KY Stakeholder Report.book - CiteSeerX

Lessons from the Field: Early Perspectives on Kentucky 21st Century Community Learning Centers Key Findings from the Year 2 Interim Report

Mindy Hightower King, Ph.D. Amy M. Kemp, Ph.D. Patricia A. Muller, Ph.D. Ada B. Simmons, Ed.D. Lindsey L. Gorrell

February 17, 2005

509 East Third Street Bloomington, Indiana 47401 http://ceep.indiana.edu/

Jonathan A. Plucker, Ph.D. Director

812-855-4438 800-511-6575 Fax:812-856-5890 [email protected]

Table of Contents 1

Lessons from the Field ..............................................................................1 Introduction....................................................................................................1 Research on After School Programs ..............................................................1 Importance of Frequent Program Attendance................................................2 Greatest Academic Benefits for At-Risk Students ........................................4 Characteristics of Promising Programs..........................................................6 Strong links to school day curriculum ...........................................................7 Highly qualified and trained staff ..................................................................9 Variety of activities to build both academic and social skills........................11 Foster positive staff-child and peer relationships ..........................................13 Adequate Resources.......................................................................................15 Partnerships with schools, community agencies, and parents .......................17

2

References .................................................................................................21

Center for Evaluation and Education Policy

i

Table of Contents

ii


1 Lessons from the Field Introduction This sub-report provides an overview of student and program characteristics that contribute to positive developmental and academic outcomes of after school programs. In addition, the sub-report describes how data collected in the evaluation of Kentucky’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) inform our understanding of the extent to which these characteristics are present 21st CCLC programs across the state. Given that the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP) is still in the early stages of the evaluation, there are some areas where questions still remain regarding Kentucky’s 21st CCLC programs. In these instances, directions for further evaluation are noted. At the end of each section, text boxes are presented that relay information specifically intended to benefit program and site directors. Suggestions for programming logistics, establishing priorities, managing data, and partnering with the community are presented in hopes that this information can be used to improve programs and inform decisions and practices related to ongoing program implementation.

Research on After School Programs Research on after school programs intended to enhance academic achievement generally has been conducted for two purposes: (1) to measure outcomes related to a particular program or set of programs (including factors that contribute to greater benefits); and/or Center for Evaluation and Education Policy

1 of 22

Lessons from the Field

(2) to examine program characteristics that lead to desired outcomes. While the results of these studies have varied as much as the programs that have been evaluated, there have been some consistent findings throughout the literature. Drawing from this literature, two factors will be discussed that have been shown to affect programs’ ability to improve academic outcomes in student participants: frequent program attendance and academic need of student participants. Next, we discuss characteristics found to be conducive to positive developmental and academic outcomes in relation to Kentucky’s programs.

Importance of Frequent Program Attendance A number of studies have demonstrated that students who participate in programs more frequently and for longer periods of time are more likely to show improvements in academic performance, particularly standardized test scores. The “attendance predicts performance” phenomenon has been reported in the evaluations of a number of after school programs including North Carolina’s Support Our Students (SOS) programs, California’s After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Program (ASLSNPP), Los Angeles Unified School District’s LA’s Better Educated Students for Tomorrow (BEST) program, and programs in New York supported by The After School Corporation (TASC) (Department of Education, University of California Irvine, 2001; Huang et al., 2000; Johnson & Jenkins, 2000; Welsh, et al., 2002). For example, the evaluation of LA’s BEST program, conducted over a ten-year period, found that regular attendance (at least 150 days per year) for more than one year was necessary for impact on academic performance and 4 years of regular participation produced the highest gains in standardized math, reading, and language arts scores. The evaluators also found that regular attendance over multiple years was related to better school attendance, increased engagement in school, and higher aspirations to graduate high school and go to college (Huang et al., 2000). Similarly, a six-year evaluation of TASC programs in New York found that students who had attended the program over two years for a

