STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN
21 ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS:
INCLUSION ISSUES FOR AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS
By
Dawn Leann Mollenkopf
B.A. Andrews University, 1988
M.S. University of Oregon, 1989
Copyright 2002
Dawn Leann Mollenkopf
Submitted to the Department of Special Education and the Faculty of the
Graduate School of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Dissertation Committee:
\.
~-?
~
Dissertation defended: April 2002
UMI Number: 3071126
Copyright2002 by
Mollenkopf, Dawn Leann
All rights reserved.
UMf
UMI Microform 3071126
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Leaming Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI48106-1346
ABSTRACT
Little is known about the extent to which students with disabilities currently
participate in after-school programs and whether or not they receive the supports to
benefit from them. Historical evidence suggests that students with disabilities have been
previously excluded from these programs. This study, then, used surveys of after-school
staff and school-day special education personnel across a Midwestern state to determine
the extent to which students with disabilities participated in their programs, needed
accommodations, and got accommodations when needed. The study also surveyed the
extent to which school-day special education personnel and 21 st CCLC staff
communicated about disability issues, and it probed potential barriers to that
communication. Finally, the study surveyed staff's overall perceptions of the extent to
which students with disabilities participated in and benefited from the 21 st CCLC
programs compared to their non-disabled peers.
The study's findings suggest that students with disabilities are being included and
accommodated in 21 st CCLC programs, and those who know about the students and their
needs are working to make sure these needs are being addressed. Yet, many of the afterschool staff members were unaware of students with disabilities in their programs or their.
accommodation needs. A number of special education personnel were also unaware of
their students' involvement in the 21 st CCLC programs. More work is needed to advance
disability awareness, improve communication between regular school-day and afterschool staffs, and provide training for after-school staff on disability issues. Also,
research is needed to determine the extent to which current communication among staff
on disability issues adequately addresses students' needs.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ................................................................................. i
ABSTRACf. ... .. . ........................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................vi
ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1
Need for School-Age Child Care .................................................. 1
Benefits of School-Age Child Care ................................................ 7
One Answer to School-Age Child Care: 21 It Century Community
Learning Centers ........................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................ 12
Child Care History: The Progressive Era ....................................... 12
War Refonns and Retrenchment for School-Age Child Care .................. 14
Political Incentives for School-Age Child Care ................................ 16
School-Age Child Care: A "Family" Issue ...•............................... '" 18
Promoting School-Age Child Care through 21 st Century Community
Learning Centers...........•.......•........................................20
Benefits of 21 st Century Community Learning Centers ........................ 24
Students with Disabilities and School-Age Child Care: Historical
Exclusion .......................•...•.......................................26
Emerging Inclusion Opportunities in School-Age Child Care.................28
Continued School-Age Child Care Need for Students with Disabilities ...... 30
School-Age Child Care Opportunities for Students with Disabilities in 21 st
Century Community Learning Centers: Is Inclusion a Reality? .....32
C~R
3:
~THODOLOG~ ........•..•............................................
34
Participants ...............•....................•.........•............................ 36
Development of the Survey Protocols ........................................... 38
Distribution of the Surveys ........•............................................... 43
Data Analysis .............................••.•....................................... 45
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...............•.......................•.......................... 46
Rate ofRetum and Representativeness of the Data•............................ 46
iii
Research Question 1: Inclusive Practices: ........................................ 50
To what extent are students with disabilities participating in 21 st
Century Community Learning Center programs? ............50
For those participating, do students who need accommodations
receive them? .......................................................52
What types of accommodations are most common? ................... 54
Research Question 2: Disability Awareness .....................................54
To what extent is 21 It Century Community Learning Center staff
aware of the students with disabilities in their programs
and their needs for accommodations or supports? ............ 54
To what extent are regular school day special education personnel
aware of their students' participation in the after-school
programs and their needs for accommodations or supports? .56
Research Question 3: Communication on Disability Issues .................. 57
How frequently have 21 st Century Community Learning Center staff
and regular school day special education personnel communicated
about accommodations or IEP goals for students with disabilities in
after school programs, and to what extent have they provided
accommodations or included IEP goals and objectives in those
programs? ..............................•...................................... 57
Research Question 4: Communication Barriers .................................60
What barriers, if any, do 21 st Century Community Learning Center
staff and regular school-day special education personnel say affect
communication between them regarding disability issues? ...........60
Research Question 5: Perception of Participation and Benefit: ............... 63
Do 21 st Century Community Learning Center staff and regular
school day special education personnel believe students with
disabilities are participating in the after-school programs and
benefiting from them, and how do they compare that participation
and benefit to those of student attendees without disabilities? ....... 63
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ...................................•.......................... 66
Summary.•.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.••.•••••••.•••••.•• 66
Limitations of the Study•....................••.•.••............................... 72
iv
REFERENCE S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. 74
j\]lI'E~[)(: ..................................................................................
83
21 5t Century Community Learning Center Staff Survey...................... 84
School-Day Special Education and Resource I'ersonnel Survey ............ 87
Survey Evaluation Form ........................................................... 90
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Frequency and Percent of Responses in Evaluating the Survey.............41
Table 2: Comparisons of Survey Samples to State and National Populations .......48
Table 3: The Proportion of Students with Disabilities Compared to the Total
Number of Students in 21 st CCLC Programs ................................... 51
Table 4: The Proportion of Students with Disabilities to the Total Number of
Students by Activity Areas .......................................................52
Table 5: SPED Staff Information on Students with Disabilities in 21 st CCLC
Programs ............................................................................ 53
Table 6: Percent of21 st CCLC Staff Who Knew Which Students Attended Their
Programs ........................
55
H
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Table 7: Percent of SPED Personnel's Awareness of Students with Disabilities in
and Accommodation Needs for 21 st CCLC Programs .......................57
Table 8: Percent of 21 st CCLC Staff Who Communicated on Accommodations
and IEP Goals ......................................................................58
Table 9: Percent of SPED Personnel Who Communicated on Accommodations
and IEP Goals ....................................•................................. 59
Table 10:Percent of 21 st CCLC Staff Ratings on Potential Communication
lIarriers .............................................................................61
Table 11: Percent of SPED Staff Ratings on Potential Communication
Barriers .............................................................................63
Table 12: Percent of 21 st CCLC Staff and SPED Personnel's Ratings on Students
with Disabilities' Participation and Benefit Compared to the General
Population .........................................................................64
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
\
~.
"'-'
21 st CCLC
21 51 Century Community Learning Centers
APR
Annual Performance Reports
IEP
Individualized Education Plan
SPED
Special Education
vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Need for School-Age Child Care
Our country is undergoing a series of complex changes that are simultaneously
impacting our economic, social, and education systems. Economically, our society has
shifted dramatically in the last century, from agriculture and industry to professional
service and technology. Since the latter require a more complex range of skills and a
more formal education to achieve them, our educational system is being challenged to
meet an increasingly higher rate of achievement in its students while demonstrating a
higher standard of accountability.
However, the children who come to today's schools face challenges significantly
greater than they have in the past. Family dynamics have changed. In 1960, nearly 90%
of children lived in two-parent homes, with only 8% living with a single mother. By
1996, only 68% of children lived in two-parent homes, while the number in singlemother families had increased to 24% (U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on
Ways and Means, 1998).
Furthermore, a large percentage of mothers are now employed. In 2000, both
parents worked outside the home in 70% of married-couple families with children and
80% of single mothers with families were working (Bureau of Labor Force Statistics,
2000). Welfare reform legislatio~ in particular, has increased the numbers of poor single
mothers in the workforce (Selligso~ 1993); however, children in these homes are less
likely to have adequate after-school care. Some of the greatest gaps between need and
1
availability of child care occur in school-age programming (U.S. Department of
Education, 2000).
Since the average workday is 8 or more hours and the typical school day lasts
about 6 hours, an increasing number of parents need after-school programs which would
allow their children to associate with peers and pursue their interests in supervised
settings. In earlier generations, extended families and close friends took care of one
another in informal arrangements. However, as families have moved from farms to the
cities and then to suburbs, they have become isolated from this informal child care
network (Cappella & Lamer, 1999). Consequently, children have become more
dependent on parents for transportation to school and related activities.
Today, some children do have places they can go to pursue hobbies, take up
sports or music, visit with friends, or interact positively with responsible adults. The
quality of available resources, however, depends on the neighborhoods children live in.
In middle and upper-class neighborhoods, parks, libraries, recreation centers, fine arts
centers, and sports clubs are available. The families whose children take advantage of
these opportunities can also afford these resources. Neighborhoods are relatively safe, so
there is little parental concern about children playing outdoors or with a friend.
Families in poorer neighborhoods do not share the same luxury. Resources are
few, and existing ones such as parks or recreation centers, may not be well maintained.
Even when available, these resources may not be affordable. Additionally, children may
be advised to stay indoors to avoid gang activity or drive-by shootings. Instead of seeing
joggers, these children are more likely to see drug dealers across the street. When home
alone, these children
2
lack accessible safe places, involvement with a caring and responsible adult, and
opportunities to be engaged in interesting, developmentally appropriate activities.
Consequently, they can create situations in which they put themselves and their
communities at risk (Edmondson, p. 234).
Since an estimated 21 % of all school-age children live in poor neighborhoods
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997), this is no small matter. Sadly, an estimated five
to seven million, and possibly as many as 15 million children go home on any given day
to an empty house after school (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). What do these
children do alone?
The most common activity is watching TV (Miller, 1996. The average American
child spends 900 hours a year in school, but watches annually 1,500 hours of TV (Alter,
1998). Although TV is a cheap and dependable babysitter, time spent watching TV
reduces the time children spend on academic, enrichment, or cultural activities.
Furthermore, TV watching has been shown to correlate positively with aggressive
behavior (Department of Health and Human Services, 1997) and negatively with reading
scores (National Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994).
Additionally, adolescents, who may not be old or mature enough to handle caretaking responsibility, are frequently required to watch younger siblings (Miller, 1996).
Adolescents already face numerous social challenges and pressures from peers, and these
are made more difficult with additional care-taking responsibilities. Furthermore, in an
emergency situation, these adolescent care-takers need an adult contact source, yet nearly
2.6 million children live in households without a phone (Annie E. Casey Foundation,
2000). Even if these adolescents are mature enough to handle the extra responsibility and
3
have the necessary supports to care for their younger siblings, they may be required to
forgo valuable opportunities to engage in other academic, enrichment, or recreational
activities which compete with their care-giving time.
In addition to feeling lonely, frightened or worried, unsupervised children home
alone are at greater risk of injury, victimization, and poor nutrition (Schwendiman &
Fager, 1999). Tbey are also more likely to associate with aimless friends, affiliate with
gangs, engage in undesirable sexual behavior, experiment with drugs and alcohol, or
exhibit other antisocial behaviors (Schwartz, 1996). Not surprisingly, both violent
juvenile crime and juvenile victimization rates peak during the after-school hours and 60
% of all juvenile gang crimes peak immediately after school dismissal (Snyder &
Sickmund, 1999).
Consider the following facts from the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics:
1. [n 1999,39.5% of middle school students and 68.1 % of high school students reported
using alcohol at least once in the past year. Twelve percent of middle school students
and 36.6% of high school students reported using alcohol at least once a month.
2. Regarding illicit drugs, 13.6% of middle school students and 34.3% of high school
students reported taking drugs one or more times in the past year. Seven percent of
middle school students and 21.3% of high school students reported taking illicit drugs
one or more times a month.
3. While overall substance abuse has increased for middle and high school students in
the last decade, the percentage of eighth graders reporting use if marijuana or cocaine
at least once in the past year doubled from 1991-2000.
4
4. In spite of decreasing crime rates, 60 out of every 1,000 12-14 year-old students, and
30 out of every 1,000 15-18 year-old students experienced a nonfatal violent crime at
school or going to or from school in 1998.
5. In 1999,24,530 children under 10 years of age were charged with an offense--l,004
of those were for violent crimes (2001).
Regarding teen sexual activity and pregnancy, The Alan Guttmacher Institute
reports:
1. Every year 3 million teens-about 1 in 4 sexually experienced teens--acquire a
sexually transmitted disease.
2. Each year almost 1 million teenage women--l0% of all women aged 15-19 and 19%
of those who have had sexual intercourse--become pregnant.
3. Thirteen percent of all
u.s. births, 31 % of all non-marital births, and 25% of all
accidental pregnancies are to teens.
4. Teens who give birth are much more likely to come from poor or low-income
families and, since most teen mothers come from disadvantaged backgrounds, they are
more likely to remain poor in their 20s and 30s (1999).
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy outlines the following
outcomes:
1. Only one-third of teen mothers are likely to complete high school and nearly 80% of
unmarried teen mothers end up on welfare.
2. The children of teenage mothers have lower birth weights, are more likely to perform
poorly in school, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect than children whose mothers
are older.
5
3. Compared to other children, the sons of teen mothers are 13% more likely to end up
in prison, while teen daughters are 22% more likely to become teen mothers themselves
(2002).
As noted above, children who are confronted with various risk factors-poverty,
welfare dependence, one-parent families, unwed mothers, or parents with less tha., a high
school diploma-are more likely to experience undesirable outcomes such as low
academic achievement, premature sexual activity, substance abuse, and criminal
behavior. [n 1997, the Census Bureau found that half of 15- and 16-year-olds were
experiencing one or more risk factors and 13% had three or more of these risk factors to
contend with. The more risk factors these teens experienced, the more likely they were to
have these adverse outcomes (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997).
Poverty, one of the key risk factors, does not affect everyone equally. Some
families are temporarily poor; others live near the poverty line while others may live in
extremely poor circumstances (Corcoran & Chaudry, 1997). However, although the
majority of poor children are white and non-Hispanic, poverty rates are
disproportionately high among Native American, African-American, and Hispanic
children (U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 1998) and that
number is increasing. Furthermore, children from culturally diverse, non-Caucasian
backgrounds are more likely than others to suffer extreme, long-term poverty and live in
depressed urban areas (Delgado, 2000); consequently, they are more likely to encounter a
higher level of risk factors than other poor children.
Although public attention has been directed toward the challenges faced by
children and youth of color, another group of children has received little attention
6
regarding the poverty factor--those with disabilities. However, that is changing. Fujiura
and Yamaki (2000) note that the National Health Interview Survey data reflect a
significant increase in disability rates from 1983-1996 among children from both singleparent and impoverished households. Disability rates were also higher among lowincome households, regardless of ethnic background (Fujiura, Yamiki, & Czhechowicz,
1998). Of children between the ages of 3-21, 28% of those with disabilities are living in
poverty while only 16% of their non-disabled peers live in poverty (Fujiura & Yamaki,
2000).
