Extracurricular Activities and Programs

This article presents an overview of activities and programs that are not part of a school's curriculum, or mandated instruction. Extracurricular activities are activities and programs that are not part of school's curriculum, or mandated instruction. They can be anything from computer clubs to music lessons and do not necessarily take place in school buildings. Usually a fee is charged for those who voluntarily participate and programs are commonly run by non-certified staff. With a growing need to keep all children safe during non-school hours and a greater emphasis on school achievement, extracurricular activities began to be offered in school buildings and became known as "after-school" programs. Additional funds from public and private sources are available to schools and communities to set up no-fee programs that keep children safe and engaged in healthy activities. Programming usually includes an academic component, such as help with homework, but also focuses on recreation and enrichment activities that are separate from the regular school day.

Keywords 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC); After-School Programs; Community School; Curricular Connection; Extracurricular; Latchkey Children; Out-of-School Time (OST); Voluntary

Extended Learning > Extracurricular Activities & Programs

Overview

For as long as schooling has existed in the United States, there have been extracurricular activities, originally defined as activities that were not part of school day instruction. Examples of the most common early extracurricular activities were school yearbook production, sports programs and debate clubs. These endeavors were voluntary, usually without cost to participants, and commonly took place on school grounds under adult guidance.

Boy Scout, Girl Scout and 4-H Clubs are other familiar examples of extracurricular programs that do not necessarily take place in schools and usually have little or no cost to participate. Another traditional category of extracurricular programming is provided by non-profit or for-profit organizations such as YMCAs, YWCAs, dance studios, and providers of music lessons, all of which commonly charge a participation fee.

In the 1980's, the number of latchkey children attending U.S. schools grew to more than five million (Riley, 1998). The increase in the number of children who went home to empty houses was a result of the societal rise in two-income and single-parent households. Many of these children were from culturally diverse backgrounds, lived in low-income communities, and often lacked financial or transportation resources-or personal interest-to take part in traditional extracurricular activities. The need for quality child care and after-school activities-alternative to watching television and taking part in risky behaviors such as alcohol and drug abuse-became paramount for parents and communities (Miller, 2003).

The National Institute on Out-of-School Time (NIOST) was a pioneer organization in bringing national consideration of and concern for the requirement for school-age care, using school buildings to provide after-school supervision and extracurricular activities. The organization was instrumental in encouraging school administration and communities to consider the benefits of changing school-day schedules and school structure in order to keep children safe and engaged in healthy out-of-school time activities. Cost to the community (since not all students would voluntarily participate) and staffing (since union contracts often specified hours and fees for school staff) were challenging issues to be addressed.

Using School Facilities after School

The idea to use school facilities to provide safe and healthy after-school-hour care and supervision had already been proven possible as early as the 1930's. In Flint, Michigan, the birthplace of the community school concept, Charles Stewart Mott, who was instrumental in the formation of General Motors, provided financial support. Schools remained open long after normal hours so that automotive shift workers could participate in non-work activities such as intramural sports and adult education classes. The fundamental premise of the community school concept was that, since school buildings belonged to the community, the entire community, not just its children, should benefit from them (National Center for Community Education, 2007). For several decades, the C. S. Mott Foundation has been a major advocate and supporter of school-based extracurricular programs, especially for children in low-income communities.

Organizations & Partnerships

During the Clinton-Gore administration, several publicly-funded out-of-school time initiatives were begun, the most prominent of which is the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Initiative (21st CCLC), which allows federal funds to every state for school-based after-school programs. Under this initiative, a Community Learning Center is defined as a funded program that operates within a public school building and offers educational, recreational and social service programs for students and community members of every age and is administered by the local educational agency in partnership with a community organization (U.S. Department of Education, 2000).

In 1997, the C. S. Mott Foundation joined in a private-public partnership with the U.S. Department of Education to support 21st Century Community Learning Centers. The partnership became a catalyst for a nationwide after-school movement which has grown rapidly since then. The Mott Foundation supports a national public awareness campaign through the "Afterschool Alliance,” a collaboration of public, private and nonprofit groups dedicated to augmenting resources for after-school activities (Little, 2004).