2 of 22



minimum of 60 days per year were most likely to show improvements on standardized math tests (Welsh, et al., 2002). Findings from the current evaluation indicate that during the first year of programming, Kentucky’s programs served a total of 10,813 students, 58% of whom were considered “regular attendees” by federal standards because they attended the program 30 or more days during the school year. Approximately half of all regular attendees (2,526 students) attended their respective programs 60 or more days. Although available research does not support a consistent “attendance threshold” that leads to academic improvements, a number of the studies described above suggest that the minimum “program dosage” that will lead measurable differences in academic outcomes is at least 60 days per year for a minimum of two years. Kentucky 21st CCLC programs are currently measuring and reporting student attendance in accordance with the federal definitions of “regular attendance” (30 or more days per year). In addition, as recommended by CEEP, Kentucky programs also report the number of students who attend more than 60 days. While preliminary data collected through the APR suggest that Kentucky programs are having modest success in improving both math and English grades of students who attend the programs at least 30 days, sufficient data were not available to assess academic impacts of the programs for students who attend more often. In the 2005 APR, CEEP has requested that Kentucky programs report increases in math and English grades according to both the federal 30-day attendance threshold and the 60day threshold so that CEEP can examine the impact of more frequent program attendance on academic performance. As more program directors become familiar with the APR requirements and additional programs are implemented during the third round of state funding, CEEP expects more data on “regular” (30 or more days) and “frequent” (60 or more days) attendees to become available.


3 of 22


Relevance for Kentucky Stakeholders Attendance, especially frequent attendance, is important. One of the challenges to after school programs that seek to benefit students academically is to get students to participate on a regular basis. Programs evaluated in the literature employed a number of strategies to encourage students to attend frequently including requiring students to enroll in the program (as opposed to having a “drop-in” option), providing incentives (e.g. “money” used in the program’s token economy; pizza parties; field trips), or allowing students to design or choose their preferred activities.

Greatest Academic Benefits for At-Risk Students Research related to the academic benefits of after school programs also demonstrates that program benefits are greatest among those students who are most at-risk (defined according to SES, previous academic performance, or race/ethnicity). The evaluation of the TASC programs in New York reported that students who benefited most from the after school program were those who had scored in the lowest four proficiency levels in the year prior to program participation. Moreover, the benefits were evident for these students regardless of the number of years the students had participated in the program. The evaluators also found that students from the lowest-income families benefited from the program to a greater degree than other students, but that these effects were only realized after two to three years of program participation (Welsh, et al., 2002). The evaluation of the ASLSNPP in California also reported that students who initially scored in the lowest quartile on standardized test scores and English Language Learners showed the largest improvements in standardized math and reading tests as a result of regular program participation (Department of Education, University of California Irvine, 2001). Finally, the evaluation of North Carolina’s SOS program found that minority 4 of 22



(including African American and Hispanic) students made nearly twice the academic gains of white students as a result of participating regularly in the program (Johnson & Jenkins, 2000). In the Kentucky evaluation, student-level data on the number of at-risk students served by 21st CCLC programs are not currently available, but some initial information indicates that the programs throughout the state are serving a large number of students who come from low-income households and/or qualify for special education. Data collected through the 2003-2004 APR indicate that nearly 90% of the schools that are served by Kentucky 21st CCLC programs have student bodies in which 50% or more of the students qualify for free and reduced lunch. In just over a quarter of the schools, 76% or more of the student body qualifies for free and reduced lunch. In addition, 20% of the schools served by the programs have student bodies in which 20% or more of the students qualify for special education. While these data do not confirm that Kentucky programs are serving students who are most at-risk for academic failure, they do suggest that they have the potential to serve them, based on the characteristics of the school populations they reach. Data that are currently being entered by KDE from the 2003-2004 APR can be used to assess the extent to which programs are serving those students who are most likely to benefit academically. Upon availability of the data, CEEP will analyze and present the results in forthcoming reports so that grantees and stakeholders can more clearly understand the characteristics of program participants and the implications this may have for expected academic benefits.


5 of 22


Relevance for Kentucky Stakeholders st

Because Kentucky 21 CCLC programs are intended to benefit students academically, the extent to which programs can identify and successfully recruit at-risk students will affect the degree to which programs will observe academic gains among student participants. As indicated by the Program Director Questionnaire conducted in August 2004, nearly all programs rely on school-based referrals to recruit students into their programs. However, conversations with program staff during site visits indicated that the challenge lies in getting the referred students to attend – and attend regularly. To this end, Kentucky programs should employ recruitment and retention strategies that have been successful in other sites or those mentioned in this report. As the authors of the LA’s BEST evaluation stated, programs that have better attendance are those that are “intrinsically more motivating” to students (Huang et al., 2000). Determining what is most likely to motivate potential participants (especially those at-risk for academic failure) and developing programming that highlights this will increase the likelihood that programs can have strong impacts on the academic success of student participants.

