Literature Review: Impact of After School Programs on K-12 Education

This literature review examines the impact of after-school programs on K-12 education, focusing on academic achievement, behavior, and attendance. It begins with an introduction emphasizing the importance of education and the concept of inclusive education, highlighting factors affecting student performance such as absenteeism and economic conditions. The review then explores after-school programs as a means of providing quality education, including mentoring, coaching, arts, and sports. The methodology section details the documentation process, search terms, databases, and inclusion/exclusion criteria used. The paper then provides a historical timeline of after-school programs, tracing developments from the late 1800s to the early 2000s, including key legislation and societal changes that influenced their growth. The review covers the growth of afterschool programs, goals, benefits, characteristics, types, views, funding, and theoretical framework. The review highlights the evolution of after-school programs, including the Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971, the Child Care Development and Block Grant (CCDBG) of 1990, and the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21CCLC) of 1998, and California’s Proposition 49 of 2002, emphasizing the importance of community involvement and funding in the success of these programs. The study concludes that these programs play a crucial role in addressing juvenile crime and supporting working parents.

1
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
‘Education is the manifestation of perfection already in a man’- provides the importance
of education in the life of a rational being like humans (Alliance, 2014). It is not only learning of
facts but also training of the mind to think rationally. Every being in this world has the right to
education and no child should be left behind. Education is not limited to the four walls of a
classroom but is open to all and learning has no end. The approach of universal education leads
to the path of liberalism (Baldwin & Wilder, 2014). The job of education is not to help children
prepare for something, but to help them learn to prepare themselves for anything in future (Beets
et al., 2014). This paper is a reflection of some factors affecting K-12 education. Educating the
youth will lay the foundation for the ultimate prosperity of the nation and will support
sustainable development for everyone irrespective of caste, creed, race, age, gender, sex,
nationality, religion, social status and cultural differences.
The modern education system has the adjective ‘inclusive’ added to it. Inclusive means every
student should have access to learning and educational resources in their classroom so that the
ultimate learning equality is maintained (Beets et al., 2015). Despite of this inclusion a number
of students are found to be at high risk of poor academic achievements that can lead to lack of
self-confidence and morale afterwards. A number of factors are responsible for poor
performance like chronic absenteeism, externalizing behavior in the classroom, poor economic
conditions, boring class teaching, school-dropouts and disruptive kids’ nature (Bellara &
Hibbard, 2015). The future of such students is doomed and early steps need to be taken in their
educational prospects could save them and their future can brighten up.

2
One approach for providing quality education opportunity to every child is the academic
intervention in the form of after school programs. After school programs provide education to K-
12 students (Bennett, 2015). Education in the context of after school programs is not limited to
academics. After school programs education also includes mentoring, coaching, arts, sports,
recreations, cultural activities and overall youth development. Such program is very important in
the overall growth and development of the child (Bradshaw, 2015). Since the coverage of after
school program is vast it is not possible to include all aspects in this research work. In order to
have a more in-depth understanding of after school programs the area of academic support and
mentoring is considered in this paper. This chapter of the dissertation incorporates the literature
review and theoretical background support for the topic of discussion. The focus of this study is
the impact of the 360 Literacy Program on academic achievement, behavior, and class
attendance. The said program is an after-school program offered to students who are considered
at risk and are from low income families. The program is unique to the school where this study is
undertaken. As such, this literature review will look at after school programs in general. It will
explore the different aspects of after school programs which include growth timeline from 1800s
to 2007, goals, benefits, characteristics, types, views, funding, and theoretical framework.
Documentation
Documentation is a very crucial step in the research process. It is also the step which
helps in systematic development of the remaining part of the paper. Generally, documentation
includes a list of data base and resources used for the research purpose (Centeio, Erwin &
Castelli, 2014). It also includes the search strategies of each resource used that is it includes
search terms, like dates, topics, years, type of document etc. It is like web bookmarks, in
documentation as well notes of every individual peer reviewed journal, articles, websites and

3
other sources are documented chronologically or as per importance (Davis & Singh, 2015).
Mainly primary sources of information are to be included in the initial phase of documentation.
A framework of resources documented are provided below.
Search terms Education, primary education, after school programs, learning
and development, growth timeline of after school programs,
academic enrichment, special education, multiple intelligence
theory, constructivism theory, socio-cultural theory, mentoring,
classroom behavior, community learning center, student
counseling, achievement gap and equality in education.
Data bases searched ProQuest, ERIC, sociological abstracts, academic search
complete, JSTOR, and google scholar.
Part of journals searched Based on key words already mentioned under search terms.
Years of search From late 1800’s to recent years of 2006-2007 for timeline
development and recent five years’ data base is considered from
2014 to present year of 2019.
Language English
Type of studies to be
included
This paper focused on the discussion and relevant data from both
qualitative and quantitative studies collected from the sources
mentioned above.
Criteria for inclusion Extent of impact, significant difference etc. are required to be
evaluated and included in the paper.

4
Criteria for exclusion Studies that are older than 5 years old were not included for
analysis except for the inclusion in the growth timeline.
The documentation framework provides a summary of the main data resources reviewed
in this study but the actual resources used are presented alphabetically in the reference section.
This documentation will provide a brief idea of the research mechanism and will enable the
reader to have a knowledge for the flow of the research. The search terms provided above will
give a picture of the main theme of the dissertation paper which are education and after school
programs. Data are collected from both qualitative and quantitative sources and are evaluated
based on their relevance to the paper. The literature review encompasses all relevant theoretical
considerations for the topic. Varied perspectives from sociological viewpoints are also
considered. The documentation process helped in the organization of the searches and will
reduce quality time required for the paper (Dinkel et al., 2014). It will also reduce data
redundancy and confusion if any. So, documentation is one of the vital stages in the development
of a research paper. Both the reader and the writer can connect to the underlying theme of the
paper and understanding the end results become easier. After documentation the main theoretical
review is highlighted where the basic timeline of growth of after school programs is highlighted.
Afterschool Programs (ASPs) Growth Timeline
The purpose of this part of the literature review is to highlight some major developments
on the history of after school programs. These major developments did not happen on a regular
time interval. As such, the timeline is not presented on a definite time interval.
During the late 1800’s the position of children in the society changed, better to say position has
improved. Children previously worked as labor force in industries but the situation improved and
students were engaged in educational experiences instead (Duran et al., 2014) Child labor

5
proportion decreased considerably and more and more school goers emerged. This shift in
societal stand increased the scope of liberalism and the importance of educating children was
emphasized a lot.
During the 1960’s the inter city neighborhood areas became risky and dangerous for children and
children were frightened to attend schools. The environment become unsafe for them as a
number of social and political unrest continued during that time line. Civil rights movement, the
Vietnam war, the Cold war, and the youth culture and also the space race conflict all added up to
the unsafe environment for the school going children (Edwards, 2016). This resulted in the
increased demand for after school programs and ASPs show considerable growth during that
time.
In the year 1971 the United States congress passed the Comprehensive Child Development Act.
The act provides the right to equality in terms of childcare services for all despite socio-
economic disparity and cultural differences (Finn‐Stevenson, 2014). Day care system was
designed to support single and working parents. The act supported a communal approach to child
care and child rearing.
During this time frame of 1970-1980 the society had undergone major societal reforms in
terms of family structure and condition of women improved. A supervision gap has been formed
due to the change in family structure and this directly impacted the classroom climate for
education (Fredricks, Bohnert & Burdette, 2014). Parental activities and social engagement
increased and social activities of children has also widened up. Both size and structure of
families changed and this affected the educational environment of the children holistically.
In the year 1990 the Child Care Development and Block Grant (CCDBG) was formed which is
now called as Child Care Development Fund. The main motive of developing this program is to

