21st Century Community Learning Centers Research Articles

Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers National Technical Assistance Center (ED)

Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers National Technical Assistance Center (ED)

The role of federal and state policy in addressing early childhood achievement gaps: parent perceptions and student outcomes related to 21st Century Learning Centers programming in the United States

As policymakers and school communities work to address underlying causes of achievement gaps and access to quality early childhood education, this study considers the use of 21st Century Community Learning Centers to address early childhood education needs on western U.S. state, Idaho. The study sought to understand the relationship between federal and state policies related to out-of-school opportunities to enhance early childhood education. Utilizing data from a statewide evaluation of Idaho’s 21st Century Learning Centers, the study examined 92 centers providing after school, before school, or summer programs in grades preschool through the third grade to predominately at-risk children. Data collection included quantitative data from a survey given to parents (n = 183), as well as qualitative data collected through site-based interviews, focus groups and observations. Data included a review of historical and current data on participation rates; attendance rates; standardized test scores for program participants in grades PK-3 (n = 3258). Data were analyzed for themes and transfer. The study findings provide further insight into understanding possible relationships between U.S. federal and state policy regarding 21st Century Community Learning Centers on both students’ outcomes and parent satisfaction. The findings further support the role of out-of-school time (OST) experiences in the larger ecosystem of learning and provides insight into understanding how the OST activities are carried over into family life.

Examining the Quality of 21st Century Community Learning Center After-school Programs: Current Practices and Their Relationship to Outcomes

Although many youths participate in afterschool programs, the research is unclear about which aspects of afterschool program quality contribute most to positive outcomes. This article examines the relationship among quality and outcomes of 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CLCCs) afterschool programs, as perceived by 3,388 stakeholders from 337 21st CLCCs in one midwestern state. Perceptions were gathered using the Ohio Quality Assessment Rubric. Descriptive frequencies were generated to identify cross-site strengths and weaknesses, and a canonical correlation was conducted to identify which quality indicators were most related to perceived outcomes. Stakeholders perceived quality across multiple program areas, but the indicator most strongly correlated to outcomes was that of family engagement strategies, an area of relatively poor performance among participating sites. Perceptions of the quality of general youth development strategies and of facilities, space, and equipment were the most favorable among stakeholders. These factors held the weakest correlations with outcomes. These patterns have implications for 21st CLCCs, schools, afterschool partners, and school social workers looking to improve the quality of programs to achieve better youth outcomes.

High-Quality 21st Century Community Learning Centers: Academic Achievement Among Frequent Participants and Non-Participants

This study examined academic differences between students who attended 21st Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) programs frequently (60 or more days) and matched nonattendees during the 2008–2009 school year. Schools included in the study represented only those centers found to be implementing high-quality programming, as measured by a strenuous site visit process in Indiana. Significant interactions between program attendance and fall academic achievement predicted performance on the spring tests in both math and reading. Simple effects were only shown for math, in which program attendees who failed the test in the fall scored higher than non-participants. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Learning and Development in After-School Programs

United States in the latter part of the 19th century. These programs often had humble beginnings in church basements, storefronts, and settlement houses. Over time, the programs proliferated and built themselves into major national organizations, such as the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, 4-H clubs, and the YMCA/YWCA. The 40 largest national youth organizations today have a total membership of about 40 million youths. Over the past 15 years, there has been an explosion of interest in after-school programs. Many major cities, such as Chicago (After School Matters), Los Angeles (LA’s Best), and New York (The After School Corporation), have ramped up their after-school programs so that they are increasingly part of their education and youth services infrastructure. During the Clinton Administration, after-school programs began to receive dedicated funding in the federal budget under the 21st-Century Community Learning Centers Act. With the advent of No Child Left Behind, programs have increasingly emphasized academic support services. This has been controversial in the after-school community, resurfacing long-standing tensions between the goals of positive youth development, academic support, and problem prevention. On balance, participation in after-school programs has been associated with improved academic performance (grade point average, test scores) and psychosocial development (Durlak, Weissberg, and Pachan 2010; Mahoney, Vandell, Simpkins, and Zarrett 2009). Recent years have witnessed an increase in evaluation studies, but few of these evaluations have featured rigorous designs and fewer still address the integration of after-school programs with schools. How, then, do after-school programs address academic learning? How can schools and after-school programs work together for mutual benefit?

Voluntary Participation and Parents' Reasons for Enrollment in After-School Programs: Contributions of Race/Ethnicity, Program Quality, and Program Policies

Using data from the state evaluation of Michigan 21st Century Community Learning Centers, this study employed multilevel modeling to examine racial/ethnic and programmatic factors relevant to two aspects of after-school program participation: youths' voluntary participation and parents' reasons for enrollment. The samples consisted of 2,256 fourth- to twelfth-grade youth from 117 programs and 1,849 parents of kindergarten to twelfth-grade participants from 99 programs. Middle Eastern youth reported the lowest voluntary participation rates, while their parents were most likely to enroll them for academics. African- American parents were more concerned about enrolling for academics and childcare than were white parents. After controlling for program quality, the proportion of same-race peers, programs' cultural responsiveness, and attendance policies were also factors in participation.

Effects of Participation in After-School Programs for Middle School Students: A Randomized Trial

This study assessed the effects of attending an after-school program (ASP) on a range of outcomes for middle school youths. The program operated for 9 hr per week for 30 weeks and included attendance monitoring and reinforcement, academic assistance, a prevention curriculum, and recreational programming. Participants were 447 students randomly assigned either to the ASP or to after-school activities as usual. Program attendance was sporadic. Although treatment students experienced increased exposure to ASPs relative to controls, nearly all youth in both groups reported participating in some organized activity during the after-school hours, and the number of different activities in which youths reported being involved did not differ across groups. Participation in the treatment reduced time spent with friends with no adults present during the after-school hours. No differences between treatment and control youths were found on measures of conduct problems, academic performance, school attendance, or any of the intermediate behaviors and attitudes targeted. The study replicates findings from the national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program for middle school students using a more rigorous research design.

