool Learning (the NationalPartnership) as well as in ormation about both the academic and theorganizational and management practices that success ul a terschool

programs use. We have organized these practices into the ollowingour ocus areas:

• program organization

• academic programming practices

• supportive relationships in afterschool

• achieving program outcomes

Within each ocus area, we describe the key practices o success ulprograms. In addition, we provide a Quality-O-Meter tool to help yourefect on your practices. This tool incorporates what the NationalPartnership learned in its research as well as knowledge rom itsnumerous content experts. We then provide a Planning or Actiontool to help you document plans or implementing practices toincrease your program’s quality. This tool is a structured way toorganize and manage the implementation o any new or enhanceda terschool practice.

Introduction






The Research Base for This GuideThis Guide is based on a 5-year research study unded by theU.S. Department o Education and conducted by the NationalPartnership, a collaborative o eight organizations. This exploratorystudy examined high quality a terschool programs having evidencesuggesting a strong connection to increased student academicachievement sustained over several years.

The study had three major goals:

• To identify practices the programs were using successfully toincrease student per ormance in the six content areas o literacy,mathematics, science, the arts, technology, and homework/ tutoring assistance

• To explore trends in the practices across the programs in the study• To share the practices observed across the sites with the larger

a terschool community

To select sites or the study, National Partnership sta reviewedannual per ormance reports and a variety o other data or 21stCentury Community Learning Center grant recipients and othersuccess ul a terschool programs. On the basis o data rom thesesources, 53 programs in 33 states were identi ed as providingquality a terschool practices. National Partnership sta andprogram leaders worked together to select rom each program twosites that had been in operation or at least 3 years, were ocusingon the content areas, and had evidence o success in promotingstudent learning. A total o 104 individual sites were chosen orthe study. For a more detailed description o the site selectionmethodology, see the Appendix; and or the ull research report,go to www.sedl.org/a terschool/commonpractices.pd . 1

The National Partnership then sent teams trained in the studyprotocols to spend time at each site. Using the National Partnershipprotocols, the teams collected survey in ormation rom parents,

school-day sta , and a terschool sta ; conducted scripted interviewswith a variety o sta ; and made organized observations o activitiesocused on one o the study’s six study areas. The teams also

Four Focus Areas

for High QualityAfterschool Programming

1. Program Organization ....................

Program Leadership ....................... 6Program Governance .............. ..... 10Program Structure ............... ........ 13Sta Characteristics ..................... 17Student Behavior ......................... 20

2. Academic ProgrammingPractices ....................................

Goal-Oriented Programs .............. . 24Standards-Based LearningActivities .................................... 27Research-Based Curriculum andInstructional Practices .............. .... 31

3. Supportive Relationshipsin A terschool .............................

Linking to the School Day............. 36

Pro essional Development ............ 40Building and MaintainingRelationships .............................. 44Peer Collaboration andCooperative Learning ................... 48Family Engagement .............. ....... 51Community Connections .............. 55

4. Achieving ProgramOutcomes ..................................

Accountability ............................. 60

Internal Evaluations ............... ...... 61External Evaluations .................... 62Evaluation Challenges ............... ... 63

Conclusion ......................................

Appendix ........................................

1. Huang, D., Cho, J., Mosta avi, S., & Nam, H. (2008). What works? Common practice in high unctioning a terschool programs: The National Partnership

or Quality A terschool Learning fnal report. Austin, TX: SEDL.

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T





As our study teams visited a terschool programs that were reportingimprovement in student achievement, the organization o thoseprograms emerged as a common characteristic. In examining programorganization, we looked at the ollowing key areas:• program leadership• program governance• program structure• staff characteristics• student behavior

In this section, we describe what we learned in each area. We thenprovide tools to help you refect on your practices and determine whatactions you can take to increase your program’s quality.

Program

Organization




6

Program Leadership

What We LearnedFull-time leadership is key to thedevelopment, implementation, andsustainability o overall programs andindividual sites. The high- unctioningprograms we studied were characterizedby strong, ull-time leaders who recruitedquality sta and created positive workenvironments built on supportiverelationships among sta and students.Similarly, individual sites with ull-time site

directors or coordinators reported receivingmore support rom school-day sta , moreaccess to space and materials, and moresupport or student behavior issues thanother sites.

Program leaders who are physically locatednear key administrators within a schooldistrict or community-based organizationgain more access to resources and moresupport or their programs. A terschoolprogram leaders operate in a variety olocations. However, survey data, interviews,and site observations suggest that programleaders located in the central o ce o aschool district or the headquarters o acommunity-based organization receivedmore monetary support, more access tospace and materials, and more help withsta ng and student behavior issues thanother leaders. In addition, the data suggestthat leaders in these central locations wereable to build and maintain more positiverelationships with the school-day sta ,

amilies, and the community than leaderslocated outside o the central o ce.

Strong leaders articulate the program’svision, mission, and goals to sta ,administrators, students, amilies, andcommunity leaders to generate support.In the high quality programs we studied,leaders inspired support or the program’smission and ully engaged both sta andstudents in achieving that mission. Acrossboth school-based and community-basedprograms, sta showed high motivation toul ll the mission articulated by programleaders. In most cases, this mission wasa variation on helping students to achievein school and li e. In addition, in programswhere leaders deliberately emphasizedthe mission, sta and students alikeheld and expressed high expectationsor student success.

A terschool program sta who interactwith the sta o sponsoring organizations(e.g., ederal title, special education,and general academic programs) havegreater opportunities or collaboration andsuccess ul partnerships with schools.O particular note, a terschool programs,in both urban and rural areas, were ableto expand support and resources whensta met regularly with senior districtor community-based leadership to workon mutually supportive goals, thecoordination o plans, and the shareduse o available resources.

ProgramOrganization




ProgramOrganization

Collaborative, respect ul, andknowledgeable leaders are key to programsuccess and sta retention. Sta in highquality programs consistently reported thattheir program leaders collaborated withthem, were respect ul o their ideas, andsupported their e orts. They said that theleaders in their organizations provided stawith appropriate levels o autonomy andshowed con dence in their ability to workwith students. Sta also reported that theirleaders were knowledgeable about both theacademic and youth development needs ostudents. Additionally, reports indicated thatsupport rom leaders who knew the studentsand their needs helped instructors motivatestudents to participate, stay in the program,and do well in school.

Regarding sta retention, sta across allpositions reported in interviews and surveysthat program directors’ collaborative andcooperative behaviors, even more thanmonetary rewards, contributed to theirwillingness to stay in the program. Thelevel o sta retention in the programswe studied was considerably more stablethan in a terschool programs in general,based on national data such as the AnnualPer ormance Reports and details provided bythe Department o Education.

In a related in-depth study that weconducted o our programs experiencinghigh rates o overall academic success,we asked speci c questions concerningsta stability. In all our programs, stacon rmed what we had heard across theother sites: a actor in sta members’decisions to stay with the program wasthat the program leaders demonstrateda collaborative and supportive style,personal dedication, organizationalskills, and open communication.

An open leadership style contributesto an overall positive program climateand encourages nurturing sta -studentrelationships. Sta reported that open andsupportive program leaders who listen toinput and practice acilitative leadershipserve as role models and encourage sta touse similar practices with students. By usingopen leadership practices, sta reported theyin turn were able to serve as role models orstudents and create high expectations orstudent behavior, school attendance, workhabits, and attitudes toward learning.

How is your program doing?The next two pages provide tools to helpyou implement quality practices in youra terschool program.




8

Quality- -Meter Program LeadershipProgramOrganization

Re ect on and rate how well you think your program or site is doing on each item.