6
provide aid and assistance to the lower income group people (Holstead, Hightower King &
Miller, 2015). The expectation is met through the subsidized expenses for child care. This
initiative provides a hope for the educational opportunity for the poor and backward class
children and after school program was a great area of interest for such children.
In the year 1991 a National bureau and After school program survey study was conducted that
had a national wide sample collection to provide a clear statistic of how and to what extent the
American children are involved in the after-school programs. This feedback helped in
developing new and improved after school program strategies and implement changes required
so that the effectiveness of the program increases manifold and the ultimate aim of educating all
children irrespective of class boundaries becomes successful (Huang, La Torre Matrundola &
Leon, 2014).
The Personal responsibility and work opportunity reconciliation Act of 1996 was
established and it eliminated cash assistance, as an entitlement program, to families with
children. It also provides huge amount of incentive to the adults and were asked to shift from
mere welfare participation to paid labor force participation (Krauss et al., 2014). This act was
developed to end the status of ‘entitlement’ of welfare benefits. As a result, the demand for after
school programs increased as adult members and parents become more work centered.
The year 1997 marked the rise of Juvenile crime and children were badly affected by this crime.
The peak time for the crime to be conducted was 3pm to 8 pm and this behavioral change in
children need urgent remedy and after school program was the only option to rectify the
problem. Aged between 12-17 most juveniles were victims of injury and violent crime. Most
victims are results of homicides, suicides, abuse and negligence (Krishnamurthi, Ballard &
Noam, 2014). The offender juveniles were mostly school students who used weapons for

7
carrying out crimes and violent cases of murder as well. The society could be held responsible
for this to a great extent as a number of political and social unrest conditions prevailed during
this time. In this condition education was the only ray of hope and after school programs were
emphasized the most and instead of core education children here are mentored about what is
good and what is bad for them (Leos-Urbel, 2015).
In 1998, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21CCLC) was formed and
promoted relationship among community, family and school (Little, 2014). Integral participation
of all will improve the quality of education imparted and behavioral aspects of children will
improve a lot. The community learning centers provide fresh air to the development and progress
of afterschool programs and this governmental aid has strengthened the scope of success of the
afterschool programs largely. It also supported the federal approach of afterschool program in
US.
In the year 2002, the Afterschool Education and Safety Program Act was passed also
called as California’s Proposition 49. This act provides extra funding facilities to support the
already existing funding of before and after school programs (McDaniel & Yarbrough, 2016). It
also gives eligibility criteria to all elementary and middle schools that are quality conscious and
have bright future prospects.
2004 Statistics reveal that more than 78% of mothers were working mothers and they did
not get enough time to look after their children even after the maternity benefit provided (Roth &
Brooks-Gunn, 2016). This change in women work and labor force participation promoted the
growth of day care and after school programs. As a result, the demand of afterschool programs
increased and social stability improved.

8
During the years 2003-2005 the financial aspects of Proposition 49 were still under
construction and had not been met yet, the emphasis on After School Education and Safety
(ASES) was given by some group of social activists and educationalists (Simpkins & Riggs,
2014).
During the year 2005 time the Senate Bill was passed which accelerated the funding of
Proposition 49 and supported major change in system implementation where the reimbursement
system was replaced by the grant system in terms of fund disbursement (Smith et al., 2014).
During the years 2006-2007 the Afterschool Education and Safety was finally given a positive
nod in regard to funding and in the month of September 2006 the Senate Bill 638 was finally
signed and given the status of a law (Smith et al., 2014). This has been a remarkable achievement
for Afterschool programs and as the funding problem was solved the program kick started with
higher momentum and gradually become popular among US children.
By the month of August, 2007, it has been reported that almost 3800 schools are being benefitted
from the ASES funding program and this has been a huge achievement for afterschool programs
and child development and education (Taheri & Welsh, 2016).
Summary of the growth timeline
The time line has clearly shown the growth of afterschool programs regardless of social
and political contingencies. Moreover, the change in parent work conditions and family
structures have increased the importance of afterschool programs. A number of laws and bills
were passed for the ultimate development of a child and also for improving their social life by
imparting quality education to them (Little, 2014). School education was not sufficient for all
and for this a holistic 360-degree educational facility is of utmost importance and afterschool
programs has been designed to meet this gap (Tomic, 2016). A number of factors were there that

9
affect the growth of afterschool programs like risky behavior of youths, single parent families,
drug and abuse, juvenile crime, lack of primary literary skills, socio-economic conditions of
parents, inequality in earning, women participation in labor force, job shifts, home alone children
and safety needs of theirs (Weaver et al., 2015).
Factors affecting the growth of after school programs
A number of factors are there that affect the growth of Afterschool programs. Some are
listed here.
One of the major factors that has accelerated the growth of ASPs is the change in labor
force participation and family structure. To be more specific the increase in women participation
in paid labor force has increased the need for child care and supervision of the home alone child
(Wright, Alaggia & Krygsman, 2014). The labor force change is driven by factors like economic
need and single parenting issues. Women has started to have a professional life and they find it
difficult to balance both personal and professional commitments simultaneously and as a result
the need for afterschool programs increased for their children and for them as well. There arises
a gap in between parent work hours and school hours of children as a result of which afterschool
attendance becomes mandatory to fill the gap and also support child safety. Parents can also be
relaxed by seeing their child engaged in some activity rather than sitting ideal in home. Nuclear
family structure has also increased child loneliness and as a result both parents and students are
preferring afterschool programs holistically.
The change in the American neighborhood is one of the main causes that supported the
growth of afterschool programs and child safety is affected the most due to this change. Urban
expansion and tenement housing have raised question of child health and safety. The intercity
neighborhood become more open to violence and crime and juvenile crime rose to its peak. As a

10
result, the educational aspects of children become difficult and here afterschool programs play
major role in imparting education to them. The peak hours of crime, especially juvenile crime
was in between 3pm to 8 pm which is hazardous for school goers (Zarrett, Sorensen & Cook,
2015). But this is perfect for after school programs as afterschool program starts at 3.30 pm and
continues till 6.40 pm. So, if middle aged adolescents can be kept involved in education and
extra-curricular activities then the chances of juvenile crime and victimization could be
decreased to a considerable extent.
Selfcare may facilitate responsibility and provide a sense of independence in students in
one hand but on the other it can be risky too. Home alone adolescents are more prone to be
latchkey children. For pro-adolescent children selfcare could be fatal and could be dangerous
both physically and mentally (Zarrett, Sorensen & Cook, 2015). It enhances negative
developmental outcomes and longer hours of solitude make children socially aloof and their
behavioral patterns gets affected in a negative manner. Children may suffer mental problems and
may become introvert in their future lives which is not good in regard to their career as well as in
regard to holistic growth and development. The more the level of interaction in the early stages
of life the more outward the child will become and will be more realistic in their approach. So, in
order to mitigate the problem afterschool program participation for children is the best
alternative available.
The socio-economic factors play major role in affecting the growth of afterschool
programs. Poverty, unemployment and crisis are common phenomenon of society and the more
the depth of the issue the more impact will be on overall education and mental development of
students. Family history and family crisis may force the parents to opt for afterschool programs
for their children as cost of high school is pretty higher compared to after school ones.

11
Moreover, the class differences in schools many also be responsible for the students opting for
afterschool programs. But afterschool program curriculum set up for adolescent students was
never easy. The journey of early, middle and adolescent student care was not a smooth ride but a
roller-coaster one, there many ups and downs and society has backed the concept a number of
times. The conservative politicians of the society have opposed it with the issue that child rearing
is the job or duty of the mothers or women of the family, it is not an issue of government
involvement (Little, 2014). The shift in labor force participation of women has been backed by
them and working mothers and child care was opposed. But after the passing of Comprehensive
Child Development Act in 1971 and several others supporting child care and child education the
issue became flexible and finally in 2005, after the passing of Senate bill situations become
favorable on part of afterschool programs and finally it become successful (McDaniel &
Yarbrough, 2016).
Goals of Afterschool Programs
Afterschool program includes a variety of academic inputs like tutoring, mentoring,
enrichment, remediation, homework time, increased learning time and day care as well. The
afterschool programs basically provide academic support, practice of things learned and real-life
application of them (Leos-Urbel, 2015). Though tutoring and mentoring are the major focus of
afterschool programs other goals included. These goals are discussed here.
One of the fundamental goals of after school programs is to increase passion for learning. The
programs are so formulated that they will help in igniting the passion for learning in the students
who lack interest in studies and school curriculum (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016). This passion
can be carried back to regular classes and motivation for learning in regular day to day classes
will increase manifold.