Benefits ofSchool-Age Child Care
Many children and youth in adverse circumstances, given the proper resources,
can overcome the effects of these risk factors and become successful adults. In
particular, the influence of a responsible, caring adult through childhood and adolescence
is a major factor in helping young people build resilience (Dryfoos, 1998; Wang, Haertel
& Walberg, 1998). As Bernard poignantly notes:
Individuals who have succeeded in spite of adverse environmental conditions in
their families, schools, and/or communities have often done so because of the
presence of environmental support in the form of one family member, one
teacher, one school, [or] one community person that encouraged their success and
welcomed their participation (1991).
Caring, supportive adults within and outside of one's family can serve as protective
factors against substance abuse (Hoover, MacDonald, Werger, & Wallace, J, 1999), and
adult mentors at school can promote positive educational progress (Vance, Fernandez, &
Biber, 1998).
7
Constructive academic, recreational, and cultural activities are also important
protective factors for at-risk children. Children who engage in constructive learning
activities for 20-35 hours in their out-of-school time do better in school (Clark, 1988),
and those involved in after-school activities such as volunteer work, sports, and
homework have healthier student outcomes (Silvia, Thome, & Tashjian, 1997). Freiberg
(1993) underscores the importance of after-school, weekend, and summer educational
and social programs in schools that foster resilience in inner-city youth.
After-school programs, then, can playa critical role in helping children develop
their potential and become productive citizens as adults. However, the availability of
after-school programs varies considerably across geographic locations. Although the
number of after-school programs has increased in the last few years, there is still a
chronic shortage of after-school programs, with the demand outstripping the supply by a
rate of2 to 1 (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). In particular, rural and middle
schools are less likely to have after-school programs than their elementary and urban
school counterparts, thereby narrowing the options for school-age children in these areas
(Schwendiman & Fager, 1999). Furthermore, school-age children from poor families are
a third less likely to attend after-school programs as their middle-class counterparts and
half as likely to spend time expanding athletic, academic, cultural, or artistic skills
(Hotferth, 1995), due in part to cost or transportation factors (Halpern, 1999).
After-school programs also vary widely in their features such as child-adult ratios,
staff education levels, and class size (Vandell & Shumow, 1999). Child-adult ratios have·
been found to range from a low of 4: 1 to a high of25: 1 while staff education levels may
fall somewhere between a little less than a high school diploma to more than a master's
8
degree (Seppanen, deVries, & Seligson, 1993). Additionally, programs vary in their
focus. Some emphasize academics, others recreation, and others choose specific areas
such as art, music, or science. Some offer a few activities; others have an expanded array
of choices. After-school programs may be run by community-based organizations such
as the Boys and Girls Club. religious or private non-profit organizations, public schools,
community centers, and for-profit agencies (Seppanen, et al, 1993). The somewhat
haphazard disparity of features, resources, activities, goals, and organizational structures
of after-school programs further complicate the puzzle of finding adequate and available
after-school care for school-age children.
One Answer to School-Age Child Care: 2 r t Century Community Learning Centers
Fortunately, interest in after-school programs for children from low- and middleincome families has been growing throughout the 1990s due to increased public concern
regarding the impact of unsafe neighborhoods on academic achievement, character
development, and lost opportunities for personal growth (Halpern, 1999). Selligson
(1999) notes that three recent reform movements have also directed the attention of
policy-makers toward the value of after-school programs:
6. Welfare reform, by engaging more single mothers in the workforce, has increased the
need for after-school care.
7. Crime prevention statistics revealing peak juvenile crime and victimization during the
after-school hours have prompted efforts to support after-school programs as alternatives
to crime.
9
8. Educational reform, by emphasizing lagging academic achievement and
accountability, has turned educators' eyes to the potential of after-school programs to
increase learning time in low-performing children.
In response, the Clinton administration in 1998 allocated $40 million to help
communities develop and increase the number of high quality after school programs
through 21 st Century Community Learning Centers. Funding continued to increase in
successive years: $200 million in 1999, $450 million in 2000, $846 million in 2001 and
$1 billion in 2002. Today, approximately 6,800 rural and inner city public schools in
1,420 communities are participating in the program (21 st Century Community Learning
Centers, 2002).
To determine the success of the 21 st Century Community Learning Centers (21 st
CCLC) program, the program is being formally evaluated. Data from each participating
school site are submitted and compiled into annual reports. Data collected from these
sites include ethnic and free lunch status of children who attend the after-school
programs, school-day teacher reports regarding any positive academic and behavioral
changes in the children who attend, and report card data that reflect academic progress of
the attendees. These factors can help determine the extent to which children needing
after-school programs are able to access these programs and whether or not they benefit
from them.
Certainly, student characteristics such as ethnic and free-lunch status are critical
variables to consider in ensuring those who need services the most are getting them.
However, although serving students with disabilities is one of 12 authorized activities for
21 st CCLC programs (U.S. Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary
10
Education Act of 1965, 1994 Amendment), little is known about student attendees with
disabilities because they have not been formally kept track of in 21 it CCLC programs.
Consequently, it is difficult to know the extent to which students with disabilities are able
to access these programs, participate in the activities, or benefit from them. Anecdotal
information from individuals working in after-school programs suggests that they are;
however, in order to participate meaningfully in after-school settings, they may need
specific accommodations and supports (CEC Today, 2001).
This study, then, used surveys of after-school staff and regular school-day special
education personnel across a Midwestern state to determine the extent to which students
with disabilities participated in 21 It CCLC programs, needed accommodations, and
received appropriate accommodations when needed. The study also surveyed the extent
to which regular school-day special education personnel and 21 It CCLC staff
communicated about disability issues, and it probed potential barriers to that
communication. Finally, the study surveyed staffs' overall perceptions of the extent to
which students with disabilities participated in and benefited from the 21 It CCLC
programs compared to their non-disabled peers.
II
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Child Care History: The Progressive Era
Although considerable attention has recently been turned toward the need for
after-school programs and its potential benefits for children and their families, the issue
of school-age child care-and child care in general--dates back before the tum of the 20th
century. [n the late 19th century, traditional forms of care became less available as
families moved from rural to urban areas. In response, charities and other philanthropic
groups began day nurseries to care for school age children as early as 1894 (Seligson,
Genser, Gannett, and Gray 1983). The day nurseries were designed primarily for the
poor and were established to help out mothers who, by necessity, had to work. Poorly
funded and understaffed, they often provided little more than thin soup and cocoa,
laundry, bathing, and basic custodial services (Cahan, 1989). They were never designed
to benefit the children educationally.
By the 1900's, Progressive Era reformers sought to promote their concept of child
development through social reforms. Concerned about the plight of immigrants, the
poor, widows, and the resulting neglect and wasted opportunities for the children in these
families, reformers began to press for "summer" schools that could provide recreation and
learning experiences (Tyack, 1992). Mirrored after the progressive curriculum promoted
in exclusive private schools for the aftluent, these summer "play schools" were developed
to provide hands-on learning opportunities for "underprivileged" children-essentially
becoming school-age child care programs (Seligson, Genser, Gannett, & Gray, 1983).
12
Settlement houses, community centers, and school-recreation center alliances all
helped provide needed school-age child care services. These services, however, were
primarily focused on "curing" the immigrants and the poor of their ignorance and
educating them to be "responsible" citizens (Reese, 1986; Cahan, 1989). Assuming
lower-income families were incapable of properly socializing their children, child care in
the early years was seen as a "poverty-track" alternative to the traditional family-centered
socialization process (Tank, 1980).
Likewise, reformers, such as Jane Addams who created the settlement houses and
furthered the day nursery movement, saw themselves as helping to "reform the poor" by
instructing them in proper child-rearing and hygiene according to their own Victorian
middle-class ideals (Muncy, 1991). Therefore day nurseries were viewed as a
"necessary evil" for a select few that needed it, rather then a service that could benefit
children and families as a whole. Later, some of these same reformers became critics of
these nurseries, arguing that they contributed to the break-down of the home, future
delinquent behaviors in the children, and enabled "lazy" fathers to shirk their duties to
provide economically for their families. Consequently, when the Children's Bureau
began to push for national child welfare services, universal child care was omitted in
favor of pensions that supported mothers at home (Cahan, 1989).
However, the value of child care was not lost to the middle and upper class who
took advantage of the infant education movement in the 1800s to give their children a
"head start" in their schooling. Aftluent parents in the 1900s, inspired by child
development theorists and early childhood education centers at universities, promoted
nursery schools to enrich the social, physical, mental, and emotional development of their
13
children. Progressive curriculum, emphasizing expressive play and ''bands-on'' learning,
were introduced into private school programs to enhance learning (Seligson, Genser,
Gannet, & Gray, 1983). Although a smaller movement than the day nurseries for the
poor, the nursery school movement created a two-tiered system of child care-enrichment
for the affluent and custodial care for the poor (Caldwell, 1989).
Even though both the day nurseries and nursery schools faced criticisms for
taking children away from their mothers, child care resurfaced as an important need in
the wake and aftermath of World War II. The need for female workers for the war efforts
subsequently increased the need for adequate child care for infants, toddlers, and schoolage children. The government responded with federal funds through the Lanham Act for
child care programs for children of all ages, but these were considered emergency, wartime provisions rather than long-tenn policy measures (Cahan, 1989).
War Reforms and Retrenchment for School-Age Child Care
With increased funding, child care options flourished. During World War II
nearly 3,000 extended-day school programs, 835 school-age child centers, and several
hundred combined nursery school and school-age child centers served over 30,000
children (Seligson, Genser, Gannet, and Gray, 1983). Most were supported and
promoted through the Office of Education, which even provided pamphlets on how to set
up school-based child care programs. Unfortunately, when these funds were eliminated
after the war and women were no longer needed as workers, many of these programs
ended. Consequently, women who continued to work had to rely primarily on informal
arrangements with family, friends, or neighbors (Cahan, 1989).
14
In the 1960s, child development specialists promoted the importance of early
environmental experiences in shaping children's development. These insights inspired
President Johnson's "War on Poverty" initiative and the Head Start and Project Follow
Through initiatives as avenues to short-circuit poverty by promoting educational and
enrichment opportunities. Initial success and popularity of the Head Start program
prompted legislators in 1971 to develop a universal child care bill that included children
up to age fourteen. However, president Nixon vetoed the bill on grounds that the benefits
of child development programs had not yet been substantiated through research and that
universal child care provisions were fiscally irresponsible~ took too much administrative
power from the state, would weaken the family, and would promote a socialistic system
(Cohen, 2001). The president's veto subsequently dampened similar efforts in the 1970s.
Potential initiatives such as the Child and Family Services act of 1974 were blocked and
never made it past congressional committee hearings due to political conservatives'
perceptions that children in child care would become "wards" of the state and early
childhood education would be "sovietized" (Seligson, Genser, Gannett, & Gray, 1983).
Throughout the 1980s and much of the1990s political differences between
conservative and liberal legislators continued to hinder child care policy issues. In short,
liberals promoted the dire need of child care and the importance of federal support for a
universal child care system. Conservatives, on the other hand, failed to see the need for
child care as a crisis and preferred to support other family policy initiatives that kept
mothers at home, believed market forces were sufficient to meet child care needs, and
advocated minimal federal involvement (Cohen, 2001).
l5
Political Incentives for School-Age Child Care
By the dawn of the millennium, however, attitudes began to shift slightly due to
economic and demographic changes. As Cohen (2001) notes, it became increasingly
difficult for conservatives to deny the need for child care based on the overwhelming
numbers of married and single mothers who were employed. Furthermore, it was
difficult to lobby for mandatory work requirements in welfare reform without addressing
the increased need for child care. Therefore, political discussions shifted from "if" to
"bow" child care should be dealt with.
Granted, legislators still debated the issue along party lines. However, one aspect
of Clinton's child care proposal--school-age child care- became increasingly popular and
helped to shift the child care debate from family values and the role of women to
universal concern for the safety and best interest of children (Cohen, 2001).
As Cohen
(2001) points out, school-age child care had few opponents, was less expensive than early
childhood care, could support mothers meeting mandatory welfare reform work
requirements, and could offer safe alternatives to risky or criminal behaviors exhibited by
at-risk youth.
Furthermore, organized interest groups such as the National Institute on Out-ofSchool Time (NIOST) and Fight Crime: Invest in Kids (Fight Crime) were able to ally
with other education groups and engage the media to promote programs for school age
cbildren. Finally, polls were showing strong public support for after-school programs to
develop children's academic and social skills in a safe environment (YMCA, 1998), even
if additional federal or state taxpayer money was needed (After-school Alliance, 1999).
The term "school-age cluld care" shifted to the more favorable term "after-school
16
programs" to encompass a range of educational and recreational activities (Seligson,
1999) during out-of-school hours-including before and after school, weekends, and
summers (Dryfoos, 1999).
Legislators soon became involved in promoting their own proposals. One in
particular was Senator Jeffords, who had designed and promoted 21 st Century
Community Learning Centers (21 st CCLCs) authorized under a 1994 Amendment to
Title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Congress had originally
intended 21 st CCLCs to enable rural and inner-city schools to provide a range of
activities such as literacy education, child care, or senior citizen programs to benefit
communities (Cohen, 2001). However, in 1997, the Department of Education issued
guidelines for 21 It CCLC funds to specifically go to public schools for starting or
expanding after-school programs (Stapelton, 1998).
Then in 1998, Jeffords' actions to support a Senate hearing on the problems and
barriers confronting after-school child care and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation's
pledge for 21 st CCLC support advanced 21st CCLCs to the political forefront as a popular
avenue to promote school-age child care (Cohen, 2001). Backed by a bipartisan
majority, U.S. Congress approved a $40 million expenditure to expand 21st CCLCs, and
in the following year, increased that budget to $200 million. By 2002, $1 billion had been
allocated for 21 st CCLCs (21 st Century Community Learning Centers, 2002). The
initiative today has been incorporated into George W. Bush's reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, renamed the "No Child Left Behind" Act
(U .S. Department of Education, 2002).
17
--,
.~
.
School-Age Child Care: A "Family" Issue
Why has child care been such a thorny issue in the history of American politics?