Site coordinators/directors work ull-time in the a terschool program.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

NOT MUCH A WHOLE LOT

Program directors/leaders’ o ces are located in the headquarters o thesponsoring organization.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program leaders model listening and acilitation practices that encourage program sta

to demonstrate con dence in students’ abilities to accomplish program goals.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Leaders respect and support a terschool sta by providing an appropriate level oautonomy within a clearly de ned set o goals and expectations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program and site leaders build and maintain positive relationships with sta , school-dayleaders and sta , students, amilies, and community members.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Leaders develop and implement a positive work environment with open andsupportive behaviors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program directors and leaders meet requently with leaders rom sponsoring organizationsto develop and coordinate all program goals and resources.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Leaders develop relationships with a variety o audiences to maintain needed support inunding, space, materials, sta development, and student behavior issues.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Copyright © SEDL




ProgramOrganization

Use this tool with your answers on the Quality-O-Meter to help you prioritize your practicesand plan your program improvement.

List the practices in this area that you would like to strengthen or adopt in your program.

List speci c steps you can take to strengthen or adopt these practices in your program.

What individuals and groups need to be involved?

What in ormation and other resources will be needed to implement the step(s)?

How will you build the capacity o sta and others to implement the practices?

Describe how you envision your plan o action being implemented, including speci c actions,responsibilities, and timelines.

To build understanding and support or the steps you plan to take, what do you need to do, towhom do you need to talk, and what points will you need to stress? (What is in it or them?)

How will implementing the steps to strengthen leadership practices bene t your program?(What is in it or the program and or you?)

How will you determine i the step(s) have been implemented as planned and are achievingthe expected results?

Other ideas or improving program leadership:

Planning for Action Program Leadership




10

Program Governance

What We LearnedBuilding relationships with a diverse groupo supporters helps govern and sustaina terschool programs. During the 5 years othe study, a practice we observed was thecreation o “advisory” groups that includeda terschool sta ; school-day personnel;parents; community partners; communityleaders; and, in a ew instances, students.Some o these advisory groups participatedin reviewing and revising the structure,

direction, and types o activities a site orprogram o ered. In interviews, sta saidthe advisory groups also provided thelarger community with in ormation on theimportance o the a terschool program tostudent success. Additionally, the advisorygroups provided direct support or theprograms in dollars, materials, space, and/orindividual time so that programs wereless dependent on a single source omonetary support.

Regular sta meetings with writtenagendas make a di erence in governingprograms. Program leaders at both the site-and program-level in the high-per ormingprograms we studied held regular stameetings, most o ten biweekly or monthly.Meeting agendas were written and includedmanagement and organizational topics aswell as speci c learning topics. In thesemeetings, program leaders intentionallyrein orced program goals, worked on teambuilding, and kept everyone ocused and ontrack to achieve the program’s mission.

Shared decision making creates buy-in andhelps shape leaders and sta into a teamor implementation. In virtually all the sites,sta reported a high degree o satis actionwith their involvement in decision makingabout the program’s academic components.Both site coordinators and instructorssaid they played active roles in decisionmaking about curriculum developmentand instructional strategies. The exception

tended to be programs where instructorswere not part o the school-day sta or hadlimited ormal education training. Theseprograms tended to rely more on academiclesson models developed by either certi edschool-day teaching sta or commercialcompanies. When it came to day-to-dayoperations, leaders shared decision makingwith those sta who were more amiliar withstudents and their needs. Shared decisionmaking in these situations was guided by anindividual’s level o knowledge, experience,and expertise.


ProgramOrganization




ProgramOrganization


The program includes an advisory group to provide input on overall program governance.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program and site leaders schedule and conduct meetings at regular intervals with allsta at the program or site level.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program and site meetings include written agendas.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Meeting agendas include management, organizational, and speci c learning topics.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


All program leaders play active roles in decisions concerning curriculum andinstructional topics.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Based on their individual knowledge, experience, and expertise, instructional staare involved in the development, review, and re nement o learning activities.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Leaders and sta cooperate and collaborate in developing curriculum-related activities.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Sites consider the knowledge o sta and student learning needs in decisionsconcerning the use o sel -developed or commercially available academic activities.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program and site leaders work with site instructional sta to make decisions aboutspeci c instructional strategies.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Quality- -Meter Program Governance

Copyright © SEDL




12






Describe how you envision your plan o action being implemented, including speci cactions, responsibilities, and timelines.


How will implementing the steps to strengthen these practices bene t your program?(What is in it or the program and or you?)

How will you determine i the step(s) have been implemented as planned and areachieving the expected results?

Other ideas or improving program governance:

Planning for Action Program GovernanceProgramOrganization




ProgramOrganizationProgram Structure

What We LearnedProgram time is most o ten organizedaround our specifc activities: academics,homework, enrichment, and snacks. Mostprograms conducted academic activities 3 to4 days a week or 45 to 105 minutes a day,on average. Almost every program providedhomework assistance and/or tutoring eachday, and most sites o ered daily enrichmentactivities and snacks as well.

Programs and sites across the study havesimilar operating schedules. Most o the104 sites in the study o ered programming5 days a week or 2.5 to 3 hours per day.A small number o the programs o eredprogramming 4 days a week. Most programsdedicated time and sta to planning,preparation, assessment, and pro essionaldevelopment activities in support o programand site goals.

Programs use similar sta fng patternsto implement their activities. Many othe programs we studied used sta ngpatterns that included a ull-time programdirector who reported to a school orcommunity-organization administrator.Many programs also had ull-time sitecoordinators who provided day-to-dayplanning and management or one or moresites. Instructors and activity leaders wereo ten part-time sta who worked directlyor the a terschool program or a partnerorganization. In some cases, we visitedprograms that used volunteers to provideinstruction or lead activities.




14

ProgramOrganization Academic activities address specifc

learning topics and standards that arelinked to the school-day goals, particularlyin literacy, math, and science. The majorityo sites we visited were observed usingsta -developed or adapted academicactivities that had obvious links to school-day expectations and state standards.Fun, engaging activities that were di erentrom those o ered in the school daywere observed across the sites. A smallernumber o programs purchased and usedcommercially developed curriculum and/ormaterials, which also were linked to school-day expectations and state standards. Inaddition, a ew programs were developingand implementing multidisciplinary project-based learning activities ocused on the artsor science.

Programs o er a balance o a wide varietyo enrichment activities in addition toacademics and homework help. Almostevery program in the study o ered avariety o what the sta labeled enrichmentactivities, such as arts, cra ts, cooking,gardening, health and nutrition, culturalactivities, and computer skills. Some staalso described recreation activities, suchas sports, dance, drill team, and outdoorgames, as enrichment activities. Theseactivities were organized and provided by acombination o program sta and externalproviders who were quali ed and welltrained. These external providers includedthe Boys & Girls Clubs o America, YMCAs,technology companies, environmentalgroups, and others. Students, according tointerviews and surveys, o ten had input intowhat activities were provided.

How is your program doing?The next two pages provide tools to helpyou implement quality practices in your

a terschool program.




ProgramOrganizatioQuality- -Meter Program Structure


The a terschool program o ers a range o activities each day o operation.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program and site leaders are assigned ull-time to the a terschool program.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Academic-related activities, homework help, enrichment activities, and nutritioussnacks are provided on a regular basis.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Academic programming is ocused on speci c learning objectives that are linkedto the school day and appropriate learning standards.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Academic activities—both those developed commercially or by program sta —support school-day goals and expectations through un, engaging activities that

di er rom those o ered during the school day.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Students attending the program provide input into the activities to be o ered.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Project-based activities that ocus on multiple-learning disciplines are a regularpart o the a terschool program.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Time or planning, preparation, assessment, and sta development is a regularpart o the a terschool program.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Copyright © SEDL




16

ProgramOrganization








How will implementing the steps to strengthen this practice bene t your program?(What is in it or the program and or you?)


