After School Programs Overview
After-school programs vary widely
Schools and communities both essential
What you'll find on EdSource Online
For many years, schools and communities have worked together—and separately—to support student learning outside the regular school day. However, the push for standards based reform in the K–12 system is having far-reaching effects on the nature of and expectations for after school programs.
There is a growing conviction that such programs can play an important role in improving student achievement. Thus, many government and private sources have begun to invest more heavily in them. This infusion of support is bringing resources as well as validation to the work of after school advocates. It is also increasing the opportunities schools and communities have to work together to create strong partnerships.
In return for that investment, however, both public and private funders are demanding that the connection between out-of-school program participation and academic performance in school be more rigorously evaluated and documented than has been done previously.
While the push for educational improvement helped increase the focus on organized after school programs, the trend did not occur in a vacuum. Rather, it was one of three converging movements, the other two being welfare reform and crime prevention. Neither was the basic concept a new one. Community-based organizations and schools have recognized, and worked to address, the need for better alternatives for school-age children since the 1970s.
Existing after school programs, including those located on school campuses, vary dramatically in their configuration, staffing, sources of support, goals, and measurable outcomes. Some are school-administered, some are run by community-based organizations (CBOs), and some are joint efforts. The programs are specific to each location, reflecting the age of the students, the skills of the staff, the interests of the funding organization, and often the constraints created by limited resources. At their simplest, they are essentially daycare centers for school-age children, for which parents pay a fee. At their most sophisticated, they represent a dynamic, authentic school-community partnership that brings both public and private resources to bear in order to strengthen community, improve schools’ effectiveness, and develop the potential of the young people they serve.
Increasingly, the push is to place after school programs within this larger context of school-community partnerships. Advocates of this approach say that schools cannot meet today’s expectations for high student achievement by themselves, especially in those communities with the neediest children. In places where families struggle to provide food and shelter, low-wage jobs are common, parents’ education levels are low, children are surrounded by violence and crime, and distrust of public school is high, community development is an essential element of improving academic achievement. If these deeper problems facing youth are not addressed, students cannot walk through the school house doors ready to learn.
Even if one assumes that the community development work has been done—and children arrive at school well-rested, well-fed, free from fear, and eager to learn—schools still face a daunting challenge attempting to teach students who come to school with learning deficits. Raising student performance requires that students spend extra time on task and that more adults are engaged in teaching and mentoring them. In addition, more creative and innovative instructional strategies are important for engaging, motivating, and promoting success with students who have not been well served in the traditional school setting. After school programs represent an important extra opportunity to both teach and motivate young people.
Many CBOs have long recognized the latter point and have run after school programs aimed at engaging young people in enriching learning experiences. Programs run by grassroots community organizations and neighborhood centers, and by local affiliates of national youth organizations—such as Boys & Girls Clubs, Girl Scouts, 4–H, Campfire, and Boy Scouts—have done just that for generations. They have generally had only tangential ties to schools and their academic programs. Most do not operate on school grounds or have any program-oriented contact with educators. Increasingly, other community organizations with a "learning-oriented mission" have developed their own independent programs after school as well. Museums are one example. In some communities, churches have taken a leadership role.
These organizations often find that they can make a bigger difference in the community, draw more resources, and help students learn more effectively when they work with the schools. In addition, funders are asking for evaluations that measure success, at least in part, based on traditional academic skills. This is increasing the pressure on CBOs to find ways to develop partnerships with their local schools. Particularly in urban areas, CBOs can help schools be more effective as well. Because they are rooted in the community and school personnel often live elsewhere, these organizations offer a bridge between families and schools. They can help parents feel more comfortable engaging with the school and help the school staff better understand the community and the needs of its children.
Whether a school or a CBO operates the after school program, the goal is to put additional resources to work in support of young people’s success. School-community partnerships are essential to doing that, but such partnerships demand reciprocity. Community groups are not content simply helping the schools achieve their mission. Their interests are often served by initiatives that envision school buildings as community centers, as a focal point for children’s and families’ lives. Schools appear to be a natural conduit for services because every community has one and they are familiar places. In addition, based on the traditional school calendar and their core use, they provide a physical plant that is often under-utilized on evenings, weekends, and in the summers. And facilities are an expensive resource CBOs typically need. On the other hand, school officials struggle with the extra pressures this extended use creates in terms of staff time, maintenance issues, and security concerns. They also face serious challenges finding the capacity and resources they need to assure that the school is effectively meeting its core educational objectives during the regular school day.
Many out-of-school programs have grown out of initiatives and partnerships with a broader focus, whether that was school improvement, community development, or youth development. They have also been sponsored, developed, and run by a potpourri of different public and private agencies. All have had improving student achievement as an important end-goal. However, their focus and operations are quite varied, as is the extent to which they use academic measures to gauge their success.
The Profiles page of this section includes descriptions of after school programs that California schools and communities are using to support young people and their academic achievement.
On the Resources page of this section you will find a wealth of links to organizations working in the areas of after school programs and school-community partnerships. You will also find important researach and readings on the characteristics of effective programs and how they benefit students.
Last updated November 2006.
Trouble reading this page? Our site is best viewed in IE 5, Safari 1, Firefox 1 or AOL 9 or higher.