To explore this question further it is useful to look at how industrialized nations in
general have dealt with the issue. In his account, Esping-Anderson (1990) groups
industrialized nations into three types of welfare states while giving credence to the fact
that these countries vary and may even borrow from one another's models. These types
are: social democratic welfare states such as Denmark and Sweden, corporatist welfare
states such as Germany, Italy, and France, and liberal market states such as Australia,
Canada, and the United States.
Social democratic states utilize a strong government role in ensuring its citizens
certain minimum social rights. Furthermore, they recognize and are committed to both
the right for women to work-whether or not they have children--and the right for them
not to work to stay home with their children. Consequently, these states "have made the
strongest commitment to child care policies that allow parents to combine cheap, reliable
child care with gainful employment outside the home" (Gormley, 1995, p. 8).
Corporatist welfare states also tend to support child care, although at varying
degrees compared to social demographic welfare states. In general, coporatist states
support the right for women to work once their children have reached the age of three at
which point child care fees become substantially reduced. Consequently, child care fees
for children under three are more expensive, although not cost prohibitive (Gormley,
1995). In both social democratic and corporatist welfare states, the government also
provides paid parental leaves and job protection rights to aid parents staying home.
18
In contrast, liberal market states tend to favor a minimal governmental role in
family and social affairs. The government, then, neither actively supports nor encourages
parents. Rather, the free-market economy becomes the supplier of child care options for
families who cannot find other arrangements. Child care, then, is expected to be a private
issue to be primarily resolved within the family (Gormley, 1995). As William Gormley
aptly describes:
When a (child care) problem arises, surely grandma will come to the rescue. And
if grandma is not available, how about the neighbor down the street? The
fundamental premises used to be that (1) most young children would be cared for
during the day by their mothers, with supplementary assistance from relatives,
neighbors, and friends, (2) most families would remain intact over an extended
period of time, (3) most wives would remain at home until their children reach the
age of five or six, (4) most families would have close relatives nearby, and (5)
most families would be firmly anchored in a supportive community. These
premises still hold for some people, but not for most (1995, p. 1-2).
Consequently, child care options vary in availability and quality in liberal market
states and, even though poor and middle class parents may receive government subsidies
or tax breaks to help offset child care costs, the demand far outstrips the supply.
Furthermore, child care costs remain high since child care providers have few subsidies
to allow them to offset costs to parents. On the other side of the coin, since the
government does not provide paid parental leaves and job guarantees, parents wishing to
stay home with their children equally find it a financial hardship, making it a "no-win"
situation for many parents, particularly of limited means.
19
In the United States in particular, the child care issue becomes exacerbated due to
the high percentage of full-time employed women, single mothers, child poverty, and a
large unregulated family day care market compared to other industrial nations (Gormley,
1995). Although child care has been a public and political issue at different points in
American history, Caldwell (1989) notes that progress in this area has been most
noticeable each time economic and social needs have prompted action toward advancing
and applying the child development research base to improve social situations. Given,
the current alignment of economic, social, and educational concerns in both public and
political arenas, one can agree that such a time has come.
Promoting School-Age Child Care through 2 r t Century Community Learning Centers
In advancing the cause of school-age child care, the 21 It Century Community
Learning Center (21 It CCLC) initiative is landmark legislation. Authorized initially under
Title X, Part I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it was designed to
provide funds to rural and inner-city schools ''to enable them to plan, implement, and
expand community learning centers that benefit the health, education, cultural, social
services, and recreational needs of the community" (National Institute on Early
Childhood Development and Education, 1998, p. 28). The first grants for the program
were awarded in the fiscal year 1995; however, the program remained a rather
insignificant sideline to the political arena and by 1997, funding for 21st CCLCs was
only a mere $1 million (Stapleton, 1998).
When political conservatives began to diminish other school-age child care
options, the Department of Education guidelines shifted the 21 st CCLC' Initiative's
absolute priority from "community" to "children and youth" (Stapleton, 1998) and
20--
restated the mission as providing "expanded learning opportunities for participating
children in a safe, drug-free and supervised environments" (21 st Century Community
Learning Centers, 2001) by opening schools during out-of-school hours. With a
substantial financial increase, Senator Jeffords' promotion efforts (Senate, Committee on
Labor and Human Resources, 1998), and the financing and technical support through the
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (Afterschool Makes the Grade, 1999), the 21 st CCLC
initiative received the face lift it needed to increase school age child care opportunities.
As a result of the increased funding and support, approximately 6,800 rural and inner-city
public schools in 1,420 communities are currently able to offer after-school programs for
elementary through high-school aged children (21st Century Community Learning
Centers, 2002).
Through the fiscal year 2001, The U.S. Department of Education has administered
21 st CCLC program funds directly to public schools and school districts whose grant
applications were accepted in the national annual competitions; however, under the new
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act, states will assume this role.
Bidders' conferences, funded by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation each January and
February in numerous sites across the country, help applicants- usually a consortium of 3
to 5 schools in a district--understand the grant process and prepare quality applications.
Additionally, successful grantees can receive technical support to set up and run their 21 st
CCLC programs through various conferences offered through the National Center for
Community Education, a partner organization with the Mott foundation (Warren, 1999).
Finally, some states provide assistance to local school districts to enhance their ability to
21
succeed in the competition. This technical assistance was available in the state where this
study occurred.
To maintain accountability, program directors, who manage the grant
requirements, and site coordinators, who manage the school's activities, submit Annual
Performance Reports (APRs). The APRs include quantitative and qualitative information
on program features, participant attendance, and teacher reports of changes in student
behavior or academic performance. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., as part of the
U.S. Department of Education's national evaluation of the 21st CCLC program, is
analyzing data from the APRs.
To qualify for grant funds under Title X (prior to the Bush reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965), applicants had to propose an after
school program that would include both academic and cultural enrichment in a safe, drugfree environment and offer activities that would help significantly to reduce substance
abuse and violence (Warren, 1999). Additionally, applicants had to meet the following
requirements: (a) be a rural or inner-city public school or a consortium of such schools,
(b) partner with community members and organizations, and (c) address four or more of
the following activity areas:
1. Literacy education programs
2. Senior citizen programs
3. Child care services
4. Integrated education, health, social service, recreational, or cultural programs
5. Nutrition and health programs
6. Expanded library service hours to serve community needs
22
7. Telecommunications and technology education programs for individuals of all ages
8. Parenting skills education programs
9. Support and training for child care providers
10. Employment counseling. training, and placement
11. Services for individuals who leave school before graduating from secondary school,
regardless of the age us such individual, and
12. Services for individuals with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 1994 Amendment).
Based on Mathematica's latest figures in their November 2001 report, 482,515
students and 147,918 adults participated in 21 st CCLC programs in 6,697 centers during
the 2000-2001 school year. Thirty-seven percent of the centers offered programs yearround while 63% offered programs only during the school year. Twenty-seven percent
were also open on holidays. The centers are staffed with a variety of people, including
youth development workers, parents, college and high school students, and school-day
teachers. Activity types included (a) academic areas such reading, math, science, and
technology, (b) enrichment activities such as art, music, dance, and (c) recreational
activities such as sports, youth development, or community service activities. Although
Mathematica's report results are preliminary, 21 st CCLC program appears to be having a
positive effect on student achievement. In comparing grade changes between the 1999
and 2000 APRs, 39% of participating students' math grades and 41 % of their English
grades increased during that time (Mathematica Policy Research Inc., 2001).
23
Benefits of2 pI Century Community Learning Centers
Although little quantitative data have been published to date, there are a modest
number of descriptive accounts of 21 st CCLC programs, telling how these have positively
affected schools and their respective communities. The descriptions give insights to the
broad range of activities offered, varied community partnerships, and the adaptability of
the program to meet the unique needs of its constituents. Here are a few highlights from
these accounts:
1. The principal of an Oregon elementary school used a combination of 21 st CCLC and
Title I funds to design a program to meet the needs of homeless children. These children
now have meals, showers, and laundry services, in addition to stimulating after-school
activities (Fagan, 2001).
2. A New Mexico elementary school with a high number of immigrant and Spanishspeaking families used its 21 st CCLC funds to provide before and after-school evening,
weekend, summer and vacation programs. The programs also include supplementary
supports and services and bilingual parent education. Student test scores improved so
dramatically that it lifted the school out of the at risk category (Warren, 200la).
3. A Maine Middle School used its 21 st CCLC funds to purchase laptops for nearly
every student and expand its use of the school's wireless computer system. The summer
programs have incorporated the laptops into the reading and literacy program, resulting in
improved reading scores and student attitudes toward school (yost, 2000a).
4. A Texas elementary and middle school in a migrant community used 21 st CCLC
funds to provide cultural activities, community service projects, and academic
enrichment. By linking the after-school activities to state assessment benchmarks and
24
tracking student performance, these schools enabled students to show a 28% gain on
student state assessment scores in reading and math (Castilla & Winchester, 2001).
5. Three Missouri middle schools used 21 st CCLC funds to expand and integrate
technology with their literacy program. Students also were involved in cooking, sports,
drama, art, modeling, and self-esteem. Since the program began, regular school
attendance has increased, discipline referrals have declined, and academic achievement
has risen (Warren, 2001b).
6. A Georgia district used 21 5t CCLC funds and college-business-school partnerships to
provide adult education through 17 Family Technology Centers that are located in
schools, community-based locations, and a homeless shelter. Numerous parents and
other community members have graduated and become employed in the area. Businesses
are pleased with the quality of the graduates and employed parents are better able to
improve outcomes for their children (Yost, 2000b).
Since many of the 21 5t CCLC programs are free to the participants, low-income
families are able to take advantage of these programs. In the 2000-2001 school year,
63% of the centers reported that 50% or more of their participating students qualify for
free or reduced lunches, a percentage matching that of host schools during the regular
school day; student race and ethnicity distributions are also equivalent (Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc., 2001). Since the schools hosting 21 5t CCLC programs enroll a
higher percentage than the national average of regular school day students that come
from low-income or racially diverse families (Ibid., 200 I), it is reasonable to assume that
21st CCLCs are indeed helping to till the school-age child care gap, particularly for
families who might otherwise be unable to access such care.
2S
Students with Disabilities and School-Age Child Care: Historical Exclusion
Although access to quality school age child care continues to be a difficult one for
many families~ parents of children with disabilities have faced additional challenges over
the years. First of all, including people with disabilities in mainstream American life is a
recent phenomenon. In the 1960s, while the Civil Rights Act and President Kennedy's
discussion of his sister with mental retardation were helping to break down stereotypes,
doctors were still advising parents to institutionalize their children with moderate or
severe disabilities. Until 1975 and the passage of PL. 94-142, the Education for the
Handicapped Act, many children with disabilities were routinely denied access to
schools. Once schools did open their doors to children with disabilities, many were
bussed to separate schools "for the handicapped" or were relegated to segregated facilities
in the "trailer out back" .
Considering the difficulties that parents of children with disabilities were facing,
it is not surprising that the child care issue was placed on the "back burner" of advocacy
priorities. As Kate Warren, of the California BANANAS Child Care Information and
Referral Agency, aptly stated:
Parents of special needs chIldren are fighting for survival. Their number one
priority is getting proper medical care. If their kids are school-age, the number
two priority is getting the child into the best possible education setting. Child
care has had to come last (Fink~ 1988, p. 14).
Consequently~
when public attention became directed toward the increasing numbers of
"latch-key" children and the desperate need for child care~ few people pushed child care
for children with disabilities. Uniquely enou~ children with disabilities were not
26
considered in the debate primarily because few of these mothers were in the workforce
(F~
1988). However, many of these mothers, particularly those whose children had
moderate or severe disabilities, stayed home with their children--even though it was not
their first choice-- because they had exhausted other child care options (Fink, 1987).
When asked whether or not lack of child care affected their economic
advancement or career development, 53% of all parents and 75% of single mothers said
"yes", stating that the lack of child care prevented, or greatly limited, their working
options (Fink, 1988). In a 1989 school-age child care study (Worshtil, 1990), 78% of
parents with children worked outside the home while only 44% of parents whose children
had disabilities did so. Yet 79 % of these unemployed parents said they would seek
training or employment if they had appropriate child care. A 1991 study also found
mothers of young children with special needs unable to enter the work force at rates
comparable to other mothers of young children (Fink, 1991).
When families tried searching for appropriate child care for their children with
disabilities, they were frequently turned down. In a telephone survey, 25% of parents
with five- to seven-year-old children and 42% of parents with eight- to eleven-year- old
children said they were refused admission or were told not to apply to child care
programs due to their child's disability (Fink, 1988). If their children were allowed to
attend these programs, parents with disabilities were often charged higher fees (Fink,
1987; Fink, 1988), further stressing families already struggling with high medical costs.
Other parents turned to respite care which, given its long waiting lists and restricted time
allotments, was an insufficient alternative to school age child care (Fink, 1988).
27
Parents who were forced to leave their children home alone faced the added stress
over concerns about their child's ability to assume self-care responsibilities (Rowlan~ &
Robinson, 1991). Additionally, skills typically developing children acquired on their
own needed to be taught to children with disabilities before home-alone arrangements
could be considered (Coleman & Apts, 1991). Furthermore, due to the nature of certain
disabilities, some children needed full-time supervision long after their non-disabled
peers were self-sufficient (Fink, 1988), well beyond age fourteen (Worshtil, 1990).
The school-age child care situation was not entirely bleak. A number of schools
across the country in states ranging from Virginia, Illinois, California (Fink, 1987a) and
Texas (Fink, 1987b) operated school-age child care programs-some integrated, and some
segregated-for students with disabilities. However, these were more the exception than
the rule. Some Park and Recreational centers also provided after-school and summer
programs for students with disabilities (Fink, 1987b). Agencies such as Easter Seals and
Special Olympics offered camps and sports activities for students with disabilities;
however, most of these recreational options--while partially addressing the child care
need-segregated students with disabilities from their peers.
Emerging Inclusion Opportunities in School-Age Child Care
The passage of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) opened new
doors for children with disabilities. Unlike Section 504, which prohibited discrimination
only in federally-funded programs, ADA prohibited discrimination in any program or
activity open to the public. From that point on, school-age child care programs,
regardless of whether or not they received public subsidies, were no longer allowed to
discriminate against children with disabilities. In response, the Arc (formerly known as
28
~T···
_
.r~""'::~i.:.:\;.",:._::_
the Association for Retarded Citizens, or ARC), used funds from the U.S. Department of
Iustice to create a definitive guide for child care programs wishing to comply with ADA
requirements (Doggett & George, 1993). The Arc also put out a position statement
endorsing inclusive recreation and leisure and encouraging agencies currently providing
segregated recreational services to develop "inclusive options" (Fink, 2000). Soon after,
Special Olympics began the initiative, United Sports, to allow people with and without
disabilities to compete jointly in sports activities.