12
Building connections and strengthening communication empathy is another major goal of after-
school programs. The afterschool programs aim at providing increased application and practice
skills to day school learning and strengthens knowledge learning. Connections are built among
co-students and relationship building is accomplished with higher degree of empathy and self-
confidence improves considerably (Leos-Urbel, 2015).
It also aims at providence of safe and supportive learning environment. Child safety is
one of the major goals in developing the programs of afterschool curriculum. Providing a safer
and supportive learning environment is essential to support child care and quality education
(Tomic, 2016). Along with this development of a positive learning environment is encouraged
where every student needs to take active participation irrespective of educational differences.
Development of cognitive skills and problem-solving opportunity for children is what it
emphasizes upon. After school programs are not strict and curriculum bounded. Instead they are
open to understanding and choice making (Leos-Urbel, 2015). Here students are encouraged to
make appropriate choice on their own and are also supported to solve a problem by their own
presence of mind. This increases their cognitive thought process and they became more exposed
to reality.
Supporting in homework and assisting students in the same is another major goal of the
afterschool programs. The students are also provided homework assistance if required (Little,
2014). School homework is done here and this increases their learning time. Increased practice
makes them perfect and expert in their respective educational domains.
It also offers recreational and other extra-curricular activities. Though the program limitation is
there in the paper and the afterschool program here focuses only in education and mentoring but
recreational activities like board games, art works, indoor activities and educational movie shows

13
are also focused upon largely. Meals were also provided to the students to improve their health
and nutritional index (Taheri & Welsh, 2016).
Benefits of After School Programs
Afterschool programs are very popular in recent times and has a multiple number of
benefits. The major benefits are listed and discussed in this section.
Creation of a sense of belongingness is an important benefit of such program. Here students and
adolescent adults are exposed to a different set of students that may or may not be similar to their
classmates. The chance of different peers may offer a benefit. This will reduce the chance of
their dealing with same social cliques and their attitude shift will be prominent (Tomic, 2016).
Experiencing different learning environment will improve their adaptability skills and their sense
of belonging to the group will improve largely.
The after-school programs help to improve the social skills of students. A well balanced
and good learning program will promote support, cooperation and mutual respect among
students. They will feel more secured and will themselves join a group for conversation or join a
game session by their own (Krishnamurthi, Ballard & Noam, 2014). A sympathetic and expert
staff support is always provided in their need so that they became cautious and does not lose
confidence at any point of time and give up trying.
The after-school programs help in supporting basic academic curriculum. Offering
structured help for homework purposes is one of the basic academic support provided to the
students. In after school programs students are assisted in completing their homework so that
they get quality time to spend with their family and can relax well. Students are only guided in
their endeavor; the homework is done by themselves (Little, 2014). Moreover, the same
academic knowledge if imparted in easier and appreciable manner then it becomes easier for the

14
middle and high school students to understand them and their interest level increases as a result.
The 360-degree approach of learning is adopted in after school programs (Bennett, 2015).
It provides an atmosphere of fun based learning. The afterschool programs are devised in
such a manner that student does not feel pressurized or feel an extra educational burden (Taheri
& Welsh, 2016). Fun based learning is emphasized so that students becomes relaxed and at ease.
Here students can focus on innovative skills of theirs and has no time boundary for academic
curriculum completion. Computers are usually available so that students who technologically
inclined enjoy learning (Davis & Singh, 2015). Stress free learning sessions include music,
drama and other group activities.
Building confidence in students is another benefit received from the after-school
programs. Students are motivated morally and adolescents with risky behavior are taken care of
the most. Both learning and attention issues are considered and proper remedial measures are
provided. The self-esteem and confidence among the students increase more in afterschool
programs as compared to normal classroom education (Leos-Urbel, 2015).
Providence of safety and supervision is another major advantage of the after-school
programs. The most important benefit it provides is student safety and quality care. Working
parents and single parents both can devote their professional front in a more relaxed manner by
engaging their children in afterschool programs (Little, 2014). As a result, both socio-economic
conditions of the family and behavioral and learning skills of students will improve. This will
support overall community progress and prosperity.
Last but not the least it also supports credit recovery and cost effectiveness. The
admission fee for afterschool programs are much lesser than the normal high schools or free in
low income schools. As a result, the underprivileged students have the scope to continue their

15
education in the most cost-effective manner (Taheri & Welsh, 2016). Parents can also have
financial benefit from such programs and can also participate in after school program activities.
In addition to this some afterschool programs offer free meals (both lunch and dinner) to
students and offer free transportation as well (Tomic, 2016). Apart from that free study materials
are also provided to students.
Characteristics of Successful After School Programs
In this section, four components of successful ASPs are discussed. These components
include staff support, program support, family support and interaction, school support and
networking, and community support and development (Leos-Urbel, 2015). Each of these
components are seen as factors that make ASPs implementation successful.
Unless and until there are proper interaction and staff support the after-school program will not
be able to achieve its ultimate goal of education and developmental in students. The higher the
quality of staff engagement the more effective the after-school program. Salary structure should
be fair enough to support highly skilled staff. The staff needs to be empathetic and should have
high social and personal skills (Little, 2014). Staff need to be specialized in their area of support
so that the right need of the student is met effectively.
The programs undertaken should be challenging and should be based on structured
activities. Quality of program will matter the most and will create differences. Small groups
should be formed as this will increase team cohesion and such the effectiveness of the program
will increase to a great extent. Participation and team collaboration should be encouraged instead
of competition (Simpkins & Riggs, 2014).
Family support and interaction can create huge differences in the success of an after-
school program. Direct communication with the family of the student will help in better

16
evaluation of the area of need and this will yield greater student involvement in the program and
their co-operative skill will increase (Taheri & Welsh, 2016). Both parents and teachers need to
have clear and transparent communication about the focused student so that the right kind of
education is provided to them.
School support and networking need to be focused more to have increased success of
after school programs. The afterschool programs need to focus on increased communication with
the respective school of the students’ and teachers and school administrators need to have
frequent communication so that understanding individual need of the students become easier and
the required need is catered successfully (Leos-Urbel, 2015).
The community support plays a vital role in the success of an afterschool program. Government
funding is essential to run afterschool programs effectively. And for this positive nod from the
peer groups and whole community is necessary so that the program runs smoothly (Little, 2014).
Other characteristics includes fostering self-worth of each student to develop self-care skills in
them, support development of both personal and interpersonal skills to promote cultural diversity
and respect for all, provide 360-degree learning environment to increase curiosity to explore the
unknown and assist in primary school homework sessions, providing time and also space for
quite study and self-reconciliation, develop such programs that will nurture cognitive thinking
and problem-solving skills and provide physical activity support so that energy is used up
effectively and not wasted sitting idle like in a classroom (Leos-Urbel, 2015).
Activities Offered. A number of activities are offered in afterschool program like
entrepreneurship lessons, SAT/ACT test preparation guidance, robotics, fashion designing,
drama, critical thinking activities, games, physical fitness activities, racing, rocketry and many
more project-based learning activities. Assistance to special need students and students with

17
disability are also provided (Tomic, 2016). Also, instructional learning program for adult
learners including parents are also provided in afterschool program (Smith et al., 2014).
Activities can be categorized based on the following skills namely activities supporting
emotional and social skill development, activities supporting linguistic skill development,
activities supporting cognitive skill development, activities supporting physical skill
development and activities supporting motor skill development (Little, 2014).
Types of after school programs
After school programs have taken a huge part in providing after school care for school
age children parents are working. Reports of the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics have revealed
that around 69% of two parent families and approximately 71% of single parents that their work
schedule necessitates after school child care for their children. Comprehensive studies of
Kuhlthau, Maniotes and Caspari (2015) have found that after school programs primarily offer
highly effective activities for children with working parents. However, these factors related to
cost and availability have been seen as critical barriers for low-income families. Thus, schools
have begun to find means accommodate children from low income families. On the other hand,
Scully et al. (2015) have stated that schools thus have been forming affiliations with community
agencies or universities with more conventional extracurricular activities such as sports, physical
training and clubs in addition to child care. Thus, as schools expand after-school activities,
financial support, program quality, space as well as accountability will be viewed as critical areas
of concerns.
The 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLCs) which have been
primarily administered through the federal 21st CCLC Program. Such a program is structured in

18
order to offer diverse academic enrichment prospects which include teaching core academic
subjects along with an extensive array of improvement activities in order to align with regular
academic programs (21st Century Community Learning Centers, 2019). The program further
supports the foundation of community learning centers which have been providing academic
enrichment opportunities during non-school or after school hours for children, primarily school
age students. These students have been identified as the ones who primarily attend high-poverty
and low-performing schools. Furthermore, the fundamental purpose of the program is to aid
students successfully accomplish state and local student standards in core academic subjects such
as reading, literature and math.
At this juncture, Holstead, Hightower King and Miller (2015) have shed light on the
holistic focus of 21st CCLC program which significantly emphasizes on leveraging learning apart
from focusing on academic improvement. For example, during the afterschool program, students
engage in activities which expand on ideas and knowledge acquired by them during the day in
their academic classes. Such an alignment however has the potential because of the fact that the
work times of the supervisory teacher in the after-school classroom has been recorded to be from
10:30 am -5:30 pm, which helps to develop a strong sense of stability between the regular
school-day and the after-school site. Palutab et al. (2015) have similar view that after school
programs in the United States constitutes a mental health clinic, school counselor, a psychologist,
a full-time nurse along with a full-time student support coordinator and programs in adult
education. Moreover, considering these areas it is noted that these elements function in order to
ascertain that students have access to the resources they need in order to succeed academically
and further maintain strong connection to the community.