Characteristics of Promising Programs While a number of studies consistently show that positive academic outcomes are more likely for students who participate more frequently and/or are greater risk of academic failure, these same studies are quick to point out that academic outcomes are only likely to be observed among student who participate in high-quality after school programs. A good deal of research (e.g. Vandell et al., 2004; Fashola, 1998; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Catalano et al., 1998; Rosenthal & Vandell, 1996) has identified characteristics of after school programs that appear to be related to enhancing students’ academic and social development. The promising practices that have been linked to providing high-quality after school environments for youth include the following:

6 of 22



1.

Strong links to the school day curriculum

2.

Highly qualified and trained staff

3.

Variety of activities to build both academic and social skills

4.

Supportive relationships among participants and between adults and youth

5.

Adequate resources

6.

Partnerships with schools, community agencies, and parents

Findings from previous studies related to each of these promising practices are described below, drawing primarily from the following studies: Vandell et al., 2004; Fashola, 1998; Rosenthal & Vandell, 1996. The brief description of promising practices from previous research is followed by an overview and synthesis of findings from the current evaluation. Findings related to Kentucky’s program are drawn from the primary data collected thus far: Annual Performance Report (APR) data, program director questionnaires, and site visits of promising 21st CCLC programs in Kentucky.

Strong links to school day curriculum Studies indicate that the most effective after school programs directly connect academic components of the program to the school day. These programs carefully align after school curriculum with school curricula and objectives. One study noted that the most efficient way to ensure curricular alignment is to staff the after school programs with effective regular school-day teachers who are already familiar with the curriculum plans and objectives (Fashola, 1998). Curricular alignment can also be maintained by providing homework assistance and activities that promote basic skills learning.


7 of 22


Relevance for Kentucky Stakeholders Promising after-school programs tend to have the following characteristics related to academic components: •

Academic activities are clearly aligned with school curricula and objectives

•

Regular school day teachers familiar with curriculum plans serve as activity leaders

•

Activities include homework assistance and basic skills learning

Data from a number of sources indicate that Kentucky 21st CCLC programs provide strong links to the school day curriculum. Data from the Program Director Questionnaire show that programs are staffed by a number of certified teachers who work directly with many of the student participants during the regular school day. As a result, many program directors reported that communication between program staff and school staff is excellent and programs are able to address important curriculum content because teachers serve as the primary staff for the academic component of the after school program. Additional data from the Program Director Questionnaire, the APR, and the site visits indicate that the majority of program stakeholders have good relationships with the school principal. Some directors report that the program is, in effect, an extension of the school day, and the principal is a key program manager. While, most programs are not directly managed by school personnel, the majority of staff members work seamlessly towards common goals.

Highly qualified and trained staff Studies of promising practices consistently report that the most effective after school programs employ highly qualified and experienced staff. Both program directors and activity 8 of 22



leaders of promising programs tend to be relatively well-educated. Directors of after school programs have strong educational credentials, as well as extensive previous experience working with youth. Although the background of program staff is somewhat more varied, these activity leaders also have considerable experience in youth work. In fact, the vast majority of activity leaders have experience as a classroom teacher or teacher’s aide. In addition to the qualifications and experience that program staff bring to their positions, high quality programs also emphasize the need for in-service training of their staff. Training includes both content areas (e.g. math, science, reading) and procedural issues (classroom management, conflict resolution). One study (Vandell et al., 2004) showed that the most promising programs included an average of 51 hours of training per year for program directors; and an average of 21 hours of training per year for activity leaders. Promising after school programs also tend to regularly engage activity leaders in planning program activities. Program staff in high quality programs also tend to meet at least occasionally with other staff to discuss program issues. Finally, promising programs tend to have a high level of stability among key program personnel.


9 of 22


Relevance for Kentucky Stakeholders In summary, high-quality after school programs tend to have the following characteristics related to program staff: •

Program directors and activity leaders with strong educational credentials and previous experience working with youth

•

Emphasis on continued training and professional development for program directors and activity leaders

•

Activity leaders who are involved in planning activities and have opportunities for collaboration and coordination

•

High level of stability (low turn-over) among key program personnel.