Other ideas or improving program structure:

Planning for Action Program Structure




Staff Characteristics

What We LearnedProgram sta are experienced. The majorityo program sta in the sites we studied had3 or more years o experience in a terschoolprograms and had been employed at thecurrent program or site or at least 3 years.

Program sta are highly qualifed.Interviews and surveys indicated that morethan hal o the program leaders and sitesta had at least a 4-year degree. Degreesin education, like teaching, counseling, andadministration, were most common. Sta ,particularly administrators, also reportedhaving degrees in elds like social work,criminal justice, and the social sciences.A ew o the programs participating in thestudy said they hired site instructors withlittle or no ormal educational backgroundor training mainly because o budget issues.However, these programs acknowledgedthat this strategy meant that sta with lessexperience and training needed more direct

support in areas like discipline management,acceptable interactions with students, andacademic “best practices.”

Program leaders hire sta who havespecifc skills that predict success. Whenhiring sta , program leaders reportedseeking individuals with characteristics thatseemed to predict success and retention.These characteristics were the ability tomanage groups and individuals well, engagea variety o students in activities, andinteract positively with students and adults.Program leaders said that getting help romschool-day personnel and other a terschoolprogram sta in the hiring o new stacontributed to choosing people who wouldbe success ul and stay with the program.

Monetary incentives are not the primarymotivators or sta members. Leaders andsta o high- unctioning programs regularlysaid that monetary incentives were not whatattracted them to the program or encouraged

them to stay. Rather, the opportunity tointeract personally with students, implementcreative learning activities, have su cienttime to work with other sta , and befexible in how they used instructional timeencouraged leaders and sta to remain withthe program. In addition, some sta reportedthat they remained with the program togain experience working with students whilecompleting a ormal degree program.


ProgramOrganization




18

ProgramOrganization Quality- -Meter Staff Characteristics


The majority o program sta have multiple years o experience working ina terschool programs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Most o the sta have a ormal degree or related certi cation beyond the high school level.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Input or sta selection comes rom a variety o knowledgeable individuals within

the a terschool and school-day programs.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Potential sta are screened and interviewed or evidence they can manage groupsand individuals well.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Potential sta are screened and interviewed or evidence they can success ully

engage a variety o students in activities.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Potential sta are screened and interviewed or evidence they can build positiverelationships with students and adults.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Sta receive the time, materials, and support needed to plan and implementcreative learning activities.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Sta have su cient scheduled time to interact and work with other program members.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Copyright © SEDL













Other ideas or improving sta characteristics:

Planning for Action Staff CharacteristicsProgram

Organizatio




20

ProgramOrganization Student Behavior

What We LearnedPrograms have a discipline policy inplace and consider having one to becritical. Approaches to student behaviorexpectations and discipline varied acrossthe programs we studied. Some programsprovided detailed and speci c guidelinesabout what was expected o students andhow to address behavior problems. Otherprograms were airly general in describingtheir discipline policies. The programs also

varied in their level o adoption or adherenceto the school-day discipline policy. Someprograms adopted the school policy; atother programs, sta thought their disciplinepolicies should be more lenient becauseo the typically less-structured a terschoolenvironment. No matter the policy, allthe a terschool programs we visited haddiscipline policies in place to deal withstudent behavior issues and shared thoseprocedures with their students.

Knowledgeable sta are able to addressstudent behavior issues e fciently ande ectively. Program leaders ensured thatsta were amiliar with their program’sdiscipline policy and how to implement it.Most programs indicated that they had anestablished process or working throughstudent behavior problems that generallybegan with the instructor and moved upthe ladder through the site coordinator tothe project director, as needed. Programsta also included students’ parents in

this process, particularly when problemspersisted. All programs reported ewdiscipline problems among students andthat little sta time was needed to addressproblematic behaviors.

Programs receive support rom school-daysta and administration in dealing withstudent behavior issues. School-day anda terschool sta worked together to addressstudent behavior issues and thought thiscooperation contributed to ewer disciplineproblems. Program leaders, including sitecoordinators, program directors, and schooladministrators, worked with school-day andprogram sta to build and maintain thiscooperation. In addition, the observations,surveys, and interviews we conductedindicated that program leaders and stain general supported the discipline andbehavior policies in place, including howthey should be interpreted and implemented.





ProgramOrganizatioQuality- -Meter Student Behavior


The program has a ormal, written discipline policy, which is based onappropriate measures like age, location, and program structure.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


All sta have received training on the discipline policy and understand how tointerpret and implement it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


All sta know what to do and whom to contact when student behavior or disciplineissues arise.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Sta have the knowledge and skills to address student behavior or discipline issuesquickly and e ectively.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program sta have ormally shared student behavior expectations and consequenceswith students and parents.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Students are amiliar with the program’s discipline policy and the behaviors expected o them.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


The school-day sta and administration are amiliar with the program’s discipline policy.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


School-day sta and administrators directly support the program sta in addressingstudent behavior issues.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Copyright © SEDL




22










Other ideas or improving student behavior:

Planning for Action Student BehaviorProgramOrganization








AcademiProgramming

PracticeQuality- -Meter Goal-Oriented Programs


All program and site sta have access to a printed or electronic copy o the program’sstudent learning goals and academic expectations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


A terschool sta meet regularly with school-day sta to coordinate and cooperate onmeeting the program’s goals or students’ academic achievement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


A terschool activities addressing academic goals and expectations do not directly extendthe same instructional approaches used during the school day.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


The program’s academic goals or students connect to the school day or district’sinstructional goals or speci c content areas.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program leaders and site coordinators work with the instructional sta to constructand use project-based learning models and strategies tied to multiple content areas.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program sta utilize sel -developed or purchased tools to enhance regular communication

with the school-day sta .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Copyright © SEDL




26










Other ideas or better orienting your program around academic goals:

Planning for Action Goal-Oriented Programs

AcademicProgrammingPractices




AcademiProgramming

PracticeStandards-Based Learning Activities

What We LearnedProgram leaders are knowledgeable aboutstandards and purpose ul in ensuring thatstandards-based learning activities arebeing provided. All o the programs westudied had incorporated state or nationalstandards into their curriculum to somedegree. However, sta in school-basedprograms were more amiliar with standardsand better able to develop speci c activitiesto address them than sta in community-

based programs. Some programs, usuallythose in which instructors had a limitedbackground in ormal learning techniques,had sta with classroom experiencedevelop and/or monitor the standards-basedacademic activities being o ered.

Instructors describe attributes o learningactivities that tie to the standards.A terschool program sta appearedknowledgeable about linking the curriculumto standards and were purpose ul in the

delivery o the standards-based curriculum.In many sites we visited, certi ed teacherswere hired and they modeled qualityinstructional practices connecting activitiesto standards. In a number o programs,again more o ten those in which instructorshad little or no ormal educational training,survey data indicated that sta had littledirect knowledge o the state standards.But when asked questions that includeda standard, virtually all sta membersdescribed in detail how they tied activities

to that standard. At the same time, in ourobservations, sta knowledge o content-area standards varied by content area.

Site coordinators are the most amiliarwith content standards in programs wheremathematics is the ocus. Sta that helpedstudents with mathematics reported usingactivities that incorporated standards orusing basic numerical unctions (e.g.,addition and subtraction o whole numbers,pattern recognition). In addition, hal othe sta providing mathematics assistancereported using activities that incorporatedhigher-level standards (e.g., problemsolving; using equations and understandingor applying mean, range, and median),particularly when working with students whohad stronger basic mathematics skills.

Program science instructors intentionallyuse a standards-based curriculum ortheir activities and can provide reasoningor the ocus on specifc standards. Mostscience instructors in the programs westudied reported using speci c state andnational science standards or particular agegroups as the basis o their instruction. Forexample, a number o science program stareported using standards or basic scienti cunderstanding and technology use to helpstudents conduct various projects.