19
Huang, La Torre Matrundola and Leon (2014) have claimed that a critical evaluation of
the policies and research on the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) program has
highlighted certain areas of challenges and successes associated with the program. These areas of
achievements and criticalities have been experienced all through its complex history.
Comprehensive studies of Holstead, Hightower King and Miller (2015) have noted that
efficiently developing as a community learning center model to serve benefits and opportunities
for every children as well as families residing within a local rural or urban community, the
current iteration of the 21st CCLC initiative under ‘No Child Left Behind’ (NCLB) purpose has
given immense value on offering academically targeted services to learners enrolled in
economically unstable and poorly performing schools. Furthermore, taking into account federal
government’s huge financial aid in the 21st CCLC program since 1998 it has been highly
challenging to recognize the development of such a dominant after-school policy in addition to
the research which has been implemented to both support and assessment of the outcomes related
to the 21st CCLC program (21st Century Community Learning Centers, 2019).
Studies of Scully et al. (2015) have observed that the NCLB Act not only re-sanctioned
the 21st CCLC program in 2002 but further has exhibited great efficiency in raising the federal
government’s investment in the after-school program. NCLB has emphasized on the significance
of this type of after school program in improving the academic outcomes of students attending
disadvantaged and low-performing schools and assisting them to attain state academic standards
in reading and mathematics. In addition to this, under NCLB, the federal government has
developed the administration of 21st CCLC program grant in the formation over to state
education agencies. These grants have the potential to acquire financial investments from the
federal government on the basis of the share of Title I funds for students coming from low

20
income groups. Meanwhile, Holstead, Hightower King and Miller (2015) have noted that the
federal government has been liable for awarding 21st CCLC funds on a competitive basis to
worthy applicants. Additionally, NCLB has recently modified the permissible duration of 21st
CCLC grants from three to five years in order to improve the sustainability of 21st CCLC
programs. Moreover, Palutab et al. (2015) have claimed that any public or private organization in
the United States have the eligibility to apply for a 21st CCLC grant. Examples of agencies and
organizations qualified under the 21st CCLC program include, but are not restricted to not for
profit agencies, city, district or county government agencies, higher education institutes and
profitable firms (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2015). This type of after-school program has
been supporting entitled organizations applying for financial investments in order to collaborate
with the schools chiefly attended by children. 21st CCLC has further been facilitating group of
two or more institutes, organizations or entities to apply for this program and develop the skills
and abilities of children.
Fee-based stand-alone day care programs on the other hand, primarily have been
considered as after-school day care operated by fees paid by students. Such a program has been
operating principally in order to provide adult supervision for learners after their school times.
Even though, the programs tend to include assistance in home assignments, recreational activities
in addition to cultural development activities such as fine arts, music, dance and craft (Kremer et
al., 2015). Simpkins et al. (2017) have noted that primary aim of this goal is to offer physical,
social, emotional as well as academic growth and process whereby children can successfully
attain skills and abilities required to excel in academic field. The fee-based stand-alone after-
school programs have been viewed as an inexpensive program held during before and after
school at around 148 elementary and middle schools in the U.S comprising of over 12,300

21
children. Mihalic and Elliott (2015) have noted that these initiatives primary purpose lies on
supervision and develop a range of skill developmental activities for children, kindergarten
through 8th grade and further offered daily snack to students. The fee-based program aims to
arrange daily activities such as homework assistance, academic enrichment, art, crafts, and
games, outdoor games and excursions. In these programs, primary funding has been done by
parents and further approved by the school district. Reports of Kremer et al. (2015) have derived
relevance of previous evidence by revealing that several public funding schools recently have
been approving School Readiness Child Care Certificates. Public schools such as Hillsborough
Country School in the U.S has recruited a combination of district certified teachers, college
students along with local high school as well as On the Job Training (OJT) scholars and retired
employees (Hillsborough County Public Schools, 2019). Naftzger (2014) has noted that
recruitment of these staff members is performed through screening, processing process and
fingerprinted through the school district’s human resources department. In this particular after-
school program, every student has been strictly supervised and only unrestricted to certify
individuals indicated on the registration form. Fee-based stand-alone day care has accounted for
around 34% of the total enrollments in after-school programs whereby around 25% has indicated
that the after-school program has operated less than 15 hours per week and 52 % reported that
the program operated 15 to 19 hours per week. Furthermore, authors have noted that among
public elementary schools in the U.S with fee-based stand-alone day care which has been
operated by the school or district, around 40% of them reported that cost to parents posed
challenges to student’s involvement in the program to a moderate or large extent. Furthermore,
25% claimed lack of transportation facilities in several elementary schools have hindered student
participation to a great degree (Palutab et al., 2015).

22
Meanwhile, Kremer et al. (2015) have shed light on another type of after school program
which mainly focus on academic instruction or tutoring in order to enhance performance and
productivity level of learners in core academic subject areas namely math, reading, and science.
Programs in stand-alone academic instructions primarily incorporate Supplemental Educational
Services (SES) in schools that have shown incompetence in delivering Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP). However, studies of Simpkins et al. (2017) at this juncture have stated that other stand-
alone initiatives which attempt to improve academic standards of students at risk of school
failure and programs that may offer additional academic experience for learners who have
already been delivering productive outcomes at school. According to Wade (2015), after-school
academic-oriented program has not been aimed to teach new content but specifically focused on
the development, support, practice and implementation. According to Mihalic and Elliott (2015),
the number of high school students enrolled in this particular after school program exhibit
immense need of extra help in their academic field. However, one of the most traditional
evaluations has considered the rate of students who have been showing a critical lag of two or
more years of the standard level of reading and mathematics achievement currently belong to
ninth-grade. Such an evaluation according to authors has claimed that one quarter to one third of
all ninth-grade students require further support after regular school hours. Furthermore, the
academic assistance used in order to aid these students can vary from tactics implemented within
a classroom or after school program to a more concentrated, inclusive and multidimensional
development (Springer, Pepper & Ghosh-Dastidar, 2014). Meanwhile, Rubioe et al. (2017) have
mentioned that current reform efforts have shed light on improving the productivity level of
schools by rearranging the roles, abilities and outlooks of the teachers in these schools by
improving instructional resources and pedagogy. Huang, La Torre Matrundola and Leon (2014)

23
have similar views like authors who have considered that academic tutoring can successfully be
incorporated as vital part of an academic after-school program. This type of initiative in 360
degrees as a component of a mentoring program can be applied as an academic aid within a
particular curriculum to complement classroom teaching strategies. However, Mihalic and Elliott
(2015) have stated that while implementing a stand-alone tutoring program there can witness
three important motivational factors crucial for including proximity of the teaching to the
student’s regular environment related to home or school thus having an encouraging learning
community and determination on the part of the learner. Stand-alone tutoring in an after-school
program has been efficiently elevating reading abilities and test results of students, especially
when teachers show high proficiency in communication and develop a strong bond with students.
After-school programs of students receiving special education services (500 words)
Children facing certain activity limitations have often been considered to have special
needs or being disabled or differently-abled. These limitations imply that these children have
incompetence to participate fully in age-appropriate activities due to chronic physical, mental,
emotional or behavioral conditions. Reports of the U.S Department of Education has revealed
that around 65% of students aged 3-21 years have been served in programs for the disabled in
2013-2017 (Springer, Pepper & Ghosh-Dastidar, 2014). This rate has exhibited a steady increase
from 32% of students served in 2003-2004. Such an increase has been attributed to improved
diagnostics further identifying more children who comprise of special needs specifically speech
or language impairments or learning disabilities. Morgan et al. (2015) through comprehensive
research have noted that over 2.8 million families have been raising one child with a disability
between the ages of 5 and 16, representing 1 out of every 10 American families raising children.
Because of certain advancements in medical technology, individuals with certain disabilities