To further address the child care issue certain interest groups in recent years have
began to form their own agencies. For example, Boston parents have created "Parents
United for Child Care" (PUCC) and, through resourceful linkages to foundations, city,
and state funds, they have been able to greatly expand school-age services in Boston
(pUCC, 2002). With support from PUCC and The Arc, project KOALA (Kids of all
Learning Abilities) has been able to develop and facilitate the inclusion of children with
disabilities into after-school and recreational programs (KOALA, 2002). Other statessuch as lllinois' "Leadership Training to Support Child Care for All Children" and
Montana's "Child Care Plus+" - have started their own initiatives (National Child Care
Information Center, 1995).
On a national level, the Child Care Bureau has devoted considerable energies to
expanding and improving inclusive child care services. In the late 1990s, the Bureau
convened a National Leadership Forum on Inclusion and produced a technical assistance
report, "Passages to Inclusion: Creating Systems of Care for ALL Children."
Additionally, the Bureau has funded the Map to Inclusive Child Care project which
provides technical assistance to states to train child care providers in inclusive practices
29
(Bruder,1998). The U.S. Department of Education has also been supportive of
inclusion. In its publication, "Working for Children and Families: Safe and Smart AfterSchool Programs", the Department has listed the inclusion of children with disabilities as
an important part ofan effective after-school program (U.S. Department of Education,
2000).
Continued School-Age Child Care Need for Students with Disabilities
Yet, even with these improvements, there is still a continued shortage of schoolage child care for all children, including those with disabilities. In looking at the child
care supply and demand issues for California, Linda Jacobson (2001) notes that over 50%
of the centers in Los Angeles County alone have waiting lists, suggesting that there are
not enough openings to meet parents' needs. Furthermore, only 28% of centers are able
to accept children with special needs.
The Action Alliance in Virginia found that
several child care agencies had identified child care options for children with special
needs "an extreme shortage" due to fact that most centers won't take special needs
children and day care providers lack experience (Wood, 1999). The Child Care Bureau
found that parents of children with disabilities in Oklahoma identified child care services
as their number one need (National Child Care Information Center, 1995).
Furthermore, although more spaces are available than ever before, it is difficult
for many parents to find the quality care they are seeking (Wood, 1999; Jacobson, 2001).
Additionally, Fink (2000) notes that children and youth with disabilities continue to
receive "social exclusion" from peers even though they may be "physically included" in
recreational activities. In his observations and interviews ofYouth Recreation Centers,
Fink also found that, although staff were quick to acknowledge their belief that many of
30
the children they served had special needs, the staff had no awareness of which children
were special education students and made no conscious attempt to customize their
program or plan activities accordingly (Fink, 2000).
Given the shortage of accessible quality child care for students with disabilities
and legal requirements though ADA, it is important to consider whether or not they are
included in child care programs and that staffs receive sufficient training and support to
guarantee quality program experiences. Anecdotal evidence suggests that students with
disabilities are participating in school-age child care programs and benefiting from them.
For example, Castillo and Winchester (2001) share the story of Dalila, a 5th grade,
migrant student who was also blind and participated in her school's after-school musical
keyboarding class. Dalila's mother attributed her daughter's growth in confidence, selfesteem, and sense of fulfillment to the after-school program. In a multiple baseline
design across students, researchers found that students with learning disabilities who
received after-school tutoring from trained adult tutors were able to generalize their new
skills to their regular school day classes and increase their math test scores (Hock,
Pulvers, Deshler, & Schumaker, (2001).
The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) reports that, although most afterschool programs are developed for students in the general population, anecdotal
information from these programs indicates that students with disabilities are participating
in them as well. Furthermore, the less structured environment and variety of activities
can allow these students to develop skills and self-confidence in ways that are more
difficult to achieve in traditional classroom settings (2001). In CEC Today, The Council
for Exceptional Children interviews Wagner who points out that IDEA requires schools
31
to provide access to extra-curricular activities and recommends that participation in afterschool programs be included in students IEP's. Additionally, she suggests that the IEP
team ensures that students have the necessary accommodations and supports to succeed
in after-school programs, and that after-school staffhas the training and support to work
with these students. Warger also stresses good communication between after school and
school day staff--an essential ingredient for student success in after-school programs. To
help facilitate this communication, she suggests that regular school day general and
special educators also work in the after-school programs (Council for Exceptional
Children, 2001).
School-Age Child Care Opportunities for Students with Disabilities in 2]1' Century
Community Learning Centers: Is Inclusion a Reality?
In the selection criteria for schools to accept 21 5t Community Learning Center
funds, services for individuals with disabilities is one of the activity areas schools are
encouraged to select (U.S. Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, 1994 Amendment). The North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory has put out guidelines for 21 st CCLCs to promote inclusion of students with
special needs in the after-school programs. These guidelines include:
1. Referring students with special needs to participate in the after-school program,
2. Having the program coordinator request information on student participants with
special needs and arranging accommodations,
3. Implementing a planning session for after school staffand school day teachers to
adapt the curriculum for children with special needs, and
32
4. Hiring special education teachers from the regular school day to work with the afterschool program (Caplan & Calfee, 1999).
Although 21 SI CCLC programs are encouraged to include students with disabilities in
their programs, the Annual Performance Reports do not require data about students with
disabilities. Consequently, there is no information regarding the extent to which students
with disabilities are participating and whether or not they are receiving the
accommodations needed to succeed in these programs.
This study, then, used surveys of after-school staff and school-day special
education personnel across a Midwestern state to determine the extent to which students
with disabilities participated in their programs, needed accommodations, and got
accommodations when needed. The study also surveyed the extent to which school-day
special education personnel and 21 SI CCLC staff communicated about disability issues,
and it probed potential barriers to that communication. Finally, the study surveyed staffs
overall perceptions of the extent to which students with disabilities participated in and
benefited from the 21 SI CCLC programs compared to their non-disabled peers.
33
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Based on the literature, it is reasonable to conclude that:
1. There is a chronic shortage of available, quality school age child care programs for all
children, including students with disabilities (Wood, 1999; Jacobson, 2001).
2. Students with disabilities have been previously excluded from these programs (Fink,
1987, 1988; Worshtil, 1990).
3. The passage of ADA and current inclusion efforts have helped to improve the
accessibility of school age child care options for students with disabilities (Fink, 2000).
4. Students with disabilities can benefit from after-school programs if provided with the
necessary accommodations and supports (Castillo & Winchester, 2001; Council for
Exceptional Children, 2001).
5. After-school staff can best accommodate students with disabilities if there is good
communication between regular school-day and after-school staff (Council for
Exceptional Children, 2001; Caplan & Calfee, 1999).
6. Little is known about the extent to which students with disabilities currently
participate in after-school programs and whether or not they receive the supports to
benefit from them.
The purpose of this study was to provide information about the extent to which
students with disabilities participate in 21 st CCLC after-school programs and whether or
not they receive the accommodations needed to benefit from them. This study used
surveys of after-school staff and school-day special education personnel across a
34
Midwestern state to determine the extent to which students with disabilities participated
in their programs, needed accommodations, and got accommodations when needed. The
study also surveyed the extent to which school-day special education personnel and 21 It
CCLC staff communicated about disability issues, and it probed potential barriers to that .
communication. Finally, the study surveyed staffs' overall perceptions of the extent to
which students with disabilities participated in and benefited from the 21 st CCLC
programs compared to their non-disabled peers.
Specifically, the research questions were:
1. Inclusive Practices: To what extent are students with disabilities participating in 21 st
Century Community Learning Center programs? For those participating, do students
who need accommodations receive them? What types of accommodations are most
common?
2. Disability Awareness: To what extent is 21 It Century Community Learning Center
staff aware of the students with disabilities in their programs and their needs for
accommodations or supports? To what extent are regular school day special education
personnel aware of their students' participation in the after-school programs and their
needs for accommodations or supports?
3. Communication on Disability Issues: How frequently have 21 It Century Community
Learning Center staff and regular school day personnel communicated about
accommodations or IEP goals for students with disabilities in the after-school programs,
and to what extent have they provided accommodations or included IEP goals and
objectives in those programs?
3S
4. Communication Barriers: What barriers, if any Century Community Learning Center
staff' and regular school day personnel say affect communication between them regarding
disability issues?
5. Perception of Participation and Benefit: Do Century Community Learning Center
staff and regular school day personnel believe students with disabilities are participating
in the after-school programs and benefiting from them, and how do they compare that
participation and benefit to those of student attendees without disabilities?
Since much of the research on 21 II Century Community Learning Centers is
descriptive in nature--primarily case studies-- and little is known about the students with
disabilities in these programs, the researcher chose to use a survey method to gain a broad
assessment of these issues. Surveys are useful when quantitative or numerical
descriptions about specific aspects of a population are desired (Fowler, 1993 )-in this
case, students with disabilities. [n particular, mail surveys are ideal when the research
sample is widely distributed across a geographic region (Mangione, 1995) as was the case
in this study. The mail survey method, then, proved to be an appropriate choice for this
study because it: (a) reached a wider range of participants than personal interviews would
allow, (b) provided standard questions which could produce quantifiable answers, (c)
created permanent products which could be more efficiently analyzed than telephone
conversations or interviews, and (d) could be easily distributed to school sites without
adding undue pressure or time constraints on program directors.
Participants
An attempt was made to reach potential respondents at every 21 st CCLC site
available in the state. Local school districts with 21 st CCLC sites were located in various
36
geographic locations across the state with roughly equivalent proportions of urban and
rural locations. Many were elementary, a good number were middle schools, and few
were high schools. Schools ranged from less then 300 students to over 1,200, although
the majority fell between 300-800.
Although there were similarities across sites, particularly in areas that reflected
grant funding requirements, programs were understandably tailored to the needs of the
locale; consequently, sites varied greatly from one another. As many as 11 and as few as
one school were served under one grant, depending on the district. Some after-school
programs were almost exclusively staffed by regular school-day teachers; Others, by
college or high school students. Some were managed by the schools while others
subcontracted with youth development agencies (i.e. Boys and Girls' Club). Sites offered
various combinations of after-school, before-school, weekend, and summer programs.
A total of 173 participants responded to the 21 st CCLC staff surveys, 168 of which
were used in the data analysis. (See explanation under "Rate of Return and
Representativeness of the Data"). These respondents were after-school staffwho either
taught, developed curriculum for, or provided support services to student attendees in the
after-school programs. Many of the staff were regular school day teachers who also
worked in the after-school program. Others were college students, paraprofessionals,
parents, community members, or support staff such as site coordinators. The survey did
not distinguish between paid or volunteer workers. A comparison of the survey
respondents to state and national data are discussed in the ''Rate ofRetum and
Representativeness of the Data" section.
37
A total of 57 participants filled out the Special Education Personnel Survey, 47 of
which were used in the data analysis. (See explanation under "Rate of Return and
Representativeness of the Data"). Respondents who filled out the Special Education
Personnel Survey were special education personnel who worked during the regular
school day at schools that hosted 21 st CCLC programs. Few, but not many, also worked
in the after-school programs. Most of these participants were special education teachers.
Some were speech pathologists, school psychologists, or social workers. A few were
paraprofessionals. All worked directly with students who had disabilities and were
familiar with their students' accommodation needs and IEP goals. A comparison of
survey respondents to state and national data are discussed in the "Rate of Return and
Representativeness of the Data" section.
Development ofthe Survey Protocols
Two surveys were developed for this study (See the Appendix for copies of these
surveys). The first survey consisted of 14 questions and was designed for 21 51 CCLC
staff.
The second survey had 12 questions and was designed for special education
personnel who worked during the school day. Both were designed so respondents could
complete them in approximately 10 minutes. Most of the questions required respondents
to circle or check the responses that most closely reflected their own; the rest required the
respondents to write in a specific number (i.e. record the number of students in the afterschool art program). Throughout the surveys, blanks were included for respondents to
fill in other information if they were limited by the response choices. The survey also
closed with an optional section for comments.
38
The first section of each survey asked respondents to check the appropriate
demographic infonnation about the grade levels and size of their school, its locale (rural
or urban), their regular job description, and their knowledge of and involvement in 21 st
CCLC programs. Regarding the job description infonnation, the 21 It CCLC staff survey
had respondents check the description that matched their regular day job rather than their
job in the after-school program. Respondents then checked the activity areas they were
involved in during the after-school program and whether or not they taught, developed
curriculum, or provided support services to the program. This distinction allowed an
analysis of the staffing sources and the roles the staff served in the 21 st CCLC programs.
The special education personnel survey had a similar section on job description
and knowledge of 21 st CCLC programs. However, in this survey, the respondents were
regular school day staffwho worked directly with students with disabilities (Le. special
educators, school psychologists). Respondents, then, checked their regular day job and
then marked questions which addressed the extent of their knowledge about 21 st CCLC
programs at their school. If they were involved in the 21 st CCLC programs, they also
checked the ways they were involved.
The second section of each survey had questions on student disability and
accommodation issues. In the 21 st CCLC staff survey, respondents recorded the total
number of students participating in their program areas, the number of those students who
had disabilities, the number of students who needed accommodations, and whether or not
students needing accommodations were getting them. For example, a respondent
teaching a robotics class might record 10 students in her science activity, 2 students with
disabilities, and 2 needing accommodation. Ifboth students needing accommodations
39
were getting them, she would then mark the box that said all of the students needing
accommodations are getting them. Staff also checked the types of accommodations
students most frequently received (i.e. instructional modification, assistive technology).
In the special education personnel survey, respondents recorded the total number of
students with disabilities they served during the day, the number attending 21 st CCLC
programs, the number of those students needing accommodations, the number getting
accommodations, and the types of accommodations the students were receiving.
The final section of each survey asked respondents to identify how frequently
they had discussed accommodations or IEP goals for students participating in 21 5t CCLC
programs with other staff. The 21 5t CCLC staff survey asked respondents the extent to
which regular school day personnel had communicated with them on these issues and
whether or not they had tried to include IEP goals or objectives in the after-school
program. Special education personnel were asked the extent to which they had
communicated with after school staff on accommodations or IEP goals for participating
students and whether or not they had provided any of the accommodations needed.