Literacy program sta incorporatestandards into their programming. Inthe programs we studied, almost all othe literacy program sta reported usingstandards related to vocabulary and fuencydevelopment in read-aloud or silent-readingactivities. In addition, some upper-grade-

level sta said they used sel -correctingstrategies to help students decode text andunderstand literary techniques.




28

Technology activities include nationalstandards. Although technology stadescribed their knowledge o standardsas weak to moderate, the majority usedactivities or methodology that clearlyrefected national or state standards or both.Observations and interviews also indicatedthat most programs used technologyactivities and materials or the ollowing,all o which tie directly into the nationaltechnology learning standards:• productions and creative projects

and exercises• communication of information and ideas• student research• solving real-world problemsAdditionally, most technology sta said thatthey provided students with opportunitiesto practice responsible behavior in the useo technology, and almost hal o the stareported applying a national standard inwhich students research and evaluate theaccuracy and bias o digital in ormation.

Arts program sta incorporate nationalstandards. In the programs we studied,virtually all o the arts sta reported thatthey incorporated national standards orapplied art techniques and processes intoliteracy, math, and science activities. Inaddition, about one third o the arts staindicated that they used technology activitiesthat incorporated the standard to usetechnology as a creative tool.

Program sta are more knowledgeableabout and attentive to academic standardsover time. The study involved site visitsconducted over a period o 3-and-a-hal years. During the rst 18 months,the data we collected suggested that anumber o program sta in the literacy andmathematics sites we visited had a limitedknowledge or understanding o academicstandards. During the nal 2 years ovisits to arts, science, technology, andhomework help sites, program sta wereable to describe the academic standards andexplain how activities were designed to meetspeci c standards. Program leaders in these

sites reported that an increased emphasison academic standards in ederal programregulations and pro essional developmentthat targeted strategies or improvingstudents’ academic achievement contributedto sta s’ ability to articulate knowledgeabout content standards. During the nalyear o the study, most o the technologyand arts sites we visited had developedand implemented projects that includedintegrated learning activities that clearlyaddressed speci c standards in multiple

content areas.






AcademiProgramming

PracticeQuality- -Meter Standards-Based Learning Activities


Program and site leaders are knowledgeable about state and national learning standards.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program and site leaders are able to acilitate curriculum planning linked to state or nationalstandards as well as to school and district goals.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Academic activities o ered at program sites intentionally address speci c content learningstandards that are l inked to the school day.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Structured pro essional development on ways to integrate academic content standards intolearning activities is provided or site coordinators and instructors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program learning activities address student learning goals based on student data.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program leaders and sta communicate regularly with school-day sta about studentachievement goals.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

||

| | |

|| | |

|

|| |

|

|

||

|

| |

||

| | |

|| | |

|

|| |

|

|

||

|

| |

||

| | |

|


Copyright © SEDL




30










Other ideas or improving your program’s o ering o standards-based learning activities:

Planning for Action Standards-Based Learning Activities





AcademiProgramming

PracticeResearch-Based Curriculum andInstructional Practices

What We LearnedPrograms o di erent sizes, physicallocations, and structure intentionally useresearch-based academic activities toenrich learning. All o the programs wevisited, regardless o their size, location,rural or urban setting, or community andprogram demographics, intentionallyincorporated academics by using research-based strategies and practices to enhancestudent academic achievement.

Programs that emphasized any o the sixcontent areas—literacy, mathematics,science, the arts, technology, andhomework/tutoring—used research-basedlearning activities. Regardless o size orlocation, sta could nd resources to supportresearch-based practices. We requently sawinstructors using direct instruction, variousexploration activities, and models wherestudents constructed meaning through avariety o engaging hands-on activities.Some speci c examples o research-basedpractices we observed include the ollowing:

• Programs focused on enhancing literacyskills incorporated practices such asread alouds and literacy circles/groupsto improve speci c reading skills,including language fuency, vocabularydevelopment, comprehension,and interpretation.

• Mathematics programs used mathcenters, research-supported mathactivities, and math encountered ineveryday activities to strengthen students’ability to use mathematical tools,understand basic numerical unctions,analyze word problems, and interpretinstructions or problem solving.

• Science programs used research-supported activities such as describingand conducting scienti c procedures,using tools to gather and analyze data,designing and conducting investigations,and conducting experiments and usingevidence to predict and explain.

• Technology programs used the mostcontent-integrated curriculum andreported requently using research-supported practices such as buildingskills and understanding, gathering,and sharing in ormation.

• Programs in the arts used research-basedpractices such as building arts skills,expressing yoursel through the arts, anddeveloping arts skills like interpretation.All the arts activities involved studentscreating products that were then sharedand critiqued, either by the studentsthemselves or their peers.

• The programs visited during the laterportion o the study were developing andusing project-based learning models.Evidence, cited by the programs andsupported in the literature, indicates thatintegrating learning goals across contentareas with an expected product canpositively a ect academic achievementand youth development goals. Interviewsin the programs with project-basedactivities indicated that the participatingstudents had improved academicper ormance and school-day attendance,and ewer behavior issues than prior tothe use o projects as a learning ocus.




32

Programs use homework and tutoringassistance to develop increased academic

knowledge and skills as well as youthdevelopment skills. Programs and siteswhere homework and/or tutoring activitieswere observed used practices consistentwith current research evidence de ningquality academic assistance. Theseprograms and sites relied on sta with strongcontent knowledge and interpersonal skills toprovide direct academic assistance to meetthe needs o students, either individuallyor in cooperative, collaborative groups. Anumber o the sites paid particular attentionand time to strengthening students’ studyskills, work habits, and organizing practices.Additionally, these programs addressedissues such as time management, locatingand using source material, note taking, andtest preparation.

Sta in almost every program that ocusedon homework or one o the content areas

indicated concern about the amount andtype o homework assigned by school-daysta . A terschool sta said the homeworkassigned to students o ten was not refectiveo quality practices described in the currentresearch literature on homework. Forthis reason, sta reported incorporatingadditional learning activities into theirhomework assistance or tutoring.






AcademiProgramming

PracticeQuality- -Meter Research-Based Curriculum andInstructional Practices


Program sta use a range o research-based learning practices to support increasedacademic improvement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


The program or site uses a research-based curriculum with an emphasis on hands-oninstructional practices.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program sta locate and utilize resources that support research-based practices.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Learning activities include project-based strategies that ocus on multiple content areasand extend beyond a single lesson.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program sta use research-based knowledge and skills to provide homework andtutoring assistance that appropriately supports students’ academic needs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Homework and tutoring assistance refects current research on the best use o time,

space, and materials.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Copyright © SEDL




34







To build understanding and support or the steps you plan to take, what do you need to do, to

whom do you need to talk, and what points will you need to stress? (What is in it or them?)



Other ideas or improving the use o research-based curriculum and instructional practices inyour program:

Planning for Action Research-Based Curriculum andInstructional Practices




The a terschool programs in this study were adept at buildingsupportive relationships that ultimately bene ted all stakeholders.Positive relationships with school-day personnel, amilies, communitymembers, and between and among program sta and students helpedthe programs thrive. In this section, we describe what we learned inthese areas and provide tools to help you determine what actionsyou can take to build and sustain relationships to increase yourprogram’s quality.

Supportive Relationships

in A terschool




36

Linking to the School Day

What We LearnedPrograms use in ormal communicationto create a strong oundation with theschool-day program. The most commonlink reported and observed betweena terschool program sta and school-daysta was communication in the orm o briediscussions or the exchange o notes abouta student’s academic progress or behavior.Program sta reported that this type ocommunication occurred requently—

almost daily, in act—and in a mainlyin ormal way. Homework was the topicmost o ten mentioned as the main reasonor this contact.