24
have been longer and creating a significant portion of population. Significant rate of American
youths with disabilities have been facing major challenges both in the school setting and in their
shift to adult lives. Thus, Springer, Pepper and Ghosh-Dastidar (2014) have evaluated that in
comparison to their non-disabled peers, students with disabilities have less propensity to attain
regular high school certification.
Meanwhile, Madaus, Grigal and Hughes (2014) are of the opinion that as after school
program tends to shift away from a medical or therapeutic model supporting inclusion activities,
such programs can use the supplemental services as well as assistive technology obtainable to
learners receiving special education services during the regular school day to provide
accommodation to these children. Kids Included Together (KIT) recognized as a non-profit
organization has been efficiently promoting recreational, child improvement and youth
development initiatives which involve children with and without disabilities (Morgan et al.,
2015). Thus, KIT has been providing effective training sessions and productive practices after
school hours in order to involve children in need of special education services in their programs.
Several public schools in Florida has been proficiently initiating after school programs to
students which also includes children in need of special education services.
Comprehensive studies of Madaus, Grigal and Hughes (2014) have noted that U.S has
been highly efficient in providing funds to these programs to maintain its sustainability. The
employees have been enthused to participate in the training programs offered by the country and
school authorities to successfully accomplish the needs of students. These provisions have
aligned with the viewpoint that “labels don’t follow the kids” from the school day to afterschool
to empower every children with the prospect to engage in each program’s activities (Morgan et
al., 2015). Wide ranging afterschool organizations working with students with disability typically

25
focus on students’ areas of interest, rather than their needs, while deciding on extracurricular
activities. Blankstein, Noguera and Kelly (2016) have suggested that several renowned after
school programs can use technology and supplemental services along with resourceful and
collaborative planning to encourage participation in activities. Some examples of activities that
can be adapted so that students with special needs can participate include theater and the arts,
music, training, cooking and academic clubs.
Views on after school programs
Olszewski-Kubilius and Clarenbach (2014) have claimed that while program
development over the last few years in after school program has been successful, the role of
financial circumstances in addition to geographic location still has been playing a decisive role in
determining types of educational services students can obtain. Reports of Christensen, Knezek
and Tyler-Wood (2015) have mentioned that while importance of after school programs have
been on the rise across neighborhoods, the quantity and range of programs has shown radical
increase in affluent Chicago neighborhood whereby over 150 activities per 1,000 youths in
comparison to a low-income Chicago neighborhood where around 53 activities have been
typically arranged for 1000 students. However, regardless of after school program development
there can recently be identified certain income-related variations in programs which have been
posing critical challenges to students in genuine need of these programs. Study conducted by
Olivarez (2014) have found that around 35 out of the 150 after school recreation institutes have
been situated in communities comprising lowest population rate. Furthermore, 26 of the
communities located in the three highest categories of population density lack organized centres
with only one center in a community with increased density of youth. According to Future of
Children report by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, certain families show lesser ability

26
to access after-school programs living in low-income vicinities (Olszewski-Kubilius &
Clarenbach, 2014).
Meanwhile, Taylorb et al. (2017) have noted that the design of Extended Service Schools
(ESS) Adaptation Initiative has embodied model as well as city-level variations so that the
program along with its associated study can examine after school programs in diverse nations. In
addition to this, the design has aimed to offer significant opportunities to identify the major
issues involved in providing these programs, regardless of the model and the local contexts
where they primarily function. Moreover, Lin, Childs and Zhang (2016) have drawn similar
views and stated that after school programs primarily alleviate children’s academic performance.
Academic services tend to serve a considerable substantial part with over 45% of program hours
of all the ESS programs, regardless of the implementation of the model. After school academic
support has directly expanded children’s learning chances. Furthermore, recreational activities
supported by after school programs have been successfully accomplishing some of their needs
further improving attentiveness of students during the school day (Taylorb et al., 2017).
On the other hand, comprehensive studies of authors have suggested that apart from
offering students with improvement opportunities, one of key encouraging factors concerning the
policy interest in after-school programs has relied on the elevating need for student care.
Scholars have observed as many 5- to 17-year students in the United States to be living with only
one working parent. Harris and Larsen (2015) have noted that as societal norms and strategies
emphasize on stress the importance of employment, the demand for after school care has
increased drastically. American youths aged 10 to 14 have typically been seen to be self-reliant
for short time span thus often resulting to be engaged in severe crisis. Regrettably, these older
students show less interest to seek after-school program services, even if they take place at

27
youth-serving organizations or at schools. However, after school programs have been successful
in recruiting elementary school children in comparison to middle and high school students with
greater responsibilities and sense of liberty and self-dependence. Data revealed by Olivarez
(2014) have shown that amongst the early students engaged in after school programs, 30%
students’ study in grade 3, around 45% in standard 4-6, 25% in standard 7-8, and only 3%
studying in standard 9 and higher. Furthermore, according to after school program coordinators,
the elementary-aged students who have attended on a regular basis and older youth’s presence in
these programs have showed high inconsistency.
Transportation has been identified as a critical barrier faced by several after-school
programs. Studies conducted by authors have observed the way such an issue has been affecting
operation hours of the program by posing hindrances to the rate of students’ participation and
program expense. Furthermore, programs’ incapability to offer transportation home has been a
critical impediment towards the involvement of significant percentage of students (O'Donnell &
Kirkner, 2014). After school initiative programs operating in schools promoting secured
environment to students have been in high demand when it comes to recruiting participants.
However, regardless of these beneficial factors, the nature of urban schools tends to lessen the
interest of students and children in seeking this extra educational assistance. Research conducted
by Evans et al. (2016) has revealed a limited supply of transportation facilities and high expense
seems to be substantial in majority of after school programs. Young students who reside beyond
walking distance from school fail to participate in these programs resulting to failure of receiving
additional educational help. Taylorb et al. (2017) further have mentioned that certain schools
have been able to offer transportation services to some students, the limited number of seats
available have restricted the rate of participation of student. For example, such a lack of

28
adequate seats has led schools to enroll at least 150 students a day while more students could
have partaken with improved transportation facilities. At this juncture, Olszewski-Kubilius and
Clarenbach (2014) have stated that the immediacy of the transportation issue has led schools and
communities to seek improvement. O'Donnell and Kirkner (2014) have stated that although U.S
school districts have been competent to provide financial aid and sincere support for late
transportation services; certain school district still has been facing late arrival busing in operation
for other school activities. Meanwhile, Zeldin et al. (2014) have stated that as after-school
programs have been efficiently engaging students in a range of constructive social, recreational
as well as academic activities, such initiatives have been sustaining a strong potential of
providing students with opportunities to enhance their skills, roles and associations fundamental
for ultimate achievements and further protecting them when at risks. Thus, effective
implementation of after school programs in schools has been regarded as highly productive
specifically in low-income communities where there have been restricted resources for students
and parents to use for additional educational and recreational purposes.
After school program funding
The participation of cities in providing funds for after school programs has become
immensely vital as program’s financial resources have been strained resulting to strict budgets
due to current recession. The political and funding development at local level primarily has
signified a consideration among municipal leaders. Leachman and Mai (2014) have noted that
municipal leaders have realized that development of supreme after school programs can serve