In the third section, both surveys had respondents rate statements that represented
potential barriers to communication between regular school day and after school staff
regarding disability issues. For example, respondents might record that personal time
constraints were rarely a problem but conflicting schedules between school day and afterschool staffwere frequently an issue. Finally both surveys asked for respondents'
perceptions on the extent to which students with disabilities participated in and benefited
from the after-school program and whether or not the after-school program at their school
complimented the regular school day program.
40
.~.
,
To ensure survey quality, two teams of experts reviewed the surveys. A team of
three people knowledgeable in survey development and research methodology critiqued
each of the surveys to ensure that they were readable, easy for respondents to fill out,
simple to code, and adequately addressing the intent of the research questions. Three
people who worked directly with 21 st CCLC programs critiqued the surveys to make sure
the language was familiar, understandable to their intended audiences, and could be
completed in a timely manner.
Once the surveys had passed these reviews, they were pilot-tested in a local 21 st
CCLC school site to determine if other corrections were needed before the surveys were
mailed. No edits were reported, therefore, the surveys were prepared for distribution. As
a final content validity measure, a 5-question, half-page sheet was randomly stapled to
100 of the surveys: 75 to the 21 st CCLC staff survey and 25 to the special education
personnel survey. The survey asked respondents to rate the clarity of the questions, ease
offilling out the survey, and the length of time it took to complete the survey (A copy of
the survey evaluation form is located in the Appendix). Twelve of the 75 center staff
survey evaluation forms and 5 of the 25 special education survey evaluation forms were
filled out and returned, with return rates of 16% and 20%, respectively.
Table 1 gives a breakdown of the responses to each of the questions by frequency
and percent. All of the special education personnel completed the survey in the
anticipated 10-minute time frame and thought it easy to fill out. Only one marked the
survey questions as somewhat unclear. It appears, then, that the special education
personnel who filled out the survey found it easy to understand, could provide the
information requested, and were able to complete it within a reasonable length of time.
41
Table 1
Frequency and Percent of Respondents' Responses iD EvaluatiDg the Survey
The 21 st CCLC staff who filled out the evaluation form had a more di fficult time
with the survey. Although 75% of the 21 st CCLC staffwere able to complete the survey
in the anticipated 10-minute time frame, only 42% of the 21 st CCLC staff thought that the
survey questions were clear. Of the 58% of 21 st CCLC staff who said that the questions
were unclear, all the comments written in as to why they thought it unclear indicated that
they did not know if they had students with disabilities in their program; therefore the
survey questions were more difficult to answer.
Even though the survey questions were more difficult to answer for those unaware
of students with disabilities in their programs, the majority of the 21 st CCLC staff, 67%,
believed that the survey was easy to fill out. This does not rule out concerns about
question clarity. Yet written comments suggest that the main difficulty of the survey for
21 st CCLC staff was not understanding the survey questions, but the insufficient
knowledge of some staff who were unable to provide the requested information about
students with disabilities in their programs.
42
Distribution ofthe Surveys
After consulting with the team of experts who worked directly with 21 st CCLC
programs, it was decided that the most effective way to distribute the surveys and
encourage a reasonable rate of return was to contact each of the 21 st CCLC program
directors and have them distribute the surveys. Working with program directors had the
following benefits: (a) Program directors had already established rapport and working
relationships with each of the schools they served and were trusted by the after-school
staff. (b) Program directors provided a central frame of reference and could be contacted
more easily than contacting individual schools. (c) Since only the program directors
knew to whom they had distributed surveys, and the respondents voluntarily mailed
surveys back directly to the researcher, respondents' answers could remain anonymous.
The potential drawback was that the program directors held an evaluative, as well as an
authoritative role, over 21 st CCLC staff. Consequently, it was critical to ensure that
survey directions prompted staff to mail the surveys back anonymously and that the cover
letter assured staff that their answers would not be accessible or available to their
program directors.
Because the surveys asked respondents for information that could portray the
after-school program in an unfavorable light, the surveys were written so that, regardless
of the demographic information recorded, the respondents could not be identified in any
way. The disadvantage to anonymity is that respondents could not be traced; therefore, it
was not possible to contact respondents directly to prompt them to fill out the surveys.
Although this resulted in a lower rate of return for the surveys, it allowed the respondents
43
:.
'."
k·, ';'.;.'_.'
to be more authentic in their answers. Given some of the pointed comments a number of
the respondents made on their surveys, this was an appropriate choice.
An attempt was made to reach potential respondents at every 21 It CCLC site
available in the state. At the time of the study there were 30 program directors, one for
each grantee, who worked with over 100 schools and administered the 21 It CCLC
programs in the state. Most grantees were consortia with 3-4 schools served under each
grant. All had been operating 21 st CCLC programs for at least one year. Program
directors worked directly with the site coordinators at each of the participating schools to
ensure that the 21 st CCLC programs ran smoothly. Each of the 30 program directors were
personally phoned, told the nature of the study, and asked whether or not they wanted
their schools to participate. Sample copies of the surveys were sent to any director who
wanted to see them prior to making a decision about participating. Twenty-five of the
program directors chose to participate in the study. Four declined due to personal time
constraints. One did not return phone calls, e-mails or letters regarding the study and,
consequently, was never available to participate.
Once program directors agreed to participate in the study, they gave the number
of each survey they needed and an address to mail them to. Each participating program
director received a packet with the following materials: (a) the requested number of 21 st
CCLC staff surveys, each with cover letters, (b) the requested number of special
education personnel surveys, with their respective cover letters, (c) a letter to the program
director, thanking them for participating, and laying out the procedures for administering
the survey, and (d) a stack of self-addressed, stamped envelopes corresponding to the
surveys. The cover letters for the surveys explained the nature of the study, procedures
•
~~. . .~::.~
.~
.
:i-,:-,-<
i~:hr,'.'
44
for filling it OU4 assurances of anonymity, reminders of the voluntary nature of filling out.
the surveys, and the rule of implied consent once respondents chose to fill out the
surveys. Respondents were also encouraged to complete the surveys within two weeks
from the time they received them.
Program directors were responsible for distributing the appropriate surveys to the
21 st CCLC staff and the regular day special education personnel at the host schools.
Three weeks after the surveys had been distributed each of the participating program
directors received a follow-up letter reminding them of the study, thanking those who had
already distnbuted the surveys, and encouraging those who had not yet distributed them
to do so. Additionally, program directors were encouraged to remind all of the staff to
fill out the surveys and return them if they had not yet done so. Directors were
encouraged to contact the researcher if they had any questions or concerns, or if they
needed more survey materials. Program directors were also promised an executive
summary of the study's findings.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using the test for the statistical significance of differences
between proportions. When data samples were compared to an expected proportion such
as grade level or staffing source comparisons to state and national statistics (i.e. Table 2)
the test for significance of difference between expected and observed proportions was
used (Howell, 1999). When comparing two samples to each other, such as 21 It CCLC
staff to special education personnel on perceptions of after-school participation for
student with disabilities (i.e. Table 12) the test for significance of difference between two
proportions was used. (Howell, 1999). These results are summarized in the next chapter.
45
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The two surveys-one for 21 st CCLC after-school staff and the other for regular
school day special education personnel in schools hosting 21 It CCLC programs-were
used to gather infonnation about the extent to which students with disabilities
participated in, had sufficient supports for, and benefited from 21 st CCLC programs. The
surveys also probed school day and after-school respondents on possible barriers to
communication about disability related issues. The research questions addressed in the
study are outlined below, with the survey results.
Rate ofReturn and Representativeness ofthe Data
Of the 1,066 21 st CCLC staff surveys mailed to program directors for distnbution,
173 surveys were filled out and returned, yielding a return rate of 16%. Of the 388
special education personnel surveys mailed to program directors, 57 special education
personnel surveys were filled out and returned, giving a 15% return rate. After
examining respondents' answers in the 21 It CCLC survey, any surveys from respondents
failing to work directly with students in the after-school program were discarded. For
example, if a respondent taught the adult education program, or was the custodian and did
not work directly with students, his or her survey would be discarded.
In the special education personnel survey, any surveys of respondents who did not
work directly with students with disabilities during the day were discarded.
Consequently, surveys filled out by the school principal or a regular education teacher
were discarded. A total of 168 21 st CCLC staffsurveys and 47 special education
personnel surveys were used in the analysis.
46
As anticipated, in both cases the return rate was low; however, the respondents
appear representative in most areas of the population surveyed. To compare the
representativeness of the resulting samples, demographic information from the returned
surveys was compared to state and national data (U.S. Department of Education, 2000,
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2001) on the schools' grade levels, locale, and
program areas, and the respondents' job descriptions. These are summarized in Table 2.
Since the special education personnel respondents were regular school day staff,
they are not included in the 21 51 CCLC program areas and staffing type comparisons.
Likewise, data on the state percentage of rural and urban schools with 21 51 CCLC
programs were not available and could not be included. As noted in Table 2, special
education personnel respondents came from host schools whose grade levels and locale
were similar to the national and state percentages; therefore, no statistically significant
differences were found. However, there were some statistically significant differences
for 21 51 CCLC respondents when compared to state and national figures.
Regarding grade levels, 21 51 CCLC staff represented a larger percentage of
elementary schools and a smaller percentage of high schools than found in either the state
or national data. Teachers from the regular school day working in 21 51 CCLC programs
were also clearly over-represented in the survey sample, nearly double that of the state
and national figures for staffing sources. This over-representation resulted in lower
percentages of college students and community members serving as after-school staff,
and these were statistically different from state and national figures. A lower percentage
of parents as after-school staff was also statistically significant from national norms.
"
,
47
Table 2
Comparisons of Survey Samples to State and National Populations
28
36
31
32
11**
11**
2
9
12
S
4
9
7
8
100
100
101+
SO
44
SO
S6
100
100
94
91
8S**
87*
92
70
72
73
88
88
89
47
S8
S2
70*
73
78
67*
73
7S
38*·
40**
79
12*
IS··
7
12
13
10**
6
7
S
13*·
14**
3
10
7
10
2
+ numbers may not add to 100 due to roundi11R
NOTE: No statistically significant differences for SPED to state or national data
48
- .
;~j. '..:::.-'.,,;;'
&i~.·/~i~~~~:-
The 21 st CCLC respondents, on the other hand, came from rural and urban schools
in proportions similar to that found in state and national figures. With the exception of
math, the 21 st CCLC program activity areas offered also reflect state percentages,
differing from the national data only in ways that conform more closely to state figures.
None of the program area or grade level differences, however, are of practical
significance given the particular research questions asked. The over-representation of
teachers, however, should be taken into consideration when interpreting the data related
to knowledge about students with disabilities in after-school programs since regular
school day teachers are more likely to have this knowledge than non-school day staff.
Additionally, these teachers are more likely to perceive special education personnel as
more accessible than non-school day after-school staff would, which would be reflected
in their interpretation of potential communication barriers between school-day and after
school staffs.
Also, although there are no comparable state or national data, the special
education personnel survey respondents also had a high percentage of teachers. Of these
respondents, 83% were special education teachers and only 17% were other special
education personnel (i.e. school psychologist, social worker, speech-language specialist).
The large percentage of teachers in both surveys likely reflects their greater accessibility
to the program directors who distributed the surveys; consequently, findings should be
weighed in light of this convenience sampling.
49
Research Question 1. Inclusive Practices:
To what extent are students with disabilities participating in 2r' Century Community
Learning Center Programs?
Given the historical barriers to inclusive school-age child care, the first question
to address was whether or not students with disabilities were participating in 21 st CCLC
programs and if their participation was proportional to that which would be expected
during the regular school day. In the 21 st CCLC staff survey, respondents filled out the
number of students they worked with in the after-school programs, the number of
students with disabilities that they worked with, and the number that needed
accommodations. The numbers were totaled for each activity area and compared with the
state's proportion (8.05%) for the percentage of children ages 6-21 served under IDEA,
Part B by disability (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). If the percentages were
comparable, than it would be reasonable to conclude that students with disabilities were
participating in expected proportions and were not being excluded.
As outlined in Table 3, after-school respondents recorded that 1,912 of the 22,
635 students they worked with had disabilities, which corresponds to 8.45% of the total
student population. Likewise, the average percentage of students with disabilities
attending each program area is 8.45%, which is very close to the state's proportion of
8.05%. There is a slight over-representation of students with disabilities reported in three
areas: math, community service, and social science, and an under-representation of
students with disabilities reported in art and other program areas.
50
Table 3
The Proportion of Students with Disabilities
Compared to the Total Number of Students in 11·t CCLC Programs
Note: percentages
3,828
379
9.9**
2,474
221
8.93
3,277
232
7.08*
1,737
164
9.44*
2,535
240
9.47**
2,555
205
8.02
1,353
72
5.32**
2,829
239
8.45
22,635
1,912
8.45*
to state average
<.01
To detennine whether or not students with disabilities attended different program
activity areas in similar proportions to that of the their non-disabled peers, percentages of
students attending each activity area were compared to the percentages of students with
disabilities attending these areas. As noted in Table 4, the percentages for all activity
areas are quite similar and no statistical differences were found.
51
Table 4
The Proportion of Students with Disabilities
to the Total Number of Students by Activity Areas
3,828
17
379
20
2,474
11
221
12
3,277
14
232
12
1,737
8
164
9
2,535
11
240
13
2,555
11
205
11
1,353
6
72
4
22,635
1,912
Note: numbers may not add to 100 due to rounding
For those participating. do students who need accommodations receive them?
Access alone, however, does not guarantee that students with disabilities will be
able to participate meaningfully in and benefit from these programs. Many require some
form of accommodation to do so. In the special education personnel survey, respondents
recorded the students with disabilities they worked with during the regular school day,
those students they knew attended the 21 It CCLC after-school programs, the number
needing accommodations and those actually getting them. Respondents reported that
393, or 30%, of the 1,301 students with disabilities they worked with attended 21 st CCLC
52
programs. Table 5 compares the number of students with disabilities attending each
program activity area with those needing accommodations and those getting them.
TableS
SPED Staff Information on Students with Disabilities in 2..' CCLC Programs
95
67
71
74
110*
67
53
79
68
128*
14
7
50
9
129*
9
6
67
6
100
35
35
100
35
100
12
7
58
7
100
5
5
100
0
0
49
34
393
269
• Percentages exceed 100 since more students were reported as getting accommodations than those
reported as needing them.
As noted in column two, the percentage of students with disabilities needing
accommodations ranges from 50-100%, depending on the activities, with an average of
69%. This average is consistent with 21 It CCLC staff respondents who reported 70% of
students with disabilities in their programs needing accommodations. Equally important,
only 4 (2%) of the 21 It CCLC staff respondents and 1 (2%) special education personnel
respondent mentioned students that needed accommodations but did not get them.
