Not Exclusively: Balancing After-School Programs, Research Paper Example

In the wide world of research, initiatives are often met with skepticism. As a result, the recent hike in the number of after-school programs has contended with the high expectations of parents, teachers, community members, politicians, and other concerned citizens, yet- through fluctuations in economic status- Texas voters have continually voted in support of existing after-school programs and even in support of dedicating more tax money to the establishment of new programs of the highest caliber (Witt, 2004). In addition, the U.S. Department of Education frequently awards Title I financial awards to offset the costs to a region which proposes after-school initiatives.

Once again, the research indicates that the quality and content of the program is a crucial deciding factor (Daud & Carruthers, 2008). The following research proposal examines the specific contributions of after-school programs which provide homework assistance to students from kindergarten to the eighth grade. Potential contributions include: scholastic development, social behavior, caring environment, personal inspiration (Zhang, Lam, Smith et al., 2006). Determining the best course and type of action is key to moving forward. In order to do this, the students must be assessed before, during, and after beginning the after-school program, and specific parameters and research questions must be acknowledged. The following proposal illuminates these steps.

Theoretical Perspectives

A large variety of approaches and perspectives attempt to explain the various benefits and challenges which after-school programs face. Daud and Carruthers utilize the positive youth development approach; Ross, McDonald, Alberg et al. utilize the Knowledge is Power Program; Crompton utilizes the Time for Kids initiative (2008; 2007; 2002). However, in the rush to reform, the shortcomings of individual after-school programs often skew the results of former efforts, so emerging research suggests that the Comprehensive School Reform cannot achieve the full impact which the name presupposes (Daud & Carruthers, 2008). Each of the developments listed above represent recent perceptual shifts which emphasize interdisciplinary settings for cooperative learning on specific subject matter and can easily be determined through objective observations regarding 24 strategies which are typical of particular perspectives.

Parameters

Because the nature of the research will require a variety of research approaches (which will be discussed in greater detail in the next section), a consistent system of ethics is crucial to the smooth transition from one phase of the research to the next. For the student subjects, obtaining informed consent from both the parent(s) and the student is encouraged, and, from this pool of willing participants, the final subjects should be randomly selected. The number of students studied directly depends upon the size of the community and the number of participating after-school programs and students therein (Zhang et al., 2006). All participants should remain anonymous and should not be coerced in any way to secure their participation.

Methodology

Zhang et al. (2006) utilized a four-year longitudinal study of two city centers’ after-school programs and developed the Scale for Program Facilitators (SPF). Ninety-five percent of these program sites were specifically designed for elementary students. There are a variety of credible assessments which are available; nonetheless, evaluation and feedback assessments should relate to the specific content of the subject area and may easily be modified to incorporate the  ranking system of the evidence-supported Likert scale (Zhang et al., 2006). To assess school environmental factors, the Comprehensive School Reform Teacher Questionnaire (CSRTQ) may provide valuable knowledge from an “insider” perspective but will also be especially prone to bias. Thus, direct observation is a crucial component of understanding the children’s primary learning environment. The proximal processes, interactions between a person and their environment, it has been theorized, reflect phases of individual human development but may differ according to experiential relationships (Watts et al., 2008).

Research Questions

Using mixed methods of research, a variety of questions can be answered for a fuller understanding of the correlation between after-school programs and academic achievement for elementary students. These research questions are:

1. What specific criterion are required to maximize the efficiency of an after-school program?
2. What differences are accorded to urban, suburban, and rural areas?
3. What specific procedure and forms will be utilized to measure the students’ progress in academic achievement?
4. What family-oriented and other social-interactional factors commonly impact the efficacy of after-school programs?
5. How are participants’ perceptions and experiences related to the benefit derived from after-school programs?

Discussion

The most successful programs have utilized different approaches. Still, these programs share a combination of “enrichment”- or extracurricular- activities and academic activities; in particular, a supportive environment, learned positivity, expanding perception through practice and learning, and planning for the future culminate in a sturdy foundation for the success of these activities (Daud & Carruther, 2008). Others have summarized it as a simple matter of “choice and voice”: conducting student meetings, acting on participant input, generating interest through offering a variety of “classes”, etc. (Witt, 2004). Another equally crucial- but frequently overlooked- aspect of after-school program management is logistics. There must be enough staff members to handle the after-school participants, and they must be of adequate training and abilities; there must be appropriate facilities and lay-outs, schedules, and opportunities for participants to build autonomy and a stronger sense of self; and there must be a predictable, multicultural environment (Daud & Garruthers, 2008). While many after-school programs have attempted to utilize traditional psychology measures, such as conditioning, have focused on decreasing negative behaviors. This approach must be appropriately balanced with the acquisition and reinforcement of new, positive behaviors (Witt, 2004). After a long day of traditional schooling, the low-pressure environment of the after-school program is one of the greatest forces for student engagement and would be reduced by an approach which takes such a stark look at the interaction of various behaviors.