29
decisive role in seeking several city priorities especially issues related to crime prevention,
financial and workforce development along with employee retention. Several US communities
have been benefitting by offering improved activities in the after-school hours as an efficient
process of aiding students to enhance their skills and interests, maintain their welfare and support
working families or single parents. Research conducted by Darling-Hammond, Friedlaender and
Snyder (2014) have revealed that federal 21st CCLC funding have been distributed to states
across the U.S in order to successfully provide help in homework, offering healthy and nutritious
meals and further skill development activities, such as excursions as well as arts in addition to
subject like science, technology, engineering and math or other educational projects. In
California, around $135 million in federal funding has been aiding after-school as well as
summer programs at 740 schools which have incorporated around 300 high schools (21st
Century Community Learning Centers, 2019). Such a raise in the words of authors have stated
that substantial financial funds will enable communities in California to offer greater number
of K-12 summer and after-school programs particularly at the high school level. Alliance (2018)
further has argued that as state funds aims to support elementary and middle school programs,
federal grants have been identified as primary financial source for high school and summer
programs. In California, through state funding alone, over 405,000 elementary and middle school
students have been able to enroll after school programs five days a week. However, Holstead,
Hightower King and Miller (2015) have argued that regardless of California’s recognition as one
of the leading and major investments in after school programs in the U.S, several communities in
California has been showing incompetence in accomplishing demands and requirements of
students and families. Meanwhile, research conducted by authors have mentioned that City of
Seattle has efficiently developed children’s budget in order measure its expense rate on youth

30
educational services. Furthermore, it has been revealed that Seattle has spent roughly $35 million
on youth services with resources provided by city’s general finance, local Families and
Education Levy along with Community Development Block Grant capital in addition to other
federal support. Seattle’s children’s budget has been structured into five key investment areas
that have been developed to attain its four established goals. Additionally, Naftzger (2014) has
revealed that Seattle has received over $11.9 million as one of the key areas for investment. The
budget expansion in addition to alignment of funds with goals has enabled the city to establish
explicit objectives for each area further organize budgeting and planning for youth programs by
recording developmental growth and investments.
Theoretical Framework
Socio Cultural Theory. Socio-cultural theorists acknowledge that youth and adults learn
continually across a variety of settings, regardless of whether those settings formally aim to
enable learning. However, at fundamental level, it has been noted that socio-cultural theory has
perceived learning as a social attempt which typically has its occurrence through social
interactions among youth as they engage in a range of after school hour’s activities. Holloway
and Kunesh (2015) however have argued that idea of learning has been distinguished sharply
with traditional cognitive and psychological theories that view learning as involving a
comparatively solitary learner which attains a body of knowledge. Comprehensive studies have
revealed that afterschool program typically employ the idea of participation in order to indicate
propensities of students’ inclination in afterschool programs. Consequently, in the view of socio-
cultural learning theory, participation essentially signifies in-depth participation in certain
activities in programs. At this juncture, Davis and Fullerton (2016) have claimed that socio-
cultural learning theory not only identifies the value of supervisors in the process of learning.

31
Moreover, it extends itself to realize the role of mentors in focusing on the degree to which
students have been involved in apprenticeship associations comprising specific characteristics.
Comprehensive studies of Swain, Kinnear and Steinman (2015) have claimed that in
apprenticeship relationships which promote learning, supervisors develop the ability to exhibit
the activities or knowledge which needs to be improved. It has been argued that employees
engaged to after school programs aims to provide integrated care and support to students by
aiding them to participate in the practice to be mastered, rather than just observing others
engaging in it.
Furthermore, Holloway and Kunesh (2015) have claimed that socio-cultural theory
primarily suggested that well-equipped learning environments primarily aid students in obtaining
skills through several valued routes. Similarly, Berkovich (2014) have noted that integrated
involvement in after school programs have been purposed for all. Certain afterschool programs
have been inviting student’s participation based on their interests, not necessarily based on
competence and skills but further offer care and educational support to facilitate students involve
in constructive roles. For example, McMurtry, Rohse and Kilgour (2016) have noted that an
urban 4-H program conducted in Missouri, U.S has successfully ascribed gains in participating
students’ grades and attendance in relation to its expanded and holistic approach to after school
learning whereby achievements in academics, extracurricular activities and arts have seen so be
equally important. These nonacademic subjects typically considered as learning activities have
been provided to students as an opportunity to activities which students typically avoid.
Meanwhile, Davis and Fullerton (2016) have indicated that regardless of provisions of varied
programmatic options guaranteeing availability of communities depending on the way roles have
been strategized within those after school programs. The designers of the 21st CCLC program

32
further has recognized early program achievements to ways whereby the initiative has not been
signified as extension of the school day but further identified as an enhancement of the overall
school experience and develop areas requiring improvement. Thus, evaluation of individual
student learning needs tends to aid programs in forming suitable opportunities for students to
engage to similar program. Additionally, Holloway and Kunesh (2015) have argued that while
individual after school programs show a discrepancy, certain programs on a national level
primarily offer additional academic help in the school curriculum. Further to this, these
initiatives have been maintaining students accountable for the same high-stakes standards to
which they are held in school and further to recruit proficient classroom teachers as chief
afterschool program employee (McMurtry, Rohse & Kilgour, 2016). Drawing relevance to these
factors, socio-cultural learning theory have critically explained that these attributes of after
school program link have improbability to relate with learning achievements as they tend to
focus on increasing the relationship of core structures across both settings in ways which restrict
the array of avenues whereby students might contribute, either during or after school hours.
Multiple Intelligences Theory. The theory of multiple intelligence was first developed by
Dr. Howard Gardner in the year 1983. According to Dr. Gardner, the traditional notion of
intelligence, based on the intelligent quotient testing is highly limited. In order to overcome the
limitation, he proposed eight different intelligences in order to account for a broader range of
human potential in both adults as well as children. These intelligences are as follows:
1. Logical mathematical intelligence
2. Linguistic intelligence
3. Spatial intelligence

33
4. Bodily kinesthetic intelligence
5. Interpersonal intelligence
6. Musical intelligence
7. Interpersonal intelligence
8. Naturalist intelligenc
According to Alliance, (2018) it has been found that a good number of schools and culture
chiefly focus on the attention on logical mathematical as well as linguistic intelligence. High
reorganization and esteem are shown to individuals who are highly articulated as well as logical
in the contemporary world. However, according to the theory of multiple intelligence, equal
esteem and respect should be demonstrated to individuals who possess other types of
intelligences. For instance, entrepreneurs, artists, naturalists, designers, architects and therapists
should also be given proper reorganization in order to ensure a society with multiple and diverse
intelligence. Lack of reorganization of multiple intelligence has resulted in lack of reinforcement
for them in school. Instead of appreciating their skills, children who are weak in logical
mathematical intelligence or lacks linguistic intelligence, but possess any other kinds of
intelligence are often labeled as learning disabled or suffering from “attention deficit disorder”
by the school management. In several case, in a highly logical mathematical and linguistic
classroom, it has been seen that students who possess any other kinds of intelligence are prone to
think in unique ways are marked as under achiever.
Not only in schools and other academic institution, the theory of multiple intelligences does
possess a strong implication when it comes to adult learning as well as development. A good
number of adults find themselves working in a field where they cannot make optimal usage of

34
their developed intelligence. This in turn, not only reduce their urge to perform but also lowers
the opportunity to explore diverse field. According to Berkovich, (2014), in order to ensure that
all the students with diverse intelligence are esteemed, it is crucial for the school management to
incorporate curriculum activities in afterschool programs.
Blankstein, Noguera, and Kelly, (2016) have argued that the theory of multiple intelligence is
highly based on gardener’s own institute instead of empirical data. Along with this, the
researcher has also argued that the definition of multiple intelligence given by Gardner is too
broad and the eight different intelligences discussed by gardener simply represent talent,
personality traits as well as abilities. Despite this, the theory of multiple intelligences enjoys
considerable popularity with educators. Many teachers utilize multiple intelligences in their
teaching philosophies and work to integrate Gardner’s theory into the classroom. According to
Christensen, Knezek & Tyler-Wood, (2015) implications of the mentioned theory has helped the
management to recognize students with diverse intelligence. This in turn has helped the
educators to motivate the students so that they can reach their professional destination.
Constructivism Theory. The theory of constructivism is referred to a learning theory in
psychology that explains how an individual can acquire knowledge along with learning. Hence it
can be understood that this theory of psychology possesses direct application to education.
According to the theory, individuals construct knowledge a well as meaning from their
experiences. According to Harris & Larsen, (2015), constructivism is not defined as a specific
pedagogy. When it comes to Piaget's theory of constructivism, this type of learning possesses a
wide range of impact on learning theories as well as teaching methods in education. Research
support for constructivist teaching techniques has been mixed, with some research supporting
these techniques and other research contradicting those results.