53
What types ofaccommodations are most common?
To detennine the types of accommodations that students needed, 21 st CCLC staff
respondents were asked to check which of the following accommodations-paraprofessionals, instructional modification or assistive technology-- students with
disabilities in their programs rarely, sometimes, or commonly received. The majority of
respondents rated paraprofessionals (73%) and instructional modifications (62%) as
common accommodations. and 81 % of the respondents rated assistive technology as rare.
Additionally, respondents listed other accommodations such as sign language, computers,
and architectural adjustments (i.e. raising the floor height of a room) to address specific
student needs.
In the special education personnel survey, respondents were asked similar
information on the accommodations that their students were getting to participate in 21 It
CCLC prograills. Forty percent reported that their students had paraprofessional support,
30% reported instructional modifications, and 30% reported both. None of the special
education respondents mentioned students receiving assistive technology.
Research Question 2: Disability Awareness
To what extent is 2pl Century Community Learning Center staffaware ofthe students
with disabilities in their programs and their needs for accommodations or supports?
In the 21 st CCLC staff survey, respondents were asked to record the number of
students they worked with in their programs, those students who had disabilities, and
those who needed accommodations. Although many staff filled in specific numbers for
students with disabilities in their programs, 34% of the teachers and 46% of the other
54
after-school staff put question marks, wrote, "I don't know" or left the section blank. A
similar proportion. 32% of teachers and 43% of other after-school staff also indicated
they did not know the numbers of students who needed accommodations. Respondents'
answers, then, were coded to determine the percentage of those who were unaware of
students with disabilities or who needed accommodations in their programs. These
answers were then compared with their awareness of all the students in their programs.
Results are outlined in Table 6.
Table 6
Percent of 11 ' CCLC Staff Who Knew Which Students Attended Their Programs
1
19
100
100
100
100
p <.05
••p <.01
Note: Statistical significance for comparison of staff awareness of students with disabilities to staff
awareness of all their students in their programs
Since a large percentage of the respondents were also teachers who worked at the schools
during the day, and teachers were likely to know more about the students with disabilities
than other after-school staff, teachers and other staff were compared separately.
As noted in Table 6. 81 % of the teachers and 80% of the other staff recorded the
total number of students attending their after-school programs-a clear majority.
However, only two thirds of the teachers and a little over half of the other after-school
staff recorded students with disabilities or who needed accommodations. This means that
a third of the teachers and nearly half of the other staff did not know if students with
ss
disabilities were in their programs or which students needed accommodations, a fact both
clinically and statistically significant. As anticipated, after-school staffwho were not
regular school day teachers were less likely to know which students had disabilities or
needed accommodations, although none of these comparisons were statistically
significant. Another critical point is that 19% of the teachers and 31 % of the other staff
said there were no students with disabilities in their programs. Similarly, 24% of the
teachers and 37% of the other staff indicated that no students needed accommodations.
To what extent are regular school day special education personnel aware oftheir
students' participation in the after-school programs and their needs for accommodations
or supports?
To determine the extent to which regular school-day special education personnel
were aware of their students' attendance in 21 51 CCLC programs and whether or not they
needed accommodations, respondents were asked to record the number of students with
disabilities they worked with during the regular school day, those who also attended 21 st
CCLC programs, and those who needed accommodations in the programs. Respondents'
answers were coded to determine the percentage of those who were unaware of students
with disabilities that attended or needed accommodations in 21 51 CCLC programs. These
answers were then compared with respondents' knowledge about the students with
disabilities they worked with during the regular day. Although there was a high
percentage of respondents who were special education teachers, their answers did not
differ noticeably from other special education personnel. Consequently, comparisons
were combined. Results are in Table 7.
56
Of the special education personnel respondents, 98% recorded the numbers of
students with disabilities they served during the regular school day, 77% knew if their
students attended 21 st CCLC programs and 65% knew if their students needed
accommodations for those programs, a statistically significant difference.
Table 7
Percent of SPED Personnel Awareness of Students with Disabilities in and
Accommodation Needs for 111 ' CCLC Programs
*p<.OS
**P
Note: Statistical significance for comparison of SPED awareness of their students with disabilities and
those needing accommodations in 21" CCLC programs to their awareness of their students in the
regular school day
Conversely, 23% of the special education personnel were unaware if their
students were attending the programs and 35% did not know if those students needed
accommodations. Also, 27% of the special education personnel said that none of their
students attended 21 It CCLC programs, and 35% said their students did not need
accommodations. Interestingly, although 53% of the respondents were familiar enough
with the after-school program to inform parents and 38% actually referred their students
to the programs, 17% of the respondents reported being completely unaware of the 21 st
CCLC programs at their school.
Research Question 3:Communication on Disability Issues
How frequently have 21st Century Community Learning Center staffand regular school
day special education personnel communicated about accommodations or 1EP goals for
57
students with disabilities in the after-school programs. and to what extent have they
provided accommodations or included IEP goals and objectives in after-school
programs?
To determine how frequently 21 st CCLC staff and regular school day personnel
communicated about disability issues affecting student attendees in the after-school
programs, 21 st CCLC staff recorded how frequently they had talked to regular school-day
personnel about students' accommodation needs or IEP goals and objectives that could be
incorporated into 21 5t CCLC programs. Respondents also reported how frequently they
included IEP goals and objectives in their after-school activities. Only respondents who
reported students having accommodation needs were included in the analysis because
they were most likely to have had occasion to address the issues. Again, since teachers
were more likely to know about the IEP process than other after-school staff, these
groups were compared separately as noted in Table 8. Since only 7% of after-school staff
members who were not regular school day teachers knew they had students who needed
accommodations, percentages should be interpreted cautiously_
TableS
Percent ofZllt CCLC Staff Who Communicated on Accommodations and IEP Goals
21
27
35
14
18
101
101
58
29
37
29
9
22
100
34
14
101
101
Teachers, for example, discussed students' accommodation needs more frequently
than they did IEP goals and objectives; however, teachers more frequently included IEP
goals in 21 5t CCLC program activities, then they discussed them. Their ability to include
these goals is likely influenced by prior knowledge of these students from the regular
school day program. Other after-school staff also more frequently discussed
accommodation issues than IEP goals. However, they communicated about IEP issues
less often than teachers did, and they less frequently incorporated IEP goals and
objectives in their programs. It appears then, that communication about accommodation
issues occurs more frequently than issues about IEP goals.
Special education personnel were also asked to rate how frequently they
communicated with after-school staff about students' accommodation needs and IEP
goals and objectives. Additionally, they were asked how frequently they provided
accommodations for their students. Only those respondents who had reported any of
their students attending 21 st CCLC programs and needing accommodations were included
in the analysis--a small group of 14. Results are described in Table 9.
Table 9
Percent of SPED Personnel Who Communicated on Accommodadons
and IEP Goals
S9
Like the after-school respondents~ special education personnel more frequently
communicated about students' accommodation needs than they did about IEP goals. The
majority of special education personnel provided accommodations on a rare or occasional
basis.
Again~
respondents were not asked to report whether their communication or
accommodations they provided were sufficient. However, all of the respondents had
communicated to at least some degree about students' accommodation needs.
Research question 4:Communication Barriers
What barriers.
ifany. do 21 Century Community Learning Center staffand regular
s1
school day special education personnel say affoct communication between them
regarding disability issues?
To detennine whether or not 21 st CCLC staff encountered barriers when
communicating with regular school-day staff about students with disabilities in afterschool programs, respondents were given a list of issues and asked to rate them on the
extent to which they found them as barriers. Respondents could also record and rate their
own barriers. Since it was likely that regular school day teachers in the after-school
programs would be able to more readily access other regular school day staff, teachers
and other after-school were compared separately.
Again~
only the respondents who had
students who needed accommodations in their programs were included in this analysis.
Results are summarized in Table 10. No single barrier proved to be an overall
concern to the majority of respondents. It is likely that a combination of factors
influenced communication and varied across sites. Since the number of other after-
60
school staffis small, percentages should be interpreted cautiously. However, there are
some points of interest worth noting.
Table 10
Percent of lId CCLC Staff's Ratings on Potential Communication Barriers
..wu·,...,....... QDlJ1rOllIai
to
29
14
29
29
36
57
7
36
29
36
14
27
57
2
14
33
4
36
39
57
18
26
52
100
19
43
7
4
Teachers for the most part were evenly divided in their ratings of their personal
time, other day staffs time, and their ability to reach other school day staff.
Roughly a
third rated each ofthese issues as never (37%), seldom (30%), or often (30%) a problem.
Teachers rated other staffs time as slightly more often a problem then they rated their
own personal time commitments. They also rated other day staffs accessibility as
slightly less ofa problem then either of the time commitment issues. Additionally, the
majority of teachers that confidentiality (755) and parent approval issues (78%) had never
been, or seldom were, problems for them.
Other after-school staff, however, had somewhat different responses. Over 50%
said that reaching school day staff and school-day staft's time constraints were often
issues, and 43% mentioned they found conflicting schedules between school-day and
after-school staffa frequent problem. Few of these after-school staffreported problems
with parents releasing information about students with disabilities; however, a noticeably
61
higher percentage saw confidentiality issues as a barrier than did school-day teacher staff
in the after-school programs.
Special education personnel were also asked to rate issues they found as barriers
to communication. These issues complimented those 21 st CCLC staff addressed in their
survey. Respondents could also record and rate their own barriers. Again, only the
respondents who reported having students in 21 st CCLC programs who needed
accommodations were included in this analysis. Results are presented in Table 11.
Table 11
Percent of SPED Personnel's Ratings on Potential Communication Barriers
Total
100
46
31
58
33
43
36
29
SO
46
15
8
100
8
99
14
7
100
7
14
8
100
Note: numbers may not add to 100 due to rounding
In general, special education personnel respondents did not find any of these
issues as barriers in their communication with school-day staff. Less than 10% of the
respondents saw their ability to reach after-school staff or get parent approval to release
student disability information as a frequent or constant problem. Personal time was
more frequently cited as a problem area than any of the other issues although the majority
(65%) still said it had never been, or seldom was, a problem. A small percentage of
respondents rated confidentiality as a constant barrier; however, nearly 80% still rated
confidentiality as little or no barrier to their communication with after-school staff.
62
In both surveys, some respondents wrote in their own barriers. Responses varied
considerably. A few after-school high school staff mentioned student attendance or
willingness to disclose their disability as a potential barrier. Other after-school staff, such
as parent volunteers or aides, said they were not allowed to know infonnation about
students with disabilities and that other staff handled these issues. Some special
education personnel commented that their greatest barrier was they had not yet
encountered a need to communicate about their students to after-school staff. Overall,
however, there were no noticeable patterns that would suggest barriers common to afterschool or special education staff.
Research Question 5: Perception o/Participation and Benejit:
Do 2 JS' Century Community Learning Center staffand regular school day special
education personnel believe students with disabilities are participating in the after-school
programs and benejitingfrom them, and how do they compare that participation and
benejit to those 0/student attendees without disabilities?
Both 21 Sf CCLC staff and special education personnel were asked to compare
students with disabilities with that of their non-disabled peers regarding the extent to
which they participated in and benefit from the after-school programs. As Table 12
illustrates, 21 st CCLC staff and special education personnel gave similar responses and no
statistically significant differences were found. Also, although the majority of
respondents were generally positive in their responses, respondents who said they didn't
have students with disabilities in the 21 st CCLC programs rated these questions less
positively than those who had students with disabilities. Furthermore, these differences
63
.:";.'-:
were statistically significant for 21 st CCLC staff on both participation and benefit ratings,
and special education personnel on participation ratings.
Table 11
Percent of lilt CCLC Staff and SPED Personnel's Ratings on Students with
Disabilities' Participation and Benefit Compared to the General Population
As much or more
13
17
68··
101
50
40
9··
51
60
91··
101
100
·p<.05
Note: numbers may not add to 100 due to rounding error
80
<.01
Statistical significance for comparison of respondents who reported having no students with disabilities
in 21 II CCLC programs to those who reported having students with disabilities in 21 II CCLC programs
For those respondents who reported no students with disabilities, over 80%
perceived that these students participated in the after-school programs less than their nondisabled peers, or not at all. One special educator wrote that she had tried to get her
students involved but they had not been interested. However, even if these respondents
believed students with disabilities were less involved in after-school programs, they were
somewhat more likely to believe that those who were involved benefited as much or more
then non-disabled student attendees did.
64
In contras4 68% of the 21 st CCLC staff respondents and 58% of the special
education respondents who had students with disabilities in 21 st CCLC programs believed
that students with disabilities were participating in the after-school programs as much or
more than their non-disabled peers. In similar fashion, a solid majority (91 % of the 21 st
CCLC staff respondents and 80% of the special education respondents) believed that
students with disabilities benefited as much or more from the 21 st CCLC programs than
non-disabled attendees.
6S
CHAPTERS
DISCUSSION
Summary
This study surveyed after-school staff and school-day special education personnel
across a Midwestern state to determine the extent to which students with disabilities
participated in their programs, needed accommodations, and got accommodations when
needed. The study also surveyed the extent to which school-day special education
personnel and 21 st CCLC staff communicated about disability issues, and it probed
potential barriers to that communication. Finally, the study surveyed staff's overall
perceptions of the extent to which students with disabilities participated in and benefited
from the 21 st CCLC programs compared to their non-disabled peers.
Given the historical barriers to inclusive school-age child care, it was encouraging
to find that, in this study, students with disabilities were indeed attending the 21 st CCLC
after-school programs in expected proportions. There was a slight over-representation in
the math, community service, and social science areas and under-representation in the
"art" and "other" activity areas compared to the state's proportion of students with
disabilities served under IDEA for the regular school day. Students with disabilities,
however, were participating in each of the activity areas in similar proportions as their
non-disabled peers.
One interpretation for the variance in representation is that students with
disabilities are attending academic areas than non-academic areas. However, it is also
likely that in activities such as art and "other" (which included sports, computers, sign
language, and scouts), students with disabilities needed fewer accommodations or had
66
less visible disabilities and were less likely to be noticed. Likewise, students with
disabilities in academic areas who need accommodations are more likely to be noticed
and consequently, reported.
Based on this study's findings, students who needed accommodations generally
received them; few students were reported as not getting accommodations they needed..