There are many organizations that bring value to the field, sponsor research and disseminate best practices information for the after-school industry. The Harvard Family Research Project and the Nellie Mae Education Foundation are noteworthy amongst the many organizations that have had long-term involvement. Along with NIOST, the web sites of both organizations are valuable resources for research and evaluation information related to after-school programming.

Schools remain the most common place to provide after-school programs because of space availability, equipment (chairs, tables, books, art supplies), and because the participants are in the same location as it is. Local youth organizations often vouch for and offer services in return for the utility of school space. For example, many school-aged child care programs run by the YMCA/YWCA, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, and the Boys and Girls Clubs are based in schools. “Many schools are expanding beyond the instructional needs of students and transforming their space into full-time community centers. School-based community centers provide safe, drug-free, supervised and cost-effective after-school, weekend and summer activities for youth and their families” (Davis, 2001, ¶ 24).

New Focus on Academic Achievement

Although the early purpose for school-based extracurricular programs was to keep children safe and engaged in healthy activities, greater emphasis on academic performance motivated school districts to find ways to use after school hours to improve academic skills (Shumow, 2001).

While many extracurricular activities continue to be available from both public and private-sector organizations, after-school programs focused on academic achievement are now the most usual form of extracurricular programs, especially in low-income communities. General features of these programs include small adult-to-participant ratios, community involvement, family participation, and focus on curriculum-enhancement activities that support academic achievement.

Applications

In general, “after-school programs are defined as those that provide safe, structured activities that take place in school buildings in the hours after school and offer activities to help children learn new skills or improve academic skills. Activities cover topics such as reading, math, science and the arts” and often use computer technology that is available in the school (National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center, 2001, ¶ 4).

After-school programs “expand learning time for students by providing tutoring along with activities that reinforce academic work from the regular school day. Programming can also develop team-building and leadership skills” (Peterson, 2005, ¶ 16). Other components, often no longer part of the regular school day, include exploration of college and career possibilities and engagement in art and music projects. Service learning activities, included in many programs, increase civic responsibility and self-discipline which is mutually beneficial for the students and the communities in which they live (Peterson, 2005).

Three Types of Programs

To meet the needs of a range of students and communities, after-school programs implement various strategies but generally are categorized as three types:

• School-Age Child Care

• Youth Development Programs

• Educational After-School Programs (Miller, 2001).

School-Age Child Care

These programs are sponsored by child care chains, community education groups, grassroots organizations, parent-run nonprofits, and churches. Many programs are located in schools before and after the regular school day hours. Programs usually support the school curriculum through homework assistance and literacy-focused activities. These programs generally tap funding sources, such as the Child Care Development Fund, not used by other after-school programs.

Youth Development Programs

During the 1970s and 1980s, many social service organizations received funding for prevention of such problems as drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and school dropout. These programs generally focus on middle and high school students and are offered by youth-serving organizations such as Boy/Girl Scouts, YMCA/YWCA's, 4-H and local libraries, museums, and parks and recreation departments. Programming usually includes a mentoring component and activities that range from an arts focus to drop-in recreation.

Educational After-School Programs

With increased funding available, schools throughout the country began to focus on after-school programs as a means to improve academic achievement. When the after-school program is part of a community-based program-rather than run solely by the school staff-often there are challenges related to staffing and use of space and equipment. It is common for teachers to take pride in their certified status and to not be welcoming of non-certified outsiders who may not be familiar with curriculum standards to which in-school instruction is devoted. Also, teachers commonly feel ownership of their classrooms and many have difficulty accepting strangers in their space after hours. Initiatives such as Project Learn of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America explore how schools and after-school programs can collaborate for the greater good. For an after-school program to be effective, its staff must develop strong connections to the school, including to its mission, academic expectations and standards of acceptable behavior.