In Kentucky, many examples of highly qualified and trained staff can be found. First, program staff members have considerable experience working with children. As reported in the Program Director Questionnaire, 42% percent of site directors had more than ten years of experience working with children and 42% of certified teachers had over 10 years of experience. Another 36% of certified teachers had 5-10 years of experience. Program directors also reported that a wide variety of professional development opportunities are provided to staff members on a regular basis. The most common types of opportunities included youth development (including conflict resolution, leadership, mentoring, and community service) and academic enrichment strategies. Directors also reported that nearly 90% of staff members plan the activities they lead and that 75% of them have paid time for activity planning. In addition, the overwhelming majority of respondents (85%) reported that there had been no staff turnover or only “one or two people” had left and been replaced since the program began operation.

10 of 22



During the site visits, some stakeholders noted that special care should be taken when school faculty are employed in after school programs. First, teachers who use wholegroup teaching in the regular school day often have a hard time transitioning to the smaller group activities that are fundamental to after school programming. In addition, many program directors and site coordinators warn that extending the school day for teachers can be taxing and it is important to employ only teachers who are committed to quality after school activities. Even with these reservations, most programs actively seek out and hire as many school faculty members as they can afford. In Kentucky, this has proved useful in ensuring that there are strong linkages with the school and that program staff are highly qualified and trained to meet students’ academic needs.

Variety of activities to build both academic and social skills Studies indicate that the most successful and promising programs offer a large variety of both academic and enrichment activities. Almost all programs offer a diverse blend of academic pursuits, fine arts and crafts, and physical or recreational activities. Participants generally have a choice in specific activities in at least a portion of the after school program time. Recruiting and retaining students in after school programs appears to be enhanced by offering diverse activities and opportunities for choice among some activities. In addition, the mixture of both academic and non-academic activities appears to be important in capturing youth interest and maintaining involvement. Subsequently, students in promising programs tend to be highly engaged in most activities and exhibit pride in their accomplishments. Although promising programs offer a mixture of both academic and nonacademic activities, all programs offer at least some activity focused on academic assistance. For elementary schools, this tends to involve homework assistance; and for middle schools this tends to involve tutoring or work on study skills and preparation for tests.


11 of 22


Relevance for Kentucky Stakeholders Promising after school programs tend to display the following characteristics related to program activities: •

Large variety and diversity of program activities, with at least some opportunity for choice

•

Mixture of both academic and non-academic activities

•

At least some activity focused on academic assistance (e.g. homework assistance, tutoring, or test preparation)

Observations of some of Kentucky’s promising programs made during the site visits provide some indication of the extent to which activities build both social and academic skills. While all programs that were observed include a mix of arts and crafts, fine arts, science, culture, and physical or recreational activities, the ways in which programs offered academic enrichment activities varied considerably. For example, in addition to offering students a safe and engaging place to go after school, some of the observed programs offered homework help as their only form of academic assistance. Moreover, attendance in the homework help sessions was often not enforced, assignments were not verified, and students were often not attentive to the tasks at hand. Other programs were observed to go beyond minimal homework help sessions. First, the after school program staff communicated with students’ school-day teachers to identify student needs (if the staff members were not already the students’ school day teachers themselves). In these programs, at least 50% of students were doing homework or academic activities during the homework help sessions and at least 90% of students were on task (either doing homework, academic activities, reading, or an alternate assigned activity). 12 of 22



In the most promising programs observed during the site visits, homework help sessions were not study halls and instruction was seldom conducted in large group settings. Instead, these programs tailored their academic activities to individual student needs, often serving students through one-on-one tutoring or small group activities. In one middle school program, students were assigned to a staff member during the after school program who also had regular contact with them during the school-day to promote greater consistency. Kentucky 21st CCLC programs should continue to provide engaging academic instruction that is consistent with and supplements the curriculum provided during the school day. While after school academic enrichment activities can be less formal than traditional school day learning and included in or rewarded by recreational and social activities, their content should be consistent with the school day curricula. Further, programs should seek to use multiple teaching and activity strategies to meet the academic needs of students.

Foster positive staff-child and peer relationships Studies indicate that promising programs offer students a welcoming, nurturing social environment. This environment is fostered by staff and activity leaders who work closely with students to engage them in each activity. Staff members in promising programs appear to know participants well, and nurture close and caring relationships with them. In addition, program staff tend to take an interest in students’ lives outside the program. This same openness and caring is evidenced in participants’ interactions with one another and these programs are rarely affected by student conflicts or disagreements.