AFTER‐SCHOOL PROGRAM EFFECTS ON BEHAVIOR: RESULTS FROM THE 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS PROGRAM NATIONAL EVALUATION

This paper presents evidence on after‐school programs’ effects on behavior from the national evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers after‐school program. Findings come from both of the study’s components: (1) an elementary school component based on random assignment of 2,308 students in 12 school districts and (2) a middle school component based on a matched comparison design including 4,264 students in 32 districts. Key findings include higher levels of negative behavior for elementary students and some evidence of higher levels of negative behaviors for middle school students. (JEL I21)

When Elementary Schools Stay Open Late: Results From the National Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program

This article presents evidence from a national evaluation of the effects of 21st Century Community Learning Center afterschool programs. The study was conducted in 12 school districts and 26 after-school centers, at which 2,308 elementary school students who were interested in attending a center were randomly assigned either to the treatment or control group. The findings indicate that the programs affected the type of care and supervision students received after school, with parents less likely to be caring for their child and other adults more likely, but there was no statistically significant effect on the incidence of self-care. Students in the program reported feeling safer after school, but their academic outcomes were not affected and they had more incidents of negative behavior.

NCLB's Supplemental Educational Services: Is This What Our Students Need?

SUPPLEMENTAL educational services, as legislated in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, must be made available to students in low-performing Title I schools. Although we have just completed the fourth year since implementation began, a handful of evaluations are beginning to present a few common themes. The federal out-of-school tutoring program features free-market strategies promoted by the Bush Administration: parental choice, money following individual students, and the privatization of educational delivery. Created in response to low standardized-test scores, the requirement for supplemental educational services also reflects NCLB's lack of interest in the wider goals of public schools or students' school experiences. Just as NCLB has forced high-poverty schools to narrow their academic offerings to ensure that students make adequate yearly progress in English and math, (1) the two subjects currently tested, the supplemental services provision extends this narrowed educational agenda into students' out-of-school hours. After-school programs had already begun a rapid expansion before NCLB, partly as a result of President Clinton's 21st Century Community Learning Centers and partly because of concerns about rising numbers of latchkey children and increasing crime rates in the hours between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. There was also growing awareness that the poor were concentrated in inner cities and that regular classroom hours were too few to impart the academic, developmental, and social skills necessary to help many low-income children move out of poverty. At the upper ends of the range of income and wealth, competition for college entrance was fueling a thriving tutoring industry on the lookout for new markets. With about $2.6 billion of the $13 billion in Title I funds potentially usable for supplemental services, the new federal program was a boon to the private tutoring industry and to nonprofits already providing tutoring. As with vouchers, which were on the conservative agenda when supplemental services emerged as a compromise initiative, money for supplemental services follows the student. That is, a Title I school designated in need of improvement must inform its students of available tutoring and reimburse the supplemental services provider that each student chooses. (2) School spending for tutoring varies widely, depending on a school's Title I allotment, the number of students using supplemental services, and providers' hourly rates. However, costs for supplemental services have risen steadily over the past four years, reaching an average of more than $1,400 per student in 2004, which is two to three times the cost of Title I comprehensive schoolwide programs. (3) Given the current 20% cap on the use of Title I funds for supplemental services and choice-related transportation, districts estimate that they can serve about a fifth of all eligible children with available Title I funds, though urban districts estimate that they can pay for only 18%. (4) The percentage is still lower in large, high-poverty districts: Los Angeles, for instance, can serve 16% of those eligible with existing Title I funds. (5) So far, however, enrollment in supplemental services nationwide remains low. According to the most recent estimate by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), only 233,000 or 11% of the two million eligible students are enrolled nationwide. (6) Moreover, a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds that 20% of districts required to offer supplemental services had no students enrolled. The majority of these were rural or had fewer than 2,500 students. (7) In the 299 districts surveyed by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) in 2005-06, 20% of eligible students took advantage of supplemental services. However, extremely low percentages of eligible students enrolling in supplemental services have been reported in Houston (3%) and Philadelphia (5%). (8) In Los Angeles, 32,500 or 11% of all eligible students are enrolled in supplemental services, but 318,000 students participate in various academic intervention programs before or after school or on Saturdays. …

Translating science to policy under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Lessons from the national evaluation of the 21st-Century Community Learning Centers

Passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 ushered in a new era of accountability for educational institutions and social programs in the United States. Federal funding became tied to demonstrated results on the basis of scientifically based research. In this paper we recount the science-to-policy translation process for one of the first studies considered under this new mantra, namely, the national evaluation of the 21st-Century Community Learning Centers after-school programs. The recount highlights a range of challenges, problems, and debates in the process, and discusses several lessons learned from this example that may be useful for the science-to-policy translation process in general, and for future studies under the NCLB Act specifically.

Transforming Schools into 21st Century Community Learning Centers

Ochools and community-based organizations, businesses, and others are increasingly encouraged to partner on behalf of students and families. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in January 2002, also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P. L. 107-110), has additional implications for these partnerships. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program was reauthorized as Tide IV, Part B, of the No Child Left Behind Act. This program is designed to develop community learning centers that increase learning opportunities and enrichment support to students, families, and community members and help underperforming students meet academic standards in core subjects such as reading and math.