Research & Evaluation of Programs

There is an abundance of research and evaluation data, as well as best-practices information, published in many sources. Critiques of programs generally address the following five components:

• Structure

• Staffing

• Programming

• Evaluation

• Sustainable funding (Miller, 2003; Council of Chief State School Officers, 2006).

Structure

While most school-based extracurricular programs are recognized as being separate from the regular school day culture, those that have an operational framework generally have better outcomes than those that are drop-in. Structured programs commonly provide some break from the school day, be it a recreational period, a healthy-snack break, or both. Especially in educational after-school programs, time for homework assistance is included and usually occurs prior to a curriculum-enhancement activity such as an arts project, a problem-solving or team-building activity, or a hands-on project, such as robotics. Most structures also provide time at the end of the program for "leave the room as we found it" and "get ready for departure." The number of days the program meets is also related to structure. Meeting less than five days/week allows program participants to make other commitments including medical and dental appointments, school sporting events, and other extracurricular activities such as private music or dance lessons.

Staffing

Most extracurricular staff members work part-time for the program. Especially for educational after-school programs, it is imperative that some staff members be connected to the regular school day. Administrative assistants, substitute teachers and former students enrolled in college are excellent candidates since they are familiar with the community, school culture, and acceptable behavior norms. Retirees who volunteer time also are good resources, especially in programs that serve young children. Many programs prefer to employ classroom teachers who are most familiar with the academic needs of students and the school culture. However, while many teachers may welcome added income, they may bring pre-judgments left over from the regular school day and personal exhaustion that may diminish program effectiveness. Some programs have found it optimal to use classroom teachers in a supervisory role, overseeing undergraduates who are interested in teaching as a career. With direction and activity plans provided by the classroom teacher, undergraduates who provide direct service can gain valuable experience. Often they become role models and mentors which is especially beneficial for middle and high school participants.

Programming

The content of extracurricular programs varies widely and depends upon the goals, structure and duration of the program, as well as upon who pays. For example, if a parent is paying a fee for a child to take piano lessons, that is quite different from the federal or state government providing funds to improve academic skills. Typically, funded programs offer a variety of activities including enrichment, remediation, individualized tutoring combined with recreation, mentoring, and sports (Bouffard & Little, 2003). Educational programs that are linked to the school commonly have program goals that support student success, especially in the area of homework assistance. In these programs, communication with school personnel is necessary to plan programming that complements, but does not duplicate, regular classroom instruction. Some programs purchase commercial packages that provide computer-delivered individualized instruction designed to enhance or remediate academic skills. Another type of commercial product provides daily activity plans that provide directions, materials lists, and time estimates to complete hands-on, experiential learning activities in small groups. If affordable to a funded program, these options lessen the responsibility for staff to plan and implement activities.

Evaluation

In this relatively new field of the education industry and with much funding provided by public and private sources, an evaluation component for every program is key to strengthening the program and the industry as a whole. Evaluation data is also imperative for securing ongoing funding. Evaluation methods are widespread, are often defined by the funding source, and commonly include demographic and school achievement information about the participants, attendance data, and anecdotal comments about structure and activities. Some funding sources also request a cost-benefit assessment which requires a cost/student calculation (HFRP, 2005). The Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP) is a primary clearinghouse for after-school evaluation data.

Sustainable Funding

Although federal funding for 21st CCLC after-school programs provided about $1 billion per year, at an average cost of $1,000 per student, fewer than one million participants across the country were able to benefit from these grants (NIOST, 2007). Grantees were expected to design sustainability plans to keep the programs running when the federal grants are reduced or no longer available. In 2013, after several years of budget cuts topped by drastic reductions to federal education funding as part of sequestration, 24 states requested waivers to allow 21st CCLC funds to be diverted to bolstering or sustaining the regular school day. Advocates for after-school programs argued that after-school programs were essential and should not be sacrificed as a means of meeting the needs of schools (Wolf, 2013).

