 |
 |
| Survey Responses: Extended Learning & Development Programs (2002) |
In the summer of 2001, the Council of Chief State School Officers developed and issued a survey to 47 high-poverty schools that were either high performing or had shown significant improvement in student academic achievement. These schools were initially selected based on their academic performance as indicated in their school reports and/or Education Trust report, "Dispelling the Myth: High Poverty Schools Exceeding Expectations."
The purpose of the survey was to elicit information from successful schools regarding the range of extended learning opportunities offered by schools during out-of-school time and how these activities relate to positive student outcomes (e.g. an increase in educational attainment, and increase in attendance, a decline in disruptive behavior). In addition, the data collected was used to select a smaller subset of schools, for the purpose of conducting site visits to school-based extended learning programs. The information gleaned from those visits was subsequently used to develop individual detailed school profiles that examine best practices in high-poverty schools.
The initial school responses are included on our website because they illustrate the diversity and range of extended learning programs offered in high-poverty schools that have been successful in improving student achievement. The responses also reflect the similarities across schools in terms of program origins, goals, and administration and thus help to inform the Council's efforts to document best practices in extended learning programs that primarily serve at-risk students. Finally, the proliferation of state-sponsored extended learning programs and the devolution of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program from federal to state administration indicates an increased role of state education agencies in providing extended learning programs. Thus, the survey information is included because it provides an overview of characteristics of existing programs and may be useful to state education agencies in the planning and development of quality extended learning opportunities for students.
Twenty-nine of the 47 schools responded and this database contains information from these schools, including school demographic characteristics and background data, and specific program information (i.e., structure and administration, goals and content, funding, community involvement, and evaluation). Please note that in the section of the survey entitled "Additional Program Information," schools were asked to provide information about other extended learning programs that were not already addressed in the previous sections. A number of schools left this portion blank and in those instances the questionnaire states, "information not provided." To view an individual school, please see the School Survey Responses section below.
Summary of School Demographics & Background Data
This section contains general information and demographic characteristics about each of the 29 schools that responded to the questionnaire. One of the criteria, which guided the initial selection process, was that schools have a poverty rate of 50 percent or greater.
- Twelve of the schools that responded had a poverty rate (based on the free and reduced meals percentages), in the 75-100 percent range. The remaining schools fell within the 50-75 percent range.
- Twenty-two of the schools received Title I funds (either schoolwide or targeted).
- Although the majority of the schools were located in inner cities or in urban areas, 7 of the schools were based in small towns or rural communities.
- The sample was also racially diverse across schools, although the majority of individual schools tended to have a majority (50 percent or higher) of students from a particular racial group.
- The sample included 18 elementary schools, 7 middle schools and 4 high schools.
Survey Results:
Background Program Information
This section provides basic information about each school's extended learning program including program activities, duration, percentage of students served, and type (e.g., summer school, before/afterschool, weekends, etc.).
- Most schools cited the desire to raise academic achievement and provide a safe and structured environment as the main reasons why they implemented extended learning activities (79 and 62 percent respectively).
- In addition, a majority of the schools indicated that the creation of these activities was in direct response to a collective initiative to provide programming (59 percent).
- The majority of the extended learning programs offered academic remediation (24 out of 29).
- Other common activities included individual tutoring (23 out of 29) academic enrichment (23 out of 29), and homework assistance (21 out of 29).
- More than fifty percent of the programs that responded offered fine or practical arts programs as well as peer and adult mentoring.
- Sixteen of the programs offered character education and sixteen offered sports and recreational activities.
- Sixty-two percent of the schools also offered programming not only during the afterschool hours but also on weekends, summers, and before the official start of the school day.
- The number of students served varied significantly across schools. Some programs served 20 students while other programs served 300 (individual school data is also represented in percentages to take into account the size of the student body relative to the number of students participating in extended learning activities).
Survey Results:
Program Goals & Content
This section provides a summary of the stated program goals for each school in the sample. Extended learning program goals and content were often closely linked to program origins (see above).
- The majority of the school principals and program staff cited providing academic achievement (evidenced by improving student performance on tests and school grades), developing key skills, and cultivating study habits as the major focus of the programs.
- Principals and staff also indicated that providing a safe environment during afterschool hours, encouraging positive student behavior, and increasing students' self-esteem were key program goals.
- Program goals were perceived by school staff as explicitly linked to program activities, and, in most cases, to the school day curriculum and state standards.
Survey Results:
Professional Staff and Administration
This section provides an overview of the administrative structure of each of the schools in the sample.
- Based on the questionnaire results, principals often played a vital role in sustaining extended learning programs housed within the school. They were key in delegating program responsibilities and championing the extended learning program to school staff, parents, and the community at large.
- In many of the schools, assistant principals served as program coordinators. They were typically responsible for staffing the program, overseeing daily operations, and allocating resources.
- Program coordinators usually worked closely with lead teachers (or instructional resource teachers) on matters including program content, scheduling, student attendance, and transportation.
- All of the schools in this study employed credentialed teachers to staff the extended learning program (29 out of 29) in addition to other paid and volunteer staff.
Survey Results:
The Role of the Community
This section contains data regarding the role of the community in supporting the schools' extended learning programs.
- Just over half of the schools that responded to the questionnaire indicated that they utilize some type of community resources.
- Schools most frequently relied on the larger community for advice, for personnel needs (both volunteer and paid staff), and for assistance with program development.
- Eleven of the schools that responded indicated that they had established formal partnerships with a community-based organization.
Survey Results:
Program Evaluation
This section contains data related to program evaluation.
- Eighty-six percent (n=25) of the schools relied on student academic achievement as a major indicator of program effectiveness. Just under half of the schools also utilized teacher, parent, and student surveys to gauge program usefulness (n=14, 15 and 12 respectively).
- In addition, the frequency of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use was cited by 2 of the schools as data collected to measure program effectiveness.
- Although almost every program in the sample collected student outcome data (n=28), just 1/3 were required to collect this data.
- The majority of the programs collected student data quarterly or at the end of each semester. Program staff typically used the data collected to modify or improve program content, to target students for remediation, and to identify students with special needs.
- The data was also used by the schools to determine the allocation of staff, funding, and materials, and to identify academic areas in need of improvement.
Survey Results:
School Survey Responses
|
Council of Chief State School
Officers
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW · Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001-1431
voice: 202.336.7000 · fax: 202.408.8072
Legal Conditions · Feedback ·
Sitemap
document last updated 8/21/2009
|
|
Chiefline
