Why lengthen the school day? After school programs are more cost effective…
Posted by Josh McGee | Education, Politics | October 20, 2009
… and may work better too!
A couple of weeks ago we had a post that mentioned Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s proposal to lengthen the school day and/or year. In this previous post, Brian advocated for more targeted interventions. I would argue we would likely get more bang for our buck if we invested in afters-school programs. These programs have two advantages over an across the board lengthening the institutional day:
1. They are cheaper
2. You can more easily target kids and subject areas
Yesterday I read an editorial in the New York Times that called for an increase in funding for after-school programs. During the 2008 presidential campaign President Obama claimed he would double the funding for these programs, but his latest budget shows no such increase.
The Times editorial links to an interesting study by the advocacy group Afterschool Alliance. You can find it here. Also check out the Arkansas Fact Sheet from this report and the Arkansas Out-of-School Network website.
What do Mid-Riffs readers think? To what extent should the government rely on after-school programs?
As a former inner city high school teacher and coach, I cannot stress how much after school programs do to help both students and schools. Students relate to coaches and non-traditional caregivers in a way that they do not relate to their regular classroom teachers, and keeping kids off the streets from 3-6 keeps them alive. It was by no means uncommon to have to bring kids inside during practice because of nearby gunshots, gunshots that many of my kids would have probably been caught in had they not been hitting batting practice.
Drama, sports, tutoring, and other supplemental activities are the types of programs that develop the positive school culture that successful inner city schools are utilizing to rapidly increase student achievement. Similarly, by having these programs after school, more class time can be committed to core subject instruction.
I have to say I think I’m for targeted programs rather than across the board longer school days. I would hazard the guess that most middle and upper class kids come home to environments that are at least as safe and intellectually stimulating as programs after school, and these programs should target the kids that don’t.
Even though I agree with the arguments that more targeted interventions are both cost efficient and better at addressing specific issues of individual students, there are a couple negatives that come with after-school programs. As Coach Mack demonstrates, the common association we have with after-school programs is that they are more recreational and exploratory in nature.
If the debate on extending the school day is primarily focused on keeping children off the streets for a longer period, then after-school programs are definitely a preferable alternative. However, if the intent is increasing student achievement in core subjects, then I’m not certain that after-school programs can have the same impact. Providing remediation outside of “regular” school hours takes on the connotation of being punishment (just ask summer schoolers). Also, after-school programs would be much more optional in nature, as opposed to the extended school day. From prior teaching experiences, it is more often than not the case that the students/parents with the greatest needs for such programs are least likely to be the participants.
Ya’ll are downright timely!
“We all talk about what is what out here and point fingers at one another. … These kids need something to do,” Greyer said. “It’s not gang-related. They get out of school — once they’re in school it’s cool. Once they get out of school, the school says ‘Forget ‘em.’ That’s wrong. Get them some after-schooling programs, some recreation centers 20 hours a week.”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/20/illinois.teen.beating/index.html
Lengthen the school year, shorten the school day, and add more after school programs.
Better yet, transcend the notion of “after-school” programs and incorporate more of those activities into the curricula. Most activities present opportunities for fulfilling a variety of framework requirements.
Because the real problem is that teachers with innovative lesson plans usually don’t have the resources or support they need to take them to the next level. They either don’t have enough of the students’ time or institutional buy-in.
While I would never question the value of a quality afterschool program, especially for at-risk students, the problem lies in providing quality out-of-school (OST) care for a large number of students at little or no cost to the families. In most instances, quality programs that lead to succesful outcomes often come with a participation fee….money that most low-income families cannot afford to spend.
Currently there is also a major problem with capacity. A recent study by Afterschool Alliance showed the 3 out of 4 OST programs are full or overcrowded. Close to 90% of OST providers indicated that there are childen in their area that need afterschool care but do not have access to them.
I applaud the President’s efforts to put more money into OST programs but in order for such programs to be beneficial to students, they have to be more than glorified baby-sitters.
Another great source for research on OST programs is the National Institute on Out-of-School Time:
http://www.niost.org/