Costs

“The cost for after-school programs can range from $50,000 to $500,000 a year, depending on the number of students served and the kind of services offered” (Davis, 2001, ¶ 14). Since school budgets are usually strained to support school-day instruction, after-school program developers often turn to other federal and state grants for child care, nutrition, education, crime prevention and public safety to fund after-school programs. For example, schools in low-income areas can use some Title I funds for after-school projects. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Program also offer grants for after-school programs. “The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Child and Adult Care Food Program and the National School Lunch Program are funding sources for snacks and meals. Many states use the percentage of free or reduced-price meals within a school to determine funding from these sources” (Davis, 2001, ¶ 15). Some programs base their sustainability plans on fees, which can range from $2.40 to $5 per hour per child, and seek "scholarship" support from local foundations and businesses for students unable to pay the fee (Davis, 2001).

“Administrators recognize that after-school is less expensive by the hour than the regular school day since capital costs, operating costs for the buildings, overhead costs and some of the transportation costs are already paid for. The per-hour costs also are less because after-school staff is usually a mix of certified teachers, youth workers, paraprofessionals, college work-study students and volunteers. These factors make an hour of after-school programming cost about a third of the regular school day” (Peterson, 2005, ¶ 33).

Viewpoints

In a presentation at the Harvard Family Research Project's 21st CCLC 2004 Summer Institute, Priscilla Little (2004) presented eight elements to be addressed in planning quality after-school programs:

• Commitment to inclusive programming that meets the needs of all boys and girls in the community, including participants of all racial, ethnic, and language groups (including ESL), as well as students with special needs;

• Commitment to providing opportunities for engagement of families as participants in their children's learning;

• Opportunities for training and supervision of program staff and volunteers so that understand how to support children in their own learning and development;

• Programming that provides varied opportunities for participants to engage in project-based learning activities, to develop relationships with peers and adults, and to master 21st century skills and knowledge;

• Programming elements that support achievement beyond academics, including library and computer clubs, music and dance activities, field trips, crafts, physical fitness and sports endeavors, health education, career development, and service learning;

• Measurable outcomes based on improved school attendance, reduced suspensions, improved academic performance, greater homework completion, increased leadership skills, reduced problem behavior, and increased motivation and engagement in school;

• Provision for facilities, equipment, and other resources that are appropriate to the needs of participants, including books, materials, and other learning tools that can stimulate engagement, support learning, are appropriate for participants' age levels, and are sensitive to the culture of the community;

• Collection and use of evaluation information for continuous assessment and improvement of participant and program outcomes as well as for accountability related to academic, social/emotional, health and safety, and community engagement goals.

The GESS After-School Program

The following case study highlights research findings about effective after-school programs and school partnerships that focus on three strategies-curricular connections, program directors as resource connectors, and dedication to partnership (NIOST, 2007a).

The after-school program at the Gardner Extended Services School (GESS), a school-community-university partnership in Allston, Massachusetts, is based on collaboration and curricular connection. The GESS after-school program, managed by the YMCA, has been in existence for ten years and serves approximately 150 students in grades K- 5.

In addition to directing the after-school program, the GESS Coordinator serves as a liaison between the after-school program and the school to support curricular connection. Through the role of the GESS coordinator, the after-school program has full access to the school day environment and connects to the school day instruction.

Integrating school day curriculum into the after-school program is a challenge that requires strong relationship between the after-school program and school day staff as well as knowledge of teaching and learning methods. Support and investment from the principal is critical to the success of adapting the school day learning content into after-school program activities that appeal to students.

The GESS coordinator works with five school day teachers (compensated through the after-school program grant) to create a comprehensive curriculum that supports school day teaching and learning standards for each grade level. The team prepares month-long unit topics for each grade level that are aligned to the school day curriculum. The participation of school day teachers is critical to the success of the program. With this approach, the after-school program director has been able to

• Find effective ways for the after-school program to support school day learning,

• Gain the confidence and support of school day personnel,

• Participate in a variety of staff meetings, and

• Secure grants to support the program goal to connect the after-school program activities with school day learning (NIOST, 2007a).

Terms & Concepts

21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC): A federal initiative that provides funding for extracurricular programs that operate within a public school building and provide educational, recreational and social service support for residents of all ages and is administered by the local educational agency in partnership with a community organization.

