After‐School Programs and Academics: Implications for Policy, Practice, and Research

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), with its emphasis on standards-based accountability, has put educators under considerable pressure to improve student academic outcomes. Much of the funding for after-school programs comes from education budgets and is administered by state and local education agencies. Consequently, after-school programs are often expected to incorporate academic achievement as an important goal. This focus on academic achievement is producing heated debates among after-school practitioners, policymakers, and researchers. Should after-school programs be required to have a positive impact on academic outcomes? Will such an expectation crowd out other important goals and turn after-school programs into an unappealing version of the school day? This report focuses on the growing program-evaluation literature, observational studies, and commentaries and statements of program standards by practitioners and advocates in the context of this debate. I begin by showing that after-school programs can have positive academic effects, though many do not. To understand the ingredients of an effective program, I examine empirical reviews of program evaluations, observational studies, and practitioner writings. It is clear that to be effective, programs should actively involve participants, be intentional about their goals, and focus on the interactions between youth and staff. If positive academic outcomes are one of those goals, programs may need to include specific activities that are focused on academic achievement, but the approach should build on the opportunities presented by the out-of-school setting. The report concludes by identifying some promising approaches to program improvement and arguing that research on ways to intervene to improve program effectiveness is the highest priority. From the Editor The attached article by Robert Granger offers a much needed summary of the research on after-school programs. Federal funding for after-school programs has grown considerably in recent years in part because it was pointed out that youth are likely to get into trouble, including crime, between the hours of 3 and 11 pm—that is, after school. We often forget that after-school programs provide an important child care function. School-age and adolescent children should not be left unmonitored for the hours between schools’ closure for the day and when parents get home from work. I am a firm proponent of the Positive Youth Development (PYD) approach to both research and policy. We should strive to promote positive development rather than just prevent negative or risky behaviors, and after-school programs follow this approach. They appropriately seek to use young people’s time constructively. However, we should not minimize the importance of their role in helping to keep kids out of trouble; academic and other such gains are “icing on the cake” in my view. Icing considerably improves the cake so that expecting gains from afterschool programs is perfectly appropriate. The issue addressed so effectively in this article is that research has to begin by addressing the question: gains in what area? One of the aspects of this article that is most important is its willingness to consider a variety of different possible positive outcomes of after-school programs. A critical point for research is that the outcomes evaluated in research should map back onto the program’s characteristics. We do not fully understand how gains in one area may generalize to others. Art activities and sports could lead to general academic gains. Research on after-school programs provides a venue for examining such questions. However, it is more likely that we will see academic gains if the program has an academic component to its curriculum. Hence a first step in any research study is to spell out the program’s theory of change; why do they do what they do and what do they expect to result? Often even asking this question can lead to important program refinement. Another important point made by this article is the tremendous demand for research, and research studies that allow one to address causality are sorely needed. As I have said, after-school programs did not arise because we knew how to use that time constructively. This accounts in part for the diversity we see across program characteristics. As a result, research must now address this issue by using this diversity to investigate relationships between curriculum or activities and outcomes. Additionally, as Granger points out, studies need also to ask which types of programs are more engaging to young people. Activities are not likely to lead to outcomes if the youth are not actively—and ideally we hope passionately—involved in the activity. This relates to implementation and dissemination which is addressed well in the commentary by Joseph Durlak. The need for staff training is another important point made by this paper, and again we need research that demonstrates what works. Brooke and I hope that this summary of research by Robert Granger will contribute to setting a research agenda in this field, and thereby contribute to future policy and program development. Social Policy Report