With the exception of the "other" program activity category, special education survey
respondents recorded that as many, or more, of the students were getting
accommodations than those that were reported needing them. The greater number of
students receiving accommodations than getting them could be influenced by the
following factors. A few respondents reported that they did not know the number of
students needing accommodations, but they marked the number getting them. However,
a few respondents reported higher numbers of students receiving accommodations than
needing them. Respondents may, in fact, believed some students were receiving
accommodations based on their having a disability rather than a need. However, it is
also possible respondents perceived that the after-school programs, by providing
academic and social enrichment, were functioning as an accommodation to students'
academic and social needs, but that students did not need additional accommodations to
participate in the programs.
Schools also used paraprofessionals and instructional modifications frequently to
accommodate students' needs, although other accommodations were employed to address
specific students' needs. Since these accommodations reflect the types of
accommodation schools offer during the day, and since students with disabilities are
participating in 21 st CCLC programs in expected proportions, it appears that inclusive
67
practices implemented during regular school hours are being extended to after-school
programs. This extension is particularly encouraging since the focus of 21 st CCLC
programs does not specifically address students with disabilities. Rather, its purpose to
provide academic, enrichment, and recreational activities in safe, supportive
environments to school-age children and other community members has assumed an
inclusive community network which is potentially responsive to a diverse population.
The school setting and the involvement of school-day teachers in the 21 st CCLC
programs may also be a contributing factor in extending inclusive practices for students
with disabilities into these programs. Since after-school programs in non-school settings
were not part of this study, the extent to which students with disabilities participate in, or
benefit from, other types of after-school programs are unknown. Clearly this would be an
.d'ea that would benefit from further research.
One disconcerting finding from the study was the noticeable percentage of afterschool staff who had were unaware of students with disabilities in their programs or knew
which students needed accommodations. After-school staff'who did not work at the
school during the regular school day knew less about their students with disabilities than
the school-day teachers who worked in the after-school programs. Furthermore, some
commented on the surveys that they wished to know more about these students so they
could better address their needs. Although it is not known from the study whether the
desire for more knowledge is a general concern, it would be prudent for program
directors to make student disability information available to after-school staff so they can
make informed decisions about their students needs.
68
Of the after-school staffwho had students needing accommodations. roughly half
had talked to school-day staff about those needs. Although fewer staff discussed
students' IEP goals and objectives. teachers were more likely to talk about them than
other after-school staff. Furthermore. they more frequently included those goals in their
program activities, than they actually discussed them, indicating that a number of
teachers knew enough about the students to take the initiative to incorporate these goals.
It is important to note that respondents were asked only about the frequency of
their communication, but they were not asked whether or not that communication was
sufficient to address students' needs. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume the
frequency of communication was influenced by various factors, including the uniqueness
of each student's needs. It would be equally appropriate in this case to assume that more
frequent communication was always more positive.
However, it is interesting that approximately a third of the teachers had never
discussed accommodation issues or IEP goals, or had never included IEP goals in the
after-school programs even though 21 It CCLC programs are expected to integrate afterschool programs with regular school day curricula. Also a third of the other after-school
staffhad never discussed accommodation issues and roughly one-half had never talked
about IEP goals or included them in their programs. Certainly this would be an area for
future research.
Since 21 It CCLC programs are expected to integrate with the regular-school day
curriculum, and since IEP goals are also designed to integrate student's unique learning
needs with the regular-school day curriculum, it is reasonable to encourage after-school
staff to incorporate IEP goals into their program activities. Although a number of
69
teachers are attempting to do this on their own, it is likely that with clearer
communication about student's IEP goals, more teachers would do so. Other after-school
staff members who are less knowledgeable about the IEP process would benefit from
some training so they, too, could communicate about students' IEP goals and include
them in their program activities.
Like the 21 51 CCLC staff, there was a similar proportion of special education
personnel who did not know whether their students were involved in the 21 51 CCLC
programs or whether they needed accommodations to participate in them. However,
those who were aware of any of their students needing accommodations talked to afterschool staff about those needs and many of them provided accommodations on an
occasional basis. It is plausible, then, that special education personnel who are aware of
their students' accommodation needs, do in fact, communicate with after-school staff to
make sure those needs are met. Since special education personnel are only able to
address the needs of which they are aware, program directors should keep special
education personnel in host schools informed about their students' participation in the
after-school programs.
This study only surveyed the frequency of communication between 21 51 CCLC
staff and special education personnel about disability issues; it did not assess whether this
communication was positive, sufficient, or helpful. Consequently, it is difficult to
determine from the surveys whether or not the communication that took place adequately
met students' needs. Future research, then, should study these issues more closely to
determine whether or not this communication is adequate in helping staff meet students'
needs.
70
This study also attempted to explore potential barriers to communication between
21 It CCLC staff and special education personnel on disability issues. No single barrier
emerged from these surveys, suggesting a possible combination of factors that likely vary
among staff and across sites. However, it is important to note that after-school staff who
did not work at the school during the day had a more difficult time than teachers did in
reaching school-day staff due to time constraints and conflicting schedules. Interestingly,
anecdotal information from program directors prior to the study indicated that many of
them believed confidentiality was the major barrier in prohibiting communication on
disability issues. However, although certainly an issue for a number of respondents, the
evidence in the present study does not indicate that confidentiality is more problematic
than other barriers to communication identified in the surveys.
Finally, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which students with
disabilities participated in and benefited from the 21 It CCLC programs compared to their
non-disabled peers. Respondents from both surveys clearly addressed their own
experiences. The majority of respondents who said they did not have students with
disabilities in 21 It CCLC programs also believed that these students participated less than
their non-disabled peers, although they were more positive about the benefits students
with disabilities received from these programs. On the other hand, the majority of
respondents who had students with disabilities in 21 It CCLC programs believed these
students participated in and benefited from these programs as much or more than students
without disabilities. This finding underscores the need for after-school and school-day
staff to effectively communicate about the after-school programs and the students with
disabilities who attend them.
71
Limitations ofthe Study
Although these findings are notable, they should be weighed against the
limitations of the study. First of all, the respondents reflect a convenience sample.
Program directors, although encouraged to distribute surveys to all potential respondents,
likely handed out the surveys to whomever they could find at the time. This likely
influenced the over-representation of teachers and under-representation of other staff in
the samples. Additionally, staffing sources vary greatly across sites. Some after-school
programs are almost exclusively staffed with regular school day teachers while others
utilize a variety of other sources (i.e. college students, parents, community members,
youth development workers) to staff their programs. Consequently, findings from this
study may not generalize to certain site. Also, some findings are based on limited
numbers of respondents. These should be regarded cautiously and future research should
explore these issues with larger samples.
Another point to consider is that all of the data reflect self-reports and are
therefore subject to perception bias. This bias, for example, becomes noticeable in the
responses of those had students with disabilities in 21 st CCLC programs and those who
did not when they rated the extent to which students with disabilities participated in, and
benefited from, 21 st CCLC programs. Although the numbers that respondents reported
reflect that students with disabilities are participating in expected proportions,
respondents' perceptions reflect their own experiences.
Finally, the findings should be weighed in light of the survey instruments
themselves. Although considerable effort went into survey development to ensure that
the questions were understandable, easy to answer, and readable to the respondents, there
72
was still terminology that after-school staff, in particular, may have found unfamiliar.
Given the potential variation of educational backgrounds, occupations, and school-related
experiences of these staff, it is likely that some of the questions were misinterpreted.
This unfamiliarity also could have contributed to a lower response rate from after-school
staffwho did not work at the school during the day.
In summary, the findings of the present study suggest that students with
disabilities are being included and, to some extent, accommodated in 21 st CCLC
programs. Furthermore, those who know about the students and their needs are working
to make sure these needs are being addressed. The after-school programs in this study
appear to be addressing the needs for school-age child care for the students with
disabilities that attend them.
However, many of the after-school staff members were unaware of students with
disabilities in their programs or their accommodation needs. Likewise, a number of
special education personnel were also unaware of their students' involvement in the 21 It
CCLC programs. More work is needed to advance disability awareness, improve
communication between regular school-day and after-school staffs, and provide training
for after-school staff on disability issues. Also, research is needed to determine the extent
to which current communication among staff on disability issues adequately addresses
students' needs. Overall, this study has raised as many questions as it has answered.
However, its findings suggest that after-school programs are making progress in
including students with disabilities and effectively meeting their needs.
73
REFERENCES
21 st Century Community Learning Centers. (2002). Background. Retrieved AprilS,
2002, from http://www.ed.gov/ officeslOESEl21stcc1c1index.html.
21 st Century Community Learning Centers. (2001). Background. Retrieved March 22,
2001, from http://www.ed.gov/ officesiOESEl21stcclclindex.html.
Afterschool Makes the Grade 1999). Introduction. In Focus, 2(3). Charles Stewart Mott
Foundation. Retrieved March 18,2002 from http://www.mott.org.
Afterschool Alliance: After-school alert poll report. (1999). A Report of Findings from
the 1999 Mott Foundation/JC Penney Nationwide Survey on After-School
Programs. Flint, MI.
Alter, J. (1998). It's 4:00 p.m. Do you know where your children are? Newsweek,
13(17),28-33.
Alan Guttmacher Institute. (1999). Teen sex and pregnancy. Retrieved March 11,2002,
from http;//www.aW-usa.orgt.pubs/tbteensex.html.
Ann E. Casey Foundation. (2000). Children at Risk: State Trends, 1990-2000. Kids
Count Special Report. Retrieved March 18, 2002 from http;//www.kidscount.org.
Bernard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protectivefactors in the/ami/y, school,
and community. Portland, OR: Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools
and Communities. Far West Laboratory Monograph.
Bruder, M. B. (1999). Through child care. Child Care Bulletin, 21, p. 1-2.
Bureau of Labor Force Statistics. (2000). Employment Characteristics 0/Families.
Retrieved March 11,2002 from htt.p://www.gov/newslreleaselfamee.toc.htm.
Cahan, E. (1989). Past caring: A history o/U.S. preschool care and education for the
poor, 1820-1965. National Center for Cluldren in Poverty. Retrieved April 10,
2002 from htt.p;//www.ncc.p.org.
Caldwell B. (1989). Foreword: Prologue to the past. In Past caring: A history o/U.S.
preschool care and education for the poor, 1820-1965. National Center for
Children in Poverty.. Retrieved April 10,2002 from http://www.nccp.ora.
Capella, E. & Lamer, M. (1999). America's schoolchildren: past, present, and future. The
Future o/Children, 9(2), p. 21-29.
74
Caplan, J. & Calfee, C. S. (1999). Comprehensive program planning for the integration
of 21 It Century Learning Center after-school programs with regular day programs
and community partners. Oak Brook, lllinois: North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Castillo, Y. & Winchester, M. (2001). After school in a colonia. Educational Leadership,.
58(7), pp. 67-70.
Council for Exceptional Children, (2001). After school programs are for students with
exceptionalities too! CEC Today, 78), p. 1-15.
Coleman, M. & Apts, S. (1991). Home-alone risk factors. Teaching Exceptional
Children, p. 36-39.
Corcoran, M.E., & Chaudry, A. (1997). The dynamics of childhood poverty. The Future
ofChildren, 7(2) p. 40-54.
Clark, R.M. (1998). Critical foctors in why disadvantaged children succeed or fail in
school. New York: Academy for Educational Development.
Cohen, S. (2001). Championing Child Care. New York: Columbia University Press.
Delgado, M. (2000). New arenas for community social work practice with urban youth:
Use ofthe arts. Humanities. and Sports. New York: Columbia University Press.
Doggett, L, & George, J. (1993). All kids count: Child care and the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The Arc,. Arlington, TX. Retrieved April 15, 2002 from
http://www .TheArc.or.g.
Dryfoos, J. (1998). Safe passage: Making it through adolescence in a risky society.
Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Edmondson, K. (2000). Issues in after-school youth development programming. In
Developing Competent Youth and Strong Communities through After-School
Programming. CWLA Press, Washington, DC.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds ofwelfare capitalism. Cambridge,
England: Polity Press.
Fagan, J. (2001). There's no place like school. Principal. 80(5), p. 36-37.
Fink, D. (2000). Making a Place for Kids with Disabilities. Westport, CT: Praeger.
75
Fin14 D. (1991). "My life was turned upside down ... " Child care and employment
among mothers of young children with disabilities. SACC Project Publications:
Wellesley College Center for Research on Women: Wellesley, MA. Retrieved
April 3, 2002 from htW:llwww.wcwonline.org.
Fink, D. (1988). School-age children with special needs: What do they do when school
is out? Boston: MA: Exceptional Parent Press.
Fink, D. (1987a). Child Care Dilemma: Schools Being to Respond. The Exceptional
Parent. 17(3). p. 54-59.
Fink, D. (1987b). Day Care Dilemma: Austin: A Community Responds. The
Exceptional Parent. 17(4). p. 42-46.
Fowler, F., Jr. (1993). Survey Research Methods. Second Edition. Newberry Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Freiberg, H.J. (1993). A school that fosters resilience in inner-city youth. Journal of
Negro Education. 62(3), p. 347.
Gonnley, W. (1995). Everybody's children: Child care as a public problem. The
Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
Halpern, R. (1999). After-school programs for low-income children: Promise and
challenges. The Future of Children: When School is Out. 9(2), p. 81-95.
Hock, M., Pulvers" K., Deshler, D., & Schumaker, J. (2001). The Effects of an afterschool tutoring program on the academic performance of at-risk students and
students with LD. Remedial and Special Education. 22(3), pp. 172-186.
Hofferth, S.L. (1995). Out-of-school time: Risk and opportunity. pp. 123-153. [n
America's Working Poor. T. Swartz & K.M. Weigert, (Eds). Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press.
Hoover, A. Jr., MacDonald, D.I., Werger, S., & Wallace, J.M., Jr. (1999). Outcome
measures of interventions in the study of children of substance-abusing parents,
Pediatrics. 103. p. 1128-1144.
Howell, D.C. (1999). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences. 4th ed. Duxbury:
Pacific Grove, CA.
Jacobson, L. (200 I). Understanding child care demand and supply issues: New lessons
from Los Angeles. PACE Policy Brief. Policy Analysis for California Education,
Berkeley, CA.
76
KOALA (Kids of All Learning Abilities) program. (2002). Retrieved April 18, 2002
from http://www.ibarc.orglmainlKOALA.html.
Mangione, T.W. (1995). Mail Surveys: Improving the Quality. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (2001). 21 st Century Community Learning Centers
Individual State tables: Annual Performance Reports (APRs) (from April 2001
and October 2000 APRs). [unpublished document].