Full-time site coordinators link to theschool-day program through the sharingo goals and requent progress reports.Another common link to the school dayinvolved in ormally sharing programgoals and progress reports about studentachievement. A ew programs we saw hadmore ormal, organized linkages, such aspassing assignment books back and orthbetween the school-day and a terschoolsta s. The link with the school-dayprogram was strongest in those a terschoolprograms that employed ull-time siteleaders who were on campus and ableto see that the linkages happened. Theseindividuals usually were responsible orcoordinating academic programming andor addressing student behavior, attendance,and youth development with school-day

and a terschool sta . Full-time site leadersalso were responsible or communicatingregularly with other program leaders andschool-day administrators.

In addition, all the school-based programsand most o the community-based programsthat we studied sought input rom school-day sta to ne-tune academic learningactivities. We observed that scienceprograms, in particular, worked to linkto the school-day program because thea terschool programs’ science experienceso ten represented the majority o the timethat students had to devote to science.

School-day and a terschool programs

collaborate on curriculum planning anddevelopment to strengthen continuityaround student learning. Although we sawthis kind o planning and development inseveral o the content areas, one noteworthyscience program provided an excellentexample o how this practice works. Theprogram was designed around the district’sscience curriculum, grounded in the stateand national science standards, andsupplemented with purchased science-kitmaterials. The result was a program thatprovided students with a sense o continuitybetween their school-day science instructionand a terschool science enrichment. School-day activities ocused on vocabulary, subjectcomprehension, and related cognitive goals;a terschool activities ocused on hands-onprojects that enabled students to use basicscienti c principles, test hypotheses, andconduct experiments.

SupportiveRelationshipsin A terschool




SupportivRelationshipsin A terschoo

School-day and a terschool programsuse ormal communication tools to helpstrengthen their link. During visits totechnology and homework help sites,we saw more programs developing orpurchasing ormal communication toolsto strengthen the link between school-dayand a terschool program sta . These toolsincluded agendas, planners, and homeworklogs, which many o the programs used tocommunicate progress reports and needsamong school-day teachers, a terschoolsta , students, and amilies.

How is your program doing?The next two pages provide tools to help

you implement quality practices in youra terschool program.
















Other ideas or improving the link between your program and the school-day program:

Planning for Action Linking to the School Day







Pro essional development or instructionalsta addresses general rather thanacademic topics. Pro essional developmentor instructional sta , according to surveysand interviews, was reported as mosto ten addressing such topics as behaviormanagement, record keeping, and healthand sa ety, all o which are necessary orquality program operation. A ew programsreported tailoring pro essional developmentor instructors to address the speci c needso the student populations they served—needs such as language development andrelated issues.

School districts or school-day programsprovide the majority o academic, content-specifc pro essional development.Program sta did report that they couldparticipate in pro essional development onacademic topics provided by the school-day programs. The bulk o this pro essionaldevelopment, whether ormal or semi ormal,did not address a terschool speci cally.School-day sta working in an a terschoolprogram automatically received pro essionaldevelopment with other school-day sta .Sta who did not work in the school-dayprogram o ten were invited to participate inschool-day pro essional development, butew reported actually doing so.

Some pro essional development emphasizeshelping students reach academic goals.Some programs emphasized not onlyprogram organization and management butalso how to help boost student academicachievement. Programs and sites becamemore interested in providing quality stadevelopment on helping students reachacademic goals and on tying learning tostudent and school needs. Pro essionaldevelopment also began to ocus more onusing technology to support academics,which sta reported as use ul.

Most pro essional development onacademic content areas ocused on literacyand mathematics as well as on how toimplement speci c practices and tie learningto school-day needs. Sta developmentocused less on science, the arts, homeworkhelp, evaluation, assessment, and assistingspecial populations. Additionally, surveysand interviews indicated, across locations,that sta perceived a need or moredevelopment in classroom management,motivating struggling learners, working withspecial needs students, dealing with bullyingand abuse, and working with distressedstudents and amilies.





42

SupportiveRelationshipsin A terschool Quality- -Meter Professional Development


Sta participate in pro essional development opportunities.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


The program o ers, at regular intervals, job-embedded pro essional developmentopportunities during sta meetings or at other convenient times.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Sta share their individual knowledge and expertise with each other.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


The program uses one or more o these job-embedded pro essional developmentstrategies that go beyond con erences and workshop presentations: train-the-trainer,online opportunities, sel -directed learning, and pro essional learning communities.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Pro essional development opportunities are shared between a terschool and theschool-day program.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Copyright © SEDL














Other ideas or improving pro essional development:

Planning for Action Professional Development




44

Building and MaintainingRelationshipsWhat We LearnedAdults and students develop positivepersonal and educational relationships,which provide motivation or students toexpand their learning and do well in school.Across the 104 program sites, the quality osta interactions with students was observedto be very positive. Interviews and surveyscon rmed that program sta understoodthe need to build mentor relationshipswith their students. In general, all o theprograms provided an emphasis on socialdevelopment. Site-visit teams, by andlarge, observed positive, age-appropriatesocialization among students and instudent-adult interactions. Youth-to-youthinteractions also were observed tobe generally positive and respect ul.

Sta have high expectations or students’academic per ormance, behavior, anddemocratic participation in the program.Sta e ectively communicated highexpectations or students participatingin the programs we observed. One thirdo the programs expected grade-level orbetter per ormance rom their students. Aourth o the programs said they expectedand encouraged students to make the bestgrades possible in school. In speci c contentareas, science and arts programs expectedstudents to increase their exposure to andengagement in science and arts experiences.Similarly, technology programs expectedstudents to use technology as a tool orcontinuous learning.

Student input is regularly sought and usedin decision making and in planning programactivities. The programs we studied o ered

a wide range o activities that maintainedstudent interest and encouraged students’continued participation. Some literacy,mathematics, and homework programsallowed students to select their ownactivities instead o assigning work. Oneprogram gave students a voice in decisionmaking by allowing them to determinewhere to locate an upcoming service-learning project. Another program gavestudents the option o either reading orpleasure or doing homework. In speci c

content areas, arts, science, and technologyprograms placed heavy emphasis on youthautonomy and decision making. Artsprograms, in particular, seemed to valuestudent input on arts curriculum content.Students who had a voice in an a terschoolprogram’s design demonstrated a higherlevel o “buy in,” engagement, andcontinued participation.





SupportivRelationshipsin A terschooPrograms intentionally help build positive

student behaviors and increase students’ability to work collaboratively. Many othe programs provided speci c activitiesto support students’ social development,increase their sel -esteem, and help themdevelop positive sel -images. These socialdevelopment o erings were designedto demonstrate expected behaviors andhealthy li estyles, and help students developpositive relationships and learn to interactappropriately with di erent types o people.A ew programs used predesigned orpurchased curricula to build youth characterskills. At least one program used the gender-

speci c curriculum Smart Girls, whichocuses on topics related to girls’ personalhygiene and li e changes during puberty.Another program adopted the companioncurriculum, Passport to Manhood, whichocuses on the same topics or boys.Additionally, one o the programs adoptedCharacter Development, a curriculum ordeveloping the character traits o honesty,respect, responsibility, and caring.

Programs emphasize real-world activitiesto increase levels o student and stamotivation or learning. In the programs westudied, learning opportunities linked to real-world situations helped connect the school-day curriculum to student’s lives outside oschool. For example, program instructorstied content to current events by usingnewspapers and magazines, and to popularculture by studying trends and ads likehip-hop, gadgets, television, and movies.Programs also provided real-world activitiesdesigned to help students develop and apply

marketable technology skills.