13 of 22


Relevance for Kentucky Stakeholders Promising after school programs tend to have the following characteristics related to staff-child and peer relationships: •

Activity leaders who foster close and caring relationships with participants

•

Program staff who take an interest in students’ lives outside the program

•

Openness and caring between participants

Observation data collected during site visits to selected programs indicate that Kentucky programs foster positive relationships among students and between staff and students. A number of site visitors noted that staff members’ positive, respectful and friendly behavior influenced the students’ behavior and vice versa. Specifically, one site visitor noted that, “the students seemed to feed off of the teacher’s behavior in a positive way.” None of the site visitors observed staff members being harsh to any of the students. Instead, staff members were described as being positive, respectful, friendly, calm and reasonable (in reference to a disciplinary action). Similar observations were made regarding the students’ interactions with each other. The majority of site visitors confirmed that student-to-student interactions contributed to an atmosphere conducive to learning, cooperation, and voluntary participation. In addition, nearly all of the site visitors reported that there was no exclusion or lack of engagement by any of the students. As one site visitor noted, “Absolutely no exclusion was observed. Instead, we observed students with disabilities working and playing with their non-disabled peers [and] with younger students.” The only exception to the otherwise positive reports of student and staff interactions came from a site visitor who noted that program participants spent a considerable

14 of 22



amount of time engaged in computer-based reading activities. While the visitor recognized that the curricula had been shown to increase reading performance, the computerbased nature of the activity, and the large amount of time the students spent engaged in the activity, may preclude “the development of social skills.”

Adequate resources Studies have found that adequate resources were critical to the success of high-quality programs. First, promising programs have a variety of physical spaces to accommodate the breadth of activities offered by after school programs. Important features of these physical spaces tend to include: availability of both indoor and outdoor spaces; rooms that can accommodate various sizes of groups; and spaces that allow for different activities to simultaneously occur without interfering with one another (e.g. quiet space for tutoring was not hampered by louder recreational activities). Although many promising programs believe that they could always use more space, they typically have ample space to allow a variety of activities. Second, high quality programs tend to report access to a variety of materials for program activities, including computers for both student and staff use, reference books, calculators/math tools, physical education material, art supplies, photocopier, leisure reading materials, games and puzzles, and transportation for field trips. Third, promising programs rely on multiple funding sources to sustain their program. The majority of programs draw funds from both local and federal programs, as well as from private or corporate donations, local and national foundations, and the school districts in which they were located.


15 of 22


Relevance for Kentucky Stakeholders In summary, promising after school programs tend to have the following characteristics related to resources: •

Adequate physical space to accommodate diverse activities

•

Access to a variety of materials for program activities

•

Multiple sources of funding to increase sustainability

Site visits of select Kentucky programs indicated that many programs have access to multiple physical spaces such as classrooms, multi-purpose facilities, gymnasia, libraries, and computer centers. These resources, offered by the schools in which these programs are based, should not be underestimated. They provide opportunities to offer a variety of diverse activities to large numbers of students during after school time. In addition, because many of these programs serve large numbers of students, the availability of multiple physical spaces for programming is essential. Data collected up to this point have not directly assessed the adequacy of the materials available for program activities. While site visitors reported that programs were implementing a wide variety of program activities that required materials, none mentioned that programs were hard-pressed to come by these materials. Data collected through future surveys and interviews with program directors can include a more direct assessment of the adequacy of these resources, although preliminary data collected through the site visits and Program Director Questionnaire suggest that programs do not lack necessary materials. Data collected through the APR give an indication that a number of programs are beginning to develop and implement strategies for sustaining the program beyond 21st CCLC

16 of 22



funding. Although the strategies for sustainability (integration with other programs, writing grants, recruiting volunteers, and considering charging student fees) were usually in their early stages, most of Kentucky’s programs are supporting all of their program activities through 21st CCLC (and in some cases ESS) dollars. As the evaluation continues and programs have more time to develop and implement strategies for sustainability, CEEP will continue to examine the extent to which Kentucky’s grantees have diversified the funding base for their programs.