35
According to Garibay, (2015), the theory of constructivism, individuals construct their own
knowledge and understanding of the world with the help of experience and reflecting on the
experiences. When something new is encountered, the scenario is handled by an individual with
the help of previous ideas and experiences. The new scenario often tends to change the belief
that was associated with the previous experience and this in turn, results in enhancement of
knowledge. The theory of constructivism is incorporated in a good number of classrooms.
Constructivist educators are found to encourage the students for regularly assessing the impact of
the activities on their understanding. Davis & Fullerton, (2016) stated that by questioning
themselves along with their strategies, students develops high expertise as a learner. This in turn,
provides them with ever-broadening tools for continue the learning process.
Evans et al., (2016) have argued that the theory of constructivism possesses the potential to
dismiss the active role of the teacher as well as the value of expert knowledge. However, it has
been found that constructivism modifies the role of an educator so that the educator can
reconstruct the knowledge instead of reproducing a series of facts. Constructive teachers are
found to provide the students with tools like problem solving and inquiry-based learning
activities with the help of which students develop the ability to formulate as well as test their
ideas, derive interferences and conclusion along with conveying their knowledge in a
collaborative learning environment. Christensen, Knezek & Tyler-Wood, (2015) stated that the
constructive theory transforms the students from a passive recipient of information to an active
participant throughout the learning process. The theory also enables the teachers too guide the
students so that they can construct their knowledge actively instead of mechanically ingesting the
knowledge from the text book.

36
Berkovich, (2014) stated that constructivism is often misunderstood as a theory that
compels the school students to “reinvent the wheel.” On the contrary, the mentioned theory
triggers the curiosity of the students about the world. Instead of reinventing the wheel they
understand the mechanism f the wheel. Students become engaged to the learning process by
applying their existing knowledge along with real world experiences.
Summary
The research topic off the dissertation includes "Investigating the Impact of the 360
Literacy Program on Students' Behavior, Attendance, and Academic Achievement. The 360
Literacy Program is an afterschool program offered at a low-income (65% of students receive
free or reduced lunch) high public school. The chief purpose of the literature review is to explore
scholarly articles and theoretical background that supports the discussion with topic. From the
growth timeline, it has been shown that the number of after school program has shown growth
with the advancement of time. Moreover, the change in parent work conditions and family
structures have increased the importance of afterschool programs. A number of factors were
there that affect the growth of afterschool programs like risky behavior of youths, single parent
families, drug and abuse, juvenile crime, lack of primary literary skills, socio-economic
conditions of parents, inequality in earning, women participation in labor force, job shifts, home
alone children along with their safety needs.
When it comes to the factors that were found to affect the growth of afterschool
programs, the chief factors include change in the American labor force, change in American
neighborhood, self-care concerns and social and political influence of the contemporary society.
The chief goal of afterschool programs include enhancement in the passion of learning of the
students, building connections and strengthens communication empathy, developing cognitive

37
skills and problem-solving opportunity for children, offering recreational and other extra-
curricular activities and as assistance in homework. The major benefits of the after-school
programs are creation of a sense of belongingness, improvement of social skills, supporting basic
academic curriculum and fun based learning. Along with this, building confidence in students,
providing safety and supervision along with credit recovery and cost effectiveness are also found
to be some of the major benefits of the after-school programs.
From the literature review the major components of a successful after school program
includes staff support, program support, family support and interaction, school support and
networking, and community support and development. Some of the major types of the after-
school programs are fee-based stand-alone day care programs, holistic focus of 21st CCLC
program and programs in stand-alone academic instructions. The primary aim of each of the
mentioned program varies. It has been found that while program development over the last few
years in after school program has been successful, the role of financial circumstances in addition
to geographic location still has been playing a decisive role in determining types of educational
services students can obtain. When it comes to the funding associated with the after-school
program funding, the participation of cities in providing funds for after school programs has
become immensely vital as program’s financial resources have been strained resulting to strict
budgets due to current recession. Finally, three most relevant theoretical frameworks, namely,
the socio-cultural theory, multiple intelligences theory and the constructivism theory has been
discussed. All the mentioned theories are found to be extremely beneficial when included as
strategies in the afterschool programs for students.

38
References
21st Century Community Learning Centers. (2019). 21st Century Community Learning Centers.
Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/index.html

39
Alliance, A. (2014). Taking a deeper dive into afterschool: Positive outcomes and promising
practices. ERIC Clearinghouse.
Alliance, A. (2018). 21st century community learning centers. no date, http://www.
afterschoolalliance. org/policy21stcclc. cfm, accessed, 11.
Baldwin, C. K., & Wilder, Q. (2014). Inside quality: Examination of quality improvement
processes in afterschool youth programs. Child & Youth Services, 35(2), 152-168.
Beets, M. W., Weaver, R. G., Moore, J. B., Turner-McGrievy, G., Pate, R. R., Webster, C., &
Beighle, A. (2014). From policy to practice: strategies to meet physical activity standards
in YMCA afterschool programs. American journal of preventive medicine, 46(3), 281-
288.
Beets, M. W., Weaver, R. G., Turner-McGrievy, G., Huberty, J., Ward, D. S., Pate, R. R., ... &
Beighle, A. (2015). Making policy practice in afterschool programs: a randomized
controlled trial on physical activity changes. American journal of preventive
medicine, 48(6), 694-706.
Bellara, A. P., & Hibbard, S. T. (2015). Using collaboration to reframe evaluation of an
afterschool program. Collaborative Evaluation in Practice: Insights from Business,
Nonprofit, and Education, 139.
Bennett, T. L. (2015). Examining levels of alignment between school and afterschool and
associations with student academic achievement. Journal of Expanded Learning
Opportunities, 1(2), 4-22.

40
Berkovich, I. (2014). A socio-ecological framework of social justice leadership in
education. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(3), 282-309.
Blankstein, A. M., Noguera, P., & Kelly, L. (2016). Excellence through equity: Five principles of
courageous leadership to guide achievement for every student. ASCD.
Bradshaw, L. D. (2015). Planning Considerations for Afterschool Professional
Development. Afterschool Matters, 21, 46-54.
Centeio, E. E., Erwin, H., & Castelli, D. M. (2014). Chapter 4 Comprehensive School Physical
Activity Programs: Characteristics of Trained Teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 33(4), 492-510.
Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). Alignment of hands-on STEM
engagement activities with positive STEM dispositions in secondary school
students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(6), 898-909.
Darling-Hammond, L., Friedlaender, D., & Snyder, J. (2014). Student-centered schools: Policy
supports for closing the opportunity gap. Retrieved June, 15, 2016.
Davis, K., & Fullerton, S. (2016). Connected learning in and after school: Exploring technology's
role in the learning experiences of diverse high school students. The Information
Society, 32(2), 98-116.
Davis, K., & Singh, S. (2015). Digital badges in afterschool learning: Documenting the
perspectives and experiences of students and educators. Computers & Education, 88, 72-
83.

41
Dinkel, D., Huberty, J., Beets, M., & Tibbits, M. (2014). Staff's perceptions of the use of
evidence-based physical activity promotion strategies for promoting girls’ physical
activity at afterschool programs: A qualitative study. Evaluation and program
planning, 45, 102-109.
Duran, M., Höft, M., Lawson, D. B., Medjahed, B., & Orady, E. A. (2014). Urban high school
students’ IT/STEM learning: Findings from a collaborative inquiry-and design-based
afterschool program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 116-137.
Edwards, C. (2016). Department of Education Timeline of Growth. Downsizing the Federal
Government.
Evans, S. W., Langberg, J. M., Schultz, B. K., Vaughn, A., Altaye, M., Marshall, S. A., &
Zoromski, A. K. (2016). Evaluation of a school-based treatment program for young
adolescents with ADHD. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(1), 15.
Finn‐Stevenson, M. (2014). Family, school, and community partnerships: Practical strategies for
afterschool programs. New directions for youth development, 2014(144), 89-103.
Fredricks, J. A., Bohnert, A. M., & Burdette, K. (2014). Moving beyond attendance: Lessons
learned from assessing engagement in afterschool contexts. New directions for youth
development, 2014(144), 45-58.
Garibay, J. C. (2015). STEM students’ social agency and views on working for social change:
Are STEM disciplines developing socially and civically responsible students?. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 610-632.