Striking the most lucrative balance of program characteristics is often dismissed by researchers as beyond the scope of logic and reason, but after-school programs enjoy the freedom of less regulation and do not exploit this advantage. At the same time, supporters of after-school programs expect drastic change. Witt (2004) writes that supporters “expect strong evidence at the end of even the first few months that outcome objectives… are being achieved. Thus, program organizers need to distinguish between short and longer-term objectives and do a good job communicating with stakeholders about what outcomes the program should be held accountable for over the short and longer-term” (p. 112).

Conclusion

For children from the ages of six to seventeen, seventy percent of students have one or more parent(s) working outside the home. As a result, there is an average of twenty hours which fall between work and school hours. Divorce and more unsupervised time together contribute to behavioral problems (Zhang et al., 2006). The majority of children with large amounts of unsupervised time are lonelier, more anxious, less likely to negotiate or cooperate with others or to do their own homework, and exhibit poorer emotional well-being (Witt, 2004). Parents of children enrolled in after-school programs often become very aware of the caring which frequently accompanies a child’s peer-inclusive, positive learning (Zhang et al., 2006). Students in these programs also have less unsupervised social time and are less likely to engage in high-risk (or gateway) behaviors, such as alcohol or drug abuse (Daud & Carruthers, 2008). In 2003, more than 80 percent of Texas voters (in the area of Texas A & M University) were concerned about what occurs during the unsupervised time, which represents the students’ desire for increased autonomy and trust (Witt, 2004). While safety is a primary concern for both parents and participants, parental concern typically centers around physical safety and potential negative influences of peer interactions, while participants’ concern for safety primarily considers the social and emotional ramifications of semi-public failure or embarrassment (Watts et al., 2008).

After reviewing the research, it is abundantly clear that after-school programs do help and that the strength of unrealistic expectations may frequently be a deciding factor in the utilization of such resources. Furthermore, the underrepresentation of social motivators for learning bespeaks the difficulties encountered by well-meaning citizens. While the Knowledge is Power Program has indeed been very effective, its pillars are highly individualistic in nature: a) high expectations, b) family involvement, c) learning time, d) leadership potential, and e) results (Ross et al., 2007, p. 138). Elementary schools present the promise of affecting more rapid change, since these schools tend to implement school reforms in less time, and students’ perceptions of school- if strong- can have a lasting effect upon overall receptivity to the support of after-school programs (Ross et al., 2007; Watts, Witt, & King, 2008). Student satisfaction tends to ease the concerns of parents as well and understandably leads to a marked increase in engagement and achievement (Watts et al., 2008; Witt, 2004). Taking the fun and games aspect out of after-school programs deprives them of their greatest weapon for positivity.

References

Crompton, J. L. (2002). The Time for Kids Initiative in Portland, Oregon: Challenges of Effective Multipartnering. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 20(3), 81-99. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Daud, R., & Carruthers, C. (2008). Outcome Study of an After-School Program for Youth in a High-Risk Environment. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 26(2), 95-114. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Ross, S. M., McDonald, A. J., Alberg, M., & McSparrin-Gallagher, B. (2007). Achievement and Climate Outcomes for the Knowledge is Power Program in an Inner-City Middle School. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(2), 137-165. doi:10.1080/01900690701261114

Watts, C. E., Witt, P. A., & King, T. (2008). Predictors of Outcomes for After-School Program Participants. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 26(2), 134-145. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Witt, P. A. (2004). Programs that Work: Developing Quality After-School Programs. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 22(4), 103-126. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Zhang, J. J., Lam, E. C., Smith, D. W., Fleming, D. S., & Connaughton, D. P. (2006). Development of the Scale for Program Facilitators to Assess the Effectiveness of After School Achievement Programs. Measurement in Physical Education & Exercise Science, 10(3), 151-167. doi:10.1207/s15327841mpee1003_2