Partnerships with schools, community agencies, and parents According to previous research, the most successful after school programs have strong linkages to associated schools. In addition to frequently providing the physical space for program activities, program-school partnerships are also characterized by on-going communication between program directors and school staff about homework assignments and individual student needs. In addition to strong partnerships with schools, promising after school programs typically have strong relationships with a variety of community agencies. Support from community organizations is evidenced in the following ways: direct budget support; provision of space, supplies, personnel or structured activities; and/or referrals of possible participants. Finally, studies indicate that promising programs establish strong linkages with the families of program participants. Some programs offer classes specifically for parents of participants on issues such as child-rearing, health care and English Language Learning. In addition, promising programs report frequent communication through both formal (e.g. events for parents, information sent home) and informal means (e.g. talking with parents).


17 of 22


Relevance for Kentucky Stakeholders In summary, promising after school programs tend to have the following characteristics related to partnerships: •

On-going communications with schools, particularly about homework assignments and individual student needs

•

Strong relationships with a variety of community organizations

•

Frequent communication with parents of participants

In Kentucky, grantees reported high levels of community partnerships in the 2004 APR and the Program Director Questionnaire. In sum, grantees reported a total of 204 partnering organizations, with each program averaging four community partners. While the local school district was most often the fiscal agent of the grant, partnering organizations frequently included the local library, local governmental agencies, and youth-serving organizations such as Boy and Girl Scouts and Big Brothers Big Sisters. Local faith-based organizations, health departments, and 4-H were mentioned as frequent community partners as well. The estimated value of the services provided through partnering organizations ranged considerably, although 70% were valued at or below $5,000. Additional data related to the role of the partnering organization and the nature of the partnership (e.g., subcontracted services versus donated materials or personnel time) were collected in the APR and are currently being entered into the national database by KDE. As these data become available, they will be summarized in forthcoming reports. At this stage in the evaluation, in-depth information has not been collected on the extent to which programs serve and engage the parents and families of the students they serve in

18 of 22



their programs. While this is an important feature of the federal 21st CCLC program, and many Kentucky programs have specific goals and objectives related to providing services for families, a substantial number of program directors reported that serving parents remained an under-implemented component of their program. Specifically, programs had not been able to implement programming targeted at families, or they had been disappointed by low levels of participation in the events or programs they had offered. Although the APR currently requests the number of adults served in each 21st CCLC program in Kentucky, this information proves to be somewhat vague when examining the extent to which parents and families are truly involved in the program. During spring 2005, CEEP will collect survey data from parents whose children attend the 10 sites included in the case study component of the evaluation. These surveys will assess the extent to which parents perceive that the program benefits their child and the extent to which they are satisfied with the program. In addition, these surveys will examine the extent to which parents engage with the program and the specific program activities in which they have participated. Data collected through annual Program Director Questionnaires will also serve to assess the extent to which efforts to engage parents have been successful. Taken together, these data will describe the overall efficacy of the programs in building strong partnerships with an important segment of the community – the parents of the children they serve.


19 of 22


20 of 22


2 References Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H.S., & Hawkins, J.D. (1998). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluation of positive youth development programs. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Social Development Research Group. Department of Education, University of California at Irvine. (2001). Evaluation of California’s After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnership Program: 1999-2000 preliminary report. Irvine, CA. Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Fashola, Olatokunbo S. (1998). Review of extended-day and after-school programs and their effectiveness. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University. Huang, D., Gribbons, B., Kim, K.S., Lee, C., & Baker, E.L. (2000). A decade of results: The impact of the LA’s BEST after school enrichment initiative on subsequent student achievement and performance. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of Califoria. Johnson, J.L., & Jenkins, D.R. (2000). North Carolina’s Support Our Students: Evaluation report for school year 1999-2000. Raleigh-Durham, NC: EDSTAR Educational Evaluation Consultants. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy

21 of 22

References

Rosenthal, R., & Vandell, D.L. (1996). Quality of school-aged child care programs: Regulatable features, observed experiences, child perspectives, and parent perspectives. Child Development, 67, 2434-2445. Vandell, D., Reisner, E., Brown, B., Pierce, K., Dadisman, K., & Pechman, E. (2004). The study of promising after-school programs descriptive report of the promising programs. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc. Welsh, M., Russell, C., Williams, I., Reisner, E., White, R., Winter, N., & Pearson, L. (2002). Promoting learning and school attendance through after-school programs. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc.

22 of 22