42
Goodrich, K., & Barnard, J. (2019). Transgender and gender non-conforming students in
schools: one school district’s approach for creating safety and respect. Sex
Education, 19(2), 212-225.
Harris, D. N., & Larsen, M. (2015). What schools do families want (and why). Policy Brief (New
Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.
Hillsborough County Public Schools. (2019). Home - Hillsborough County Public Schools.
Retrieved from https://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us
Holloway, S. D., & Kunesh, C. E. (2015). Cultural processes and the connections among home,
school, and community. In Processes and pathways of family-school partnerships across
development (pp. 1-15). Springer, Cham.
Holstead, J., Hightower King, M., & Miller, A. (2015). Based Practices in Afterschool Programs
for High School Youth. Afterschool Matters, 21, 38-45.
Holstead, J., Hightower King, M., & Miller, A. (2015). Based Practices in Afterschool Programs
for High School Youth. Afterschool Matters, 21, 38-45.
Huang, D., La Torre Matrundola, D., & Leon, S. (2014). Identification of key indicators for
quality in afterschool programs. IJREE–International Journal for Research on Extended
Education, 2(1).
Huang, D., La Torre Matrundola, D., & Leon, S. (2014). Identification of key indicators for
quality in afterschool programs. IJREE–International Journal for Research on Extended
Education, 2(1).

43
Krauss, S. E., Collura, J., Zeldin, S., Ortega, A., Abdullah, H., & Sulaiman, A. H. (2014).
Youth–adult partnership: Exploring contributions to empowerment, agency and
community connections in Malaysian youth programs. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 43(9), 1550-1562.
Kremer, K. P., Maynard, B. R., Polanin, J. R., Vaughn, M. G., & Sarteschi, C. M. (2015). Effects
of after-school programs with at-risk youth on attendance and externalizing behaviors: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of youth and adolescence, 44(3), 616-636.
Krishnamurthi, A., Ballard, M., & Noam, G. G. (2014). Examining the Impact of Afterschool
STEM Programs. Afterschool Alliance.
Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2015). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st
century: Learning in the 21st century. ABC-CLIO.
Leachman, M., & Mai, C. (2014). Most states still funding schools less than before the
recession. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 16, 1-12.
Leos-Urbel, J. (2015). What works after school? The relationship between after-school program
quality, program attendance, and academic outcomes. Youth & Society, 47(5), 684-706.
Lin, P. Y., Childs, R. A., & Zhang, J. (2016). It takes a toll on pre-service teachers and programs:
Case studies of teacher candidates who withdrew from a teacher education
program. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1160524.
Little, P. M. (2014). Evaluating afterschool programs. New directions for youth
development, 2014(144), 119-132.

44
Madaus, J. W., Grigal, M., & Hughes, C. (2014). Promoting access to postsecondary education
for low-income students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for
Exceptional Individuals, 37(1), 50-59.
McDaniel, S., & Yarbrough, A. M. (2016). A Literature Review of Afterschool Mentoring
Programs for Children at Risk. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 19(1), 1-9.
McMurtry, A., Rohse, S., & Kilgour, K. N. (2016). Socio‐material perspectives on
interprofessional team and collaborative learning. Medical education, 50(2), 169-180.
Mihalic, S. F., & Elliott, D. S. (2015). Evidence-based programs registry: Blueprints for healthy
youth development. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 124-131.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., Mattison, R., Maczuga, S., Li, H., & Cook, M.
(2015). Minorities are disproportionately underrepresented in special education:
Longitudinal evidence across five disability conditions. Educational Researcher, 44(5),
278-292.
Naftzger, N. (2014, April). A summary of three studies exploring the relationship between
afterschool program quality and youth outcomes. In Ready by 21 National Meeting,
Covington, KY (pp. 208-218).
O'Donnell, J., & Kirkner, S. L. (2014). The Impact of a Collaborative Family Involvement
Program on Latino Families and Children's Educational Performance. School Community
Journal, 24(1), 211-234.
Olivarez, N. (2014). The Impact of a STEM program on academic achievement of eighth grade
students in a south texas middle school (Doctoral dissertation).

45
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Clarenbach, J. (2014). Closing the opportunity gap: Program factors
contributing to academic success in culturally different youth. Gifted Child Today, 37(2),
103-110.
Paluta, L. M., Lower, L., Anderson-Butcher, D., Gibson, A., & Iachini, A. L. (2015). Examining
the quality of 21st century community learning center after-school programs: Current
practices and their relationship to outcomes. Children & Schools, 38(1), 49-56.
Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2016). Evaluating youth development programs: Progress and
promise. Applied developmental science, 20(3), 188-202.
Rubio, D. M., Robinson, G. F., Gabrilove, J., & Meagher, E. A. (2017). Creating effective career
development programs. Journal of clinical and translational science, 1(2), 83-87.
Scully, P., Stites, M. L., Roberts-King, H., & Barbour, C. (2015). Families, schools and
communities. Boston MA: Pearson.
Simpkins, S. D., & Riggs, N. R. (2014). Cultural competence in afterschool programs. New
directions for youth development, 2014(144), 105-117.
Simpkins, S. D., Riggs, N. R., Ngo, B., Vest Ettekal, A., & Okamoto, D. (2017). Designing
culturally responsive organized after-school activities. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 32(1), 11-36.
Smith, C., Akiva, T., McGovern, G., & Peck, S. C. (2014). Afterschool quality. New directions
for youth development, 2014(144), 31-44.
Smith, E. P., Wise, E., Rosen, H., Rosen, A., Childs, S., & McManus, M. (2014). Top-down,
bottom-up, and around the jungle gym: A social exchange and networks approach to

46
engaging afterschool programs in implementing evidence-based practices. American
journal of community psychology, 53(3-4), 491-502.
Springer, M. G., Pepper, M. J., & Ghosh-Dastidar, B. (2014). Supplemental educational services
and student test score gains: Evidence from a large, urban school district. Journal of
Education Finance, 39(4), 370-403.
Springer, M. G., Pepper, M. J., & Ghosh-Dastidar, B. (2014). Supplemental educational services
and student test score gains: Evidence from a large, urban school district. Journal of
Education Finance, 39(4), 370-403.
Sutton, R. (2014). Unlearning the past: New foundations for online student retention. Journal of
Educators Online, 11(3), n3.
Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocultural theory in second language
education: An introduction through narratives (Vol. 11). Multilingual matters.
Taheri, S. A., & Welsh, B. C. (2016). After-school programs for delinquency prevention: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Youth violence and juvenile justice, 14(3), 272-290.
Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive youth
development through school‐based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta‐
analysis of follow‐up effects. Child development, 88(4), 1156-1171.
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. (2019). Children and Youth - The David and Lucile
Packard Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.packard.org/what-we-fund/local-
grantmaking/children-and-youth/

47
Tomic, R. (2016). The Impact Of After-School Tutoring On Elementary Student Achievement:
A Program Evaluation.
Wade, C. E. (2015). The longitudinal effects of after-school program experiences, quantity, and
regulatable features on children's social–emotional development. Children and youth
services review, 48, 70-79.
Weaver, R. G., Beets, M. W., Huberty, J., Freedman, D., Turner-Mcgrievy, G., & Ward, D.
(2015). Physical activity opportunities in afterschool programs. Health promotion
practice, 16(3), 371-382.
Wright, R., Alaggia, R., & Krygsman, A. (2014). Five-year follow-up study of the qualitative
experiences of youth in an afterschool arts program in low-income communities. Journal
of Social Service Research, 40(2), 137-146.
Zarrett, N., Sorensen, C., & Cook, B. S. (2015). Physical and social-motivational contextual
correlates of youth physical activity in underresourced afterschool programs. Health
Education & Behavior, 42(4), 518-529.
Zeldin, S., Krauss, S. E., Collura, J., Lucchesi, M., & Sulaiman, A. H. (2014). Conceptualizing
and measuring youth–adult partnership in community programs: A cross national
study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 54(3-4), 337-347.