Program activities are rotated to motivatestudents to attend and participate daily.Virtually every site visited provided multipletypes o activities during every program day.Most o ered a combination o homeworkhelp or tutoring along with academics,enrichment, or recreation on a rotatingschedule. Most individual activities lasted30 to 60 minutes. Some programs used alearning-center approach, allowing studentsto move between activities at their ownpace; others used a more time-structuredarrangement. Embedded-learning strategies,like cross-content integration, dialogic(discussion o concepts and ideas) and

cooperative learning, culturally signi cantprogramming, youth choice, and theincorporation o enrichment and recreationalactivities all helped to motivate students toparticipate and to meet academic and socialexpectations o the school day.





46

SupportiveRelationshipsin A terschool Quality- -Meter Building and Maintaining Relationships


Program sta relate well to students and establish positive mentor relationships with them.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Sta e ectively communicate high expectations or students’ academic per ormance,behavior, and democratic participation in the program.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Students have a voice in program planning and decision making.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Activities are o ered that are intentionally designed to oster positive student behaviorand develop students’ collaboration skills.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Real-world activities are o ered that connect academic learning to students’ livesand interests.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


More than one type o activity, such as homework help, tutoring, academic enrichment,and youth development activities, are o ered each day to motivate student participation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Copyright © SEDL













How will you determine i the step(s) have been implemented as planned and are achieving

the expected results?

Other ideas or building and maintaining relationships:

Planning for Action Building and Maintaining Relationships




48

Peer Collaboration andCooperative LearningWhat We LearnedCollaborative activities with peers andothers provide positive motivation orstudents to improve academically, attendschool more regularly, and adhere toacceptable behavior standards. Almost allthe programs studied o ered enrichmentactivities in which youth worked with peersand cooperated in various groupings todevelop, create, and practice social skills.Many o these group activities involvedper ormance art activities like poetry, dance,drama, and choir; or visual arts activitieslike cra t making, painting, drawing, andsculpting. One program instituted aninnovative art class, Fun With Junk, inwhich youth collaborated with peers incooperative learning teams to create artrom recyclable materials. Other sitesprovided opportunities or peer collaborationand cooperative learning through thedevelopment o dramatic, dancing, andsinging productions. Group discussions andjournal writing activities also engaged youthin intentional cooperative learning activities,and some sites used sports activities andgames to demonstrate cooperative practiceslike teamwork.

Field trips provide valuable collaborationand cooperative learning opportunities orstudents. Program and small-group eldtrips to community sites engaged students inpeer collaboration and cooperative learningopportunities as well as providing real-world connections to school-day learning.Students o ten participated with their peersin planning cooperative learning activities,

including ollow-up activities, or these trips.Field trips included visits to re stations,libraries, local businesses, museums,technology centers, and zoos. One sitecoordinator took students to hear the localorchestra and paired youth with orchestramembers or the purpose o learning aboutthe instruments and the principles oteamwork required o members.

Grouping strategies help create positiverelationships among students and teach

collaboration skills. The programs alsoencouraged students’ social developmentthrough the use o grouping strategies duringormal academic activities. Virtually everyprogram used a variety o student groupingstrategies across grades, ages, and gender.The goal was to help students learn, todemonstrate how to work collaboratively,and to teach students how to use groupskills to attain speci c outcomes.






SupportivRelationshipsin A terschooQuality- -Meter Peer Collaboration and Cooperative Learning


Students have regular opportunities to participate in learning activities requiringcollaboration and cooperation with other students.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


A variety o grouping strategies are used to encourage positive student-to-studentrelationships.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


The program regularly o ers per ormance activities that require students to collaborateand to develop and practice social skills.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


The program o ers multiple ways or students to par ticipate in group activities,like sports, games, and project-based learning activities, that are intended to enhancecooperation and teamwork.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


The program o ers eld trips as a way to provide additional collaboration andcooperative learning opportunities or students.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Students work together to plan activities.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Sta structure activities and homework help using a variety o student-groupingmodels intended to build and strengthen collaboration and cooperation in learning.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Copyright © SEDL




50










Other ideas or improving peer collaboration and cooperative learning:

Planning for Action Peer Collaboration and Cooperative Learning





SupportivRelationshipsin A terschooFamily Engagement

What We LearnedPrograms regularly encourage amilies tovolunteer on-site. More than hal o theprograms regularly encouraged amilies tovolunteer on-site in some capacity. Likewise,similar numbers o amilies indicated theywere invited to volunteer in their child’sprogram at least once a month. Thesevolunteer opportunities included providingclassroom support or expertise in an areaand chaperoning at events and on eld

trips. However, despite e orts to encouragevolunteering, actual amily involvement asvolunteers was low across all 53 programswe studied. Sta suggested that the mainreason or the low levels o volunteeringwas that most amily members worked,o ten at multiple jobs, making it di cult orthem to spend time at the site. In addition,sta interviews suggested that languageissues and amily members’ own less-than-avorable experiences in school also had alimiting e ect on volunteer rates.

Programs o er programming or amilies toincrease their involvement. To help amilieseel welcome, some programs o eredevening and weekend classes designed oradults or amilies, including cra ts, cooking,English as a second language, and GeneralEducation Diploma courses. A ew programso ered special events at times and locationsconvenient to amilies. In addition, someprograms, mainly in large urban areas,shared and utilized a school-based amily

center that was available during both theschool-day and the a terschool programtime. These amily centers operated a rangeo programs to strengthen job, li e, andparenting skills and to build the capacity oamilies to support students’ education.

Site coordinators and program sta use avariety o ormal and in ormal means toshare program and student in ormationwith amilies. Sta and amilies consistentlyreported that programs provided language-appropriate communication in writtendocuments, ormal meetings, and in ormalcontact situations to disseminate in ormationto amilies and to encourage them tovolunteer. Formal communication betweenprogram sta and amilies included monthly/ bimonthly newsletters; program orientationsat the start o the year; amily nights;community outreach activities (e.g., potlucksand student per ormances); a terschoolnights, usually with a speci c ocus; letters,notes, and phone calls regarding studentprogress, attendance, or behavioral issues;and individual scheduled meetings asneeded (although many programs did notschedule regular ormal meetings withamilies). Most programs reported that themost in-depth, ace-to- ace contact with

amilies occurred during registration at thebeginning o the program year. In ormalcommunication included regular andrequent amily chats and discussions onissues a ecting individual students. Thistype o communication typically occurredat the end o the program day, whenmany amilies arrived to pick up students.Some programs also reported that amiliesparticipated as members o advisorycommittees that provided input orprogram plans.




52

Families’ perceptions o program e orts toshare in ormation and promote participationare mostly avorable. Families gave highmarks to their interaction, both ormal andin ormal, with program sta . In addition,some amily members indicated that stainteractions and behavior clearly showedthat sta cared about their children. Familiesalso gave high marks to program e orts tocommunicate in ormation about the programand individual students. A strong majority oamilies surveyed indicated receiving someorm o in ormation about the a terschoolprogram on a regular basis. About one-third o amilies stated that their children’sprogram provided in ormation at leastmonthly in their home language. Overall,amilies thought that the programs made ane ort to encourage their participation andto keep them abreast o program rulesand practices.

Families consider the program to be o highquality. Families reported that they thoughtthe a terschool programs their childrenattended were o high quality. Surveys at allsites during the period o the study showeda very high degree o amily satis action andsupport or the quality o the a terschoolprograms. In particular, amilies reportedthat their children who participated inthe programs showed improved behavior,increased attention to school assignments,more interest in learning, and an increaseddesire to attend both school and thea terschool program.








54










Other ideas or improving amily engagement:

Planning for Action Family Engagement





SupportivRelationshipsin A terschooCommunity Connections

What We LearnedIn-kind and fnancial support are the mostcommon orms o community connectionswith a terschool programs. All 53 o theprograms we studied built connections witha variety o community individuals andgroups, and in return received what programsta considered to be valuable support.Community involvement predominantlyconsisted o groups, organizations,businesses, or individuals providing a

program with nancial assistance, suppliesand materials, or services. Many stamembers commented in interviewsthat support rom community membersand groups is mandated by programunding requirements.