Miller, B. et. al. (1996). "1 wish kids didn't watch so much TV": Out-ol-school time in
three low income communities. SACC Project Publications: Wellesley College
Center for Research on Women, Wellesley, MA. Retrieved April 9, 2002, from
http://www.wcwonline.oq,.
Muncy, R. (1991). Creatingafomaledominion in American reform: /890-/935. New
York: Oxford University Press.
National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. (2002). Teen Pregnancy Prevention:
National Teen Pregnancy and Birth Data--General Facts and Stats. Retrieved
March 22, 2002 from http://www.teenpregnancy.ori.
National Child Care Information Center. (1995). State initiatives serve children with
special needs. Child Care Bulletin. 5, p.l. Retrieved March 24, 2002 from
http://www.nccic.orglccb/ccb-s095/stateini.html.
National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994) Prisoners of Time.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education (1998). Directory of
Projects. /998. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Parents United for Child Care, (2002). Child Care Partnership Project. National Child
Care Information Center. Retrieved April 12,2002 from
http://www.nccic.org/cc.partnerships/profiles/united.html.
Reese, W. (1986). Power and the promise ofschool reform: Grass-roots movements
during the Progressive Era. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rowland, B. & Robinson, B. (1991). Latchkey kids with special needs. Teaching
Exceptional Children. Spring. p. 34-35.
Schwendiman, J. & Fager, J. (1999). After-school programs: Goodfor kids. goodfor
communities. Washington, DC: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
77
Schw~
W. (1996). After-school programs for urban youth. ERIC/CUE Digest No.
114. ERIC Clearing house on Urban Education [online] New York. Retrieved
March 26, 2002 from http://www.ed.w)V/databaseslERIC Digestsled402370.html
Seppanen, P., Love, J., deVries, D., Berstein, L, Seligson, M., Marx, F., & Kisker, E.
(1993). National study ofbefore-and after-school programs. [Final report.] U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning, Washington, DC.
Seligson, M. (1993). Commentary: The policy climate for school-age child care. The
Future ofChildren. 9(2), p. 135-139.
Seligson, M., Genser, A., Gannett, E., & Gray, W. (1983). School-age child care: A
policy report. SACC Project Publications: Wellesley College Center for Research
on Women, Wellesley College. Wellesley, MA. Retrieved April 2, 2002, from
http;//www.wcwonline.org.
Silvia, S.E., Thome, J., & Tashjian, C.A. (1997). School-based drug prevention
programs: A longitudinal study in selected school districts Research Triangle
Institute and U.S. Department of Education. North Carolina: Research Triangle
Park.
Snyder, H. & Sickmun, M. (1999). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National
Report. Washington, DC.
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, (2000). Retrieved March 23, 2002 from
http://www .albany.edul sourcebook.
Stapleton, K. (1998). 2 r' Century Community Learning Centers: A Summary ofthe
Program. Congressional Research Service: Washington, DC.
Tank, R. (1980). Young children. families. and society in America since the 1820's: The
evolution ofhealth. education. and child care programs for preschool children.
[unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Michigan, Department of
History.
Tyack, D. (1992). Health and social services in public schools: Historical perspectives.
The Future ofChildren. 9(2), p. 19-31.
U.S. Department of Commerce: Bureau of the Census (1997). Census brief: America's
children at risk. Retrieved April 3, 2002 from: http://www.census.gov/populationl
www/socdemo/ children.html
78
u.s. Department ofEducatio~ (2000). To assure the free and appropriate public
education of all children with disabilities: Twenty-second Annual Report to
Congress on the Implementation ofthe Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Table AAl3. Jessup, MD: Editorial Publications Center. Retrieved April 18,
2002 from httl':lIwww.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP
u.s. Department ofEducatio~ Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title
X, Part I, Sec. 10901,20 U.S.C. 8241: 1994 Amendment.
u.S. Department of Education. "No Child Left Behind" Act of 200 1. U.S. Government
Printing Office: W ashingto~ DC.
u.S. Department of Education. (2000). Workingfor children andfamilies: Safe and smart
after-school programs. u.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC.
Retrieved March 13,2001 from: http://WWW.ed.KOV
u.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1997). School-age child care project.
School-Age Care Out-ol-School Time Resource Notebook. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1997). Trends in the well-being of
America~ children and youth. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington,
DC.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. (1998). 1998 green
book: Background material and data on programs within the jurisdiction ofthe
Committee on Ways and Means. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington,
DC.
Vance, J.E., Femand~ G., & Biber, M. (1998). Educational progress in a population of
youth with aggression and emotional disturbance: The role of risk and protective
factors. Journal ofEmotional & Behavioral Disorders. 6(4) p. 214.
Vandell, D. & Shumow, L. (1999). After-school child care programs. The Future of
Children: When School is Out, 9(2), p. 64-80.
Wang, M. Haertel, G., & Walberg, H. (1998). Educational Resilience. Publication Series
No. 11. Retrieved March 9, 2001 from http://www.temple.edulLSS/pub98-11.htm
W~
A. (1999). AfterschooI Makes the Grade. In Focus, 2(3). Charles Stewart Mott
Foundation. Available: http://www.mott.ora
Warren, A. (2001a). Literacy efforts boost scores, morale. Making After School Count.
4(1) p.I4-16.
w~
A. (2001b). Middle school initiative targets literacy. Making After School
Count. 4(1), p. 12-13.
79
Worshtil, M. (1990). Prince George's county school age child care needs assessment for
children with special needs. Prince George's County Commission for Children
and Youth: Landover, MD.
Wood, L. (1999). Critical issues in child care: Affordability and accessibility of child
care in Virginia. Action Alliance for Virginia's Children and Youth. Richmond,
VA. Retrieved April 11, 2002, from: http://www.vaIclds.org.
Yos~
A. (2000). Connecting through laptops. Making After School Count. 3(3) p. 10-12.
Yost, A. (2000b). Partnership sponsors technology training. Making After School Count.
3(3) p. 8-9.
80
APPENDIX
81
lilt CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER STAFF SURVEY
1.
Please check the information that best describes the school connected to your 21"' Century
Community Learning Center (21 1t CCLC).
Note: ifyour211t CCLC serves more than one school then fill out one survey for each school you
personally work with.
AIU~[Q~imil" S"bggl Si~
S"bggl Qmds: Ls:~'1
elementary
2.
middle
high
1-300
300-800
800-1200
over 1200
S"bggl T)lls:
rural
urban
Please check which description best applies to you in the 2111 CCLC programs.
_ _ school-day teacher/staff
_ _ community member (volunteer or paid)
_ _ college student (volunteer or paid)
_ _ parent of school child (volunteer or paid)
_ _ other (list),_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
3.
Please note there are three questions in the chart. Please answer all three questions to the best of
your ability. Check which 211t CCLC programs your school runs. which programs you are
involved in. and how you are involved:
Programs
Your school
offers
No
Yes
You are
involved in
Yes
No
teach
Reading and
Literacy
Math
Science
Art. Music.
Drama. Media
Community
Service
Cultural and
Social Science
Health and
Nutrition
Other(list)
Other(list)
82
How you are involved
(check all that aDoly)
develop
provide
curriculum!
support
program
services
other
(list)
4.
For the 21 st CCLC program(s) you are involved in. fill in the chart below.
Note: Accommodations refer to special help or services which students with disabilities need to
be able to participate. (e.g. sign language interpreter, large print materials, or simplified writing
tasks)
Programs
Total
number of
students
Number of
students with
disabilities
Number of
students needing
accommodations
How many students receive
accommodations (check box)
none
some most
all
Reading and
Literacy
Math
Science
Art. Music,
Drama. Media
Community
Service
Cultural and
Social Science
Health and
Nutrition
Other
(list)
Other
(list)
S.
Which ~ of accommodations have students with disabilities received in your 21 st CCLC
programs to help them participate? (Check appropriate box for each type)
Types of accommodations
Paraprofessional
(e.g. teacher aide. nurse, or
one-on-one assistant)
Assistive technology
(e.g. FM System,
communication board)
Modifteation in instruetion
(e.g. longer time to complete
task, oral test)
Other
(list)
6.
Never received
Sometimes received
Commonly received
Students with disabilities in their regular school program, have individualized education plans
(IEP's) which have personalleaming goals or objectives. and any accommodations needed. How
often has anyone (e.g. special educator, parent) talked with you about including students'
accommodations in 21st CCLe programs you are involved in? (Circle the one that best fits your
answer)
never
1
rarely
occasionally
frequently
2
3
4
83
7.
How often has anyone (e.g. special educator. parent) talked with you about including students' IEP
goals or objectives in 2P' CCLC programs you are involved in? (Circle the one that best fits your
answer)
never
1
8.
How often have you been able to include students' IEP goals or objectives in your 21 It CCLC
programs?
never
1
9.
frequently
4
occasionally
3
rarely
2
frequently
4
occasionally
3
rarely
2
Do you see any of these as barriers to communicating with school-day staff about students with
disabilities in your 21" CCLC programs?
~
[ don't have time.
School-day staff don't have time.
School-day staff are difficult to reach.
School-day and 21" CCLC staff'schedules conflict.
Confidentiality issues makes communication difficult.
It's hard to get parent approval to release student information
other (listJ-)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
10.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
sddwn 2ikn. ~
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
In comparing students with disabilities to the general student population. how would you describe
their level of paojcjpatjon in the 21- CCLC programs?
notatall
less than the general student population
as much as the general student population
more than the general student population
11.
In comparing students with disabilities to the general student population, how would you descn"be
their level ofhs:ndi1 in the 2P' CCLC programs?
not at all
less than the general student population
as much as the general student population
more than the general student population
12.
Complete the sentence: I believe 21- CCLC and school-day programs complement and support
one another at a level that is ..•
poor
1
good
fair
2
3
excellent
4
Any comments or suggestions?,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
84
SCHOOL-DAY SPECIAL EDUCATION AND RESOURCE PERSONNEL
SURVEY
1.
Please check all the infonnation that applies to your school.
Note: if you work at more than one school that is affiliated with a 21 It Century Community
Learning Center (21 It CCLC) then fill out one survey for each school.
S,bggl Qrade Ls:vs:1
elementary
2.
middle
high
300-800
800-1200
over 1200
rural
urban
5._ _ special education teacher
6._ _ speech-language pathologist
7._ _ other (list),_ _ _ _ _ _ __
Which answer best descnbes your knowledge of the 21" CCLC in your school? (Check the one
that best fits your answer)
1._ _
2.__
3._ _
4._ _
4.
1-300
S,bggl T)12S:
Please check the title that best describes your occupation:
1._ _ occupational therapist
2._ _ physical therapist
3._ _ school psychologist
4._ _ school social worker
3.
Agg[Q2!iimil~ S,bggl S~s:
never heard of the center
heard about it some. but not sure what it offers
familiar enough with the center's programs to infonn parents about it
other(list),_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
What is your involvement in the 21 st CCLC programs? (Check all that apply)
1._ _ develop the curriculum/program
2._ _ communicate school-day curricula to 21 It CCLC staff
3._ _ refer students and families to the programs
4._ _ evaluate the progress of 21 st CCLC students
5._ _ teach or work directly in one or more 21" CCLC programs
6._ _ not involved in any 21 st CCLC programs
7._ _ other(list} _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
for questions 5 and 6, write in the number which best fits the answer.
s.
How many students with disabilities do you serve in your regular school day program at this school
site?_ _ _ _ _ __
6.
How many of the students with disabilities that you serve also attend 21 st CCLC
programs?_ _ _ _ _ _ __
85
7.
There are four questions in this chart that relate to your students who attend 211t CCLC programs.
If you do not have any students with dfsabUides attending these programs, put "0" in the
boxes.
Please answer all four questions to the best of your ability. Write the number of students with
disabilities attending various 211t CCLC programs, the number needing accommodations, the
number receiving accommodations, and the number of students receiving each type of
accommodation.
21"CCLC
programs
Number of
students
with
disabilities
Number of
students needing
accommodation
Number of students receiving:
Number of
students
receiving
accommodation
paraprofessional
assistive
technology
instructional
modification
Reading and
Literacy
Math
Science
Art. Music.
Drama. Media
Community
Service
Cultural/Social
Science
Health and
Nutrition
Other( list)
Other (list)
For questions 8-15, please circle the one that best fits your answer.
8.
How often have you provided accommodations or supports to students with disabilities to help
them participate in the 211t CCLC programs?
never
1
9.
frequently
2
3
all
4
How often have you been able to talk with 211t CCLC staffabout including any of your students'
accommodation needs in the center's programs?
never
I
10.
rarely
rarely
occasionally
3
2
frequently
4
How often have you been able to talk with 211t CCLC staff about including any of your students'
IEP goals or objectives in the center's programs?
never
rarely
occasionally
frequently
1
2
3
4
86
II. Do you see any of these as barriers to communicating with 21" CCLC staff about your students?
~
I don't have time.
21 II CCLC staff don't have time.
21 st CCLC staffare difficult to reach.
School..<fay and 21 st CCLC staff schedules conflict.
Confidentiality issues make communication difficult.
It's hard to get parent approval to release student information
other (list),_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
12.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KIdmn Qfim. ill.wm
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
In comparing students with disabilities to the general student population, how would you descnbe
their level of Participation in the 21" CCLC programs? (Check the one that best fits your answer)
not at all
less than the general student population
as much as the general student population
more than the general student population
13.
In comparing students with disabilities to the general student population, how would you describe
their level of~ in the 21" CCLC programs? (Check the one that best fits your answer)
not at all
less than the general student population
as much as the general student population
more than the general student population
14.
Complete the sentence: I believe 21" CCLC and school-day programs complement and support
one another at a level that is ...
poor
I
fair
2
good
3
excellent
4
Any comments orsuggestions?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
87
SURVEY EVALUATION FORM
We would like to know how understandable our survey was and how easy it was to fill out. Please answer
the following questions:
1.
Which survey did you fill out? (Check one)
_ _Center Staff
_ _School-Day Special EducationlResource Personnel
For questions 2- 4 circle the one that best fits your answer.
2.
3.
Approximately how many minutes did it take you to finish the survey?
less than 5
5-10
10-15
1 2 3
How clear were the survey questions?
very unclear
somewhat unclear
1
4.
clear
3
2
Overall. how difficult was the survey to fill out?
very easy
somewhat easy
1
2
difficult
3
more than 15
4
very clear
4
very difficult
4
Any suggestions or comments?:._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
88