After-School Programs: Programs that provide safe, structured activities that take place in school buildings in the hours after school and offer activities to help children learn new skills or improve academic skills.

Community School: A school building used to provide services that benefit the entire community, not just its children.

Curricular Connection: Extracurricular programming that supports school day teaching and learning and is aligned to curriculum standards for each grade level.

Extracurricular: Programs and activities that are not part of mandated, school day instruction.

Latchkey Children: Specifically, the latchkey of a door to the house which, during World War II when parents were enlisted into armed forces, was often strung around the child's neck or left hidden under a mat. Now applies to children who go home after school to empty houses.

Out-of-School Time (OST): Programs and activities offered before and after school designed to keep children safe and engaged in healthy, supervised endeavors.

Voluntary: Non-mandated attendance.

Bibliography

Bouffard, S. & Little, P. (2003). A review of activity implementation in out-of-school time programs. Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/afterschool/resources/snapshot2.html

Council of Chief State School Officers (2006). Extended learning opportunities. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Extended_Learning_Opportunities/

Davis, J. (2001). Out of school and out of trouble. State Legislatures, 27 , 28. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4431195&site=ehost-live

Harvard Family Research Project. (2005). After-school evaluation symposium: Creating communities of practice to support quality after school programming . Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/afterschool/conference/symposium2005

Little, P. (2004).Redefining after-school programs to support student achievement outcomes. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from Harvard Family Research Project http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/content/projects/afterschool/conference/21st_CCLC_Summer_Institute_2004.pdf

Mahoney, M. (2013). Reinventing the electric car: Education beyond the classroom. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 72, 6-12. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86666408&site=ehost-live

McLurkin, D.L. (2013). Challenges for supporting the development of afterschool tutors who tutor children with learning disabilities. New Educator, 9, 346-360. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92017610&site=ehost-live

Miller, B. (2001). The promise of after-school programs. Educational Leadership, 58 , 6. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4344252&site=ehost-live

Miller, B. (2003). Critical hours: After-school programs and educational success. Nellie Mae Education Foundation. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.nmefdn.org/uploads/Critical_Hours.pdf

National Center for Community Education. (2007). Mission & history. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www.nccenet.org/MissionHistory/index.cfm

National Institute on Out-of-School Time. (2007a). Promising practices in after-school program and school partnerships. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.niost.org/publications/DisseminationPiece.pdf

National Institute on Out-of-School Time. (2007b). Making the case: A fact sheet on children and youth in out-of-school time. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.niost.org/publications/Final2007FactSheet.pdf

National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center. (2001). After-school programs fact sheet. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/facts/afterschool.asp Peterson, T. (2005). Leveraging the after-school value added. School Administrator, 62 . 10-17. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16765499&site=ehost-live

Riley, R. (1998). Building extended learning opportunities. Teaching Pre-K-8, 28 , 8. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=332046&site=ehost-live

Savage, C. (2013). Progressive education, after-school programs and their impact on the lives of African American males: An introduction. Peabody Journal of Education (0161956X), 88, 407-420. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90134959&site=ehost-live

Shumow, L. (2001). Academic effects of after-school programs. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.ericdigests.org/2002-2/after.htm

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). 21st century community learning centers: Providing quality after-school learning opportunities for America's families. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Providing_Quality_Afterschool_Learning/index.html

Wolfe, F. (2013). Schwarzenegger calls for support of 21st CCLC. Education Daily, 46, 1-4. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91920073&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Feldman, A., & Matjasko, J. (2005). The role of school-based extracurricular activities in adolescent development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 75 , 159-210.

Mahoney, R., & Larson, W., & Eccles, J. (2005).Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after school and community programs. Oxford, UK: Routeledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

U.S. Department of Education (1997). Keeping schools open as community learning centers: Extending learning in a safe, drug-free environment before and after school. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/LearnCenters/title.html

U.S. Department of Education (2000). After-school programs: Keeping children safe and smart. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/afterschool/title.html