Community partnerships enhance theacademic content o a terschool programs.Many programs bene ted rom sharingresources and sta with other communityorganizations. For example, community

partnerships provided materials andsupplies to arts, science, and technologyprograms, which enhanced their academico erings. Some arts programs bene tedrom donations to und arts-related eldtrips. Artists-in-residence groups contributedto arts activities in almost every program,regardless o the community’s size oreconomic status. Likewise, communityscience experts helped programs providereal-world science experiences or students.Field trips to museums, universities, science

centers, agricultural centers, or othercommunity sites with a ormal learningocus also provided students with learningopportunities beyond the school building,even in the most rural areas.

Mentoring and tutoring are popular waysor community groups, businesses, andindividuals to support a terschool programs.A large number o the programs and sites wevisited reported that individuals or groupsrom the community volunteered as mentorsand tutors, providing both academic andrecreational assistance or individuals andsmall groups. Local universities and highschools provided volunteers or tutoring andhomework help. Community groups such asthe Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Boys and

Girls Clubs, and aith-based organizationsprovided volunteers and mentors. Thesecommunity mentors and tutors providedstudents with a variety o role models andenriching learning experiences. At the sametime, community members reported thattheir interaction with students was a positiveexperience and increased their support ora terschool programs.

Service-learning projects engage localcommunities in a terschool programs.Programs that used project-based learninggenerally included a service-learningcomponent that involved some segmento the community. In addition, a smallnumber o programs did activities thatsupported community groups, such asproducing newsletters, maintaining Websites, or even helping to raise sh or a stateconservation agency. In the programs visitedlater in the study, students were observedparticipating in a range o service-learningprojects, such as designing get-well cardsand making visits to nursing home residents.

Other service-learning projects includedrecycling, community beauti cation projects,community gardens, and ecosystemprojects to build students’ understanding obiology and conservation concepts. All othe observed and reported service-relatedactivities or projects had standards-basededucational goals and expectations inaddition to building an understanding olocal community needs.




56

Students beneft rom involvement withtheir communities. By engaging communitymembers and resources, programs providedstudents with the opportunity to explorecareer interests and bene t rom pro essionalexpertise in content areas they were studyingin school, such as science or mathematics.Students also received opportunities toidenti y and associate with community rolemodels and to become more immersed intheir community. Other bene ts reportedincluded strengthening students’ sel -concept, character, creativity, and eelingsabout the value o community involvement.

Community support increases whenstudents give back through various projects.Programs that contributed time and e ortto help school and community groupsmeet mutual goals reported much strongerlevels o support than the programs wherecommunity involvement was ocused onlyon receiving goods and services. Programsta we interviewed reported that thenumber and range o individuals and groups,including political o cials, who providedoverall program support increased whenstudents in the program did service-learningprojects or those individuals and groups.

Regardless o community size, socialbackground, and fnancial situations,programs are able to use local communityresources to support student learning.Virtually every program we visited,regardless o location and community size,utilized a variety o local individuals, groups,and organizations to provide expertise,knowledge, and additional learningopportunities or students. Arts programscreated connections with cultural centersand conducted eld trips to art exhibits.Science and technology programs avoredeld trips that supplemented the scienceand technology curriculum. One science

program sponsored a trip to a multinationalaerospace manu acturer and to an advancedtechnology company. Programs in smallerrural areas located and visited localresources such as agriculture companies tosupport learning in areas like science.






SupportivRelationshipsin A terschooQuality- -Meter Community Connections


Program sta have identi ed community businesses, groups, and individuals that areable and willing to commit to providing in-kind or nancial support to the program.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Community partners regularly provide materials and other resources that the program needs.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


The program has created connections with in ormal learning organizations, such asmuseums and arts and science centers, to provide a wide range o enrichment learningopportunities or students.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Sta have built relationships with community groups and individuals who have awillingness to serve as volunteer mentors, tutors, or activity experts.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program sta are involved with a wide variety o community organizations and leadersso that they can structure student activities designed to support community-wideprojects and goals.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Students in the program have the opportunity to participate in service-learning projectsto bene t the community.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Service-learning and other community projects are connected to education standardsand student learning expectations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Copyright © SEDL




58










Other ideas or improving community connections:

Planning for Action Community Connections




The programs we studied acknowledged their need and desire tobe accountable or program outcomes. They were able to reportpositive results in several areas based on various internal andexternal evaluation methods used to measure their e orts. The goalwas continuous program improvement and a way to communicatetheir results to their stakeholders. In this section, we describe whatwe learned about program accountability and evaluation. We haveprovided one Quality-O-Meter and one Planning or Action tool or allour areas in this section. Use these tools to refect on how to applythese practices to your program.

Achieving Program

Outcomes






AchievinProgram

OutcomeInternal Evaluations

What We LearnedPrograms conduct ormal and/or in ormalinternal evaluations. Virtually all o theprograms in the study reported using bothormal and in ormal internal evaluations. Themethods o internal evaluations observedincluded in ormal conversations betweena terschool sta , school-day sta , andamilies; the ormal administration o surveysto sta , students, and amilies; and thetracking o school-day test scores, grades,

behavior, and attendance records. Forexample, one program conducted a ormalinternal evaluation that included quarterlyassessment brie s rom sta , pre-posttesting, the tracking o students’ school-daygrades and progress, and student surveyson program satis action. Community-basedprograms reported using more speci c goal-ocused evaluations o outcomes or speci cactivities. Frequently, community-basedprograms used activities rom a vendor whothen expected to receive some eedback on

what students learned through participationin a speci c activity or project.

Programs generally do not use studenttesting as a means to evaluate their day-to-day activities. Those programs utilizing sel -developed academic activities, in particular,did not report any signi cant use o ormalstudent testing as a method o internalevaluation. However, the programs usingcommercial academic products did reportsome use o pre-testing and post-testing,usually provided by the product developer,to measure the success o the learningprogram. However, many o the programsreported using one or more o the ollowingmethods to evaluate individual and programgrowth: instructor observations; studentresponses; student products like digital yearbooks; project results; the production ouseable goods or services; and integratedactivities like student presentations and theuse o the arts to describe learning results.

Both school- and community-basedprograms collect evaluation input romamilies and students in addition to sta .In ormal means o internal evaluation inschool-based programs included studentinput and eedback via conversations withsta ; eedback rom amilies and school-dayteachers; and in ormal student data, o tenrom observations, regarding levels o peercollaboration and participation. Community-based programs’ internal evaluations soughteedback via surveys o amilies, sta ,students, and school-day teachers. Theseprograms also appeared to use the results othese evaluations or program improvementmore than school-based programs did.




62

External Evaluations

What We LearnedPrograms employ an external organizationto conduct evaluations. About one third othe programs we visited conducted externalevaluations and reported using multiplesources o in ormation as input or theseevaluations. The types o data includedsome ormal pre-post testing, school-dayteacher evaluations, comparison groups,surveys, ocus group discussions, andobservational assessments. School-day

in ormation, when available, included reportcard grades, standardized test results,behavior reports, and attendance records.In interviews and observations, a majorityo the programs provided little evidence thatormal external evaluations were used toguide decisions on program improvementbecause the data were o ten not provided inuser- riendly ormats.

Technology programs use content-specifcexternal evaluation models. Several othe technology programs used externalevaluations to track the overall e ectivenesso the program’s technology use and anyrelated results in the school-day curriculum.Some o the external evaluators utilizedso tware to monitor student progress in theschool day, the results o the technology usein the a terschool program, and the resultso adjusting the technology programming tot into the a terschool time.

