Low-income students who participate in after school programs get higher grades then low-income students who do not attend after school programs.


After reviewing the literature, the concept of after school programs is not new. They have been around since the last quarter of the 19th century. They were like clubs, mostly for boys at first. There were in churches or storefronts that provided for more social gathering than anything else.


However, through changing times and expectations, these clubs evolved into after school programs with legitimate academic, cultural, and social goals. Therefore, the focus is what has changed over the years, especially for the underprivileged child. As described by &  (2001, ), after school programs play an equalizing role in providing access to certain activities for the less-privileged student. There is a great deal of evidence to support the need for after school programs for low-income children. The research proves that after school program participation is associated with higher grades, and test scores for less privileged children. (, 2003).


Moreover, in a study done by  (2002), he stressed the point that many impoverished children belong to single-parent homes who are otherwise preoccupied with the need for survival than the daily needs of their children. After school programs provide that extra measure of adult attention and care (. ).  One recent study mentioned by  (2002), done by ,  &  (1996, ), they found that when low-income children attend after school programs, it offers the best hope for overcoming the negative effects of poverty. They do not just provide supervision, but much need structure, stability, and support.



 


Also, much of the research has been on the amount of time spent at the after school program.  The children, who spent less time in after school settings, did not do as well academically as those who spent more time in after school care (, 2001). These children were also more socially mature, had better studying habits, had less negative emotional issues, and read more. Children who do not attend will not benefit.


Perhaps the most interesting fact in the course of my research is the funding. The research suggests that low-income children have the most to gain from after school programs in terms of educational opportunity and the least access (, 2001). It is evident that after school programs provide so much for children whose parents are working, low-income or not. It is a constant struggle to acquire funding and seek grants, especially for those children who benefit the most from after school care.  Politician, policy makers and society has to be more proactive in helping our children succeed. They need to provide funding for adequate, trained staff, and quality programs.


Overall, low-income children need stability in order to have academic success. After school programs provide stability. Therefore, low-income students who participate in after school programs have academic success.  (2000) believes that for poor urban children, key developmental resources-school, neighborhood, friends, even family-become sources of difficulty and stress, as well as support (). So it is important to note that school can serve as an outlet from stresses at home, and home can serve as an outlet from stresses at school. But for those students from low-income homes the home can often be a place of turmoil or, less noticeably, an opportunity for danger.  (2001) stated perfectly that adolescents [from low-income areas] generally attend the worst schools, confront significant physical danger, and spend large amounts of time unsupervised (). Therein lies the correlation between parents having to work too often and their children getting into more trouble.


Increasingly, students with academic skill and strategy deficits are choosing to attend school (, R. , & , . 2003; . 2004). Unfortunately, many of these students experience difficulty due to an enormous gap between the academic and social skills they possess and the academic and social demands of the academic environment ( 2003; , ., & , . 2003; , ., , ., & , . 2001). One-to-one after-school academic intervention is the support service most often provided to these students. However, the effectiveness of after-school academic intervention as an intervention is controversial. Some see after-school academic intervention as supportive of student learning. Others see after-school academic intervention as ineffective, inefficient, and even harmful. Still others report that after-school academic intervention works under certain conditions but not under other conditions or with specific populations of students.


The consequences of the gap between the expectations placed on students and the skill and knowledge levels possessed by most at-risk students are not encouraging. These students are more likely to fail their courses, and they graduate at lower rates than other students (, . 2002; , ., & ,  2001). As a result, they tend to have lower wage-earning potential and subsequently lower overall quality-of-life experiences (, . 2004). Thus, while the door to the academe is open for increasing numbers of underprepared students, many of these students leave the academe without the benefits associated with a degree and the skills necessary for future success.


In the search to meet the needs of underprepared students, one-to-one after-school academic intervention has become the service most often provided (, . 2003;  2001;  2001). Whether or not after-school academic intervention is an accepted intervention remains somewhat controversial. On the one hand, it has been recognized by some ( 2002; , . 2002; . 2003 ) as an extremely effective instructional model. It has even been referred to as the “gold standard” for effective instruction (., , ., ,., & , . 2003). Conversely, it has been described as ineffective at best (:  2000) and unethical (, . 2002) and harmful at worst (. 2000). Between these two extremes are researchers who find after-school academic intervention to be of mixed efficacy; that is, they report that after-school academic intervention works sometimes under certain conditions (. 2000) but that it does not work under other conditions or with specific populations of students (, . 2003).


For a variety of complex individual, instructional, and societal reasons, some children and adolescents experience difficulty attaining the academic and social competencies required for successful participation in school and society. As a result, they face the possibility of being undereducated, underemployed, and underprepared to participate successfully in the 21st century (. 2000) feared that society’s failure to address the needs of these children dooms many of them to join the ranks of teenagers “who mindlessly wander around the malls and live shamelessly off other people” ().


In response to this serious challenge, parents, educators, and policymakers are searching for ways to increase the academic and social competence of students. Increasingly, these groups and the popular press are advocating after-school academic intervention programs in which skilled teachers, paraeducators, or other adults provide one-to-one support as one way to reduce the gap between what students are expected to know and to be able to do in the 21st century and what they actually know and are able to do (. 2000).


Nevertheless, assuming that all after-school programs will result in the development of skilled and independent learners may be overly optimistic. Indeed, some forms of after-school academic intervention may be more harmful than helpful. For example, . , ., & , ., . (2001) suggested that subject-matter after-school academic intervention for special education students by special education teachers may be unethical because students rarely acquire the skills necessary to become independent thinkers and learners through such after-school academic intervention. In fact, some such students demonstrate little skill growth and become dependent on their tutors for success (, . 2004; , ., & , . 2005). Other researchers have reported mixed results.


Closely related to the controversy concerning the effectiveness of after-school academic intervention is the disagreement about the efficacy of after-school academic intervention in before- and after-school programs. Unfortunately, much of the literature on after-school academic intervention programs is descriptive in nature ( 2004; . 2002). In studies in which data are reported, control conditions often were not used (. 2002). In other studies, researchers reported student performance gains that were minimal or nonexistent (, . 2003)). For example, , ., & , . (2001) found that the grades of students tutored in physical science classes showed no significant change after students received after-school academic intervention in an after-school program. That is, there was no significant difference between grades earned on science assignments before after-school academic intervention and those earned after after-school academic intervention. In sum, the literature on both the efficacy of after-school academic intervention and the efficacy of before- and after-school tutoring programs is inconclusive.


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


References:



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top