AchievingProgramOutcomes






64

AchievingProgramOutcomes Quality- -Meter Achieving Program Outcomes


The program reports positive impacts on student outcomes.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


The program has data to support impacts on student outcomes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Teachers and parents attribute student improvements to a terschool programs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


The program conducts internal and external evaluations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Families, sta , and students provide input or evaluations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Program sta know how to interpret and use evaluation data.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


The program can obtain data needed to conduct evaluations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Copyright © SEDL




AchievinProgram

OutcomeUse this tool with your answers on the Quality-O-Meter to help you prioritize your practicesand plan your program improvement.









Other ideas or achieving program outcomes:

Planning for Action Achieving Program Outcomes








Appendix

Study OverviewSEDL and its partners de ned qualitypractice sites as those showing evidenceo success in promoting student learningand studied their academic practices inour content areas—literacy, mathematics,science, and the arts—and two cross-cutting areas—technology and homeworkhelp. A rigorous validation processwas established to identi y and select

prospective sites or the study. The rststep in this process was to conductan extensive literature review and getguidance rom National Partnershipexperts and advisors on key curriculumcontent to determine common variablesand processes associated with positivea terschool program outcomes. Thisprocess resulted in identi ying indicators osuccess in delivering quality content andmaintaining e ective unctionality in ana terschool setting. These indicators, along

with the U.S. Department o Education’s(ED) annual per ormance reports or 21stCentury Community Learning Center(CCLC) programs, teacher survey results,participant academic per ormance data,and recommendations rom leaders in thea terschool eld, served as the basis ordeveloping the indicator system used tovalidate quality practices or site selection.The National Partnership used this systemand additional selection criteria to cullapproximately 120 21st CCLC grantees inthe six content areas rom an initial pool omore than 1,600 grantees.

Selection Criteria for Study SitesFor initial site selection, several programprerequisites were established. Theseprerequisites included serving 100 or morestudents, operating or at least 3 years,and having at least three sites that o er

the requisite content practices at least threetimes per week. Once these actors wereconsidered, the National Center or Researchon Evaluation, Standards, and StudentTesting (CRESST) at UCLA conducted anin-depth analysis o data rom programper ormance reports that included programobjectives, grade levels served, number ostudents served, student demographics,student hours/days per week o speci cprogramming o ered, number o sta , andpercentage o credentialed sta . A compositeprogram ranking was also established onthe basis o percentage gains in studentacademic achievement over the previousacademic year, the number o programattendees, and the percentage o projectgoals that were met. This analysis andcomposite ranking resulted in sites thatexceeded one or more o their goals anddemonstrated academic success.

A ter this initial selection process, per ED’s

instructions, non-21st CCLC a terschoolprograms that were nominated byrecognized a terschool leaders and contentexperts as outstanding were added to thelist to ensure a wider diversity o coverage.To urther validate the program selectionmade earlier, a telephone screening processwas added that included a ormal protocoland a request or additional supportingmaterials. Programs that did not meet theinitial selection criteria were added to thepool be ore phone screening took place.None o these randomly selected programspassed the phone screening process, withthis part o the analysis blinded to phonescreeners. This rigorous process presentsurther evidence that the selection processwas success ul in identi ying strongpractices, particularly as selected programsscored higher than all the randomly selectedprograms in both the ormal data analysisand the phone screening.




Another orm o validation involvedaggregating the 10-question teacher surveydata rom the annual per ormance reportsand comparing the results or the selectedgrantees to the general population. Thisanalysis also avored the selected grantees.Finally, SEDL’s National PartnershipLeadership Team, its Steering Committeecomprised o a terschool leaders andresearchers, and ED reviewed and approvedthe list. In the end, 53 a terschool programsin urban and rural areas rom coast to coastwere identi ed and agreed to participatein the study. In composite, these rigorousidenti cation and validation proceduresmade SEDL con dent that the a terschoolprograms studied were outper orming theaverage 21st CCLC grantee and were, inact, those programs using quality academicpractices to achieve documented resultswith students.

Use of a Multimethod ApproachSEDL and its partner CRESST developedand used a multimethod approach todata collection and analysis, combiningquantitative and qualitative data—includingsta and parent surveys; in-depth interviewswith program directors, site coordinators,principals, and instructors (lastingapproximately 1 hour on average); anddirect observation o a terschool instruction.Instruments and protocols used to collect

data incorporated the indicators o successestablished or the site identi cation andselection process. The data were collectedduring visits to 104 sites throughout thenation. SEDL sta and partners, on the basiso a structured observation protocol thatincluded scales, checklists, and open-endedquestions, ocused primarily on the contentand quality o instructional practices.

The ollowing sites par ticipated in the study.

Literacy Sites• Bladen County Schools,

Elizabethtown, North Carolina

• Children’s Aid Society, New York, New York

• Citizen Schools, Boston, Massachusetts

• Columbine Elementary, Denver, Colorado

• Evansville Vanderburgh SchoolCorporation, Evansville, Indiana

• Foundations, Inc., Philadelphia,Pennsylvania

• Grinnell Community Learning Center,Grinnell, Iowa

• LA’s Best, The Literacy Loop, Los Angeles, Cali ornia

• The Northside Learning Tree, San Antonio, Texas

• Ontario Middle School SUCCESS, Ontario, Oregon

• San Bernardino Uni ed Schools, San Bernardino, Cali ornia

Mathematics Sites

• The After-School Corporation, New York, New York

• Anaheim Achieves, Anaheim, California

• Dillon School District, Latta, South Carolina

• Estherville STAR, Estherville, Iowa

• Harris County Department of EducationCASE, Houston, Texas

• Passaic Public Schools, Passaic, New Jersey

• Van Buren Schools, Van Buren, Arkansas




70

Science Sites• After School Youth Development Program,

Newark, New Jersey

• Brighton and Curley Afterschool, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts

• C.A.S.E. Harris County Department ofEducation, Houston, Texas

• Fort Worth Independent School District,Fort Worth, Texas

• G.R.A.S.P. DeKalb County, Atlanta,Georgia

• My House, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana

• Operation SMART, Oakland, California

• Project SAFE, Wewoka, Oklahoma

• USD 309 Nickerson-South Hutchinson,Hutchinson, Kansas

Arts Sites• Arts Corps, Seattle, Washington

• Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, Illinois• Children’s Aid Society IS 90, New York

City, New York

• KEWA, Santo Domingo, New Mexico

• Kids Quest, Englewood, Colorado

• LA’s BEST, Los Angeles, California

• Prime Time, Independence, Oregon

• Project Shine, Tucson, Arizona

• SPARKS, Coatesville, Pennsylvania

Technology Sites• Boys and Girls Club of Menlo Park

Clubhouse, Palo Alto and Redwood City,Cali ornia

• Afterschool Learning Center, San Francisco, Cali ornia

• SAFE and SAFE and Cool Programs,Danbury, Connecticut

• Long Beach YMCA, Long Beach,Cali ornia

• Worland Community Center, Worland,Wyoming

• School of Hearts, Syracuse, New York

• DeKalb County School System, DeKalb, Georgia

• Comanche Public Schools, Comanche,Oklahoma

• USD 309 Reno Valley, Hutchinson,Kansas

• Austin Independent School District,Austin, Texas

Homework Sites

• Anchorage School District, Anchorage,Alaska

• Tukwilla Community Schools, Tukwilla,Washington

• Howard County Community Center,Chicago, Illinois

• The Tapestry Program, Rutland, Vermont

• Berlin Schools, Berlin, New Hampshire

• DARE2XL, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania

• Leon County School District, Tallahassee, Florida



Compiled byCatherine JordanJoe ParkerDeborah Donnelly

Zena Rudo

Design and ProductionProductionCatherine Jordan

EditorialJoni Wackwitz

DesignersShaila AbdullahJane Thurmond



Documents

practitioners_guide_to_afterschool_programs.pdf